[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2402-H2443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    REGULATORY REFORM AND RELIEF ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 926.

                              {time}  1055


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 926) to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public 
participation in Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have good news for our country here today, because 
we are going to be considering a bill that will go a long way when 
enacted to bring about job creation and wage enhancement.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long, burdensome and complex rules coming out 
of Washington have strangled small business, have been a drag on free 
enterprise, have been a drag on job creation, have been a drag on wage 
creation, have been a drag on the economy. Today what we are about here 
today is a first step to slay that dragon, to bring about sanity in the 
rulemaking process of the national bureaucracy, of the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  How do we go about accomplishing that? Well, a bold attempt was made 
in 1980 during the administration of President Jimmy Carter when there 
was passed a Regulatory Flexibility Act. That did bring about at least 
a sense of more involvement by the small business community in the 
rulemaking process that so adversely had affected it previously.
  We are here to say today that even that bold attempt that started in 
1980 has not fulfilled the promise that it was expected by the small 
business community to lift the burden of regulations from their 
shoulders so that they can venture out into new enterprises and create 
more jobs. Rather, the reverse took place. There was even more of a 
vivid flurry of regulations and burdens that came down on their 
shoulders.
  Mr. Chairman, we here today in title I of this particular bill will 
deal directly with small business. We are targeting small business. We 
are going to be embracing small business to give them more input into 
what transpires in the rulemaking process. That in itself would be 
worth the whole effort of what we do here today, but we go farther. We 
do something that is so exquisite for the small businessperson, that we 
have a great, good feeling about it.
  We are for the first time providing by law, if this bill is enacted, 
judicial review. That means that where the previous act, the one I just 
alluded to from the Jimmy Carter era, prohibited judicial review, we go 
the other way and overtly provide for judicial review.
  [[Page H2403]] What does this mean? It means that for the first time 
in a whole host of rulemaking processes across the Federal bureaucracy, 
when a rule is promulgated and it disaffects or adversely impacts 
against a small business entity or groups of entities, then there will 
be the possibility of challenging that rule and what it does to the 
small business community in court.
  That is a major step. It is just an afterthought on the part of this 
Member? No. It is just a whim on the part of the small business 
community? No. It is an absolute necessity. It has been confirmed and 
reconfirmed in people who are advocating some kind of reform in this 
arena for a long period of time. Even Vice President Gore has come out 
in his interpretation of the reforms that are necessary for judicial 
review. That by itself again would justify passage of this bill and 
enactment of it into the law of the land.
                              {time}  1100

  But we go further. We also provide in title I, this is extremely 
important for the small business community, that the Small Business 
Administration advocate and chief counsel must receive notice of a 
proposed rule. What does that do? That allows him or her acting for the 
small business community, within this Small Business Administration, 
which is the key administrative bureau of small business, to have 
advanced notice of a rule and then bring into play all of the concerns 
and the worries that the small business community might have in the 
face of such a rule. That is an excellent advance that we are making by 
what is included in title I.
  Then we go to title II. Title II would require for the first time for 
all business, not just small business, but for all business, a 
regulatory impact analysis that would accompany these very strident 
rules that have for too long been plaguing the business community.
  What am I talking about here? Well, a rule has an impact, and when 
what we want to call a major rule has an adverse impact on the economy 
worth more than $50 million, then on that basis our bill calls for the 
issuance of a regulatory impact analysis to give advance notice to the 
business community, the very people who are going to have to be guided 
by this rule or are adversely impacted by this rule, an opportunity to 
come back and be able to challenge the findings of this analysis and 
thus have a full participation in the deliberations that take place in 
the promulgation of a rule, rather than to sit back and just take what 
is coming to them and then be helpless, possibly, in combating the rule 
that will have so blatantly impacted them adversely. So title II will 
afford the business community this extra forum that would be required.
  But how did we accomplish this? What we did was not dream up criteria 
by which we ought to be defining this analysis that the rulemaking 
agency must apply, but rather we incorporated by new language, but 
nevertheless incorporated into our bill, in title II, seven strong 
criteria that have to be included in this analysis drawn from the 
Executive order that President Reagan during his time issued on this 
very same subject. So we are combining the history of the Jimmy Carter 
administration and regulatory flexibility with the Executive order of 
Ronald Reagan in the regulatory impact analysis area, and combining 
them to make a strong bill that would bring back a sense of 
accomplishment on the part of the small business community as they seek 
to open new markets and to expand their ability to create jobs and to 
lift wages as they become more successful.
  These criteria will be discussed, I know, in different ways as we 
proceed with the debate, but I can safely tell my colleagues that it 
will be a great stride forward when we complete the business of the 
day.
  Title III, which the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the 
ranking member on the minority, and I jointly responded to the concerns 
that were expressed during the hearings, that has taken on a different 
configuration from that which we first felt was necessary, but I am 
sure at the end of the day that the Members of the House will be 
satisfied with how we have approached title III and the segments of 
Executive responsibility that are contained therein.
  In short, it is a good day for small business here today. Let us get 
on with helping them avoid the burden of undue and cumbersome 
regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending both the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr Reed], for 
their diligence in improving legislation that started off in a pretty 
sorry state and has now reached the nearly acceptable level but still 
needs a little bit more work, and I would like to explain this for just 
a few minutes in beginning the general debate.
  The language in the bill providing for a so-called regulatory Bill of 
Rights could have had a devastating impact on the Federal Government's 
ability to enforce the laws fairly and efficiently, and now we have 
revised language that I praise my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
for improving, which is included in title III, seeking employee 
guidelines which are more responsive to the needs of private parties, 
and represents a vast improvement. So I am here to praise them as well 
as to point out some areas in which we hope there will be improvements.
  Similarly, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve and narrow the scope 
of title I of the bill relating to regulatory flexibility analysis, and 
I am not surprised at his cooperative spirit. We have worked for many 
many years together on the Judiciary and other committees. 
Unfortunately, title II of the legislation requiring agencies to 
complete complex new regulatory impact analyses continues to be 
problematic. We have got trouble in this area in title II, and I am 
hoping that it may be repaired on the floor here today.
  As a result of a number of recent changes made by statute and 
Executive order, agency rulemakers must now consider nine separate 
analyses when issuing rules. That is a few too many, and while each of 
these additional required analyses is well intentioned and in isolation 
may be beneficial, collectively they have contributed to making the 
rulemaking process far more lengthy and complex.
  In an effort to make the regulatory system responsive to the needs of 
businesses, title II of the bill would impose even further and more 
complex requirements on the regulatory process. And that is not what we 
are here to do. That is not the great day that all America and small 
business in particular have been waiting for.
  I am concerned about title II's defining a major rule as a rule 
likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or 
more. Every President since Gerald Ford has used the $100 million level 
for defining major rules, thereby preventing costly and needless 
analysis for rules such as the Interior Department's opening of hunting 
season or the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizing the gulf war 
syndrome.
  I also believe that the judicial review under title II should be 
limited to challenges of a final rule or the agency's failure to 
perform the required analysis. The unrestricted judicial review in 
title II would result in endless litigation, as every element of an 
impact analysis could be challenged by literally countless numbers of 
people.
  And finally, I believe that the legislation is deficient in failing 
to provide for greater sunshine in the regulatory process.
  Later today I will offer an amendment which would require that 
communications between an agency and OMB and Government officials and 
private parties be recorded and made available to the public. This 
change would help provide for greater accountability and avoid the 
perception of secret, behind-the-scene dealings, which has plagued us 
in earlier years.
  I am hopeful that the bill's language can continue to be refined 
along these lines in a cooperative fashion. If amendments along these 
lines are approved, we will make for a much better bill in H.R. 926 
while making the regulatory process more responsive and more 
streamlined.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  [[Page H2404]] Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These 
are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live 
with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of 
silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our 
small business people we need a long, long moment of silence.
  This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of 
this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. 
One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened 
them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove 
when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them 
with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing 
carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized 
in their view.
  Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and 
regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that 
they just cannot bear.
  I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest 
application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and 
starts us back in the right direction.
  I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and 
many many other reasons.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Gekas. We were able to work together in a cooperative and 
bipartisan process and although we have some principal disagreements, I 
believe the legislation has been made better because we were able to 
work together constructively and cooperatively, and at the end of today 
regardless of the outcome I think we can be very proud of this 
bipartisan process.
  Both of us agree that steps need to be taken to make the regulatory 
process more sensitive to the needs of small businesses. Small 
businesses lack the staff and resources to track the daily comings and 
goings of the Federal Register. They are less likely to have their 
interest represented by trade associations and lobbyists and may have a 
more difficult time meeting the costs imposed by regulators. Costs that 
seem minuscule to General Motors are insurmountable to some small 
businesses throughout the United States.
  Title I addresses this concern by strengthening the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act which direct agencies to consider the impact of their 
regulations on small entities and, where possible, make special 
considerations for small businesses.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike 
Skelton, and the gentleman from Illinois, Tom Ewing, for working so 
hard on this issue and for sharing their expertise with us when they 
testified before the subcommittee.
  The core of title I is based on their bill, H.R. 830 from the last 
Congress.
  Mr. Skelton, as chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on 
Exports Tourism and Special Problems, found that those agencies that 
complied with the Regulatory Impact Act had done so successfully. They 
established procedures that saved time, money, and litigation 
headaches.
  Unfortunately, other agencies have been able to escape compliance and 
they have been able to do that because regulatory flexibility analysis 
did not include judicial review.
  We are remedying that situation today and I join the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] in 
support of this section of the bill.
  The regulatory flexibility analysis in an important weapon in our 
efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and we need 
to ensure that it is implemented governmentwide.
  I also support title III of the bill. This title would create a code 
of conduct for regulators in their dealings with the American people 
and it emanated from a proposal made originally by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay]. It has been thoroughly reviewed and we have reached 
I think a very sensible position in the bill in title III's provisions 
which I support with enthusiasm.
  However, I do have serious concerns about title II, especially now 
that we have completed action on H.R. 1022. Initially, both H.R. 1022 
and H.R. 926 were part of the same contract bill, H.R. 9. 
Unfortunately, their provisions overlap and conflict. I think it is a 
mistake to pass both bills in the hopes that the Senate will sort out 
these conflicts and inconsistencies, a step that undermines the ability 
of Members of this House to act on these issues sensibly with some type 
of overall cohesive purpose.
                              {time}  1115

  The rulemaking process has been criticized as overly prescriptive, 
expensive and overburdened with useless paperwork. Title II exacerbates 
these problems by creating a costly, time consuming process that does 
nothing to streamline Government or roll back redtape. The New York 
Times just published a diagram of the rulemaking steps required by this 
bill, entitled ``A Rule Making Maze.'' It resembled a Rube Goldberg 
contraption in its inticracy and complexity.
  My colleague from Florida, John Mica, just sent around a ``Dear 
Colleague'' containing an excerpt from Philip Howard's book, ``The 
Death of Common Sense.'' I wanted to quote from it, because I think it 
makes my point:

       Important, often urgent projects get held up by procedural 
     concerns. Potentially important breakthroughs in medicine 
     wait for years at the Food and Drug Administration. Even 
     obviously necessary safety projects can't break through the 
     thick wall of process. (Here he cites New York's difficulty 
     in extending a runway at La Guardia airport that is too short 
     for safe landings) . . . The irony he points out of our 
     obsession with process is that it has not prevented sharp 
     operators from exploiting the governments contracting system, 
     as the weapons procurement scandals of the 1980's showed us. 
     Its dense procedural thicket is a perfect hiding place for 
     those who want to cheat * * *''.

  Title II is exactly what he is talking about. It extends the time 
line for regulations by about 2 years by establishing a series of 
procedural hurdles, sweeps administrative rules, such as the 
regulations that open duck hunting season, into costly regulatory 
impact analysis, and enables sharp business owners to stall regulatory 
changes that benefit themselves by letter writing campaigns and filing 
multiple lawsuits. All of these procedures will apply to deregulation, 
as well as regulation. They will apply to new regulations that aim to 
help small business become more competitive. I do not believe that 2 
years from now Members will want to read in their local paper that we 
forced the Department of the Interior to spend several hundred thousand 
dollars to perform a regulatory impact analysis, followed by the costs 
of defending lawsuits by animal rights activists, when they are simply 
trying to open duck hunting season, or to replay this scenario when we 
try to prevent fisheries from being overfished, or to compensate 
veterans for gulf war syndrome.
  We will have amendments today that address some of the flaws in title 
II, and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will listen to the 
arguments and vote to improve this legislation.
  I think we can make progress to create, I hope, a bill that we can 
all support. But we have principal disagreements which we will debate 
vigorously on the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Gekas for the time he 
has given us and my thanks to the chairman and to Chairman Jan Meyers 
of the Small Business Committee for all of the support and help they 
have given us in developing this legislation, to Congressman Ike 
Skelton and Congressman Reed on the other side of the aisle for their 
support.
  I think probably most of us understand what the problem is, but I 
think these figures are very meaningful. Federal statutes and rules now 
run to 100 million words. If we were to read all of these it would take 
8 years. Of course, no one is going to do that.
  Regulatory costs in our economy are now at $600 billion and climbing; 
that is $6,000 per household.
  Small business and small units of government have been at the mercy 
of 
[[Page H2405]] the Federal regulators for many years. And probably the 
most often voiced complaint that I receive when I talk to my 
constituents is about this overregulation.
  In 1980 this Congress passed a bill, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
in an effort to rein in the bureaucracy and the regulations. But it had 
no teeth in it. It specifically prevented judicial review. There has 
been strong and persistent bureaucratic opposition to meaningful reform 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Yet three Presidents of both parties 
have ordered the bureaucracy to follow the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
but to no avail.
  Last Congress, in the 103d Congress, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] and I put together a coalition of small business groups that 
support legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to add 
judicial review. This was backed by 254 Members of that Congress on 
both sides of the aisle. But unfortunately the leadership of that 
Congress, not the Members, refused to call that bill, and it became, 
because it died at the end of that Congress, a part of our Contract 
With America. I believe that turning a deaf ear to the demands of 
responsible, reasonable citizens in this country to revise our overly 
bureaucratic, overblown, excessive, intrusive, and destructive 
regulatory system was a major factor not only in the result of the 
November 8 election but to the dissatisfaction which the American 
people have expressed with their Federal Government.
  I strongly support the legislation before us, and particularly title 
I which does contain the improvements in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
to grant judicial review. In addition, agencies must circulate proposed 
rules to the chief counsel for the advocacy of Small Business 
Administration, giving that agency 30 days to comment on how these 
would affect small entities.
  And finally, the bill includes a sense of Congress that the chief 
counsel for advocacy of SBA should be able to file amicus briefs in 
actions in the Federal court.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and am glad to have 
the opportunity to speak in its favor today.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Reed] for yielding time to me.
  I want to start by congratulating the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Reed] for taking what was a terrible bill and working with the 
other side to improve it into what is now a bad bill, and I would be 
the first to concede that it is an improved bill, but it is still bad.
  Let me express a series of concerns that I have about this bill. 
First of all, yesterday we passed a bill which requires a cost-benefit 
assessment of any new regulations that the Federal Government puts in 
place. So I am wondering what is the purpose of this new process that 
we are putting here, first of all?
  Second, this bill goes several steps beyond that by giving small 
businesses an implied veto over rules and regulations and standing in 
court to contest such regulations if the small business is adversely 
affected, whatever that means.
  Third, this bill gives the Small Business Administration Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy, that is probably somebody the American people 
have never heard of, the obligation to review and comment and get 
involved in litigation with respect to rules and regulations. It takes 
nobody out of the process. Understand, now, we have the department, the 
agency of government, we have the CBO, we have the Justice Department, 
now we have the SBA involved in the process. We keep adding on to the 
bureaucracy, and nobody is taken out of the process.
  Now, let me talk to you about the problems that I have with the bill. 
No. 1, it assumes that all rules that are promulgated by government are 
bad. You start with that assumption. Take this retaurant example that 
the previous speaker talked about. When I go into a restaurant and I 
look up and I see an A grade rating, my friends, that gives me a great 
deal of comfort as a member of the public. Under this rule, if we 
require some A grade rating, B grade rating, whatever it is, although I 
think that is done at the State level, if under this bill we did it at 
the Federal level, we would then adversely affect some restaurants. 
They would then end up in litigation in the courts, tying up the court 
system.
  No. 2, this bill gives small businesses unprecedented standing. The 
people in this country have had standing in the court. Now are are 
giving small businesses some kind of standing out here where they can 
come in, create more litigation, and I submit to the American people 
that that sends a terrible message that business now has some standing 
that even ordinary people cannot even get to. This is another step away 
from empowerment of the people and creates another bureaucracy which 
is, in effect, welfare for businesses, do away with welfare for the 
people, give welfare to the businesses.
  Third, this bill creates an entirely new level of bureaucracy in the 
process.
  Fourth, this bill will result in protracted and extended and 
unprecdented litigation. At the same time we are moving toward tort 
reform which takes away rights from the people to have access to the 
courts, we are moving in this direction all of a sudden to give more 
access to the courts, more standing to businesses.
  Fifth, this bill will not allow us to get to who is actually having 
influence in the process. We offered an amendment, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] did, in the committee which would have required 
agencies to tell who is commenting on these regulations, who is 
actually getting involved, who is exerting influence on the regulators 
to draw these regulations. You would think that my colleagues, if they 
are concerned about protracted regulation, would have been anxious to 
know who is involved in the process, but no such luck.
  Let me just say that the final concern I have about this bill is that 
nobody knows what it is going to cost. We passed a bill yesterday to 
deal with regulations that was estimated to cost $250 million. Who has 
any idea what this monstrosity is going to cost the American people? 
And here we are, my colleagues, saying we are trying to cut back on 
government, and we are cutting back on government by increasing, not 
reducing, bureaucracy and costs.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate 
Chairman Gekas for doing an extraordinary job with this bill. What he 
is going to be doing is providing meaningful and long overdue relief, 
particularly to small businesses throughout America who are being 
crushed by the weight of regulation.
  We are suffocating job growth. We are diminishing economic 
opportunity oftentimes through well-meaning but badly constructed rules 
and regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of the suggestions embodied in title II of this 
bill do not come from any think tank in Washington, DC, or any so-
called experts. They came as a result of the efforts of the 
manufacturing task force of this House formed under the auspices of the 
Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition 2 years ago and cochaired by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and myself. We met with 
literally scores of small manufacturers throughout our 18-State region 
and they made recommendations to us in terms of specific items that 
they wanted regulators to consider before finally issuing their 
regulation.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, because of his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this 
bill, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the cochairman 
of the congressional manufacturing task force, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise 
today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 
926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first 
ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the 
country to hold hearings 
[[Page H2406]] and spoke to small and mid-sized companies to find out 
what they needed to maintain competitiveness.
  Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, 
we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are 
killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the 
perception of Government hostile to business.
  Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new 
regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change 
this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, 
we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more 
effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to 
have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before 
it is made final.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  You know, as a member of the committee, I enjoyed going through this 
bill, and I think many of the goals are worthy ones.
  One concern I have, however, is that I believe we have failed to 
account for the immutable law of unintended consequences. I believe it 
is our job to make sure that, when we act legislatively, we know what 
the outcome will be and we do not get blind-sided by an outcome that we 
did not intend or expect.
  One of the issues I intend to raise by way of an amendment later 
today has to do with allowing for emergency action and defining what 
that might be.
  This was an amendment offered in the committee, withdrawn with the 
pledge that we would work through and try to deal with the issue. 
Unfortunately, given the press of time and our agenda, that has not yet 
occurred.
  I am concerned we do not want to preclude, for example, the release 
of useful drugs, a cure for cancer, because of the regulatory scheme 
provided in this bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I believe what 
this is all about is making it more difficult for Washington to 
regulate the activities out there in America. And that is a good thing, 
because what has built up in this country is a mindset based on 
taxation, regulation, and litigation. We are going to deal with the 
litigation portion next week, with legal reform items; we are going to 
deal with the taxation part of that trilogy a little after that. This 
week we are dealing with the regulatory part of that terrible trilogy 
so weighing down this country.
  I believe this is a good step toward reining in some of those 
regulators, to making them have some justification for their additional 
regulations. That certainly will make sense out there in America where 
businesses, particularly small businesses, are collapsing under the 
weight of this tremendous pressure from the regulators. So I am very 
excited to support this bill. I commend the chairman of our 
subcommittee for doing an excellent job in bringing the bill to us.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a member of the subcommittee, who has played 
an active part in the development of this legislation.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory 
Reform and Relief Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].
  H.R. 926, which is the product of hard work and consensus by Mr. 
Gekas and members of the Judiciary Committee, is in my opinion one of 
the most important features of the Republicans' Contract With America. 
It tackles head-on many of the problems that have been caused by the 
Congress and the Federal bureaucracy during the past 30-40 years, and I 
urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers, small business owners, farmers, 
ranchers, and regional government officials are suffering under the 
weight of high taxes and excessive and intrusive government 
regulations. H.R. 926 is a step towards reversing this trend by rolling 
back the tide of ill-conceived regulations, and making bureaucrats more 
accountable for the burdens they impose on both the wage payer and the 
wage earner.
  Under H.R. 926, Federal agencies will be required to perform 
regulatory impact analyses whenever a major rule--that is, a rule which 
has an effect on the economy of $50 million or more--is promulgated. 
This language will go far in reducing the burdens placed on all 
entrepreneurs, especially small business owners whose companies employ 
two-thirds of the American work force and fuel the Nation's economy. 
Furthermore, with the enactment of this bill, business people and their 
employees will be a step closer in having a Government that acts more 
like their friend, and not as their worst enemy.
  Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I would like to take a 
moment to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Gekas and his staff. 
Since the start of the 104th Congress, Mr. Gekas has bent over backward 
to accommodate those Members who have had reasonable suggestions for 
perfecting this bill. Whether Republican or Democrat, committee 
chairman or lowly freshman Member, Mr. Gekas and his staff worked in a 
congenial and bipartisan fashion unequal to anything else I have seen 
so far in this body.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of 
H.R. 926.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some of the 
things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has alluded to 
in his remarks.
  You know, when we take the bill that we just passed last night and 
add to it to the bill that we have today, we have a total cost to the 
taxpayers of $400 million. This means, to me, according to CBO 
estimates, that you are going to have to add that many more work hours 
in the Federal bureaucracy in order to do the risk assessment, the 
regulatory impact analysis, plus the other few things that are thrown 
in.
  Where do all these bureaucrats come from? They do not come from the 
sky, they do not grow on trees, they are hard-working American 
taxpayers, folks. They work hard just like everybody else out there, 
whether you are a truck driver, a lawyer, a doctor, or anybody else. 
They are trying to do their job.
  But what is really going to happen? Do you really believe, is there 
anybody in this House, anyone from the Speaker on down, from the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] or the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Flanagan], or anybody, who can tell me that this Congress is going 
to appropriate the additional funds necessary to the Small Business 
Administration, to EPA, to the other of our Federal agencies, the Food 
and Drug Administration and all the rest of them, in order to perform 
the tasks they are going to be required to fulfill under this bill and 
the bill we passed just yesterday? No. It is not going to happen.
  The money is not going to be there. The additional bureaucrats are 
not going to be added. As a result, they are not going to be able to do 
the work that is imposed on them. Then what will the other party say? 
The other party will say they are not doing their job, ``We passed the 
legislation, and they are not doing their job.''
  Well, folks, they cannot do their job, they cannot do it unless you 
give them the money. And you are not going to give them the money 
because you are already taking away from the kids, the veterans, the 
elderly. All those programs are being cut in a rescission bill in order 
to give it to the wealthy in income tax cuts. That is where you are 
giving the money. You are not going to help them be able to fulfill 
this legislation.
  You tell me in what bill when you are going to appropriate the 
additional money that is required under the CBO 
[[Page H2407]] estimate in this bill. You are not going to do it.
  I would like to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come up here and tell 
us they are going to provide the additional funds, because I do not 
think it is going to be done.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the culmination of a great deal of effort that 
I have been personally working on for more than a decade.
  At the outset, let me thank and compliment my colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his efforts, for together we 
have cosponsored legislation regarding the original Regulatory 
Flexibility Act for some time. I also thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman 
Meyers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
LaFalce.
  I applaud their efforts and again thank Tom Ewing for the opportunity 
of getting this hearing.
  The Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, which had my support and on 
which I worked, was signed into law back in 1980.
  Later I was chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee, and I 
held hearings on this in the mid-1980's concerning how the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act was working. We got mixed reviews. As chairman of that, 
I found that most agencies were making an honest, diligent effort to 
comply with the law. Others came before us and testified and said, ``It 
does not apply to us,'' or they were giving it, as we say back home, a 
lick and a promise.
  We put out a report that found that those complying with the law 
found that they were actually writing better regulations when they 
considered the impact on small businesses.
  Also, they found and concluded that it saves these agencies time, 
saves them money when good regulations are written from the beginning 
rather than waiting to have them questioned by small businesses.
  We need to make adjustments in the law, to improve it, to give it 
teeth. That is why the portion that Mr. Ewing and I have been working 
on throughout the last few years deals with judicial review and 
primarily states that the agencies should understand that they can 
actually be challenged if they write regulations that are more than 
cursory--take more than cursory consideration of the impact on small 
businesses.
  It is unlikely that many cases would ever come to court because the 
threat, the sword of Damocles that would be hanging over them. I think 
it would be a very, very important step, and that is why I fully 
support the efforts for judicial review and a change in the law as set 
forth in this proposal.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize our next speaker, I want 
to personally commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his 
decade of interest in this vital issue and to point out to the Members 
that his testimony and his involvement has played an important role in 
bringing this matter to the full House today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr] who has also played a significant role in the development of the 
issues that have now been brought to the floor.
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for the fine work 
that he has provided, not only to those who have the honor of serving 
on his subcommittee and addressing the issues of regulatory reform but 
also to the people of this country who labor in our small businesses 
all across this great land who have been crying out for this relief for 
so long but who for so long have been denied the relief they need to 
manage their businesses in a way that meets the needs of their 
consumers, responsibly meets the needs of their consumers, meets the 
needs of their shareholders, meets the needs of citizens all across 
this land who benefit from the products and services that our 
businesses provide.

                              {time}  1145

  Those consumers and those citizens have for too long labored and have 
seen higher prices for products, products not being able to get on the 
market, and higher prices for the provision of necessary Government 
services, all of which can be directly traced to burdensome, many times 
unnecessary, and frequently ill-thought-out Federal regulations.
  Under the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas], we have taken one step, only one step, but an important step, 
toward regulatory reform and regulatory flexibility.
  It has been a very responsible first step, Mr. Chairman. We listened 
very carefully to the evidence and the testimony that was presented to 
us in subcommittee hearings. In some instances we took the material 
that was received and incorporated that into amendments to the bill 
that we now have before us. In other instances, based on information 
presented by some folks from the administration, we have deferred 
action, recommended deferring action in some important areas.
  But I think this administration and the American people and those on 
the other side of the aisle who continue to defend the status quo must 
know that even as important as H.R. 926 is that we will be considering 
today, there is further work that must be done to ensure that our 
Federal regulators respect the rights of citizens and businesses, and 
that they extend them relief, and that they be stopped from running 
roughshod over our businesses and our citizens.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am one Democrat who believes 
regulations have gone too far. They kill American jobs. It has gotten 
to the point that it is so bad that if a dog urinates on a side lot, it 
may be declared a wetlands.
  I recommended for years that Congress should ship the EPA to Japan, 
Taiwan, Korea, and China, and then we would not have a trade problem 
because the EPA would screw them up too.
  But in any event, I think the Democrats should have done this in the 
past. I am going to support the bill. I have two amendments, and people 
are saying they may not necessarily apply to in fact the Administrative 
Procedures Act. But in my research I have found that there are no 
safeguards in the event that situation should develop.
  My two amendments would do two things, and I would like the majority 
party here to pay attention to this.
  This bill would exempt certain emergencies, certain deadlines imposed 
by statute, and certain monetary activities that are listed in the 
bill. The Traficant amendment just say two things: For any future 
action or any ambiguous action for a trade program in America that is 
less than aggressive, who might at some point creatively try to find a 
loophole to continue not to in fact enforce and provide sanctions where 
necessary, the Traficant amendment would first say that no rule or 
regulation that is in existence that can be used for trade sanctions to 
combat illegal trade, that we would exempt that and put it in the 
exemption part of the bill. The other one deals with the possibility in 
the future of the collection of taxes from foreign subsidiaries, people 
who take our money out of or country and run, and there could be 
absolutely no possibility by any stretch of the imagination where 
creative minds could be used to apply this bill at some point down the 
line. And it would exempt from that the IRS collection actions on these 
foreign subsidiaries who many times come and take our jobs, take the 
profits, and run away with them.
  Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: These are safeguard amendments. They 
are the types of amendments we should be doing. We should be preventing 
the opportunity for abuse, and that is one of the reasons why we are in 
fact eliminating regulations.
  [[Page H2408]] I recommend this to the handlers of this bill. This 
makes the bill a better bill, and I ask for the support of Members on 
these amendments.
  Let me say one other thing: The trade representative's office which 
is concerned about this does agree that sanctions are not the result of 
rulemaking. But one thing we can be sure of, there is no reason the 
Congress of the United States should allow any loophole where illegal 
trade sanctions can at some point have their backs turned by our trade 
people. We have seen too much of that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I 
would appreciate having my amendments be approved and accepted without 
prejudice.
  I would be glad to talk to the majority staff further about these 
issues.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot], who is a member of the subcommittee and who participated 
in the hearings and the entire development of this legislation.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  I find it incredible that some on the other side of the aisle are so 
adamant in defending and preserving the massive Federal bureaucracy 
that has grown over the years. Maybe it is understandable that they 
defend this huge bureaucracy since they created it. The challenge now 
is to reduce and simplify a government that has grown completely out of 
control.
  H.R. 926 aims to curb the ruinous practices of Federal agencies that 
unduly restrain the creative energies of small business. Small business 
is the backbone of America's economy. America's small businesses have 
had enough. They desperately need, in fact they are demanding 
immediately, that we relieve the overbearing regulatory agencies that 
have grown up.
  Opponents of H.R. 926 incorrectly assume that hardworking Americans 
and small businesses should bear the destructive brunt of the cost of 
this regulatory process. Nobody I know of in Cincinnati, especially 
small business owners, shares that opinion.
  If we want the regulatory process to be a burden, let us not make it 
a burden on small business; let us make it a burden on the Federal 
Government. Let us strengthen regulatory flexibility by giving 
aggrieved small businesses the ability to seek judicial review. Let us 
enlarge the public's role in the rulemaking process. Let us force 
regulatory agencies to conduct regulatory impact analyses. Let us 
protect Americans who report abusive practices of regulatory agencies 
from catastrophic reprisals.
  What does all this mean to the average American citizen? It means 
that when they go to the store, products will not be so expensive; they 
will be more in the reach of average Americans. It means jobs for 
American citizens, because so many of the jobs that are created in this 
country are created by small business. And most importantly, it means a 
better standard of living for the American people.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to 
briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the 
aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With 
America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  That original language would have applied the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's 
small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was 
supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been 
talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic 
water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process 
for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the 
Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts 
to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government 
responds to their concerns.
  So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of 
the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement 
worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility 
provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the 
way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's 
entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask again, at the risk of boring the 
Chair, how much time we have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, that gives me ample time to bring to the 
floor the giant legislator, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, who is the chairman of 
the full committee and the leader of the effort to bring this 
legislation to the floor.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental goal of the Regulatory Reform 
and Relief Act (H.R. 926) is to reduce the inevitable growth of costly 
regulations imposed upon our society. The bill achieves this by 
ensuring enforcement of current law to protect small business, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act--and by encouraging greater public 
participation in our rulemaking process through the imposition of 
impact analysis on agency rulemaking. It is our hope that through the 
achievement of this goal, a less inhibited atmosphere will exist, which 
will allow U.S. commerce to thrive.
  The amendments before us to the Regulatory Flexibility Act are 
important because they would provide small businesses with a means to 
effectively enforce the goals/purposes of that law.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. Under its 
terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special needs and 
concerns of small entities--small businesses, small local governments, 
farmers, et cetera--whenever they engage in a rulemaking subject to the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
  Under the law, each time an agency publishes a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register, it must prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility 
analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless 
the head of the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.''
  From the beginning, the problem with this statute has been the lack 
of availability of judicial review as a mechanism to enforce the 
purposes of the law.
  Right now, if agencies do not do a regulatory flexibility analysis or 
fail to follow the other procedures set down in the act, there is no 
sanction.
  For years, small business groups have sought judicial review in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act as a means of ``keeping the regulatory 
agencies honest.'' Our colleague and friend from Illinois, Tom Ewing, 
has been a leader in this effort.
  H.R. 926 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, specifically 
providing for judicial review. In instances where an agency should have 
undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, or where the 
agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a flexibility 
analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized to seek 
judicial review within 180 days after promulgation. A court can then 
give an agency 90 days to take corrective action. If the agency fails 
to take the necessary corrective action within 90 days, the court is 
given the authority to stay the rule and grant such other relief as it 
deems appropriate.
  H.R. 926 is aimed at humanizing the Federal regulatory process. This 
is an 
[[Page H2409]] important aspect of the Contract With America--to 
provide affected parties--such as small businesses, small local 
governments, farmers and others--with a mechanism to ensure that the 
impersonal Washington bureaucracy takes into consideration the impact 
that a new rule or regulation can have on their businesses and their 
everyday lives.
  Title Z of H.R. 926 deals with regulatory impact analyses. This 
language would require Federal agencies to complete a regulatory impact 
analysis when drafting a major rule.
  Major rule is defined under the legislation as a rule likely to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more; a 
major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, State or local government agencies or geographic regions; or 
significant adverse impacts on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 
domestically or internationally.
  The bill lists a number of specific criteria which Federal agencies 
have to consider as a part of their regulatory impact analysis. These 
include a requirement that the agency describe the necessity and legal 
authority for the rule; a description of the potential costs of the 
rule; an analysis of alternative approaches, that could substantially 
achieve the same regulatory goal; a statement that the rule does not 
conflict with any other rule or regulation; a statement as to whether 
or not the rule would require onsight inspections--or whether or not 
the rule would require the maintenance of any records subject to 
inspection--and an estimate of the costs to the agency for the 
implementation and enforcement of the rule.
  The bill encourages public hearings on important regulations.
  The bill makes it clear that the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget will oversee the Federal regulatory process in an effort to 
ensure consistency and broad based fairness.
  It is important to note that the provisions of this section would not 
apply to major rules if it would conflict in any way with deadlines 
imposed by statute or by court order.
  The bill also requires that the Director of OMB submit a report to 
Congress no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this 
act containing an analysis of Federal rulemaking procedures and an 
analysis of the impact of the regulatory process on the American 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, regulatory flexibility was a good idea when it was 
enacted in 1980. Unfortunately, we haven't seen its potential because 
our courts could not enforce it. Regulatory impact analysis by Federal 
agencies was a good idea in 1981 when President Reagan required it 
through Executive order. Unfortunately, Executive orders are not 
permanent and those impact analyses are no longer enforced. This 
legislation will ensure enforcement of both of these tools. This 
legislation is long overdue.
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This has been the process of working together cooperatively over the 
last several weeks to develop legislation that will meet the needs of 
small businesses throughout the United States and meet the needs of 
taxpayers throughout the United States, to develop a regulatory system 
which is streamlined, efficient and provides for the protection of the 
public good. And we have reached, I think, major accommodations in 
terms of language.
  Today I hope we can reach additional accommodations in terms of 
providing a system that will protect the public good and save money.
  I am encouraged by the process. I hope in the next few hours we can 
make changes that will make this legislation even better for the 
benefit of all of our citizens.
  Again, I thank and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
help and effort during this process.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for all his cooperative 
efforts in the past. I just wanted to end our portion of general debate 
by pointing out to the Members on the other side that as they consider 
their amendments and as they consider their opposition to certain 
portions of the bill as it now is drafted, to think of the people in 
their district, the working people.
  They, by most chances, work for a small business. They are the people 
who are going to be helped most by this piece of legislation. We are 
not against rules. We are not against regulation. We simply want to 
make sure that the small business which does the hiring of your 
constituents, which keeps wage earners on the payroll, that those small 
businesses will not have to go out of business or fire people or lay 
off people because of the burdensome regulations that sweep down on 
them from Washington.
  That is the purpose of this bill. Think of your working people, your 
constituents, and then you will think twice about trying to defend 
against this bill or offering amendments which will weaken it.
  We want to make our working people work for a small business that 
will have the greatest opportunity to expand, to hire more people, to 
enhance wages, to increase prosperity for the community in which they 
operate. That is the purpose of this bill.
  When you start attacking business, you are attacking the opportunity 
for your working people, your constituents to keep on trucking with 
their jobs.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for the Committee on the Judiciary has 
expired.
  The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the 
Committee on Small Business, is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
926.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, when President Jimmy Carter signed the 
original Regulatory Flexibility Act back in 1980, it was applauded as a 
new, strategic weapon in the war against excessive regulation.
  American businesses soon discovered that Reg Flex was less a 
strategic weapon and more a water pistol. Sure, you could aim it at 
excessive regulations and pull the trigger, but nothing much happened.
  Reg Flex lacked the striking power to challenge the bureaucrats. It 
failed even to drown out their laughter as they ignored the law.
  As a weapon for curbing regulatory abuses, Reg Flex was a dud.
  Today, we are giving punch to Reg Flex. By allowing America's 
businesses to challenge abusive regulations in the courts, we are 
finally forcing Federal bureaucrats to comply with the law. If they 
want to issue a new major rule, they first have to account for its 
impact on American business.
  Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act is a major step 
forward in the battle for control of America's businesses. It's the 
strategic weapon we've been promising America's busineses all along, 
and I look forward to its passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, H.R. 926, the Regulatory 
Reform and Relief Act, includes in title I amendments to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, legislation of longstanding and great importance to 
the small business community, and an issue which has had broad 
bipartisan support in this and previous Congresses.
  Since 1980, when it was signed into law, the Reg Flex Act, as it is 
know, has been a key tool in reducing the regulatory burden on small 
businesses. The Reg Flex Act requires that Federal agencies perform a 
good faith analysis of the compliance requirements new regulations may 
impose on small enterprise and to minimize the impact. The theory 
behind the Reg Flex Act is that the burden of Federal regulatory 
requirements fall disproportionately heavy on small entities, which 
have less opportunity to spread the costs of regulatory compliance.
  As the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business and now its 
ranking minority member, I know that some of the changes to the Reg 
Flex Act that we will be voting on have been sought by small business
 advocates, both in and out of Congress, for some 
[[Page H2410]] time. Indeed, Committee on Small Business chairman, the 
gentlewoman from Kansas, Jan Meyers, and I were leading supporters and 
cosponsors of legislative efforts in the last Congress to strengthen 
the original act.
  The most frequently cited Reg Flex revision sought by small 
businesses is before us today in H.R. 926; namely to allow small 
business owners to pursue a course of judicial review to force Federal 
agencies to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and, thereby, 
put real enforcement teeth into the act.
  H.R. 926 also contains two other provisions amending the Reg Flex 
Act, both involving the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, the individual charged with monitoring 
compliance with the act and reporting his or her findings to the 
president and the Congress annually.
  The first provision requires that proposed rules be sent to the chief 
counsel for advocacy at least 30 days before the publication of a 
general notice of proposed rulemaking in order to give the chief 
counsel time to advice the rule-writing agency on the effect of the 
proposed rule on small agencies.
  I caution that given the limited resources of the chief's counsel's 
office, this admirable provision will prove quite difficult to 
implement both intelligently and effectively.
  The other section concerning the chief counsel for advocacy is 
language noting that it is the sense of the Congress that the chief 
counsel should be permitted to as amicus curiae in any action or case 
brought in court for the purpose of reviewing a rule. This is a 
restatement of the Congress' intent that the chief counsel has and 
should feel free to exercise the right to intervene in those instances 
where it might be deemed appropriate in the rulemaking process in 
behalf of small businesses.
  I am agreeable to the Reg Flex provisions in H.R. 926. Generally, 
they are balanced and constructive and should make for a stronger and 
more effective act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 926, the Regulatory 
Reform and Relief Act and would like to focus my remarks on title I 
which provides and clarifies procedures for judicial review of agency 
compliance with the Reg Flex Act.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act became law in 1980. It was the result 
of efforts of many small businesses throughout this country. I might 
say, Mr. Chairman, that this has been a really bipartisan effort 
throughout. In fact, when this issue was before the House last year, it 
passed by 380 to 36. It had been amended in the Senate and it was 
before the House on a motion to instruct, and it passed by an enormous 
count.
  The issues of regulatory relief and regulatory flexibility for small 
entities were a dominant theme in many hearings before the House 
Committee on Small Business and other committees in the late 1970's. 
However, moreover, the issue of more flexible regulations for small 
business was a top priority at the 1980 White House Conference on Small 
Business and at the State conferences which led up to that national 
conference.
  Enactment of the original Reg Flex Act was soundly based on two 
premises: That Federal agencies often do not recognize the impact that 
their rules have on small businesses and, the second one, that small 
businesses are disproportionately disadvantaged by Federal regulations.
  This is because they do not have the economy of scale and because 
large businesses may have an office manager or an accountant of an 
attorney right on their staff, whereas the work of understanding the 
regulations and filling out the paperwork are done by the small 
businessman or woman himself or herself.
  The Reg Flex Act was enacted to obtain Federal agency recognition of 
these effects and consequently to reduce them.
  The intention of the act was to have agencies approach the entities 
they regulate with an eye to their size and take this into account in 
drafting rules, rather than approaching rulemaking with a one size fits 
all attitude.
  When the Reg Flex Act is properly complied with, the primary goals of 
the Administrative Procedures Act should also be satisfied, because the 
use of regulatory flexibility should cause agencies to write better 
rules. Unfortunately, that is the problem. Many agencies have failed to 
comply with the letter and the spirit of the Reg Flex Act.
  At numerous hearings before the House Committee on Small Business, 
the issue of lackluster compliance with the Reg Flex Act by many 
agencies has been brought up time and again because there was no 
enforcement mechanism. Because the original Regulatory Flexibility Act 
contained a built-in prohibition against judicial review of agency 
compliance with the act, many agencies viewed compliance as strictly 
voluntary. This situation of agency compliance needs to be addressed 
and is correctly addressed by the amendments to the Reg Flex Act 
contained in title I of H.R. 926.
  In addition to providing for judicial review, title I provides 
Federal agencies to work more closely with the Office of Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration during the drafting of new rules.
  Finally, the bill contains a sense of Congress provision that the SBA 
chief counsel for advocacy be allowed to appear as amicus curiae for 
the purpose of reviewing a Federal rule. The right of the SBA chief 
counsel for advocacy to file amicus briefs was contained in the 
original Reg Flex Act. However, the Department of Justice has 
historically resisted the implementation of this right.
  The sense of Congress provision contained in this bill reiterates the 
intention of Congress on this important issue.
                              {time}  1215

  After over 14 years of mediocre compliance with this important small 
business provision, it is time to stand up and be counted in favor of 
making needed improvements to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 926.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and the provisions making 
changes to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I believe that a primary 
means to accomplish mandatory compliance of reg flex would be to 
provide small business owners the opportunity to challenge Federal 
agencies' rulings in court. This bill adds this provision to reg flex. 
This step will assure that agencies will consider and adequately 
address the impact of their regulations on smaller entities.
  I am also encouraged with the bill's provision to strengthen the SBA 
counsel of advocacy. This bill requires that agencies provide the SBA 
chief counsel with an advance copy of the rule 30 days before 
publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register. The bill further strengthens the SBA Office of Advocacy by 
giving the SBA chief counsel the authority to file amicus briefs in 
litigation involving Federal rules. This will give the chief counsel 
the opportunity to express his office's views with respect to the 
effect of rules on small businesses.
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, I was delighted to see 
the involvement of small businesses in efforts to improve and 
strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It was clearly apparent that 
the small business community's diligent efforts in working with 
chairwoman Meyers and Congressman LaFalce was instrumental in 
addressing and eliminating the shortfalls contained in title VI of 
House Resolution 9, and thus creating the bill we have before us.
  Interaction between the Small Business Committee an small business 
owners is imperative. It should be continued so that Congress does not 
enact future laws that negatively affect our Nation's small businesses.

[[Page H2411]]

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
provisions contained in title I of H.R. 926 dealing with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
  The title I provisions would put real teeth into the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act by allowing judicial review of regulations. This will 
permit small businesses to challenge agencies when they propose 
regulations that will stymie economic growth. I strongly support this 
legislation and would like to recognize my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois, Tom Ewing, for all the hard work he has done on this issue.
  The goal of blocking unnecessary Federal regulation of the economy is 
a worthy one. Many in Congress naively believe that no matter what 
costs they impose on business, these companies can merely absorb them. 
I do not share their view.
  I understand that each new mandate or regulation means higher costs, 
more failed enterprises, and fewer jobs for ordinary Americans.
  The bipartisan support of this measure speaks volumes about its 
merit. Both the SBA and Vice President Al Gore support its passage and 
legislation introduced in the last Congress dealing with this issue 
garnered 255 cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure 
and inject some measure of fairness into the regulatory process.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my strong support for provisions 
in H.R. 926 to add judicial review to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  Enacted in 1980 with strong bipartisan support, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act was intended to force agencies to consider the impact 
of regulations on the Nation's small businesses, and consequently 
reduce them. The problem with the original bill, Mr. Chairman, is it 
has never been enforced. Agencies are essentially allowed to ignore the 
intent of the Reg Flex Act.
  Small businesses are the backbone of this country, employing more 
than 53 percent of the work force, and contributing to much of our 
country's economic growth. Between 1989 and 1993, small business job 
growth more than offset net job loss in big businesses.
  The Government should be doing everything in its power to promote 
small business growth. Instead, it imposes the same regulations on the 
smaller entities that it does on big businesses. This is yet another 
example of the Government's one-size-fits-all approach that does not 
work.
  To reinforce the bipartisan nature of this provision, I would like to 
point out that Vice President Gore's first recommendation for 
reinventing the role of Government in small business is to establish 
judicial review for the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I could not agree 
more with the Vice President on this issue.
  We held a number of hearings and a markup of this legislation in the 
Small Business Committee, and I am proud to be a part of this bill as 
reported.
  Mr. Chairman, as a third generation small businessperson, I appeal to 
this body to do the right thing for the working people in America and 
give small business people a fighting chance.
  It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that by allowing judicial review, the 
threat of enforcement along will force agencies to not only consider 
the impact of their regulations on small businesses, but to 
significantly reduce them.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers] for yielding time to me. I also thank the chairman of the 
committee for all her good work on this legislation, and particularly 
on the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the underlying 
legislation, especially title I, because I think it significantly 
improves the Regulatory Flexibility Act. At town meetings and letters, 
meetings in the district, telephone calls, and so on, and during my 
work last year with the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] in the 
Committee on Small Business, I have heard again and again from small 
business constituents about them being overburdened with Federal 
paperwork, regulations, and compliance procedures.
  The Reg Flex Act was enacted in 1980 to get at this problem, but 
there is ample evidence that it has not worked. The bill before us 
today makes necessary changes in the act, so it will work as intended. 
Let me be specific. I think none of these changes is more important 
than judicial review.
  Currently there is a blanket prohibition, as I think has been 
discussed previously on the floor, for any kind of judicial review of 
agency compliance with the requirements of the law. This is an 
exception, it is a very rare exception, that is made in this 
legislation. As a result, frankly, agencies are not forced to follow 
the procedures in the act. Compliance has become essentially voluntary.
  As a result, during this 15-year period that the act has been in 
effect, its requirements have all too often been ignored. H.R. 926 
corrects this serious flaw by allowing judicial review. It gives teeth 
to the legislation. The result of noncompliance with the Reg Flex Act 
has cost our small businesses in my State and yours billions of dollars 
over the last 15 years.
  At the same time, let me make it very clear that by adding judicial 
review, it will not be the lawyers' haven that many on this floor will 
say. I have looked at the case law, and it clearly shows that courts 
are deferential to agencies. The courts do not, the courts do not get 
behind the agency analysis. Once the analysis has been done as 
required, the courts do not go behind that analysis to determine 
whether it is correct or not.
  Mr. Chairman, furthermore, judicial review is unlikely to slow down 
the regulating process, since judicial stays and injunctions are very 
rare. Judicial review will not stop all regulations, will not tie up 
the system. What it will do is it will send agencies a very strong 
signal, that they are, yes, to meet the reasonable requirements that 
Congress has said are relevant in the rulemaking process. I urge my 
colleagues to support 926.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], who has done such good work on 
this judicial review.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, without 
her strong support and that of her ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. LaFalce], we would not be here today.
  I certainly appreciate that, and want that to be clearly stated, that 
the gentlewoman has been one of the strongest supporters of the 
improvement to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certainly appreciate 
it. I am pleased to be here today and take part in the gentlewoman's 
part of this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned earlier that the Vice President 
had as the No. 1 item on his reinventing government putting judicial 
review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Mr. Chairman, I do believe, 
and while this is my opinion, that the Vice President came out with 
that recommendation in all good faith, it appeared to have less 
emphasis as the bureaucrats expressed their opinion and began to try 
and stifle this movement.
  I cannot emphasize too strongly that it is time for this Congress to 
take control of this issue and not leave it to the bureaucrats, who 
certainly do not want judicial review, or to be required to meet the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  Mr. Chairman, on the issue of excessive litigation coming out of 
judicial review, first of all, small business does not have the money 
to consistently go to court and to cause the major Government agencies 
any great problem. They can only do it when it really matters.
  [[Page H2412]] In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Vice President's own report 
on this matter said:

       Judicial review is not expected to lead to a large number 
     of lawsuits. No basis for suits would exist if agencies 
     conducted an appropriate regulatory review. As a practical 
     matter, most regulations to which small entities have 
     significant objections are already in litigation.

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
remains on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to join the other Members who have 
expressed support for this improvement of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, really making it effective. This is an act Congress passed in 
1980, again with the intention of saying to the bureaucracy, ``Look, if 
you feel you have some overriding goal in terms of the environment or 
worker safety that you need to accomplish, look and see the impact on 
small business which produces the jobs and the flow of goods and 
services the country depends on, and do it in a way that has the least 
negative impact on costs and on job growth in the country.''
  It is a very commonsense bill. It did not work because we did not 
place a check in the system that was effective in making them do it. I 
just want to make one broader observation here. When people build the 
businesses, the small businesses of the United States, they are 
building part of the backbone of the private society of this country. 
They are exercising, really, an unalienable right.
  It is one thing if we feel that some overriding policy requires that 
we intrude on what they are trying to do for themselves and their 
employees in America. It is another thing when we let agencies act 
arbitrarily and capriciously, in a manner that unnecessarily undermines 
the efforts they are engaged in.
  This bill is an attempt to stop that. I support it. I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a chance to strike another blow for small 
business in America. Today we have a chance to put aside partisan 
politics and really change the way Government does business.
  The rest of our statement is going to be repetitive, what everybody 
says, so I am going to be kind to the House today and simply say I rise 
in support of H.R. 926.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a chance to strike another blow for small 
business in America.
  Today we have a chance to put aside partisan politics and really 
change the way Government does business.
  And in the process, we will help small business do what they do 
best--create more new jobs.
  If we really want to reinvent Government, we have to constantly think 
of ways for Government to perform its necessary functions without 
imposing a crushing burden on small businesses.
  If you ask small businesses what they think about reinventing 
Government, I Think most would say that easing the burden of Government 
regulations and paperwork is a good place to start.
  We have already made some headway in this direction. Last week, this 
House passed H.R. 830, the paperwork reduction bill, by unanimous vote.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 926, deserves the same kind of 
overwhelming bipartisan support.
  The original Regulatory Flexibility Act recognized that the burden of 
Federal regulations is heaviest for small business. That's why the Reg 
Flex Act forced Federal agencies to analyze the impact of proposed 
regulations on small business. Under reg flex, the agencies then have 
to find ways to lessen that impact as much as possible.
  Unfortunately, Reg Flex Act has not been the tool for small business 
that some of us hoped it would be. Agencies have too often paid lip 
service to these requirements or ignored them completely. The attitude 
of too many agencies have been that compliance with reg flex is 
voluntary.
  It is no mystery why reg flex has not been as successful as it should 
be. It has no enforcement mechanism.
  And the solution is no mystery either. Small businesses need to be 
able to sue and make noncomplying agencies take these requirements 
seriously. H.R. 926 put teeth into the Reg Flex Act by providing for 
judicial review, and it states that Office of Small Business Advocacy 
should be allowed to submit legal briefs in any court challenges to 
final agency rules.
  Since small businesses are responsible for creating most of the new 
jobs in today's economy,
 it only makes sense to do what we can to promote small business job 
creation. Minimizing the burden of Government regulations on small 
businesses does just that. It is a reform that both Democrats and 
Republicans can enthusiastically support.

  We can be proud that this reg flex bill, along with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act reauthorization, have been genuinely bipartisan efforts. 
Congressman Ewing's bill in the last Congress boasted a bipartisan 
roster of 260 cosponsors.
  I strongly urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to give their 
wholehearted support to H.R. 926.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of all new jobs in America are created by 
small businesses. The economic impact of regulation in our country 
ranges as high as $500 billion. With these facts in mind, it is crucial 
that we not overregulate small businesses. Reg flex makes this a law, 
and title I of H.R. 926 ensures that this law is observed. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 926.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] so that she might close debate.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say in 
closing that this is a bill of tremendous importance to small business. 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] for his 
work on judicial review and thank everyone for the bipartisan spirit 
that has carried this bill this far. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky] and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. LaFalce] on the minority side have worked for many 
years on judicial review, and I strongly support it and urge my 
colleagues to vote for H.R. 926.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, small business owners in New Mexico 
have made it clear to me that redtape and regulatory burdens are 
cumbersome. Whether or not we should provide help for these businesses, 
the driving force in today's economy, is not the question.
  The question before us today is how to best enforce the laws that we 
have enacted in the past.
  Before I read this legislation, I envisioned a battle of ideas that 
would propel government into the 21st century: lower bureaucracy, 
greater efficiency.
  Instead we get legislation that creates more jobs for lawyers in 
Washington. Busy work for bureaucrats: the height of cynicism, 
establishing new rules to prevent the implementation of new rules.
  Forget partisan gain and the Contract With America, this legislation 
is a copout. A missed opportunity to work with the executive branch.
  The Clinton administration, and the Vice President's National 
Performance Review in particular, has made significant strides in 
downsizing and streamlining the way government operates.
  Already the re-inventing Government initiative has yielded practical 
benefits and fiscal discipline which benefits all Americans.
  Furthermore, the President has already ordered each Federal agency to 
examine their respective rules and regulations and subject them to 
scrutinization.
  Consider that this legislation exempts the Federal Reserve in an 
effort to protect monetary stability. Are we to assume that the Federal 
role in banking conduct is without fault and free from perfecting 
legislation?
  We all understand that rules and regulations, by their very nature, 
constrain free-market business ventures. But congress has a 
responsibility to lead and craft policy that promotes the long-term 
interests of the Nation.
  Can we honestly say that this is the best way to enforce policy?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  [[Page H2413]] Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by 
titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each title 
is considered having been read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of The Whole may accord priority in recognition to a member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having 
been read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Reform and Relief 
     Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
             TITLE I--STRENGTHENING REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

     SEC. 101. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 611 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 611. Judicial review

       ``(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later 
     than 180 days after the effective date of a final rule with 
     respect to which an agency--
       ``(A) certified, pursuant to section 605(b), that such rule 
     would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
     number of small entities; or
       ``(B) prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
     pursuant to section 604,

     an affected small entity may petition for the judicial review 
     of such certification or analysis in accordance with the 
     terms of this subsection. A court having jurisdiction to 
     review such rule for compliance with the provisions of 
     section 553 or under any other provision of law shall have 
     jurisdiction to review such certification or analysis.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the 
     case where a provision of law requires that an action 
     challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the 
     expiration of the 180 day period provided in paragraph (1), 
     such lesser period shall apply to a petition for the judicial 
     review under this subsection.
       ``(B) In the case where an agency delays the issuance of a 
     final regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 
     608(b), a petition for judicial review under this subsection 
     shall be filed not later than--
       ``(i) 180 days; or
       ``(ii) in the case where a provision of law requires that 
     an action challenging a final agency regulation be commenced 
     before the expiration of the 180-day period provided in 
     paragraph (1), the number of days specified in such provision 
     of law,

     after the date the analysis is made available to the public.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `affected 
     small entity' means a small entity that is or will be 
     adversely affected by the final rule.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     affect the authority of any court to stay the effective date 
     of any rule or provision thereof under any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(5)(A) In the case where the agency certified that such 
     rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities, the court may order the 
     agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis
      pursuant to section 604 if the court determines, on the 
     basis of the rulemaking record, that the certification was 
     arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law.
       ``(B) In the case where the agency prepared a final 
     regulatory flexibility analysis, the court may order the 
     agency to take corrective action consistent with the 
     requirements of section 604 if the court determines, on the 
     basis of the rulemaking record, that the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis was prepared by the agency without 
     observance of procedure required by section 604.
       ``(6) If, by the end of the 90-day period beginning on the 
     date of the order of the court pursuant to paragraph (5) (or 
     such longer period as the court may provide), the agency 
     fails, as appropriate--
       ``(A) to prepare the analysis required by section 604; or
       ``(B) to take corrective action consistent with the 
     requirements of section 604,

     the court may stay the rule or grant such other relief as it 
     deems appropriate.
       ``(7) In making any determination or granting any relief 
     authorized by this subsection, the court shall take due 
     account of the rule of prejudicial error.
       ``(b) In an action for the judicial review of a rule, any 
     regulatory flexibility analysis for such rule (including an 
     analysis prepared or corrected pursuant to subsection (a)(5)) 
     shall constitute part of the whole record of agency action in 
     connection with such review.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section bars judicial review of any 
     other impact statement or similar analysis required by any 
     other law if judicial review of such statement or analysis is 
     otherwise provided by law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply only to final agency rules issued after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. RULES COMMENTED ON BY SBA CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 
                   ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Section 612 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Action by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--
       ``(1) Transmittal of proposed rules and initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis to sba chief counsel for advocacy.--On 
     or before the 30th day preceding the date of publication by 
     an agency of general notice of proposed rulemaking for a
      rule, the agency shall transmit to the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration--
       ``(A) a copy of the proposed rule; and
       ``(B)(i) a copy of the initial regulatory flexibility 
     analysis for the rule if required under section 603; or
       ``(ii) a determination by the agency that an initial 
     regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for the 
     proposed rule under section 603 and an explanation for the 
     determination.
       ``(2) Statement of effect.--On or before the 15th day 
     following receipt of a proposed rule and initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis from an agency under paragraph (1), the 
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy may transmit to the agency a 
     written statement of the effect of the proposed rule on small 
     entities.
       ``(3) Response.--If the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
     transmits to an agency a statement of effect on a proposed 
     rule in accordance with paragraph (2), the agency shall 
     publish the statement, together with the response of the 
     agency to the statement, in the Federal Register at the time 
     of publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for 
     the rule.
       ``(4) Special rule.--Any proposed rules issued by an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency (as that term is defined 
     in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813(q)), the National Credit Union Administration, or 
     the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, in 
     connection with the implementation of monetary policy or to 
     ensure the safety and soundness of federally insured 
     depository institutions, any affiliate of such an 
     institution, credit unions, or government sponsored housing 
     enterprises or to protect the Federal deposit insurance funds 
     shall not be subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection.''.
       ``(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 603(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``in accordance 
     with section 612(d)'' before the period at the end of the 
     last sentence.

     SEC. 103. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SBA CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 
                   ADVOCACY.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration should be 
     permitted to appear as amicus curiae in any action or case 
     brought in a court of the United States for the purpose of 
     reviewing a rule.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Ewing

  Mr. EWING. 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. Ewing: Page 2, line 11, strike 
     ``180 days'' and insert ``one year notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law'', in line 24, strike ``(2)(A)'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B)'' in line 4 on page 3, and 
     beginning in line 7 strike the dash and all that follows 
     through line 13 and insert ``one year notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law''.

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I offer would very 
simply amend the bill to change the statute of limitations for filing 
an action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act from 6 months to 1 year. 
H.R. 926 has only a 6-month statute of limitations. Because many small 
businesses are not aware that they have a problem with the regulation 
in that short a period of time, I believe it is very important that we 
extend this for a 1-year period.
  The Senate version of this reform legislation also has the 1-year 
limitation in it. My amendment also guarantees that the 1-year statute 
of limitations will be there notwithstanding any other legislative 
provisions which might govern.
  Small business needs to have this type of protection. They do not 
have a number of lawyers, accountants, and staff people to be reviewing 
all of the regulatory mandates and regulatory provisions that are put 
out by the bureaucracy. Business needs to know and needs to have the 
time to review these regulations, and this amendment will allow for the 
proper time. A 1-year statute of limitations is very reasonable. The 
NFIB feels this is a very important vote and they have keyed this vote. 
It is supported by most small business groups in the country.
  I ask for the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise basically in opposition to the 
amendment because I do not understand the reasoning why and I do not 
think the 
[[Page H2414]] gentleman from Illinois has fully explained other than 
NFIB is for it and some small businesses are for it and, therefore, 
that is the way we should do it.
  I would like to question basically this whole provision under 
judicial review, where it puts an agency. Let's look at it for a minute 
from the other side instead of just looking at it from one side. Let's 
try looking at it from both sides.
  I have an agency here that has just finalized a regulation and has 
promulgated it in the Federal Register. It is sitting out there and 
some businesses are going ahead and they are following it and they are 
going to abide by it because they think the agency has done the right 
thing. Then they are proceeding on that line, they have made these 
changes, whatever changes are required in their business operations, et 
cetera.
  Then under this amendment, and the way I read the rest of the bill 
all the way down, section 611 under judicial review, and I do not know 
if the gentleman from Illinois or the gentlewoman from Kansas has 
entertained this thought, that during this time, while all these other 
businesses are doing what they should be, I have got about 10 or 11 of 
them out there that, ``No, this isn't quite right. I don't like it. 
They didn't do it right as far as I'm concerned.''
  So I decide, and the rest of them decide that they are going to 
request----
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Let me finish up what is going to happen as I see what 
is happening from both sides. That there is going to be a judicial 
review, and the judicial review is going to occur where?
  Well, let us say it is an agency that the law says that judicial 
review under a regulation shall occur in any court of appeals. Well, I 
happen to live in Missouri and my court of appeals is in the fifth 
circuit, and I file mine in St. Louis. We have another business in the 
State of California, or the State of Oregon that wants to have a review 
because they do not like it, so they file in San Francisco. We have 
another one that does not like it in Florida and they file for judicial 
review in Miami, and on and on it goes.
  I have got about 7, 8, 10 cases pending at the same time on the same 
regulation, and it is all over whether or not the certification or 
analysis was done in accordance with the terms of this subsection. It 
has nothing to do with the basic substance of the regulation itself.
  What happens when the court of appeals in Missouri says, ``We're 
going to stay that, and we're going to have a full hearing on it.'' All 
these other businesses that have already complied and abide, they do 
not know what is going to happen now because all of a sudden the 
regulation is put in abeyance. All the changes that they have made in 
their operations are no longer or may be necessary for the future.
  Then the court of appeals in California, they decide they are going 
to make a decision on this first and they find that everything was 
proper and the certification was proper, the analysis called for in the 
bill was fully done by the agency and everything was proper. But 2 days 
later, the court of appeals in Chicago, or wherever, says, ``No, it 
wasn't done properly.'' Then the one in Miami says, ``Yes, it was.'' 
Then the one in San Francisco again says, ``No, it wasn't.'' Maybe the 
one in New York will say, ``Yes, it was,'' or maybe they will say, 
``No, it wasn't.''
  You tell me where small business is right now when all this is going 
on.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know how effectively 
you do represent small businesses in your district as most Members of 
this body do.
  Let me say two things: What you have described is the legal system in 
America. But this law does not require a court to order a stay on the 
implementation of the rule.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I did not say it did. It permits.
  Mr. EWING. It permits.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It permits.
  Mr. EWING. And so does the law permits that in most cases. But the 
courts do not do it unless there is considerable evidence of the 
reasonableness of having that stay.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. EWING. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me say that 
the important part of having the longer statute of limitations is that 
many of the small businesses you represent so well will never know 
there is a problem until the regulator shows up on their doorstep with 
a fine or a citation. They will
 not know that they needed to make an appeal of this ruling. That is 
why we give them time, because they do not have a battery of lawyers 
and accountants and executives to be watching this all the time. We are 
talking about little businesses.

  Mr. VOLKMER. I thought NFIB represented those people. They have a 
good work force right here in Washington, DC. You mean they cannot 
follow what is going on and let their members know? They let them know 
everything else that is going on.
  Mr. EWING. I am sure that they will let them know.
  Mr. VOLKMER. They do everything they can to influence the Members up 
here how to vote on every piece of legislation that they can think 
about that may affect small business and how it will. Sometimes they do 
not think through, of course, and maybe they will not think through 
this example.
  Mr. EWING. If the gentleman will yield again, I will respond to that, 
because not every small business belongs to the National Federation of 
Independent Business.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Correct.
  Mr. EWING. I am as interested in them certainly as I am those that 
belong to the organization. Yes, there is no requirement that 
businesses have to join any organization.
  We need to be concerned in this country about the really little 
people who are out there doing their work, creating jobs, helping keep 
our economy going, and they have no idea about this Federal 
bureaucracy. They do not have anybody looking after it for them. We 
need to do that. You do it and I do it. We need to have a law that is 
friendly to them.
  Mr. VOLKMER. You really believe that by giving them a year, that for 
sure every small businessperson out here is going to be visited by a 
person from that regulatory agency to talk about this regulation within 
the year?
  Mr. EWING. If the gentleman will yield further, no, I do not believe 
that. I think it is a reasonable time, though. Maybe 2 years would have 
been more reasonable.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Why not make it 5 years?
  Mr. EWING. I would not oppose that. But, you see, we are trying to be 
reasonable here with something that is acceptable, to all parties. I do 
not think a year is an excessive length of time. That regulator 
probably is not going to come out there with helpful hints. They are 
going to come out there with a fine or they are going to come out there 
with a citation.
  Mr. VOLKMER. As long as we are discussing this, what is the gentleman 
going to do about the small businesses that did know about it, that do 
keep up with regulations, and they have gone ahead and implemented the 
changes that are required in it, in their operations, what are you 
going to do about them?
  Mr. EWING. Well, that is the way our system works. You may do things, 
if you are in business, as I have in my business and found out later 
that the law was changed or even that it was overturned in some court 
action.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I mean, would you not get a little upset, though, if you 
for 6 months had done something that you thought the law required you 
to do and in good faith you had made those changes and then you found 
out that later on a court of appeals somewhere that you did not know 
ever had anything to do with it said, ``No, you don't have to follow 
that regulation anymore''?
  Mr. EWING. If the gentleman would yield further, if I know what my 
rights are and I have the right to have judicial review of that 
regulation and I choose not to do it, I have made that 
[[Page H2415]] decision as an independent businessman.

                              {time}  1245

  If a fellow independent business person chooses to use judicial 
review, then I would say, ``God bless you.''
  Mr. VOLKMER. What is the gentleman's answer to having more than one 
judicial reviewing going on simultaneously?
  Mr. EWING. I think that the courts have the ability to consolidate 
those. I really do not believe that we are going to see judicial 
review. The gentleman was all over the country in his comment. I really 
do not see we are going to see judicial review filed in every appellate 
court around the Nation. Small business does not have the money.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now wait a minute. How big is a small business? What is 
the top you can have and be a small business? I mean we are not talking 
about little bitty people. I know little bitty people belong to small 
business, but we also have small businesses that are not so little. 
They have their own staff of lawyers. Oh yes, they are small business.
  Mr. EWING. But there are many small businesses that do not have a 
staff.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And that.
  Mr. EWING. But are you not interested in those people? I know you 
are.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am interested in all of them, all of them, not just 
little ones.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just said that the small 
business out here is not going to be familiar with the regulations. And 
I daresay that that same small business is not going to know a court 
suit has been filed, whether it is in Miami or San Francisco or 
wherever, if it is in Chicago, and therefore they are going to file 
their own, are they not? They are not just going to wait around and 
look around all over the country to see if anybody else files a 
lawsuit.
  Mr. EWING. I think the gentleman probably understands how the system 
works, and as a lawyer I know if I had had a client like that, one of 
the first things I would check is whether any other suits had been 
filed anywhere in the country. And that information is certainly 
available in our current computer age.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So now the gentleman is going to say that the attorney 
is going to do it, and he is not going to say, ``Well those judges out 
in the Court of Appeals out in the circuit, they are too dang liberal. 
I do not want them; I want mine, I have more conservative judges,'' et 
cetera? Come now, the gentleman has been in law practice, I have been 
in law practice. Now the people shop around for the best deal they can 
get. The gentleman is telling me I am wrong?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield a moment?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I do not see any difference on the 
gentleman's argument on what is being proposed by the Ewing amendment 
than what actually is prevailing under current law. Under the current 
law there is granted 60 days, for instance under one statute for 
judicial review, which has to by that statute itself take place in 
Washington, DC, in the circuit court of this area, or in Oregon, or 
wherever.
  Now, just following the gentleman's argument, should we not change 
that law as it is now to accommodate this inability to be uniform 
around the country that the gentleman is saying that this amendment 
will create?
  Mr. VOLKMER. It is not just this amendment, it is how it affects 
everything else in the bill. This amendment does not actually affect 
where the venue is, but the venue is everywhere. This amendment affects 
judicial review. Judicial review of what? Would the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania tell me what under this provision under 611 is going to be 
reviewed?
  Mr. GEKAS. Whether or not the regulatory agency complied with the 
mechanism for the review of the regulations and its flexibility. The 
regulatory flexibility analysis.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Not the substance of the rule.
  Mr. GEKAS. And the substance.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No, no.
  Mr. GEKAS. The substance does not change.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Wait a minute, is the gentleman telling me the way he 
reads this bill, if I ask for judicial review that I have to have a 
judicial review of both?
  Mr. GEKAS. No.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No, no.
  Mr. GEKAS. No.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No.
  Mr. GEKAS. I said that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So we have a little bitty thing here, we can ask for 
judicial review? No substance? Procedure, procedure.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. The judicial review we are talking about here is for the 
requirements on the regulating agencies contained in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. That is not upon the merits of the regulation, it is 
whether they followed the provisions of this act.
  I believe that the courts of this country are wise enough if there 
are two appeals, to combine them. The courts are not trying to 
proliferate these types of cases. And they are not going to look with 
any great favor on somebody who comes in on a substantive issue and 
then comes back 6 months later and tries to raise it in the same court 
on a procedural issue under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  Mr. VOLKMER. They can.
  Mr. EWING. They can, but the courts were not born yesterday. They are 
pretty bright people.
  Mr. VOLKMER. You are not, you do not tell the courts they have a 
right to refuse to review the matter on appeal because the plaintiffs 
have before appealed on a substantive matter. The gentleman does not 
say anything about that. So someone could do just what the gentleman is 
saying.
  Mr. EWING. The courts have discretion. One of the problems I think we 
face around here sometimes is we try and take all discretion away from 
the courts. We appoint bright men and women to be our Federal judges. 
They can make these decisions, and they can see when someone is taking 
advantage of the situation.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I have one other question before I yield back the 
balance of my time. I asked it during general debate and I have not 
received an answer to this date from anybody. Now I will ask the 
gentlewoman from Kansas, chairman of the Small Business Committee, and 
I am afraid the gentleman from Illinois who is chairman of Judiciary is 
not here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer, was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. There is a statement in the CBO estimate, CBO estimates 
that enactment of this bill would add at least $150 million annually to 
the cost of issuing regulations? Can the gentleman tell me whether or 
not the majority plans to appropriate the amount of money, additional 
money to each individual agency required in order to implement the 
provisions of this bill for this year?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
think that is title II of the bill. Our hearing was on title I. I will 
defer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to state to the gentleman we 
are going to debate, thankfully, and we are going to have a full 
exposition on costs or noncosts of implementing this legislation, but 
as the gentlewoman says, this is in title II that the gentleman is 
really visiting. Right now we are on the Ewing amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am on title II. I am into the total cost of the bill. 
Does the gentleman mean to tell me that if there are appeals out there 
by small business on every agency rule under this bill that it is not 
going to cost agencies any more money? They are going to defend those 
without any costs, without any lawyers?
  [[Page H2416]] Mr. GEKAS. We believe that the cost is negligible. We 
are able to demonstrate that and will in good time. We are not asking 
the bureaucracy to do any more than they are supposed to do now. We are 
asking them to help the small businessmen by doing their job in 
providing analysis for these rules that are choking our small 
businessmen. That is all we are doing.
  We think that the manpower is there, the expertise is there, if only 
they are willing to do so. And the gentleman and I have been struggling 
for a long time for small business people to make the agencies do their 
job. The cost will be negligible, their duty will be enhanced and they 
will be able to do a better job in the present circumstances.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, what I just heard is the gentleman 
disagrees with the CBO estimate.
  Mr. GEKAS. No.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman does not disagree with it?
  Mr. GEKAS. Not necessarily.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
estimate done by the CBO was collected from the agencies, agencies that 
do not want this legislation, agencies that probably have overinflated 
the costs as they estimate them to be.
  I will answer the gentleman's question; yes, the majority will 
appropriate the right amount of moneys to the agencies to do their job, 
which as we will show the gentleman tomorrow, in our ability to take 
fiscal responsibility we will make the agencies live within their 
budgets and probably small budgets.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Basically what the gentleman is telling me is that he is 
going to impose on the agencies additional work of yesterday's bill, 
the risk analysis, OK, and this bill, and yet not give them any 
manpower to do it with.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just finish that conversation a little bit. Yes, 
we are trying to impose on the agencies to do their job, as the 
Congress outlines it to be done and try to not impose these kinds of 
costs on small business people in America. That is what this regulatory 
reform is all about, is to take the burden off of the small businesses, 
off the American families, and put it on these regulatory agencies, and 
make them do their jobs and do them with a little common sense and with 
good science.
  Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is law. It was passed in 
1980, so that the Federal agencies would review the potential impact of 
new regulations on small businesses and consider that impact as 
regulations are promulgated. The problem is that the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act has no teeth in it, has not been used, and there is no 
way to enforce compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  H.R. 926 puts teeth into the act by allowing judicial review of 
agency compliance with it. Unfortunately, this bill only gives small 
businesses this 6 months to file these suits under the RFA.
  I am a small businessman, although I just sold my company a couple of 
months ago. I am intimately familiar with the regulatory burdens that 
are placed on our Nation's entrepreneurs. From the very day I opened up 
my business, and even before that day, I had to deal with regulators 
knocking on my door and piling on the paperwork. By experience as a 
small business owner I also know that 6 months is not long enough to 
adequately judge the impact of a regulation on a small business.
  Let me describe a small business to Members, as some of the lawyers 
on the other side of the aisle cannot seem to understand what a small 
business is. I will describe my small business to Members. As owner of 
that business when I was actively involved in that business, I was the 
janitor, the accountant, the lawyer, the person that practices before 
regulatory bodies. I was the counselor, I was the health care expert, I 
was the service technician, I was the trouble shooter and yes, I was a 
member of the NFIB, by the way, I was a member of the NFIB. But because 
I was having to work 12 to 18 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week to build 
a business, create jobs and realize my American dream, I did not get to 
read the NFIB bulletins every time they came into my office.
  What did get my attention was when the regulators came into my 
office, or when I read something in the paper of what new regulation 
the Federal Government is piling on top of me; then I would have loved 
to have had the opportunity to cause that agency to review the 
potential impact of a new regulation on me and my business. But I can 
guarantee Members it takes longer than 6 months, it takes longer than a 
year sometimes for small businesses to realize that these regulations 
are going to have an impact on them.
  But I think a year is a reasonable time, because maybe I only have a 
convention of the pest control industry once a year; maybe when this 
regulation is promulgated and I only have 6 months to go, I have not 
been to my convention and go to a seminar to tell me that there was 
this regulation imposed upon me, but within a year, I will have the 
opportunity or I should take the responsibility to read the NFIB 
bulletins, to go to the seminars held by my industry, to go to the 
conventions held by my industry, or maybe go to the local Pest Control 
Association's dinner that is held monthly and find out that this 
regulation is happening to me.
  Therefore, within that year I will have an opportunity to take 
advantage of this bill.
  In fact, many small businesses do not even know that a new regulation 
exists 6 months after it is in effect, much less know how it impacts 
their business. For the Regulatory Flexibility Act to function as it 
was intended back in 1980, I believe small businesses should have 1 
year to challenge regulation flexibility analysis, notwithstanding 
shorter deadlines currently under other laws. Only with an adequate 
time period to determine the effect of the new regulation and how it 
compares to an agency's review under the Regulatory Flexibility act 
will the purpose of the act be achieved: much needed flexibility and 
considerations for the impact regulations have on struggling small 
businesses.
                              {time}  1300

  Do not render meaningless the Reg Flex Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Ewing 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I wanted to go back to the issue of the 
cost of what we are doing here, and I understand the gentleman, as the 
majority whip, is familiar with the pay-as-you-go rules and the 
budgetary rules under which we operate here.
  There is a provision, language, on page 21 of the analysis of the CBO 
which says, ``Enactment of title I,'' and we are talking about title I 
now, not title II, ``of H.R. 926 could result in additional lawsuits 
against the Federal Government requesting judicial review of Federal 
agency compliance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. To the extent the additional lawsuits were successful and the 
plaintiffs were awarded attorneys' fees, enactment of H.R. 926 could 
result in additional direct spending because these fees are paid from 
the claims, judgment, and relief acts account.''
  Now, the question I want to pose to you, I heard the gentleman say 
that we get into the cost considerations of this bill under title II. 
It seems to me that that puts us into the cost considerations, and the 
pay-as-you-go rules, as I understand them, not under title II, but 
under title I.
  Has that issue been addressed? Was there a waiver of the rules to 
bring that issue, this bill, to the floor in light of that provision?
  [[Page H2417]] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate it, and I will yield to the chairman.
  I just want to know, I know the gentleman wants to protect the 
Federal Government from being sued by American citizens.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I mean, this is not disingenuous.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I will respond to the gentleman's statement.
  I know the gentleman wants to protect the Federal Government from 
being sued by small businesses and American citizens. I do not. I want 
the American citizens to have the opportunity to sue the Federal 
Government when they are imposing regulations.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I want to complete the statement that the gentleman from 
North Carolina began by reading the remainder of the paragraph which he 
omitted: ``CBO cannot estimate either the likelihood or the magnitude 
of the direct spending, because there is no basis for predicting either 
the outcome of possible litigation or the amount of potential 
compensation,'' meaning that when I said that the bulk of the argument 
that we are yet to engage will be in title II with respect to cost, 
this as to title I is a negligible item.
  Further, we are not certain as we stand here that even what they 
claim, that is, that the attorneys' fees would be payable, may not be 
payable at all when one sues the Federal Government. What statutes 
provide for the payment of attorneys' fees is not made clear here and 
does not cover all of the situations, and it still ends with saying 
there is no way to estimate it.
  But here is the real thing, this is what the gentleman from Texas 
said, if they do their job in the first place and they comply with the 
requirements of our analysis and they do the things that are necessary, 
the lawsuits will start to shrink. They will shrink from the number 
that exist today, because we will have predictability in the 
marketplace. The small businessman will know ahead of time if they do 
their job right, the agencies, what they may or may not do. So in time 
even these initial costs will be minimized.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I was planning to wait for a while to get into this debate, but the 
question has come up how do we know whether there is going to be 
litigation, how do we know there is going to be fees, because there are 
statutory provisions in our laws that say that Equal Access to Justice 
Act provides for that. We cannot sidestep that issue simply by saying 
we do not know whether there is going to be any litigation, and we do 
not know whether there is going to be any award of attorney's fees.
  In response to the majority whip, let me make it clear that my 
purpose is not in cutting off litigation against the Federal 
Government. My purpose is the same one that everybody else here has 
avowedly said they believe in which is getting to a balanced budget, 
and if we have pay-as-you-go rules and if we continuously bring bills 
to the floor which violate those pay-as-you-go rules and continue to 
mount additional responsibilities and burdens on the Government, then 
we are going to either get further and further away from a balanced 
budget or we are going to find some other ingenious way such as taking 
away school lunches or some other program to fund the balancing of the 
budget.
  I talked about the budget implications of this. It is clear to me 
that my Republican colleagues have no interest in complying with the 
pay-as-you-go rules, nor in balancing the budget, and so that is an 
issue that I am putting behind me. I want to go back to the amendment 
itself.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. On the budget issue now, especially with the words that 
the gentleman from Texas has said before, I know that the gentleman 
from North Carolina, I know him well, I know he represents his 
constituents better than anybody else in this House, of representing 
their constituents, you are one of the top ones representing your 
constituents, your small business people. There is no question about 
that.
  You have no trepidation at all about your citizens or any citizen of 
the United States filing suit against the Federal Government, do you?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is right.
  Mr. VOLKMER. None whatsoever? In fact, if they have been wronged, 
they should file suit against the Federal Government? Correct?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The only thing you are concerned about, and let me 
follow this up if I may before the gentleman interrupts again, I would 
appreciate it if the gentleman would let me finish this train of 
thought, when they do file suit and they win, they get their attorney's 
fees in most instances?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I certainly hope so.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Those attorney's fees come out of
   the Federal budget? Correct?

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. All you are saying to everybody in this House is we 
should not really legislate in a vacuum, because that is what is going 
on? They are legislating like this bill is the only thing that is 
before us and ignoring the implications of this bill on all other laws 
of the United States and how it works with those other laws?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, because we spent a 
lot of time talking about the budgetary impact of this. That is really 
not what is on the floor at this point. I got dragged into this budget 
debate kind of from the back side.
  Let me go back to the underlying amendment and debate the underlying 
amendment which is to extend the time from 180 days to 1 year for this 
litigation to take place which I would submit to the House relates in 
part to the litigation issue and the cost issue, because the longer 
people have to file lawsuits, the more likely they are likely to file 
lawsuits, and the more costly it can be.
  But that is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is 
that I thought the purpose of this bill was to get our agencies to make 
more humane regulations and rules and to be more sensitive about what 
they are doing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I would submit to you that where we are 
going with this is that you are making it impossible for agencies to 
promulgate any rules by extending this period of time that can have any 
degree of finality to them, and the objective that we are trying to get 
to is to get to a point where if a rule is promulgated, it can be 
determined what impact it has on a small business quickly. If the rule 
has an adverse impact on the small business, the small business ought 
to raise it quickly, and the Government ought to try to correct it 
quickly.
  If we stretch this process out for an entire year and allow 
businesses to wait 364\1/2\ days before they raise the issue, then we 
will never be able to get to any final rules that make sense or even in 
the context of the bill that you are talking about.
  So I think this expansion of the 180 days to 365 days, as opposed to 
contracting it to a shorter period of time, really points out to me the 
clear purpose that the underlying bill has, which is to do away with 
any kind of regulations and feeds this assumption that I started off 
making in the general debate that the assumption seems to be by the 
other side that every rule that a Federal agency makes is bad.
  I would remind my colleagues that every rule that a Federal 
Government agency makes is pursuant to a bill that the Congress of the 
United States has passed.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  [[Page H2418]] (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ewing 
amendment to H.R. 926.
  For too long, more than 15 years, regulations have been thumbing 
their noses at small business when it comes to issuing regulations. 
Many agencies have ignored the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they 
knew they could not be challenged in court for not considering small 
business and not complying with the act.
  The original intent of the Reg Flex Act was to help ease the 
regressive one-size-fits-all regulatory process. Regulators are 
supposed to analyze the impact of the regulations they produce on small 
business and take steps to modify these regulations by taking into 
account small business' limited resources. But, as I have stated, the 
regulators find a loophole, and regulations go out, regardless of the 
impact they may have on small business.
  The bill, H.R. 926, will do away with this never-mind attitude of 
Federal regulators by allowing judicial review and judicial 
enforcement. More importantly, the Ewing amendment will strengthen the 
judicial review component and recognize small business' special needs 
in addressing regulations.
  Furthermore, the Ewing amendment will give small business 1 year, 
notwithstanding any other law, to appeal a regulation if the Reg Flex 
Act was ignored. Some current rules and regulations, like OSHA and 
clean air, have as little as 30 to 60 days for appeal. To me, these 
time periods totally disregard small business' limited resources.
  I can't imagine any small business in my district being able to 
identify how a regulation impacts them in 30 days. In fact, I believe 
many small businesses would be hard pressed to know that a regulation 
has been put into effect in 30 to 60 days, let alone to even read the 
Federal Register.
  Mr. Chairman, past Congresses have totally ignored small business 
concerns with regulations. But this new Congress will stand up and 
listen to the job generators of this country.
  In my district, and many other districts across this Nation, small 
businesses are the consistent job creators.
  Simply put, small business is not equipped to deal with excessive 
regulations. Walk into any small business on main street and look for 
the accounting department or the legal department or the human 
resources division. You will not find them. Hence, the need for 
regulatory flexibility.
  This is why I support the Ewing amendment. It upholds the original 
intent of the Reg Flex Act--allowing small business flexibility in 
confronting regulations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Ewing amendment.

                              {time}  1315

  I also want to make note of the fact that there are letters from the 
chief of staff of the White House, Leon Panetta, dated October 7, 1994, 
upholding the kind of legislation that we are trying to pass, a letter 
dated October 8, 1994, from the President of the United States 
upholding the type of legislation we are trying to pass here; a letter 
from the administrator-designee dated October 8, 1994, upholding the 
type of legislation we are trying to pass, and a letter to Congressman 
Ewing from the Vice President of the United States which suggests 
strongly that he believes we are headed in the right direction in this 
legislation.


    expressing appreciation to the majority and minority leadership

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Foglietta was allowed to proceed out of 
order for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the leadership, 
specifically the Speaker and the majority leader, for adhering to a 
request I made on behalf of those of us who attend Mass at noon on 
today, Ash Wednesday, for suggesting to the Chair and debaters that no 
votes be called between 12 and 1 o'clock. I was able to get to Mass 
without missing the vote.
  I thank the chairman, the leadership, and the people who are involved 
in this debate.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to tell the gentleman that I appreciate his 
being able to attend Mass and get his ashes. I was here and was unable 
to perform that function which I would like to have performed.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I will tell the gentleman that there is another Mass 
at 6:30 p.m., this evening.
  Mr. VOLKMER. 6:30? I think we might still be here. That is the 
problem. We will have to wait and see. I appreciate the gentleman 
informing me of that.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood] in the letters that the gentleman read, is there 
any one of those that said that there should be 1 year in which to 
exercise judicial review of these functions, the certification and 
performing the regulatory flexibility requirements?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I would be happy to read the letters for the gentleman.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Do those letters say that one thing?
  Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, the first letter, from the Chief of 
Staff of the White House, Mr. Panetta, in a paragraph, he says that, 
``The nominee for Administrator of the Small Business Administration 
has been a principal champion of judicial review of `reg flex'.''
  Now, I have not read the entire letter, obviously. That is the letter 
from the Chief of Staff of the White House.
  From the President we have a letter dated October 8, 1994.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. LaHood was 
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. This letter I referred to is obviously last year's: 
``Toward that end, my Administration will continue to work with 
Congress and the small business community next year for enactment of a 
strong judicial review that will permit small businesses to challenge 
agencies and receive meaningful redress when agencies ignore the 
protections afforded by this statute.'' That is from the President of 
the United States, addressed to Senator Wallop, by the way.
  This is a letter, as I indicated, from the administrator-designee 
with similar language, which I would be happy to share.
  Another important letter is from the Vice President of the United 
States to Congressman Ewing in which he says, ``We remain committed to 
securing this important reform during the next Congress and will work 
with Congress for the enactment of strong judicial review for small 
businesses.''
  I have to assume by these letters that they know the Congress has 
good sense, with good legislators, and will adopt good amendments that, 
like that which Mr. Ewing has put forth here today, that will provide 
enough time for small business people of our districts
 to review these and have an opportunity to challenge them.

  I know we all appreciate the support from the administration and 
their designees.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I too agree with the thrust or the purpose of the 
legislation, just like those letters do. But I have a serious doubt as 
to whether or not you should extend the review period for this one 
purpose to 1 year and what effect that will have on small businesses as 
a result of that.
  The gentleman in his statement talked about the small businesses 
getting this impact on them by certain regulation, whatever that 
regulation may be, and then wanting to be able to review it. Well, 
gentlemen, most regulation, substantive regulation, is reviewable for 
most of them for a period of 90 days, that is all.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Reclaiming my time, as I said in my statement, there are 
some agencies that are as little as 30, and sometimes 60, days. The 
gentleman from Missouri knows as well as I do because we represent 
similar districts. 
[[Page H2419]] The small business people are basically people who 
employ 5, 10, 15 people. They work hard. They work long hours. They 
provide the jobs. They do not have time or the legal expertise to go 
through and figure out what kind of mandates or imprimaturs, or however 
you want to characterize the laws that we are passing on them. They 
need time.
  I am sure the gentleman from Missouri, having represented the same 
kind of district as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and myself, 
across Illinois and across Missouri, knows these small business people 
simply do not have the time. They are providing the jobs, they are 
working hard, they are working long hours to make a living.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LaHOOD. We heap all of these regulations on them, and they need 
the time. That is why the Ewing amendment is so important to them, to 
give them the time to do it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to point out to the gentleman and somehow I 
cannot seem to get across to the gentleman, and maybe not to anybody on 
the other side, that all you are giving to that small business on this 
extra time is a review of the provisions of this bill. That is all, not 
the substantive regulation.
  Mr. LaHOOD. That is all, that is right. That is right. That is why 
the gentleman should be voting for it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No, no. You are fooling the small business people.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I submit, all of the people of our districts, the small 
business people, would love for you to give them additional time to 
review these lousy regulations.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman is not doing that. That is my point to 
you. You are not giving them additional time to review the substance of 
the regulation. You stand there and act like it does.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I guess what it comes down to, then, I say to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], when it comes to the vote, he 
and I disagree on this, but the small business people, if we pass it, 
which I think we will, I believe that we will pass it, will then have 
the additional time they need.
  The letters referred to follow:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 7, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: Your particular question about the 
     Administration's position on judicial review of actions taken 
     under the Regulatory Flexibility Act has come to my 
     attention.
       As you have discussed with Senator Bumpers, the 
     Administration supports such judicial review of ``Reg Flex.''
       The Administration supports a strong judicial review 
     provision that will permit small businesses to challenge 
     agencies and receive meaningful redress when they choose to 
     ignore the protections afforded by this important statute.
       In fact, the National Performance Review endorsed this 
     policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the 
     regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states, 
     and other entities are reduced.
       Ironically, Phil Lader, our nominee for Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration (whose nomination was voted 
     favorably today by a 22-0 vote of the Senate Small Business 
     Committee) has been a principal champion of judicial review 
     of ``Reg Flex.'' In his capacity as Chairman of the Policy 
     Committee on the National Performance Review, Phil vigorously 
     advocated this position. I know that, if confirmed, as SBA 
     Administrator, he would join us in continued efforts to win 
     Congressional support for such judicial review.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
     Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 8, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: My Administration strongly supports 
     judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act, and I appreciate your leadership over the 
     past years in fighting for this reform on behalf of small 
     business owners.
       Although legislation establishing such review was not 
     enacted during the 103rd Congress, my Administration remains 
     committed to securing this very important reform. Toward that 
     end, my Administration will continue to work with the 
     Congress and the small business community next year for 
     enactment of a strong judicial review that will permit small 
     businesses to challenge agencies and receive meaningful 
     redress when agencies ignore the protections afforded by this 
     statute.
       As you know, the National Performance Review endorsed this 
     policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the 
     regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states, 
     and other entities are reduced.
       Again, thank you for your continued leadership in this 
     area.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____

                                                  October 8, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: The Administration supports strong 
     judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act that will permit small businesses to 
     challenge agencies and receive strong remedies when agencies 
     do not comply with the protections afforded by this important 
     statute.
       In fact, the National Performance Review publicly endorsed 
     this policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and 
     the regulatory and paperwork burdens on small businesses, 
     states, and other entities are reduced.
       As Chairman of the Policy Committee of the National 
     Performance Review, under Vice President Gore's leadership I 
     vigorously advocated this position. I have continued to 
     champion this policy within the Administration.
       If confirmed as Administrator of the U.S. Small Business 
     Administration, I will join the Congress and the small 
     business community in continued efforts to pass legislation 
     for such judicial review.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue to 
     small business.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Philip Lader,

                                          Administrator-Designate,
     U.S. Small Business Administration.
                                                                    ____



                                           The Vice President,

                                     Washington, November 1, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas W. Ewing,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ewing: Thank you for contacting me 
     regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
       As the President and I have made clear, we strongly support 
     judicial review of agency determinations rendered under the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act. We remain committed to securing 
     this important reform during the next Congress and will work 
     with Congress for the enactment of strong judicial review for 
     small businesses.
       We also understand that it will be important to continue 
     our work with small businesses to ensure that such an 
     amendment provides a sensible, reasonable, and rational 
     approach to judicial review, as recommended by the National 
     Performance Review. As you know, the National Performance 
     Review recommended that which was (and continues to be) 
     sought by the small business community--i.e., an amendment 
     that furthers the intent of the Act and reduces the paperwork 
     burdens on small businesses.
       The President and I look forward to working with Congress 
     on this matter and appreciate your leadership in this area.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Al Gore.

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us on both sides, at least the vast majority, 
believes judicial review is very, very important. That is a concept 
that has been embraced by both the majority and the minority and that 
forms the core of title I.
  But I think it is important to understand specifically what title I 
does and why this amendment, I do not think, aids in adequate judicial 
review. In fact, it might create a situation where the system can be 
exploited to get 1, 2, 3, bites of the apple rather than an efficient 
system which allows everyone--small business people, ordinary American 
citizens--to go ahead and make sure regulations are sensible.
  Judicial review is part of title I. It is triggered by a claim that 
procedurally the agency did not effectively institute a regulatory 
flexibility analysis. An agency director, when trying to promulgate 
regulations, must consider the impact on small business under the 
regulatory flexibility analysis or decide there is no significant 
impact and certify such a fact.
  At that point, when that decision is made under the present statute, 
an affected entity has 180 days to appeal. The remedy is a 
determination by the court whether or not the agency performed its 
procedural duty, i.e., it did confront the regulatory flexibility 
analysis or no such analysis was required.
  The problem with extending this time period for one year is the 
problem that was alluded to by my colleague 
[[Page H2420]] from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] that the substantive 
challenge to regulations, the actual regulations, those rules and 
regulations that the small business owners object to, when someone 
comes into their shop or business facility, those substantive 
regulations have to be challenged in a much shorter time period. 
Specific statutes allow 30, 60, 90 days.
  What this amendment would do is create the anomalous situation where 
a substantive challenge has already been made, it may have failed, yet 
still there is a procedural challenge simply on whether or not the 
agency performed the regulatory flexibility analysis.
  I would also like to point out to my colleagues that the specific 
language of the bill includes consideration of this regulatory 
flexibility analysis when regulations are challenged substantively in a 
court of law.
  On page 5, and I will quote, ``In an action for the judicial review 
of a rule,'' i.e., this rule is bad, it does not meet the substance, it 
fails the substance, it imposes undue costs on small business, we can 
do it a better way. In such a review on the merits, any regulatory 
flexibility analysis in such rule, including an analysis, pursuant to 
subsection A(5), ``shall constitute part of the whole record of agency 
action in connection with such review.''
  Therefore, a judge considering an appeal of a regulation, not just 
the procedure but, ``Are these regulations good or bad,'' as my 
colleague from Illinois pointed out, that is what small business people 
are alarmed with. They do not care about the procedure. They are 
listening to this debate and they are saying, ``What are we debating 
about? If regulation hurts me, I don't just want to go back and do a 
flexibility analysis and say let us do something along the way. I want 
to fix the regulation.''
  Well, this legislation, as it stands today, not only allows but makes 
part of the record of review the record of the flexibility analysis.
  So what I would suggest is that the 180-day limit here provides an 
adequate time to review that one procedural preliminary step. Failing 
that, there is ample opportunity throughout the process to decide 
whether or not the agency has conducted an adequate review and it 
published, more importantly, a rule.
  I just hasten to add, the bottom-line test for our constituents is 
not that we followed scrupulously and minutely all these turns in the 
regulatory process, the bottom line is do these regulations make sense 
in the context of the business?
  The point the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] tried to make is 
if they do not make sense, simply having this option out there for a 
year is not going to provide a remedy.
  The other point I would like to make about this process is that there 
is a real value to finality, there is a real value to having small 
business, medium business, large business, individuals, say at a date 
certain these are the regulations that are in effect.

       I am not going to invest in a $200,000 septic system or 
     water purification system and find out 30 or 60 days later 
     that the regulations have been challenged and clouded because 
     they failed to take a reg-flex step a month ago.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Reed was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would say to the gentleman that he has made an excellent point. He 
has laid out the argument beautifully, I think, and I appreciate his 
strong support for the bill even though we may disagree on the 
amendment.
  The point is that the statute of limitations in different statutes 
vary all over the place. So the 180 days does not match most of any of 
those. So you are still going to have the dual period.
  So the gentleman's argument there really does not hold water unless 
we are going to take it back and reduce the statute to whatever the 
underlying statute is.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, as the statute is drafted, as it exists 
today, it is 180 days or the lesser period allowed under substantive 
review statute. What we tried to do is to combine these judicial 
protests, reviews, appeals, into one or two at the moment, and not have 
an endless string of procedural delays.
  The other thing I would suggest also, and I think this is very 
important, is that we are very conscious of, and I know I think I speak 
for myself and the majority, we are conscious of the different time 
limits with respect to the statute. That is why we specifically include 
at page 5 making the regulator flexibility part of the record on final 
review.

                              {time}  1330

  Therefore, when someone comes in and challenges that rule, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has indicated he wants the Americans 
to be able to challenge rules, so do we, but we want to be able to do 
it efficiently in one forum so we can go ahead and get all the bang for 
the buck.
  So I think we have addressed the variable lengths of review in this 
language. I am every comfortable with it as written. I applaud the 
gentleman for trying to push it further. But as I indicated in my 
remarks, I think that will simply cost more money and be really an 
opportunity for exploiting the system, slowing things down, and I know 
the duty of what we have been sent here to do, get good regulations for 
people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Reed was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I think my response to those two points, and 
they are good points, is that we are still concerned about the small 
business who does not have notice. In the 90 days, the 180 days, the 60 
days, it is too short a notice. I would make it all 1 year. I would 
move it out so that we are friendly to our constituents and our 
taxpayers and our small business people. That is really where we ought 
to be headed, not drawing it back.
  What we have had is years of everything on the side of the regulator. 
Now it is time that the regulated have rights, and that is what we are 
trying to do here.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the sentiments of the 
gentleman. I believe the 180 days is a very reasonable, responsible 
balance between the view the gentleman proposed, whether is it multiple 
appeals for substantive challenges to the legislation or the procedural 
rule. And I believe if we stick to that we will be in good shape.


 amendment offered by mr. volkmer to the amendment offered by mr. ewing

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer to the amendment of Mr. 
     Ewing: Strike the words ``one year'' wherever they appear in 
     the amendment and insert in lieu thereof ``90 days''.

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
continue the dialog and try to point out to the members of the 
committee that what we are trying to do here is not take anything away 
from small business people, but to try to provide some total 
consistency in our whole legislation, in the laws that we have on the 
books.
  Now, it will not do completely that, because some of the substantive 
regulations must be appealed within less than 90 days. But this would 
mean that for those that provide substantive appeal within 90 days, you 
would have appeal on this question of procedure within the same 90 
days. That is basically what it is meaning to do.
  Now, I have heard here, it is almost like we are legislating this 
bill, and this bill does not have any impact on any of the law that we 
have on the books, nor do any of the laws that we have on the books 
have any impact on this bill if it becomes law.
  We cannot legislate in a vacuum. As a result, we must look to see 
what the other laws are that also apply to the process.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] has done a lot better that 
I 
[[Page H2421]] have. It was interesting to listen to the gentleman from 
Illinois in the well, the gentleman from Peoria, talk about the small 
businessman. He wants to get these regulators off his back because they 
are passing these regulations that are putting him out of business.
  The appeal provided in this bill does not do that. It does not have 
anything to do with that, not one solitary thing. And I do not 
understand people up here thinking that if you put a No. 1 on a 
blackboard, that really that is a No. 10. No. 1 is a No. 1. It is not a 
No. 10.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering what effect the 
gentleman's amendment would have on the current law that under the 
Sawtooth National Recreational Area statute, there are 180 days to 
appeal to the district court of Idaho. Just think about that for a 
minute. Then Panama Canal tolls, six years apply.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What does your 1 year do to the 6 years?
  Mr. GEKAS. We have to work on that. But immediately on the question 
of the small businessman, because there are very few businessmen that 
are involved in the Panama Canal tolls I am told, at any rate, the 
other one that we have here has 120 days, for instance. The 180 days 
that we have in the bill are commensurate with this, and the Ewing 
amendment has none of the ones that are already part of the law. Yours 
does. In shrinking to 90 days the Sawtooth capacity to appeal a rate 
flex, you are giving them only 90 days, where they now have 180 days on 
the substantive part.
  So you did not think it through.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Sawtooth Recreational Area, where is that? Sawtooth in 
Idaho. I feel sorry, but I will talk to the gentlewoman from Idaho and 
the gentleman from Idaho and maybe we can make a exclusion for them.
  Mr. GEKAS. I will tell them to vote against your amendment. The point 
is we want to oppose your amendment because it is mixing it up and 
confuses the issue more, even more than when you consider the Ewing 
one, which expands and allows the small businessman to have ample time 
to appeal something that impacts it.
  Are you for judicial review? You are?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Sure.
  Mr. GEKAS. We are all for judicial review. No matter what time we 
set, there is going to be this elongated period, even the gentleman 
will have to agree, to elongate the period within which the small 
businessman who is disaffected can seek redress. That is all we are 
trying to do.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Sure.
  Mr. GEKAS. We are all for judicial review. No matter what time we 
set, there is going to be this elongated period, even the gentleman 
will have to agree, to elongate the period within which the small 
businessman who is disaffected can seek redress. That is all we are 
trying to do.
  Mr. VOLKMER. What redress though?
  Mr. GEKAS. On a reflex portion of the procedural part. But why do you 
trivialize that? That annoys me, that you trivialize it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I am not trivializing it.
  Mr. GEKAS. In my judgment you do, and that is what the debate is all 
about.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman acts like I am 
trivializing it. I am not, because what I keep repeating is because I 
have heard it here during the debate, I have heard it here during the 
debate on this amendment, and I keep hearing that what we are going to 
do is we are going to stop these regulators by this bill of passing 
substantive regulation that impacts on small businesses.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
would just like to ask the gentleman under my reservation, how much 
more time do you guys anticipate spending on this amendment?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I really do not know. I mean, it is just not up to me. I 
am only one person. I would like to take the rest of my time. I may not 
take the full 5 minutes. I just asked for 5 minutes so I do not get cut 
off. I would like to make my speech.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, what I started to say is I continuously 
hear that with this legislation the small business people are not going 
to have to worry about regulators regulating their business any more, 
because they are going to have a year in which to appeal those 
regulations. That is a lot of hogwash. It is not true. Everybody admits 
it is not true. So why do we keep saying it?
  Well, sometimes we keep saying things to make small business people 
think they are going to get more than they are going to get out of this 
bill. They do not get any substantive review out of this bill. Let us 
admit it.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. I do not think you have heard one person get up and say 
that this affected substantive review. You are the one that is saying 
it. You are the one that is confusing the issue, sir, not us. You are 
the one. This only deals with appeal of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and its provisions, and no one on this side has said that it has 
anything to do with substantive.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that, it will go back to the 
other things that I talked about before, about substantive review, and 
most of that is within the 90 days, and that is the purpose of this 
amendment, to try and get some uniformity, rather than have the courts 
having cases. And I have said it before when we first discussed the 
gentleman from Illinois' amendment, that under this bill, and I am sure 
the Committee on Small Business never even considered, never even 
considered, any of these provisions. I have been told that the 
Committee on the Judiciary did not even talk about venue at all when 
they were discussing this legislation. It was not even discussed.
  Yet it now appears that you could have a multiplicity of lawsuits 
over just this one item, not over substantive review, and it can take 
place, if the gentleman from Illinois' amendment is passed, it can take 
place up to a year after the regulation has gone into effect.
  Now, stop and think about that for a minute. Does the gentleman, as 
the gentleman from Rhode Island has pointed out, you have had a case, 
XYZ company has appealed the regulation from EPA. It has been reviewed 
by XYZ company on the seventh circuit, fifth circuit, any circuit. It 
has been reviewed.
  They review this provision. They find that the regulators followed 
all procedures not only under this act, but under the law for which the 
regulation was proposed. That has been done. That takes place and the 
court of appeals handles that and hands down its decision within 9 
months.
  But that is not the end. That is no finality. Under the gentleman 
from Illinois' amendment, another private business, or 10 private 
businesses throughout this country, in different circuit courts, can 
file suit under this to say that it did not happen, that they did not 
follow this act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and they could get a 
stay. Under this bill they can get a stay of the total regulation, even 
though another circuit court had said that everything was fine.
  That is what you have, the total under the bill. You cannot legislate 
in a vacuum, and that is what is occurring here.
  We are also, like I said before, as far as the budgetary matters, I 
have not heard anyone yet say how you are going to pay for all this, 
but I have heard that maybe we are going to make sure that the 
regulators live within the money we are going to give them, which 
basically means that you are going to do the job whether we give you 
the money or not. And that is not the way it works, folks. I think you 
[[Page H2422]] better stop and realize if you are going to impose a 
whole bunch of additional duties and responsibilities on people, you 
have to expect to give them a little bit to help them out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the Committee on the Judiciary for 
the work on this bill. It is a very important and vital piece of 
legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing] for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  I have some personal experience with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and how it operates in the agencies from the time I worked with Vice 
President Quayle at the Competitiveness Council. Often times the impact 
statements were a pro forma matter. The agency would use boiler plate 
and never really consider the impact on the small businessmen.
  In fact, regulations almost always have a disproportionate burden for 
small businesses because they do not have the capital, the resources in 
terms of personnel, to be able to comply with all of the different 
requirements of those regulations. So this act is very important to 
protect them, and we cannot allow the agencies to ignore its 
provisions, which they have for years now.
  I also think it is vitally important that small businesses be given 
adequate time to seek their remedies in court, because unlike large 
corporations, they do not have large in-house corporate counsel staff 
who can monitor these regulations.

                              {time}  1345

  They have to wait until they are finally enacted and promulgated and 
start to apply to them. They may get lucky if someone brings it to 
their attention that there is a problem with one of these regulations 
during the time of the year when they are trying very hard to keep 
their small business operating, employing new individuals and producing 
a product without the benefit of a huge corporate legal staff.
  I think it is very important that we have this amendment. The 
National Federation of Independent Businesses has keynoted this 
amendment and believes it is critical for small businesses everywhere. 
I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], for offering it. I 
would urge that it be kept at the full year in order to give small 
businesses adequate time to be able to respond to these situations.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. I will try 
not to speak very long. The distinguished gentlewoman who chairs the 
Committee on Small Business is not here, and I cannot say I speak for 
her or I speak for the committee, but I would just like to make a 
couple of comments that I think might summarize the views of the 
committee which, again, unanimously supported this legislation.
  First of all, we have been talking here about procedure and 
substance. And I guess when you get into a bill like this which lawyers 
have worked on, you talk about things like that. Of course, the bill is 
procedural in the sense that it is part of administrative procedure. 
But it has a very important substantive, real impact on real small 
business people in the real world. Let us not argue over whether it is 
substantive or procedural. The point is, this change in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act is of very great importance in helping real small 
business people produce goods and services and produce the jobs on 
which the economy depends.
  What it basically says is it represents the verdict of the Congress 
in the last 14 years in which we have recognized that what we tried to 
do in 1980 has not worked because the agencies have basically ignored 
it. What we said in 1980 was, look, when you are passing a regulation, 
do it in the way that is the least burdensome and the least intrusive 
on small business. And they have not done that, Mr. Chairman.
  They have not done that because there has been no procedure in the 
review. What the bill does is say, basically say, courts may review the 
agency decision as to whether it needed a regulatory flexibility 
analysis and, second, if it issued one, whether the agency was what the 
lawyers call arbitrary and capricious in deciding that its regulation 
could not have been done in a way that was less burden on small 
business. That is a real standard of review.
  It has real teeth. It means that agencies out there are going to be 
doing things in ways that cost fewer jobs, that create more opportunity 
for more small business people and, therefore, for more Americans.
  The point I want to make is whether it is procedural or substantive, 
and I respect the gentleman here for arguing that point from the 
standpoint of this amendment, it is very important to people. I wanted 
to reaffirm that.
  As to the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, I read what he is 
saying as basically saying this. If for some reason or other a small 
business person, either because they inadvertently or they sleep on 
their rights or they, for good reason or bad reason, they do not 
challenge the rule in a way that other statutes allow them to challenge 
the rule within 180 days, they still have another 180 days to raise 
these appeals under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It gives them a 
little extra leeway under this particular provision.
  I think the gentleman is doing it because this probably alone among 
all the protections in the Administrative Procedures Act applies only 
to small business people. Small business people maybe are less able 
than larger businesses to recognize when their rights may be at stake 
and to file suit. I think is a reasonable change.
  Personally, I am going to support it. The point I wanted to make is 
whether you call this bill procedural or substantive, it is an 
important bill that creates real extra opportunity in jobs, in growth 
for real people out there and harmonizes our regulatory statutes to 
some degree with the spirit of enterprise and the spirit of America.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Ewing amendment. I think for years we have 
been in the face of small business. I think it is time that we lighten 
up a little bit. I think it makes good common sense, and we should 
support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Does the gentleman withdraw his point of order?
  Does the gentleman withdraw his request for a recorded vote?
  Mr. EWING. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request for a recorded vote is withdrawn.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the Chair 
questioned whether I had withdrawn my point of order on a quorum call. 
No, unless the Chair is going to grant me a vote. I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asked if the gentleman wanted to withdraw his 
request.
  Mr. EWING. I though the Chair was going to grant the vote on the 
amendment, the recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is renewing his request for a recorded 
vote.
  Mr. EWING. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his point of no quorum?
  Mr. EWING. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 5, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H2423]]

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               AYES--420

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

                                NOES--5

     Andrews
     Ford
     McKinney
     Nadler
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Collins (IL)
     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Johnston
     Moakley
     Rush
     Waters

                              {time}  1410

  Messrs. LUCAS, CLEMENT, and OWENS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title I?


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 2, 
     line 23, after the word ``analysis.'' insert the following: 
     ``The United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any such 
     action.''

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for laying the factual backdrop for this debate 
on this amendment.
  I believe the result of the earlier debate on the amendment that was 
just voted on will substantially shorten the period that will be 
necessary for people to understand this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in that earlier debate, it was very obvious that there 
are two kinds of court litigations that can take place dealing with 
rules and regulations that have been promulgated by a Federal agency. 
One has to do with the substance of the regulation itself, in which 
case that litigation can take place in whatever timeframe it needs to 
take place, and can deal with whether a regulation is a good regulation 
or a bad regulation, or has some substantive impact on the small 
business.

                              {time}  1415

  The second kind of litigation would be the kind of litigation that is 
contemplated under this bill, and that is, in effect, a procedural kind 
of litigation.
  Under title I of the bill, and you have got to listen and review the 
words carefully, the agency is required to certify that any rule that 
it promulgates would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities or that they have prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 604 of the law.
  If the agency so certifies, or if they do not prepare this final 
regulatory flexibility analysis, then a small business is given the 
right to go into court and ask the court to force them to do one of 
those two things.
  This has nothing to do with the substance of the regulation. What it 
has to do with is whether the agency has certified that the rule that 
they have promulgated would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, or whether the agency has 
prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
  The effect of my amendment would be to make that
   determination on the procedural issue, whether the agency has 
complied with those two requirements, a question that would be 
determined in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

  This is not--I repeat, this is not, please listen, Members--this is 
not on the substance of regulations. This is on the procedural question 
of whether the agency has made a certification that is contemplated 
under this bill.
  Why do I offer this amendment? If we do not have this amendment, what 
we could conceivably have is litigation throughout the United States, 
in the District courts of North Carolina, California, New York, Idaho, 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico. All over our Nation we could have this single 
question being litigated by different businesspeople.
  One court in North Carolina might say, ``Oh, yes, the agency has 
complied with this procedural requirement.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The court in California might issue a 
different ruling that says, ``Oh, no, the agency has not complied.'' We 
might have 50 different, 100 different, 1,000 different pieces of 
litigation going on on 
[[Page H2424]] the same issue, the agency required to defend in all of 
these different locations, use its resources to defend litigation all 
over the country on the same single issue, and the court system will 
not even have a way to determine whether they are entering inconsistent 
determinations.
  On the question of the procedure itself, not on the substance of 
whether it is a good or bad regulation, that issue ought to be 
litigated in one particular court. It will do away with the 
proliferation of litigation. It will provide for a consistent 
determination on this one issue by one court, and then the agency can 
either move on, go back and revise or do what it is supposed to do 
under this bill, and there will not be this proliferation of 
litigation.
  I think this amendment makes patently good sense. I will not browbeat 
this issue to death. But I would ask my colleagues to agree.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. REED. The gentleman from North Carolina has raised a very 
excellent point and I think it goes to making the system more 
efficient, more predictable, and more comprehensible. If there are 
opportunities to challenge regulations, and we are just talking about 
the procedure for doing a regulatory flexibility analysis throughout 
the country, you would have various conclusions and also, frankly, you 
would be requiring to send agency lawyers from Washington all around 
the country, which the taxpayers are paying, when in fact they could 
simply take their own vehicle or a cab or a subway to the district 
court here in Washington and litigate this issue.
  Again, we have to recognize what we are talking about here is not the 
substance of any of these rules. We are talking about a determination 
of whether the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously in not doing a 
regulatory flexibility analysis or in doing one that was so 
insufficient that it demonstrated such arbitrary and capricious 
behavior. I think this amendment is a wise one. I would hope that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania might accept it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, it will 
not be only the agency's attorneys that will be all over the country. 
The Justice Department will get involved in this under section 102. The 
SBA's counsel will be involved in it, is entitled to be involved in it.
  We could be creating a substantial nightmare all across the country 
on a single simple procedural issue. I hope they will agree.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, not only will I not agree to the amendment, 
I, as forcefully as I can, urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  What I have heard last to come out of the arguments both from the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] is we have got to convenience the Justice 
Department and agency lawyers so they can walk to the District Court to 
defend these suits while at the same time the corollary being that the 
small hardware store owner from Boise, ID, has to come to D.C. to make 
his rights heard. Or the restaurant owner from Sacramento has to come 
to Washington, DC, to seek justice and access to the court, or his 
lawyers would have to.
  Again, we see a pattern here, and this is very important, of again 
looking at the rights of the agencies on whom we are imposing these 
duties while at the same time not conveniencing or looking to the 
rights of the small businessman who is affected.
  As to the substance of Mr. Watt's referral to the different results 
or different postures that these cases might take in different parts of 
the national scene, well, that is the law now in so many different 
respects. Some of the underlying statutes in which judicial review is 
accorded substantively simply states that the place for, just to give 
an example, the place for appeal for bank holding company act 
regulations is the court of appeals. Another one to the district court.
  If under the gentleman's proposal we were consistent, as he wants us 
to be, on how we are going to do these kinds of appeals, we would have 
everything in D.C., and all the agencies would have to do is walk 
across the street, and there would be nothing for the district courts 
anyplace or the circuit courts or the courts of appeals to do anyplace 
else. It is a bad idea.
  In my judgment, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] either 
affirmatively or by inadvertence is committing legicide; he is killing 
the bill, because what happens is that the small businessman will 
become even more remote from his day in court. The small businessman 
under this will have nothing to do with the possibility of carrying his 
complaint to the seat of Government in Washington while esconced in 
triple redtape in New Mexico, or in Oregon.
  I really urge the Members to reject this amendment out of hand. Let's 
get a vote.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. The gentleman makes a point, a suggestion that our interest 
is to protect in some way the bureaucrats. That is not the point at 
all. I think the gentleman realizes that those small businesspeople out 
in Iowa and throughout this country pay the taxes that support this 
Government and that will be called upon to send these individuals 
around the country to argue these disputes.
  The other point I would raise, because the gentleman brought up the 
Bank Holding Company Act, there is an example where a small 
businessman, perhaps, might want to challenge a regulation, any type of 
regulation, and yet he would have to go, or she would have to go to the 
location of the Federal court of appeals, which we only have seven 
circuits. They are not in every community.
  What the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is suggesting to 
do, I think, is a cost-efficient, sensible approach to make sure that 
we can save taxpayers' dollars; we can get one resolution.
  Again, I remind all of the Members that we are talking about now a 
check on whether this flexibility analysis is done. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this particular overall bill comes out 
of the Committee on Small Business and as a Member of the Committee on 
Small Business, I see an advantage to this, particularly as we were 
looking at providing judicial review.
  It seems like what the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has 
proposed is to perfect the bill. A careful reading of your bill would 
suggest that without his amendment, you would not achieve the very 
thing you want to achieve. That is, efficiency for small business.
  Usually small businesses are not all the time represented by the 
individual entity themselves but represented by associations of that. 
There is an economy of savings, if people knew for certain where they 
were to make the procedure that not only imparts for the Government but 
also those who bring it, the plaintiff, who are charging the 
administrative rule.
  I would like the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] just to 
explain what his intent of savings was for those who are bringing the 
complaint in the first place.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding.
  Let me just respond to the implication that this is somehow designed 
to disadvantage small businesses.
  I cannot think of anything that would disadvantage small businesses 
more than for 1,000 individual small businesses to be around the United 
States litigating the same procedural issue that could be decided in 
one location in 1 day. I mean, either the agency has done what it is 
supposed to do under this bill, which is certify it, make the 
certification, or prepared the regulatory flexibility statement, or it 
has not.
  We do not need 1,000 different small businesses using their resources 
in different courts throughout the United States to make that kind of 
determination.
  The suggestion that I am trying to disadvantage small businesses just 
does 
[[Page H2425]] not compute with me. Either the gentleman does not 
understand the impact of my amendment or he does not understand the 
impact of his own bill.
  The bill has nothing to do with the underlying regulation itself. It 
has to do with whether an agency has certified two things, and that is 
what the litigation would be about.
  I want to make sure that the gentleman understands and that we put 
this in perspective. What would the gentleman suggest that we do, that 
an agency do if one court in California said, ``You have not done what 
you are supposed to do under this statute'' and another court in New 
York says, ``You have done what you're supposed to do under the 
statute''? Then what would the agency do under those circumstances?
  Mr. GEKAS. Would the gentlewoman yield so I can respond to that 
question?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  It would occur just as it now occurs under the law of the courts, in 
which in many circumstances when four district courts simultaneously 
are handling an issue, sometimes the one who gets it first and is 
acting on it first will act as an estoppel for the rest until that 
decision is made.
                              {time}  1430

  That is one recourse that is now available.
  Second, it is possible in certain different kinds of issues with the 
same being involved in different areas of the country that they can 
join the case. That happens day after day and the gentleman knows it. 
There is no different aspect to this.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentlewoman would yield, why would 
we want to put small businesses to that expense when one small business 
could litigate the issue of whether this kind of certification has been 
made or whether final regulatory flexibility analysis has been issued 
by the agency, why would we want to put 2,000 small businesses to that 
expense of trying to consolidate cases, and pull this together when one 
determination by a court would be adequate?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, a cluster of small businessmen in 
Idaho or all over the country under our bill have to go to the court 
that is mentioned in the underlying judicial review statute on 
substantive issues, even for reflection accord, and they would have the 
same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous 
consent, Mrs. Clayton was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, they would have the same aspect of jointure 
of the appeals or the estoppel that would apply if one court wanted to 
wrangle with the issues first and then the other courts would follow 
suit. All those things fall into place. And to force this group of 
Idaho businessmen to come to Washington is not in the best interests of 
the courts, which then makes D.C. courts swamped. Here is a D.C. court 
then that if we walk across the street we cannot get in the door, it is 
so crowded.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentlewoman will yield, I do not 
know how one lawsuit in the District of Columbia is going to swamp the 
District of Columbia District Court, because once one lawsuit is filed 
in the District of Columbia, this determination can be made in that 
lawsuit for the whole Nation. We are not going to need all of these 
different groups coming in here to make that determination.
  Let me just say I have no intention of requesting a recorded vote on 
this. I hope the American business people and the American people are 
listening, because what you are doing makes absolutely no sense. On a 
procedural issue, we are going to tax and use the resources of business 
people all across America simply because my colleagues here will not 
even read their own bill and understand what their own bill provides 
for, and what this simple, straightforward amendment would do in terms 
of cost savings.
  Now we talk about how the American people are disgusted with what we 
are doing here. If the American people are looking at this, they ought 
to be disgusted, and in the bill we come out with, the American people 
are going to get exactly what they deserve. I have no intention of 
asking for a recorded vote on this. You all can vote it down, if you do 
not want your bill to improve; let us leave it disgusting and costly to 
the American taxpayers, and to small businesses, and you go out there 
and tell them why you wrote such a shoddy piece of legislation.
  Mr. GEKAS. I will, thank you.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Let me just conclude to say that this is I think an 
opportunity to perfect a bill and we should take the opportunity to do 
that. Sometimes we are so anxious to say that our original drafting is 
perfect, we do not even consider things. I think this is an opportunity 
to perfect the bill, to achieve the very goals you want to.
  Again I say I come from the Small Business Committee and voted for 
this and hope to vote for the final version. This is an opportunity to 
make sure that cost efficiency works both for small business as well as 
for the Government. It consolidates our efforts in doing this and I 
urge Members to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was rejected.


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Strike 
     from page 6, line 24 through page 7, line 11 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following language:
       ``(4) Special rule.--No proposed rules issued by an 
     appropriate federal banking agency (as that term is defined 
     in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813(q)), the National Credit Union Administration, or 
     the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, shall be 
     subject to the requirements of this subsection.''

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, again, I will not belabor 
this. It is quite obvious that my colleagues here have no interest in 
improving this bill. They are just marching right straight down the 
line, and I will make the point in this amendment that what we are 
trying to do is exempt Federal banking agencies from the provisions of 
this bill. They exempt them for monetary policy issues.
  I submit to my colleagues that there are issues that banking 
regulators, Federal banking agencies deal with that are equally as 
important to small businesses as monetary policy issues. There are 
issues that have to do with assuring that banks are investing and 
lending without discrimination. There are issues having to do with the 
Community Reinvestment Act. There are a number, a range of issues that 
have an equal footing, and I submit that these issues should be 
exempted from the effect of this bill on the same basis that the 
monetary policy issues are exempted.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to vote no to reject the thrust of 
this amendment and to vote no in final consideration of this amendment.
  We have made it abundantly clear from the very beginning, and I say 
this advisedly to the gentleman from North Carolina, if I could have 
his attention in the preliminary remarks I want to make here, the 
gentleman from North Carolina seems to express rather forcefully and 
implies very strongly that somehow we are bound to go straight down the 
line, as he says, as if we are commanded to do certain things. He 
overlooks or denigrates then the sense of cooperation that the 
gentleman from Rhode Island and I have tried to put into this, 
recognizing Democrat amendments, working to put things together. I want 
him to know that, that his accusation, if that is what it is, or 
whatever implication he wants to have people derive from it, that 
somehow we are going to do the orders of somebody without regard to the 
Democrats or the minority is dead wrong, and I want him to know that, 
No. 1.
  [[Page H2426]] Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the 
gentleman yield on that issue?
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If I denigrated the hard work of the 
gentlemen, minority or majority on this bill, I had no intention of 
doing that. But you cannot stop in the middle of the process and say we 
have got a product that is perfect in the legislative process, and quit 
trying to work on it and put your blindfolds on and keep marching down 
the road without improving the bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Reclaiming my time, there has been nothing perfect on this 
floor since I have been here except when they extended congratulations 
to me on one of my birthdays; that is about the only thing.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, very briefly I would like to make a point 
in keeping with the point the gentleman made that this particular 
provision which the gentleman from North Carolina seeks to amend was 
added in the Small Business Committee and carefully worked out by 
Members on both sides of the aisle and adopted by consensus. So I just 
want to emphasize the point the gentleman made, this was the result of 
a bipartisan agreement in the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. GEKAS. I just want to point out for the record and so the Members 
would recognize where we are on this, that we acceded to the banking 
exception and we did on the strength largely of the assertions by the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], who was very much concerned that the 
safety and soundness portions of fiscal policy would be affected 
adversely if they would have to comply with the text of our bill. So we 
narrowly exempted those kinds of rules and regulations that would be 
couched in that soundness of the fiscal policy out of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services. But the gentleman who is the chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services agrees with us, that 
all other regulations, banks, and financial institutions should be 
subject to the thrust of our main bill for the protection of the small 
businessman and the consumer and the taxpayer, and the workers who work 
for small business who are affected adversely by the impact of some of 
these regulations.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on 
that point?
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just want to make it clear that I would 
submit to the gentleman that working out a deal on this with the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or even 
with the bank regulators themselves does not get the people who are 
adversely affected by this. They are the poor people who did not have a 
representative in that room.
  Mr. GEKAS. Reclaiming my time, two members of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services from the gentleman's side who are 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary concurred in what we are 
trying to do here, so they who have historically--and I will discuss 
this with the gentleman afterwards--have always taken into account 
these concerns the gentleman has expressed here, also agreed that these 
would be proper exemptions to the exemption.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I offered 
this amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary and, as I recall, 
everybody on our side voted in favor of this amendment in the 
committee.
  Mr. GEKAS. The majority prevailed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was rejected.


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 2, 
     line 7, insert ``(1)'' after ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)'' after 
     ``611''.
       Page 2, strike line 9.
       Page 2, line 2, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 4, line 24, insert close quotation marks after the 
     period and a period following and insert after line 24 the 
     following:
       (2) Section 611(c) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       Page 5, line 1, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 5, line 5, insert close quotation marks and a period 
     following and after line 5 insert the following:
       (3) At the end of section 611(c) of title 5, United States 
     Code, insert the following:
       Page 5, line 6, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a very 
simple purpose.
  It is designed to ensure that we do not inadvertently create a right 
of judicial review for issues and entities other than those set out 
with great particularity in title I.
  The right to judicial review in title I is intended to protect the 
right of small entities to have their interests considered during the 
development of a rule.
  If an agency improperly certifies that a rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
or fails to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis that is 
required under section 604 of title 5, an effected small entity would 
have the right to seek judicial relief within the framework established 
by title I.
  I know that the committee did not intend to create a right of relief 
that goes beyond the text of the bill, but I fear that may be the 
unintended consequence if we pass this legislation, as drafted.
  This problem is the result of the drafters' decision to replace 
current section 611(a) of title 5, which states that a determination by 
an agency concerning the applicability of any of the provisions of this 
chapter to any action of the agency shall not be subject to judicial 
review, except as otherwise provided later in the section.
  If we retain that provision and style the remainder of the text of 
title I as an exception to the rule against judicial review, we will 
make absolutely clear that the right to judicial review and the 
remedies described in title I are the limits of what Congress intends 
to provide in the way of judicial review.
  This is not an academic point.
  Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency's duties are not 
limited to those activities for which a right of judicial review is 
explicitly described in title I.
  For example, section 602(a) of title 5, which is part of the act, 
requires each agency to publish a ``regulatory flexibility agenda'' 
during the months of October and April of each year.

       [The semi-annual Reg/Flex ``Agenda'' is to contain a brief 
     description of the subject of any rule under consideration 
     which is likely to require a regulatory flexibility analysis; 
     the objectives and legal basis for the rule; and an 
     approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for 
     which the agency has issued a general notice of rulemaking. 
     However, an agency is neither required, nor precluded from 
     considering or acting on any matter either listed or not 
     listed on the Agency's agenda.]

  Also part of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 is section 610 of 
title 5, United States Code, which requires the agencies to conduct 
periodic reviews of its rules.
  While I am quite sure that the committee did not intend to provide 
judicial review of agency decisions under these sections, the way the 
legislation is drafted, a court would have no way of knowing that was 
the case.
  Indeed, because this legislation drops the general restriction on 
judicial review, we could wind up with the courts declaring that the 
right of judicial review of matters not specifically dealt with in 
title I is even more expansive than the approach established by title 
I.
  There is absolutely no reason for the House to pass this legislation 
without having resolved this ambiguity.
  My amendment would retain the current text of section 661(a) and make 
the judicial review provisions of title I an exception to the general 
rule against judicial review.
                      [[Page H2427]] {time}  1445

  I have no anticipation that anybody is going to worry about this, and 
we are going to go ahead and pass this bill like it is. I have no 
intention of requesting a recorded vote. If you want to leave this like 
it is, leave it ambiguous, then vote against the amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  We oppose the amendment, and we ask all the Members to oppose it, to 
vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I? If not, the 
Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                  TITLE II--REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 551 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (13), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting a 
     semicolon, and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) `major rule' means any rule subject to section 
     553(c) that is likely to result in--
       ``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $50,000,000 or 
     more;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
     agencies, or geographic regions, or
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; and
       ``(16) `Director' means the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget.''.

     SEC. 202. RULEMAKING NOTICES FOR MAJOR RULES.

       Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Each agency shall for a proposed major rule 
     publish in the Federal Register, at least 90 days before the 
     date of publication of the general notice required under 
     subsection (b), a notice of intent to engage in rulemaking.
       ``(2) A notice under paragraph (1) for a proposed major 
     rule shall include, to the extent possible, the information 
     required to be included in a regulatory impact analysis for 
     the rule under subsection (i)(4) (B) and (D).
       ``(3) For a major rule proposed by an agency, the head of 
     the agency shall include in a general notice under subsection 
     (b), a preliminary regulatory impact analysis for the rule 
     prepared in accordance with subsection (i).
       ``(4) For a final major rule, the agency shall include with 
     the statement of basis and purpose--
       ``(A) a final regulatory impact analysis of the rule in 
     accordance with subsection (i); and
       ``(B) a clear delineation of all changes in the information 
     included in the final regulatory impact analysis under 
     subsection (i) from any such information that was included in 
     the notice for the rule under subsection (b).''.
     SEC. 203. HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED RULES; AND 
                   EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD.

       (a) Hearing Requirement.--Section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 202, is further amended by 
     adding after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) If more than 100 interested persons acting 
     individually submit request for a hearing to an agency 
     regarding any rule proposed by the agency, the agency shall 
     hold such a hearing on the proposed rule.''.
       (b) Extension of Comment Period.--Section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), is further 
     amended by adding after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) If during the 90-day period beginning on the date of 
     publication of a notice under subsection (f) for a proposed 
     major rule, or if during the period beginning on the date of 
     publication or service of notice required by subsection (b) 
     for a proposed rule, more than 100 persons individually 
     contact the agency to request an extension of the period for 
     making submissions under subsection (c) pursuant to the 
     notice, the agency--
       ``(1) shall provide an additional 30-day period for making 
     those submissions; and
       ``(2) may not adopt the rule until after the additional 
     period.''.
       (c) Response to Comments.--Section 553(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Each agency shall publish in the Federal Register, 
     with each rule published under section 552(a)(1)(D), 
     responses to the substance of the comments received by the 
     agency regarding the rule.''.

     SEC. 204. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS.

       Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 203, is amended by adding after subsection (h) the 
     following:
       ``(i)(1) Each agency shall, in connection with every major 
     rule, prepare, and, to the extent permitted by law, consider, 
     a regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis may be combined 
     with any regulatory flexibility analysis performed under 
     sections 603 and 604.
       ``(2) Each agency shall initially determine whether a rule 
     it intends to propose or issue is a major rule. The Director 
     shall have authority to order a rule to be treated as a major 
     rule and to require any set of related rules to be considered 
     together as a major rule.
       ``(3) Except as provided in subsection (j), agencies shall 
     prepare--
       ``(A) a preliminary regulatory impact analysis, which shall 
     be transmitted, along with a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
     to the Director at least 60 days prior to the publication of 
     notice of proposed rulemaking, and
       ``(B) a final regulatory impact analysis, which shall be 
     transmitted along with the final rule at least 30 days prior 
     to the publication of a major rule.
       ``(4) Each preliminary and final regulatory impact analysis 
     shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) A description of the potential benefits of the rule, 
     including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in 
     monetary terms and the identification of those likely to 
     receive the benefits.
       ``(B) An explanation of the necessity, legal authority, and 
     reasonableness of the rule and a description of the condition 
     that the rule is to address.
       ``(C) A description of the potential costs of the rule, 
     including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in 
     monetary terms, and the identification of those likely to 
     bear the costs.
       ``(D) An analysis of alternative approaches, including 
     market based mechanisms, that could substantially achieve the 
     same regulatory goal at a lower cost and an explanation of 
     the reasons why such alternative approaches were not adopted, 
     together with a demonstration that the rule provides for the 
     last costly approach.
       ``(E) A statement that the rule does not conflict with, or 
     duplicate, any other rule or a statement of the reasons why 
     such a conflict or duplication exists.
       ``(F) A statement of whether the rule will require on-site 
     inspections or whether persons will be required by the rule 
     to maintain any records which will be subject to inspection.
       ``(G) An estimate of the costs to the agency for 
     implementation and enforcement of the rule and of whether the 
     agency can be reasonably expected to implement the rule with 
     the current level of appropriations.
       ``(5)(A) the Director is authorized to review and prepare 
     comments on any preliminary or final regulatory impact 
     analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, or final rule based 
     on the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(B) Upon the request of the Director, an agency shall 
     consult with the Director concerning the review of a 
     preliminary impact analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking 
     and shall refrain from publishing its preliminary regulatory 
     impact analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking until such 
     review is concluded. The Director's review may
      not take longer than 90 days after the date of the request 
     of the Director.
       ``(6)(A) An agency may not adopt a major rule unless the 
     final regulatory impact analysis for the rule is approved or 
     commented upon in writing by the Director or by an individual 
     designated by the Director for that purpose.
       ``(B) Upon receiving notice that the Director intends to 
     comment in writing with respect to any final regulatory 
     impact analysis or final rule, the agency shall refrain from 
     publishing its final regulatory impact analysis or final rule 
     until the agency has responded to the Director's comments and 
     incorporated those comments in the agency's response in the 
     rulemaking file. If the Director fails to make such comments 
     in writing with respect to any final regulatory impact 
     analysis or final rule within 90 days of the date the 
     Director gives such notice, the agency may publish such final 
     regulatory impact analysis or final rule.
       ``(7) Notwithstanding section 551(16), for purposes of this 
     subsection with regard to any rule proposed or issued by an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency (as that term is defined 
     in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813(q)), the National Credit Union Administration, or 
     the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the term 
     `Director' means the head of such agency, Administration, or 
     Office.''.

     SEC. 205. STANDARD OF CLARITY.

       Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as amended in 
     section 204, is amended by adding after subsection (i) the 
     following:
       ``(j) To the extent practicable, the head of an agency 
     shall seek to ensure that any proposed major rule or 
     regulatory impact analysis of such a rule is written in a 
     reasonably simple and understandable manner and provides 
     adequate notice of the content of the rule to affected 
     persons.''.

     SEC. 206. EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 205, is further amended by adding after subsection 
     (j) the following:
       ``(k)(1) The provisions of this section regarding major 
     rules shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any regulation that responds to an emergency 
     situation if such regulation is reported to the Director as 
     soon as is practicable;
       ``(B) any regulation for which consideration under the 
     procedures of this section would conflict with deadlines 
     imposed by statute or by judicial order; and
       ``(C) any regulation proposed or issued in connection with 
     the implementation of monetary policy or to ensure the safety 
     and soundness of federally insured depository institutions, 
     any affiliate of such institution, credit unions, or 
     government sponsored housing enterprises regulated by the 
     Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

     A regulation described in subparagraph (B) shall be reported 
     to the Director with a brief explanation of the conflict and 
     the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall, to the 
     extent permitted by statutory or judicial deadlines, adhere 
     to the process of this section.
       [[Page H2428]] ``(2) The Director may in accordance with 
     the purposes of this section exempt any class or category of 
     regulations from any or all requirements of this section.''.

     SEC. 207. REPORT.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     submit a report to the Congress no later than 24 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act containing an analysis 
     of rulemaking procedures of Federal agencies and an analysis 
     of the impact of those rulemaking procedures on the regulated 
     public and regulatory process.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 16, after line 18, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 208.

       Effective Date.--The amendment made by this title shall 
     apply only to final agency rules issued after rulemaking 
     begun after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Page 9, line 15, insert ``a summary of'' before ``a 
     final''.
       Page 9, line 21, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     period following and add after that line the following. 
     The agency shall provide the complete text of a final 
     regulatory impact analysis upon request.
       Page 9, line 21, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     period following and insert after that line the following:
       ``(5) The issuance of a notice of intent to engage in 
     rulemaking under paragraph (1) and the issuance of a 
     preliminary regulatory impact analysis under paragraph (3) 
     shall not be considered final agency action for purposes of 
     section 704.''.
       Page 10, line 8, strike out ``any rule'' and insert ``any 
     major rule'' and in line 18, strike out ``proposed rule'' and 
     insert ``proposed major rule''.
       Page 14, line 16, strike ``publish'' and insert ``adopt''.
       Page 15, line 22, strike ``and'', page 16, line 3, strike 
     the period and insert ``; and'', and insert after line 3 on 
     page 16 the following:
       ``(D) any agency action that the head of the agency 
     certifies is limited to interpreting, implementing, or 
     administering the internal revenue laws of the United States.

  Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, at an appropriate time, I want to yield to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island to further concur in what we are 
attempting to do here. This is a bipartisan en bloc amendment, and the 
product of the ongoing negotiations between the minority and the 
majority in the whole series of questions that we jointly raised.
  One of the important parts here is that to cover the IRS situation, 
which we will get to in a little bit of time, but by and large, these 
are technical amendments, but all intended to reduce the friction that 
could arise if we did not agree on them.
  Let me start off by just saying some of the contents of this bill, as 
I say, are rather technical. For instance, the changes that we intend 
to make to the Administrative Procedures Act will apply only to 
informal rulemakings which begin after the date of enactment of this 
legislation. You would think that that is generally understood, but 
this makes it clear, but it is still a technical amendment.
  Another one is that we would allow an agency to provide a summary of 
the final impact analysis to be included in the statement of basis and 
purpose for final major rule, and this would be in the economy of what 
printing materials would require and the Federal Register printing, et 
cetera.
  Another one is that in no way should we consider that a preliminary 
regulatory impact analysis, as required by this legislation, shall be 
considered final agency action for purposes of judicial review. We make 
that clear. That is a technical amendment. I would have thought that 
that could be accomplished simply because of the language that we have 
or the reporting language, but this clears it up. It is another 
technical amendment.
  Finally, the en bloc amendment to which other reference has been made 
by other Members includes an exemption provision of the bill's 
provision to exempt the IRS from the impact analysis requirements.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman. We have worked 
with these issues which are very important, but technical, together 
with the majority and minority staffs. I think we have reached a good 
balance between the need to make this a streamlined, effective 
procedure, and this amendment is a good one, and I would urge passage, 
and I believe that the gentleman would also recognize my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  I would also urge that his proposal be supported.
  amendment offered by mr. traficant to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                 gekas

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Gekas: At the end of the Gekas amendment, strike the 
     period and insert: ``, including any regulation proposed or 
     issued in connection with ensuring the collection of taxes 
     from a subsidiary of a foreign company doing business in the 
     United States.''

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, more than likely this bill may extend, 
and probably does, to cover that provision, but sometimes when we deal 
with these international matters there seems to be some roadblock 
somewhere in some procedure somewhere that just seems to reduce the 
impact of our efforts to try and resolve some of these differences we 
have.
  Now, very simply, this additional safeguard language ensures that 
companies who use the superior productivity of the American worker and 
earn millions of dollars out of our economy, then take much of that 
money back home, at least pay some of their taxes here. We do not tie 
the IRS, and we let the IRS know the Congress of the United States 
wants them to address these matters with the subsidiaries.
  I ask the gentleman accept the amendment. It is common sense. It 
specifies it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We, too, believe, as the gentleman from Ohio has asserted in his 
opening remarks, that we have already covered the situation which he 
intends to implement here, but we see it, at worst, as being 
surplusage, at best as being more explicit in the coverage that we 
intend.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island and I have both concurred in that 
result.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Similarly, we concur and accept your perfecting amendment, 
I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. GEKAS. If the gentleman will yield further, we accept the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, are we now in title II? Are we all agreed 
that title I has been disposed of?
  The CHAIRMAN. Title II continues to remain open for amendment.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: Page 16, line 11, strike 
     the close quotation marks and the period following and insert 
     after line 11 the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `emergency 
     situation' means a situation that is--
       ``(A) immediately impending and extraordinary in nature, or
       ``(B) demanding attention due to a condition, circumstance, 
     or practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious 
     illness, or severe injury to humans or substantial 
     [[Page H2429]] endangerment to private property or the 
     environment if no action is taken.''.

  Ms. LOFGREN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this morning I mentioned my intention to 
offer an amendment to define emergencies. I did offer an amendment in 
committee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and I agreed 
that we would work together to come up with a resolution and, in fact, 
in all fairness to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], I had 
language, and the language before us now certainly bears his imprint 
more than mine. I think it is acceptable.
  I would note that in the committee report, emergency is now defined 
in a circular manner, specifically exempts an impact analysis 
requirement of this legislation any regulation that responds to an 
emergency situation, defining an emergency as an emergency, and this 
language gives us further guidance.
  I would like to just make clear, since demanding attention in section 
B is, if not vague, at least not precise, that it would be the 
intention of this body that in the following circumstance or 
hypothetical, for example, if a cure for cancer was found, in order for 
that drug to be released by the FDA to cure cancer victims, there needs 
to be a regulatory action. The cure for cancer would certainly have an 
impact on small business entities around the country. No one wants to 
stop the cure for cancer from being released.
  This would allow those procedures to move forward under the 
definition, if I am hearing the minority counsel correctly, and I would 
offer this amendment, and I hope, I believe, that it is acceptable.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment is perfectly acceptable to 
us, and as she said, it is itself a product of the communication that 
has existed between her office and mine and fills a need we think that 
was evident in yesterday's debate on another bill in which the same 
kind of constriction was implemented in the final version of that bill.
  So we are prepared even further in the report language that will 
accompany the conference report which is yet down the line to 
incorporate even further the sentiments that have been expressed by the 
gentlewoman.
  We accept the amendment, and ask for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 15, line 22, 
     strike ``and'', in line 3 on page 16 strike the period and 
     insert ``; and'', and add after line 3 the following:
       ``(D) any regulation proposed or issued pursuant to section 
     553 of title 5 of the United States Code in connection with 
     imposing trade sanctions against any country that engages in 
     illegal trade activities against the United States that are 
     injurious to American technology, jobs, pensions, or general 
     economic well-being.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, in our discussion with the U.S. Trade 
Representative, my amendment basically would exempt any regulation 
proposed or issued pursuant to section 553 of title V of the code, 
which is the Administrative Procedures Act in connection with imposing 
trade sanctions against any country that engages in illegal trade 
activities against America that are injurious to our technology, jobs, 
pensions, or general economic well-being.

                              {time}  1500

  The effect of this amendment, although the Trade Representative said 
that general rulemaking is, in fact--that sanctions are not the result 
of rulemaking action, they could not be definitive to define any and 
all areas.
  My amendment would serve to say that under the Administrative 
Procedures Act there shall be no trade rulemaking, and if by any chance 
there is, that would fall into that loophole, then the safeguard 
provision would say that they are not going to have their hands tied in 
responding, when necessary, to such activity. But it clarifies the 
Administrative Procedures Act and the aspect within that law.
  Let me just say this to the Members, one of the things that we found 
in dealing at times with the trade aspect through the executive 
branch--and this is not, in fact, a slap at the Clinton administration, 
from my experience both Democrat and Republican administrations at 
times have been a little soft in some of these areas--this will clarify 
that, in fact, it ensures that sanctions are not covered by the 
Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, but in the event there are some 
areas that fall between the cracks, which they could not answer, this 
amendment would be a further safeguard.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made it clear to us what he intends 
and we have made it clear to him that we believe that we had covered 
this situation. But so long as the gentleman continues to agree that 
his amendment will cover those issues that are pursuant to 553 of the 
Administrative Procedures Act, as he says, we are in accord, and I 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate that. It does clarify those positions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
             amendment offered by mr. franks of new jersey

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. 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. Franks of New Jersey: Page 13, 
     line 10, before the period insert the following: ``, and a 
     statement of whether the rule will require persons to obtain 
     licenses, permits, or other certifications including 
     specification of any associated fees or fines''.

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a small 
but important change to the regulatory impact analysis, found in title 
II of the bill.
  Under this particular amendment, regulators proposing a major new 
rule would have to state up front whether that rule will require anyone 
to obtain licenses, permits, or other certifications.
  Furthermore, agencies would be compelled to report whether they plan 
to impose fines or fees as part of their rule.
  This amendment, as well as the entire regulatory impact analysis, is 
designed to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full 
knowledge at the outset of the intended effect of a proposed rule.
  Not only will adoption of this amendment cause regulated parties, 
especially small businesses, to know a rule's potential impact, but it 
will provide for a better understanding of regulatory changes at the 
earliest stages of the process and, thereby--and I think this is most 
important--thereby reduce the incidence of fines, litigation, and 
noncompliance.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its favorable consideration.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to say that I accept the thrust of the 
amendment that the gentleman offers, and it is in perfect keeping with 
what we 
[[Page H2430]] learned in the testimony from the various businessmen 
who appeared before us on the various, sometimes anecdotes but 
nevertheless strong indications of how they were hurt in the process in 
the past.
  We like the amendment, and we urge favorable consideration.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and say that 
we have looked at the amendment. It simply requires a further 
specification in the regulatory impact analysis of certain provisions 
for the proposed regulation, including whether the individual would 
have to obtain licenses, permits, or other certification and a 
discussion of the question of fees or fines.
  It strikes me that most of these provisions would be outlined in the 
basic law governing the particular activity. I do not see any 
particular harm by specifying the regulatory impact analysis. It tends, 
I would think, to simply do what is done elsewhere. But I at this 
point, subject to further review and perhaps if we have comments, 
working with the gentleman from New Jersey as we move through the 
process, would be prepared, I think, to accept the amendment unless 
someone else has a more persuasive argument at the moment.
  I believe at this time we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reed: Page 13, beginning in line 
     2, strike ``the least costly approach'' and insert ``the most 
     cost-effective approach''.

  Mr. REED (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to a very important 
issue, the issue of the standard by which the regulator will choose a 
particular process of regulation, a particular path to implement the 
law that that individual has been entrusted with by the Congress.
  The present language of the bill requires that the regulator adopt 
the least costly approach. It has a rather superficial appeal. We all 
want things to be done at the lowest cost. But I think the problem is 
that this particular expression, ``least costly'' approach, fails in 
any way to require a consideration of the benefits.
  What I think we have learned over the last several decades in terms 
of regulatory reform is that regulations, laws, should balance cost and 
benefits. Preoccupation with just benefits leads, in many cases, to 
excessively expensive regulations. On the other hand, a preoccupation 
with just the lowest cost could lead to a situation where we do not get 
the most for our dollar.
  A very simple example would be that there could be two different 
approaches to achieve a regulatory goal. One might be costs, say, that 
require, for example, $3 to achieve. That would be in contrast to 
something that cost $3.20. Yet the $3.20 approach yields, 7, 8, 9 times 
the benefit. I think we all can understand that language. That is why 
cost-benefit analysis, not just cost analysis, is so critical.
  The problem I have with the legislation is it does not make sensible, 
reasonable people make a judgment about regulations to consider the 
benefits, to take not the least costly approach but the most cost-
effective approach, one that for the dollar gets the biggest benefit.
  I honestly believe that is what the American people want us to 
pursue. You know, the old saying, ``penny-wise and pound-foolish.'' I 
believe that is exactly what the present language in the bill would 
require all of our administrators to be, penny-wise and pound-foolish, 
get the cheapest approach even if it gives marginal benefits, but 
ignore, in fact, legislatively be unable to adopt, an approach that may 
be marginally more costly but significantly more beneficial to the 
whole country.
  So I would very much urge that we consider this provision. I would be 
very generally interested in the comments of the chairman as to whether 
we could at this point, or going forward, really, work on getting in 
the bill not this least costly analysis, but a true cost-benefit 
analysis.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, not because there 
is any strong visceral reaction to it, but we have the least language 
in it. I think we are playing with words here.
  But if we look at it as non-lawyers for a moment the general 
populace, the people most affected by this legislation, the small 
business men, the employers of our working constituents, when they look 
at this, least costly is exactly what is most understandable.
  We all want it to be cost-effective, but while we are doing that, we 
want it to be least costly. I do not know how to argue this except to 
say that it is so minute that I ask the gentleman to withdraw the 
amendment and to then convince me separately later on how we can join 
in conference to better implement his thoughts on it.
  This is not worth fighting about, but if the gentleman wants to 
fight, I am going to protect my language out of ego, if nothing else.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, when amendments of this kind are rejected by the other 
side, it forces me to raise the question again: What is the purpose 
that we are trying to achieve here? Is the purpose to make our 
Government and the regulations and rules that we adopt more reasonable, 
or is the purpose to do away with rulemaking and regulations?
  I hate to keep questioning the purpose of this bill. I had thought 
that the underlying purpose of the bill was to try to encourage Federal 
Government agencies to approach rulemaking and regulation-making in a 
reasonable way, to try to reduce the burden that these agencies are 
imposing on the American people, but not to do away with the value and 
the purposes that sound rulemaking accomplishes in the public interest.
  So when I see a simple cost-benefit approach, which is what this 
amendment contemplates, being rejected by my colleagues out of hand, 
then I start to question what are we trying to do here?
  If we are trying to do away with every rule and regulation that the 
Federal Government has that my colleagues in this body do not like 
because many of them serve a public interest, a public purpose that 
they do not support even though they are in the interest of our Nation, 
then at least my colleagues ought to be honest enough to stand up and 
say that to the American people.
  Do not try to do with subterfuge what you cannot and will not be 
honest with the public on and do directly. If you want to do away with 
regulations or some law that you do not like, bring it into the body 
here and let us debate the merits or lack of merits of that particular 
law. Do not come in through the back door and try to undercut the law 
by undercutting rules and regulations that are promulgated pursuant to 
that law.
  I submit that it is just gutless for us to come into this body and 
say to the American people that we have got a regulatory process that 
is out of control and we will not bring that regulatory process back 
into control by cutting back on the laws themselves that are generating 
the regulations.
  I do not know of any Federal Government agency--I want to repeat it 
again--that is out there just making up some rules and regulations and 
promulgating them pursuant to something other than a congressionally 
approved law.
  If we did our job and specified in some reasonable way what the law 
says instead of delegating our responsibility to the government 
agencies, then they would not have to guess and write a bunch of 
regulations that we should have written into the law.

                              {time}  1515

  And if they step beyond the ambit of a law that we have passed in 
promulgating regulations, then we ought to have the guts to snatch them 
back within the law, but not undercut what 
[[Page H2431]] they are doing by undercutting their regulation, but by 
revoking the law. This makes no sense, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this title is to streamline and 
make less costly the whole process of regulations in this country, less 
costly to the people to whom government is supposed to serve, less 
costly to the businesses in which we all have an interest in ensuring 
that they operate very properly with due regard for the safety of the 
public.
  What we have done and what this committee has come up with here in 
the language ``least costly'' is about as straightforward as anybody, 
save the gentleman from North Carolina, could hope to come up with. 
There is no subterfuge here. As a matter of fact, if one were looking 
for words that provided a lot more wiggle room a lot more word 
smithing, then one might want to use the words ``most cost effective'' 
because those are words that are fraught in the context of this title 
with what it intends to do, whose words are fraught with a lot more 
ambiguity than the words ``less costly.''
  So I am somewhat surprised by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] arguing that the words ``least costly'' are not clear, are 
somehow designed to allow some sort of subterfuge or back-door approach 
here. This could not be more straightforward, and they are certainly in 
keeping, Mr. Chairman, with the overall intent of this title.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr] a question. Maybe the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
will be glad to answer the question in regard to this very provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, Assuming that you had a 
regulation being proposed to meet a certain goal to do a certain thing, 
OK, whether it's in the area of safety, area of health, automobile 
emissions, whatever you want to call it, and there are several ways 
that this can be done, methodologies in which through rule making you 
can achieve that goal or near that goal. But the least costly to, let's 
say, automobiles, to the automobile industry or to the consumers, would 
be a methodology that doesn't achieve that goal but is the least costly 
to the automobile industry. Let's say you wanted to reduce emissions 
that are polluting our air and are causing people to be sick and die, 
and everything else, by 10 percent, and let's say the Congress required 
you to do that. Now does that mean that the 10 percent requirement, if 
the Congress requires it, is the end and it's the least costly to get 
to 10 percent, or is it least costly to do an emissions reduction?
  Does the gentleman understand my problem?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleague, Well, I think you are 
overlooking the language of the paragraph that precedes the use of the 
words ``least costly approach'' because by that time we've gone through 
a whole series of things like including market based mechanisms that 
can substantially achieve the same regulatory goal at a lower cost and 
explanation of the reasons why such alternative approaches were not 
adopted. Then, after we do all that, which implies that all the 
reasonable approaches were taken to try to make this work, then, when 
you put that into its proper perspective, we then follow up with a 
demonstration that, putting all of this together, we're going to use 
the least costly approach together with----
  Mr. VOLKMER. Together with the demonstration----
  Mr. GEKAS. To say the least costly cost effective approach, where 
there are several cost effective ways to do it, we would still want to 
put in ``least costly, cost effective'' if the gentleman knows what I 
mean.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Right, least costly approach to remedying the goal; is 
that correct?
  Mr. GEKAS. Correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So, in other words, if the least costly idea to achieve 
near the goal is not sufficient, if the purpose is to regulate as far 
to achieve a certain goal----
  Mr. GEKAS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the statute 
calls for the agencies to do X, Y, and Z. Once we apply these little 
formulas and try to get a marketplace approach to all of this, and we 
have choices ahead of us, we want to make the least costly approach 
choice. That is what this is all about.
  I say to the gentleman, it's nothing to worry about, Harold.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, I have a little bit to worry about because I am 
afraid if it does not do exactly what the gentleman says it does, I 
have got to worry about the----
  Mr. GEKAS. I have already asserted to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
that following--before we get to conference he and I are going to be 
discussing this language.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Fine.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be briefer than 5 minutes. I appreciate the 
chairman's offer to work with us on this issue. This is an important 
issue. We have worked to date to try to narrow the language and make it 
more effective. I think what has been said before by my colleagues 
though indicates that this is a very important issue, and let me just 
respond very briefly to the tenor of some of their remarks.
  First, there needs to be some discussion, I think, and obviously a 
discussion about small business and how they are oppressed, et cetera, 
but I would like to make the point that small business people do not 
run their companies simply to minimize costs. In fact, there are a lot 
of businesses out of business today because that is all they did. What 
they tried to do is maximize profit, and that is taking into 
consideration not only the cost, but how well they are doing, how well 
they are serving their customers, et cetera, so to have a single factor 
analysis at least cost is, I think--I am skeptical of this, and 
skepticism has prompted this amendment and prompted a continuing 
dialogue with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and we can discuss these 
things in very theoretical terms, but it helps, I think, to focus on 
very practical, pragmatic terms.
  For example, the FAA requires de-icing of aircraft. There is probably 
least costly ways to de-ice an aircraft than having the truck go two or 
three times with the fluid and having all these procedures which I just 
observed flying down here 3 days ago, and thank goodness. I say to my 
colleague, you could probably prove to the FAA that somebody with a 
squeegee brush on the wing might be cheaper than the truck, and the 
capital investment, et cetera. The point though is that the FAA is not 
constrained just on least cost. They want to have a cost that justifies 
the benefits of some approach that is cost effective, so I think this 
is a very valuable discussion. I think it is a discussion that makes a 
great deal of sense and in the spirit which the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has offered to continue this dialogue to seek language 
that might not be most cost effective might be another way to phrase 
it. But to get to the point where, and I think this is the fear of some 
of my colleagues, that an agency would feel that they have a very good 
solution like de-icing airplanes today, but they cannot use it because 
they have to use something that is just cheap, but not good.
  Mr. Chairman, I would in this spirit ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment and continue to work with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
                    amendment offered by Mr. Chapman

  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chapman: Page 12, line 5, strike 
     ``and'', in line 8 strike the period and insert ``, and'', 
     and insert after line 8 the following:
       ``(C) a renewal regulatory impact analysis, which shall be 
     prepared and transmitted to the Director within 7 years after 
     the publication of the final rule and every 7 years 
     thereafter.
       [[Page H2432]] Page 12, line 9, strike ``and final'' and 
     insert ``, final, and renewal''.
       Page 13, insert after line 15 the following:
       ``(H) In addition, in the case of an analysis under 
     paragraph (3)(3), the agency shall consider the benefits and 
     costs, if any, associated with each of the following:
       ``(i) The extent to which the rule impedes domestic 
     competition or international competitiveness.
       ``(ii) The extent to which capital investments already 
     expended in complying with the rule have been reviewed.
       ``(iii) The extent to which information requirements under 
     the rule can be reduced, particularly for small business.
       ``(iv) Whether the rule is clear and certain regarding who 
     is required to comply with the rule.
       ``(v) Whether the rule is crafted to minimize needless 
     litigation.
       ``(vi) Whether the rule is fashioned to maximize net 
     benefits to society, particularly whether the rule evaluated 
     risk and cost benefits on an industry-by-industry and sector-
     by-sector basis.
       ``(vii) Whether the total effect of the regulation across 
     Federal agencies has been examined.
       Page 13, line 17, strike ``or final'' and insert ``, final, 
     and renewal''.
       Page 15, redesignate sections 205 through 207 as sections 
     206 through 208 and insert before line 1 on that page the 
     following:

     SEC. 205. RENEWAL REVIEW REQUIRED.

       Section 55 of title 5, United States Code, as amended in 
     section 204, is amended by inserting after subsection (i) the 
     following:
       ``(j) The head of each agency shall conduct a renewal 
     regulatory impact analysis of each major rule of the agency 
     issued after the date of the enactment of the Regulatory 
     Reform and Relief Act in accordance with subsection (i)(3)(C) 
     and shall issue a report on the findings of such analysis 
     with recommendations for termination or extension of the 
     effectiveness of such major rule, any appropriate 
     modification to such major rule to be extended, or any 
     appropriate consolidation of such major rule. Such report 
     shall be submitted to Congress not later than 60 days before 
     the termination date for such major rule as determined under 
     this subsection. Such major rule shall terminate 7 years 
     after it was initially published as a final rule or after it 
     was last reviewed under subsection (i)(3)(C) unless the head 
     of the agency in its report under this subsection recommends 
     that such major rule be extended.''.
       Page 15, line 5, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Page 15, line 14, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.

  Mr. CHAPMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will only take a minute to explain both 
the amendment and the history that leads up to my offering the 
amendment today, and I do so recognizing that I have worked on this 
amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], who 
joins us today on the House floor to discuss what I know we believe to 
be a very, very important missing link, if my colleagues will, in the 
reform of our regulatory scheme that the House is considering this 
week.
  We had intended yesterday to offer an amendment to the bill under 
consideration at that time that would provide for the periodic review 
of all existing regulation and prospectively the review of new 
regulations on a 7-year rotating basis. It is my belief that not only 
should we apply the criteria in this legislation and criteria that are 
contained in our amendment to regulations that are promulgated and 
adopted in the future, but that we ought to apply those same common 
sense criteria to the regulations that currently exist on the books of 
the Federal agencies today.
  I believe that one of the things that will help enforce and have a 
good application of those criteria would be a provision that would 
sunset Federal regulations unless they are so reviewed, not only 
prospectively, but also currently, on the books. So yesterday our 
amendment would have provided for a review of all existing regulations 
and a review on a 7-year basis of new regulations with the threat to 
the agency of that regulation sunsetting unless that review were 
performed under a very common sense criteria.
  We ran out of time, Mr. Chairman, yesterday before we could get our 
amendment offered, but I believe that amendment does, and in fact I 
know it does, enjoy strong bipartisan support.
  So today on this legislation this amendment is not as broad in scope 
as that we had hoped to be able to offer, but it still contains the 
basic components of that approach to regulatory review in that it would 
require, it would require the agencies, to conduct a review under the 
criteria that the gentleman's bill provides a very--my common sense 
criteria that tracks almost directly the criteria that were contained 
in the amendment we were to offer yesterday, but it also continues to 
provide that the agencies that currently have regulations between now 
and 7 years from now review every single regulation currently on the 
books applying the gentleman's same criteria outlined in this bill and 
again with a provision that, if that review does not occur, then the 
regulations not reviewed would sunset.
  This is the best way I know, and I believe that we can force Federal 
agencies to stay up to date, to look at times change as conditions 
change, as governments' functions change and as industry and technology 
changes to make sure, to make sure that we are applying up-to-date, 
common sense regulatory solutions to the problems that the agencies 
have in administering the laws that we pass.
  So I believe it is a very common sense amendment because it does 
simply two things. It requires that all existing regulation undergo the 
same scrutiny that the gentleman's bill would provide for new 
regulations, and it also provides that regulations would terminate, 
would sunset, if that review does not occur on a 7-year basis.
  So, I offer that amendment. I believe it is an improvement to the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, but I know the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] would have some comments on this.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to join one of the 
leaders in regulatory reform, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman], 
to offer this amendment today. I think what we need to do is stop and 
look and see where we have been and what we have done over the past 
couple of days.
  Actually it is quite monumental in the area of regulatory reform. 
Only a matter of months ago, a year ago, it was almost impossible to 
discuss some of the issues, let alone vote and pass some of the 
measures we have passed in the past few days here on the floor of the 
House.
  But we have passed here a moratorium, a temporary moratorium on 
regulations until we get other measures in place.
  We passed risk assessment regulation, which is long overdue, setting 
some general guidelines and parameters, which will provide a tool for 
assessing risk and then using cost and benefit to see how we can do a 
better job in the regulatory process.
  Then today we have been discussing regulatory flexibility and 
regulatory impact analysis. Some of that gets a little bit heavy, but 
all we have been trying to do is make some common sense out of the 
regulatory process.
  The amendment my colleague is offering and I am offering with him 
today says let us have a periodic review of regulations. None of the 
measures that we have looked at in the past few days dealing with 
regulatory reform have really addressed that issue. We think it is 
critical that we look forward and periodically review all of the mass 
of regulations that are pending.
  For example, right now there are over 4,300 regulations pending or 
being considered by the various Federal agencies. I do not want to get 
back into the look-back, which I think we need to address, but do you 
know in the last 20 years we have adopted 1,055,000 in the Federal 
Register of regulations? That is what we need to do, is go back and 
look at what we have done. What we are offering today is prospective, 
but even the President of the United States has recognized the need, 
and I hope we prompted his action.
  Let me quote from the February 22 Washington Post: ``Clinton said he 
was ordering Federal regulators to examine each rule they administer to 
see what has become obsolete and to produce by June 1st rules that can 
be discarded.''
  What we are saying here is we would like to do that for the future. 
Of 
[[Page H2433]] course, we would like to do that for the past and we 
think it needs to be done, and we should really have a hearing, have an 
opportunity to do just that.
  But again, what we are asking for here in this amendment is a return 
of common sense, a periodic review of outdated regulations, a periodic 
review of regulations that should be terminated, and a periodic review 
of regulations that make us less competitive, that put people out of 
business, that send jobs overseas.
  So that is the basis for our request today. It is my understanding, 
too, that my colleague and I have agreed that we will agree in a few 
moments here to withdraw our amendment, but I do want to compliment, 
first of all, the chairman for his agreeing with us today to conduct 
full hearings on this issue and that we can go back and look at what 
needs to be done retroactively, and we need to look at what goes 
forward as far as review of these regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership, I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and again the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and our Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich], for their leadership on these regulatory reform issues, 
and on what we have accomplished and hope to accomplish by offering 
this amendment, and also withdrawing this amendment today, but with the 
opportunity to address this as the next stop in the regulatory reform 
process.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, and I felt this from the first moment that 
we had preliminary discussions with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman], this is a very attractive amendment, one that if it had been 
the subject of our hearings and had the gentleman presented it in a 
fashion that it would have blended in with our legislation, and I would 
have been happy to consider it in the final implementation of this 
legislation. I still feel that way. It is going to occur. I am positive 
of that.
  But in the interests of a proper approach to the entire process here, 
I am most appreciative of your willingness to withdraw the amendment on 
the basis that we will revisit the subject matter, we will accommodate 
hearings or whatever it takes to bring it back to the House in a proper 
form.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, with the assurances of the 
chairman, and let me say with very much thanks to the chairman for his 
commitment to give us an opportunity to make a factual case for this 
amendment before his committee, we will withdraw our amendment and look 
forward to that hearing process, because we believe that not only will 
our amendment appear attractive, we believe there is sound legal and 
factual basis for this kind of addition to the commonsense regulatory 
reform measures the House has been considering.
  Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman's leadership in that kind of 
hearings, I believe we can revisit this issue here in this Chamber. I 
believe this is something that the House would likely look very 
favorably upon, and I am anxious to hasten the time when we would do 
so. I thank the gentleman for his pledge of cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.


                     amendment offered by mr. reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the amendment at the 
desk, which is designated amendment B.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reed: Page 8, line 11, strike out 
     ``50,000,000 or more;'' and insert ``100,000,000 or more; 
     and'' and strike lines 12 through 20.

  Mr. REED (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical amendment if we want to 
have a reasonable, cost-effective regulatory reform bill. I must from 
the outset say that we have made great progress already discussing this 
issue, and the issue essentially is what is the threshold for a major 
rule in the context of title II.
  That is a very important issue, because once a rule has been declared 
a major rule, then an agency must do a rather elaborate and potentially 
expensive regulatory impact analysis. To the extent that all rules are 
major rules, then regulatory agencies will be spending lots of money 
thinking up alternative approaches and all sorts of paperwork and doing 
very little in terms of serving the American people directly by 
carrying out the duties of their agency.
  This is a very, very important principle that we must I think 
establish. Initially the legislation proposed a very, very low 
threshold, a million dollar effect on an individual in the United 
States. It has been raised to $50 million, but frankly that $50 million 
still in my view and that of many Members does not constitute a truly 
major rule. Let me tell you why.
  Years ago when President Ford first by Executive order instituted the 
regulatory impact analysis approach, he chose as the benchmark for a 
major rule $100 million. Today, in 1995, that $100 million would be 
somewhere between $300 and $400 million in today's dollars. So you can 
see not only has the major rule threshold shifted and slipped down, but 
in fact this legislation would bring it down from the current $100 
million to $50 million. Every succeeding President, President Ford, 
President Carter, President Reagan, all chose a very simple, clearly 
understood threshold, $100 million, because they knew and they 
understood that valuable resources in terms of doing studies cannot be 
dissipated for every rule that the Federal Government does.
  In fact, if that is the process, if that is what takes place, we will 
actually trivialize all we are doing today. Indeed, in testimony before 
the committee, C. Boyden Gray, who was the counsel to President Ford 
and chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, recommended that the 
threshold remain at $100 million. That is simply the purpose of my 
amendment, to move the threshold from $50 to $100 million and make it a 
clear, simple, bright line test, $100 million.
  The current language of the bill, although an improvement, still 
contains some vague terms about impacts that would make the rule major. 
All I think this will do is require judges and courts to make endless 
determinations of whether or not a particular rule has an impact on 
employment that is major or significant, an impact on competitiveness, 
et cetera.
  What I think we are about today is trying to develop a system that is 
simple, cost effective, makes sense, and is reasonable. The best way to 
do this is pick an objective, sensible, reasonable target, $100 
million. If it was good enough for President Bush and President Reagan, 
and currently President Clinton's Executive order, I think it should be 
good enough today. We are not trying to advance the ball. We are not 
trying to raise the threshold to $500 million, which as I pointed out 
before would be the equivalent of the same measure used by President 
Ford when he started this process.
  The consequences could be very real if we continue this $50 million 
threshold. Rules which most Americans would consider to be innocuous, 
routine, would require expensive analysis. Rules, for example, on 
raising and lowering drawbridges over naval waters, things that are 
done every year by the regulatory authorities, could require each year 
a $1 million or several hundred thousand dollar analysis. That does not 
make sense.
  One final point: We have in the language of the bill given the 
Director of OMB the authority to declare any rule, regardless of its 
impact, its financial impact, a major rule. I think that is a 
sufficient escape clause to confront those situations in which it might 
be $99.9 million, or might even be $9 million in impact, but it is an 
important 
[[Page H2434]] rule to a major part of this country and major sector.
  So I urge all my colleagues to save money, to make sure that this 
works, to make sure that this process does not result in the 
trivialization of the regulatory impact analysis, that we support this 
amendment, raise the level to $100 million, and continue the sensible 
policies of President Ford, President Reagan, President Carter, and now 
President Clinton.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has said, this is an important 
amendment only because it is one that is devastating to the entire 
purpose of the bill in the first place. If indeed the gentleman's 
complaint is that, why change it from $100 million where it found its 
way into the Clinton Executive order, to the Reagan Executive order, 
and before that to the Ford Executive order, why the gentleman asks, if 
it was good enough for them should it not be good enough for us, the 
answer is implicit in the question.
  The hue and cry of the business community, the bombast that we have 
received as Members of Congress, the complaints that have been issued 
from every corner of the Nation on these issues, has come about because 
the $100 million many times was never reached and no consideration was 
given to a rule for analysis, because it never reached that kind of 
majority, major emphasis that the major rule required.
  That is why people are saying my gosh, if it has to be $100 million, 
it is a useless rule, because we never get to a point where we can have 
the benefit of an analysis on which we can act or react.
  So that is implicit in the rationale of why we fashioned a threshold 
that is lower than $100 million, so that we can include more rules in 
the process, so that we can include, by including more rules, more 
individuals who are disaffected by the adverse rule.
  That is the gravamen of this bill. The other thing we have to keep in 
consideration, this is important to us, and I think the gentleman from 
Rhode Island acknowledges it as well, that we started out with $1 
million as the threshold, and I, who am admittedly an advocate for 
small business, found that very attractive. But when title II is 
considered to apply to all business, small, medium, large, gigantic, 
all these businesses have one thought in mind: They want to increase 
competitiveness.

                              {time}  1545

  They want to have rules that make sense. They want analysis that will 
help them respond and, indeed, not just help them respond to a rule but 
to help the agency fashion a better rule, to impact upon the rulemaking 
process itself. This is a long way toward expanding the economy and 
exploding the initiatives that the free enterprise system accords our 
businessmen and our entrepreneurs. And the working people, the people 
who benefit most by a small business expansion, are the ones who are 
absolutely the trickle-down beneficiaries of what we attempt to do 
here.
  I love that term ``trickle down'' when it obtains to the benefit of 
the working people who, when they see their employer expand the 
business and hire two more people and raise wages because they are 
loosened up from the exasperating rules and regulations. That is the 
thrust of this bill. To raise it back to $100 million would be to make 
a top-only type of rule possible for the jointure of the businessman's 
will and determination in the formation of that rule. I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Reed amendment. Let me, before I 
get into my remarks, respond that the, I never heard trickle down, Mr. 
Chairman, referred to in a positive way, particularly from this side of 
the aisle. But the chairman's opposition to the amendment talks about 
that it did not work under President Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush or 
President Clinton. But the OMB has the authority to, under any rule, to 
designate as a major rule that would truly have significant regulations 
and so we would not have it fall through the crack based on $50 or $100 
million.
  So we would hope that the OMB would be able, whether they are under 
President Clinton or under President Ford or Carter and the other 
President, they could have made that designation and decision instead 
of being stuck by an arbitrary dollar figure.
  My support for the amendment talks about the dollar figure and 
recognizing what the sponsor of the amendment, my colleague from Rhode 
Island, talked about, that if we used $100 million in 1975, it is 
different than 1995 and reflects that the need for it. But even more 
so, I have some concern about the amendment. It also addresses a 
provision in the bill on page 8 where the language that says, not only 
the $50 million that we would change to $100 million but striking out 
lines 12 through 20, some of the language in that bill.
  I am concerned on this bill but for a number of bills. Let me say 
that I supported the bill yesterday. I voted for the bill yesterday 
that in title II had $100 million in it. I know there was other 
thresholds in the bill yesterday, but the risk assessment bill 
yesterday also had $100 million even in title II. But the provisions in 
this bill that we are striking out have some language, I think, that it 
will be hard for a court to decide, particularly in section C where it 
says, ``significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity.'' We are writing a statute here. That needs 
to not be so subjective.
  I think, where are we going to define ``significant adverse 
effects''? The oil crisis of 1980's in Texas had very significant 
adverse effects on Texas economy, but oftentimes we could not get the 
response that we needed out of the various agencies to loosen up on 
some of the regs that would have us be able to compete better.
  The provisions of the amendment not only are good because it raises 
from 50 to 100 and reflects more 1995 dollars, but it also strikes out 
lines 12 through 20 that gives other criteria that, frankly, the OMB 
can make that decision already without putting in there language that 
is not defined in the bill as far as I can see and very difficult to 
define anyway.
  Major increases in costs or prices for consumers, we can define that 
many times. Again, major increases sometimes affect certain geographic 
areas of the country where it may not others. That is why I rise to 
support the amendment and think that it is a good amendment and makes 
this bill much easier to support, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if a rule or regulation coming from 
an agency in Washington has a severe impact in a given region of the 
country or has the net effect of increasing cost for local governments, 
perhaps a class of small local governments across the country, then it 
seems to me that this Congress would want to trigger a regulatory 
impact analysis so we can learn more about the consequences of the 
regulatory action that is being contemplated. Yet under the amendment 
of the gentleman from Rhode Island, that criteria would be stricken. 
The fact that it would have a disproportionate impact on a particular 
region or on local governments would not trigger the imposition of the 
requirement of a regulatory impact analysis.
  Another example, Mr. Chairman, that really troubles me is if a rule 
or regulation has a potential unintended consequence of killing off 
jobs by having an impact on a new industry that is growing in this 
country. And inadvertently a regulatory action might have an impact on 
that industry in such a way as to reduce employment. Then, again, under 
this amendment, that adverse impact on employment would be insufficient 
per se to trigger the regulatory impact analysis.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Would not the gentleman say that if it was unintended and 
unanticipated, this impact on some new industry, by definition 
``unanticipated'' means no one foresaw it. The escape valve is not the 
language that the gentleman's amendment repeals. The escape valve is 
the ability to go to OMB and say, hey, we have got this problem. How 
about calling this a major rule because we did not, you did 
[[Page H2435]] not, nobody anticipated this problem, but here it is 
now?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
merely seek to say that these adverse impacts should be reviewed by the 
rulemaking agency and we ought not to merely surrender to the director 
of the OMB, as if he is going to be some kind of regulatory czar who is 
the gatekeeper of whether or not we are going to be requiring this 
regulatory impact analysis.
  I think what this system needs is uniformity across the board from 
every rulemaking agency and not the ability of a particular class of 
rule makers in an agency to say, the OMB director did not trigger the 
regulatory impact analysis, therefore, I felt there was no need to 
engage in one.
  We ought to put this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of 
those who seek to change the regulatory status quo by issuing a new 
regulation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. The legislation itself and perhaps for good or bad makes 
the OMB director a regulatory czar. At page 143, an agency may not 
adopt a major rule unless the final regulatory impact analysis for the 
rule is approved or commented upon by the director of OMB. So I mean, 
specifically, the OMB director is involved in this process. The 
gentleman from New York is making a very good point.
  That is, I think, the appropriate way to respond to some of your 
concerns. Indeed, some of your concerns demonstrate some of my fears, 
which is a very able, articulate and thoughtful attorney can find in 
every rule some of the consequences you made. And my concern ultimately 
is if every rule is a major rule, then in a sense there are no major 
rules. We have taken the process and we have to do analysis for 
everything. We do not have the resources to do that. I think, again, as 
I know we disagree, we disagree in principle that a bright line $100 
million represents an efficient practical way to do what we want to do, 
which is make sure the big rules that impact on people at sectors and 
regions get addressed and the other rules can go to routinely.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
merely say that the requirement of the regulatory impact analysis is 
designed to give protection to those parties that would be regulated 
and also knowledge to the rule makers that their activities are going 
to have a social and financial impact on the regulated community. It is 
in the public's interest that we know as much about that social impact 
and that financial impact as we possibly can before the rule is finally 
adopted.
  I think it is best to have this regulatory impact analysis apply 
within reason to the broadest possible category of potential rules.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the problem that is sought to be addressed by 
this amendment is very simple. This bill could have one of two 
purposes. Either it is an honest attempt to elicit more information 
about the effects of a rule, of a major rule before that rule is 
effective, analogous to the environmental impact statement in 
environmental law, or it is a disingenuous attempt to thwart all 
Federal rulemaking because of a desire to let corporations not have to 
worry about new Federal rules because of a feeling that there are 
enough or too many Federal rules.
  We do not want to see anymore, so let us bog down all the new Federal 
rules, the proposed ones, in litigation, let us bog them down in impact 
analysis. Let us make every rule have to have an impact analysis and 
then tie it up in litigation. It is one or the other.
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman's amendment would make it 
clear that it is the former and not the latter. Because then you would 
have a clear guideline, a very modest guideline, one quarter. The 
chairman said that the reason we had to get away from the $100 million 
of President Ford and President Reagan is because the hue and cry of 
the business community was that that was too high or too low, that too 
many, that too much escaped it. That you did not have enough analysis.
  But that is now $300 to $400 million. What the gentleman's amendment 
is proposing is a rule of $100 million which is a quarter of what it 
was under President Ford, because President Ford's $100 million is 
today worth $300 to $400 million. So we are reducing it by 75 percent. 
That seems adequate.
  But second of all, let us look at the other key to the definition. A 
major rule would be defined as something that seems likely to result in 
a major increase in cost or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, local governments or geographic regions.
  What does that mean? What is a geographic region? The South Bronx? 
The entire State of New York? New York City? If a rule has a particular 
impact only on the South Bronx, do you need an impact analysis that is 
going to cost $1\1/2\ million or $2 million for the entire country? 
What does that mean?
  I will tell you what it means, about 5 years of lawsuits on that 
question.
  What does a major increase in cost or prices mean? Does that mean a 
15-percent price increase? Does it mean a 5-cent increase in a $1 item, 
a 5-cent increase in a 15-cent item. I tell you what it means. It means 
5 years of high-priced litigation on that question.
  You then say, it is a major rule if it seems likely to result in 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, et cetera, et 
cetera. What does significant adverse affects mean? I will tell you 
what it means. Five years of high-priced litigation is what it means.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are seeking to bog down any Federal agency and 
rulemaking, if we are seeking to enable companies to litigate 
everything and to tie it up in litigation forever, then this is a fine 
provision. But if this is an honest bill, if we want major rules that 
have real impacts to be subject to impact analysis, then the 
gentleman's amendment solves the problem, a $100 million clear rule, a 
heck of a lot less than President Reagan's and President Ford's 
threshold, because in their day it is $300 to $400 million in today's 
dollars, and the ability of the OMB director when something is 
unanticipated to reach down and say, that is a major rule even though 
it is only $25 million or some other figure under $100 million.

                              {time}  1600

  That is enough. To do anything more is to greatly increase the risk 
of tremendous litigation on every question, to almost beg for it. Open-
ended phrases once gone into practice to be interpreted by the courts 
would sweep an enormous number of regulations that do not warrant and 
could not conceivably profit from a full-blown cost-benefit analysis 
into this bill, and it would lead to endless litigation.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will answer, and how the 
majority, frankly, determines, this amendment will answer one question: 
what is the intent of this bill. Is it an honest attempt to deal with 
major rules and give it a regulatory analysis, in which case we will 
see a yes vote on this amendment, or is it a disingenuous attempt?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. NADLER. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, is it a disingenuous 
attempt to block most Federal rulemaking and to give major corporations 
subject to Federal rulemaking the ability to tie anything they do not 
like up in litigation for years by putting into the language of the 
bill such vague, indeterminate language as to invite litigation?
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the answer, if we see the majority vote 
against this amendment, we will know the answer to that question.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to try to point out 
something to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the gentleman 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], if I could have his attention. This is 
something that means a lot to me.
  [[Page H2436]] When we conducted the hearings, if the gentleman will 
recall, we paid attention to every single word that was uttered by the 
witnesses. As a result of the hearing and as a result of the testimony, 
for instance, on title III by the Justice Department, we sat back and 
looked at that legislation again that we had proposed, and we felt that 
we had to change it radically.
  The point is that I paid strict attention to what the witnesses said, 
and felt constrained to do something to alter our original purpose in 
it. By the same token, I gave tremendous credibility to the business 
people witnesses that we had sitting to tell us about the threshold, 
which is the issue we are discussing here right now.
  One of them, a witness, just like the Justice Department witness on 
title III, this witness was talking about, and his name was Cornelius 
Hubner, from American Felt and Filter Co., who speaks for thousands of 
people just like him, he said ``In fact, even more stringent 
requirement could be written in the legislation to reduce the threshold 
of affected persons from 100 to 50 or 25, and reduce the threshold of 
expenditure from $1 million to $100,000;'' not the 50 that I want, he 
wants $100,000.
  The point is, I would not deign to try to make it $100,000, but I 
want to give credibility to this man. I want to honor the hue and cry 
of the business community, the job creators, the hirers of the people 
the gentlemen represent, the people in their districts, and to base the 
final language of this bill on the testimony or the range of testimony 
that was given to us by the business people who are most affected by 
this.
  Give me credit for trying to do the job that we were asked to do by 
giving vent to what the testimony was, and try to do the best to 
reflect the best, and to reject the worst, of what the testimony was 
that was presented.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I give the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] great credit to this process of witnessing to the witnesses, and 
trying to adjust the form of the legislation.
  I believe Mr. Hubner was the only business person who spoke 
specifically about the threshold, and in fact, the witness that I heard 
with most sort of persuasive force was C. Boyden Gray, who is a 
representative of the business community, the president of Citizens for 
a Sound Economy, which is one of the groups that represents the 
business community.
  In Mr. Gray's written testimony, and also in his verbal testimony, he 
said ``$100 million is a central threshold.''
  Mr. GEKAS. Reclaiming my time on that point, Mr. Chairman, I knew the 
gentleman was going to say that. He did not exactly say that. He said 
``One could move it up to $100 million,'' something like that, but all 
of these figures are arbitrary. We have to choose an arbitrary figure.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, we take the $100,000 that one wants and the $100 
million that the gentleman from Rhode Island wants, and we have to 
strike a figure. The $100,000 person does not want the $100 million, 
and you do not want the $100,000, of course. It is not unreasonable to 
strike a well-balanced compromise at $50 million. That is what I am 
saying.
  Mr. REED. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate the 
gentleman's attempt to balance this. I think it is not only in good 
faith, but he is talking about the range of voices that we heard in the 
hearing, but I am persuaded by Mr. Gray, and I believe he was much more 
definitive in his selection of $100 million.
  In response to my question to Mr. Miller, the former director of OMB, 
candidate for the Senate in the State of Virginia, recently, and 
someone else who is involved in the business community, he sort of said 
``Sure, $100 million that is fine. We cannot have every regulation,'' 
and I am paraphrasing, but clearly there was no objection to the $100 
million threshold.
  The other point I would say again, reiterating, is that this is a 
threshold that has been on the books for 20 years, that has been part 
and parcel of both Republican and Democratic administrations.
  I do not think also that dropping this $50 million threshold will 
give relief to the small business people that the gentleman is very 
sincerely trying to protect. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, there are rules 
that well be picked up that apply only to multimillion-dollar 
enterprises.
  Mr. GEKAS. Seizing back my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will 
acknowledge that reducing to $50 million will bring an additional body 
of rules in that then, just by the very force and nature of their 
existence, would occupy the space of more business people.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say as a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, I want to compliment both the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Reed] because I am not on their subcommittee, but my overall view was 
the two of them had the most thoughtful markup, and did make a very, 
very good faith effort on this bill.
  I think we should really thank them, because so much of what has gone 
through, it has been hard to even see the ink dry before it is out of 
the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I think part of what the gentleman from Rhode Island is 
saying is that all the Members very thoughtfully in title I struck the 
indirect issue, and that he is afraid that if we do not adopt his 
amendment, we will be doing, indirectly, what they did directly in 
Title I by striking the indirect area.
  That sounds roundabout, but I think that is exactly what he is 
leaning on. If we leave it the way it is, there will be so many things 
that will require both this risk assessment, or the regulatory impact 
analysis, that it could be a real job generator in those areas, but it 
will be a real cost generator, and it will be a thing that will slow 
down regulations that a lot of people think should be more pro forma, 
or they may be for safety or whatever.
  Coming from an area that just opened its airport, let me say, one of 
the things might be something that would establish air traffic lanes 
for airplanes. I would certainly hate to think we would have to sit 
around and wait for some kind of risk assessment analysis or whatever.
  We could think of all sorts of other things that come along, such as 
change for education funding programs. We could miss a cycle because of 
that. There are any number of regulations that come out of the Federal 
Government.
  I think this subcommittee tried very hard to reach a reasonable 
compromise, and I really want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
because I think what he is saying is that when he saw $100 million 
being used as the cutoff by President Ford and President Reagan and 
President Bush and President Clinton, and by C. Boyden Gray 
recommending that in his role as chairman of the Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, that sounds reasonable, and that sounds like a reasonable 
cutoff.
  If we do not do this, everybody will want to claim that their rule is 
a major rule, or it has that kind of impact, and we will just be all 
tied in knots, spending all sorts of money, and losing all sorts of 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I also think we have to realize that as we are 
downsizing government, when we do things like this, we are going 
counter to what we are trying to do in downsizing, because we are 
putting a lot of burdens on agencies that we are trying to get down to 
bare bones. To add this is another burden which only adds frustration, 
adds cost, and adds delay.
  As we try to find a way to make government more user-friendly, and 
that is the bottom line here, how do we make it more user-friendly, and 
yet make sure that what we do does not harm our intended goal, this 
seems to be a very appropriate follow-on to what the subcommittee did 
in title I.
  I would just hope, Mr. Chairman, we could adopt this amendment by 
voice. I think it makes a lot of sense, and again, I say, and I mean it 
very sincerely,
 I think this subcommittee tried harder than any other to really get to 
the bottom of this and understand what the different words meant, and 
what the different impacts would be.

  I congratulate the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, and I just hope somehow 
[[Page H2437]] we can get a consensus here, move forward, because I 
think this $100 million cutoff threshold impact makes a tremendous 
amount of sense.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to add my applause and 
congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for what I think has been a very 
conciliatory and very strong effort at something that we have been 
talking about in the Committee on the Judiciary, as a member of that 
committee, a bipartisan bill.
  I would simply say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I would like 
to focus on a narrow part of the discussion, and I rise to support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] in 
terms of the threshold being moved to $100 million.
  I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, in particular that these 
words should be really directed towards the small business community, 
which all of us have in our community or in our particular districts 
and throughout the Nation. We know that the business of America is 
business. We can certainly applaud the efforts that small businesses 
have made in contributing to the economy, and certainly, to the job 
market in this Nation.
  However, if we would look at what we are trying to do here, it is to 
make their lives easier. We are talking about some 21 million small 
businesses in this Nation, some 8 million of them being those who are 
self-employed. The $100 million threshold we are talking about is an 
aggregate figure. We should not be looking that one single business, 
small or medium, or one single self-employed that has to prove $100 
million. It is an aggregate figure that allows us to be more reasonable 
and more fiscally responsible in how these regulations and this 
particular legislation will be applied.
  In particular, the regulatory impact analysis and risk assessment 
analysis can cost up to $1.6 million, so, for example, if there was an 
inquiry and a petition being made, which I certainly do agree with, if 
the threshold was not moved, we are talking about spending $1.6 million 
on every one of those particular inquiries. That would mean that we 
would have the occasion to read in our newspaper of agencies spending 
$100,000 every time they wanted to issue a rule.
  Let me give the Members an example. If they wanted to do it--we voted 
for the ducks the other day. Suppose they wanted the rule on opening 
hunting season, or if they wanted to do it on preventing fisheries from 
being overfished or compensating veterans who are suffering from the 
gulf war syndrome, or changing the formula for education funding 
programs, or raising and lowering drawbridges on inland waterways, or 
establishing traffic lanes for airplanes, and certainly, in the 
community that I come from where we are near a very strong port, we 
have some difficulties sometimes with raising and lowering bridges, and 
also some difficulties with some major incidence that cause a slow-up 
on our very busy port.
  The question then becomes, let us narrow it to what it is. It is an 
aggregate figure that applies to all of the impact. It does not burden 
one individual business, that they would have to prove that that was 
the overall impact on their single business. It would be an aggregate 
impact on all of the businesses.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, if I might, as it relates to the provisions that 
relate to the other language to the provisions that relate to the other 
language of sections B and C, one thing about the Administrative 
Procedures Act that we learned in first- or second-year law classes is 
the need to be as precise as we possibly could, and to avoid vagueness.
  I certainly appreciate the direction in which this legislation is 
going, but some of these words and phrases are extremely broad and 
might cause a great deal of difficulty in refining and detailing, so we 
would never bring closure to this process of regulation.
  We certainly want to stop the burden on our small businesses, but we 
also want to bring closure to this process so we can go on with the 
business of governing and they can go on with the business of their 
business, which is making money, I hope, and employing citizens around 
this Nation.
  I would simply argue, Mr. Chairman, that the threshold is one that is 
reasonable, because it is not a threshold that someone has to prove 
singly, it is the aggregate impact, and I would think that out of 21 
million businesses, you could prove an aggregate of a $100 million 
impact.
  The last sections, B and C, I would find great difficulty in bringing 
what we would want to have happen, the process to close because of the 
vagueness.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, let me say as we go through them that many 
of these bills in the contract deal with the relationship between 
Government and business. Like many on my side of the aisle, and I 
suppose a good number on the other side of the aisle, I find myself on 
these particular ones in a quandary.
  There is a germ of an idea in many parts of the contract. There have 
been instances where Government regulations went too far, became too 
removed, became too immutable. There have been many instances where for 
a small amount of good, a lot of bad was done.
  The trouble I find time and time and time again with the bills that 
are before us is they do not seek a balance, they do not seek to 
redress the balance and move the pendulum back to the middle, but they 
seek to go all the way over. In fact, some of them seem to have been 
written by the very businesses they regulate, and I am sure most of my 
colleagues would agree that would be a bad practice if it had ever 
happened.
  This bill is one that is far more moderate. This bill is one that I 
think does try to seek a balanced ground. It did not start out that way 
but through the good efforts of the gentleman from Rhode Island and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and some just facts in the hearing process 
when we learned that parts of the bill, other parts of H.R. 9 might 
exempt Keating from being prosecuted because he would be informed that 
he might be and he would have his lawyer sitting in everywhere, and we 
did amendments to correct that.
  I would say that the bill strikes a pretty good balance. It realizes 
the excesses of the past and yet does not react overboard.
  I would say in all due respect to my good friend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, he is seeking to push things too far again. The $100 
million level makes a good deal of sense in this area. This is a middle 
ground. One hundred million dollars was used by President Ford. In 
today's dollars, that would be $300 to $400 million.
  It was used by President Reagan in his Executive order, H.R. 9. That 
would be $170 or $180 million today. In testimony before the 
subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, C. Boyden 
Gray, the former White House counsel and chairman of Citizens for a 
Sound Economy, recommended the threshold remain at $100 million. Mr. 
Gray is not a crazy wild-eyed environmentalist or an anti-business 
crusader. He is a very staid, rational, essentially conservative 
gentleman, He, too, recommended the $100 million.
  So I say to my colleagues, why push things down further? There are as 
the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Colorado documented 
hundreds and hundreds of regulations that have rather minor impact and 
yet would be affected. Metaphorically but actually as well, why should 
we spend the millions of dollars it takes to do one of these reviews 
every time we open up the duck hunting season? These are the kinds of 
things that we are talking about.
  So I would say to my colleagues, yes, this is a good bill. This is a 
bill that makes a great deal of sense. But by moving to $100 million, 
we keep that sort of moderate, centrist approach which is in my opinion 
what the American people have wanted. By moving to 50, we bring the 
bill too far over, and, 
[[Page H2438]] therefore, I would urge that we keep the $100 million 
level.
  I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief and make four very quick points and 
then yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  First of all, I would hope that one of the objectives that we are 
trying to achieve by this legislation is to save the taxpayers money. 
It seems to me that it makes sense for us not to be doing major 
studies, paperwork, and so forth anytime any minor rule is promulgated. 
It ought to be restricted to major rules and rules which have major 
impact, and I would think that the $100 million figures has a lot more 
sense in that regard than his $50 million figure does which is in the 
bill.
  Second, I do not think anybody could argue that President Reagan or 
President Bush or President Ford were wild-eyed liberal people. The 
$100 million figure was sufficient for them, and I always thought of 
them as being rather conservative myself, and I do not know why we are 
trying to cut back on the conservative-liberal scale, so to speak.
  It is like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] said, we are 
trying to swing the pendulum all the way to the opposite end and in a 
way we are overreacting here.
  The third point I would make quickly is that since President Reagan 
and President Ford were there, the cost of living has gone up 
substantially. So that what would have been a $100 million figure in 
their administration actually should now probably be $130 million or 
$150 million, quite conceivably. It would have gone up, certainly not 
gone down.
  Then finally as the chairman of the committee has indicated, this is 
an arbitrary figure. There is nothing scientific about this. What we 
ought to be striving toward is a figure that makes the most sense and 
the criteria in determining whether it makes the most sense, one of 
those criteria at least, the primary criteria ought to be were we 
saving the taxpayers money?
  I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. I 
echo his sentiments. I think he has expressed very eloquently the major 
points we have been talking about this afternoon.
  I would just like to briefly say that again we are trying to create a 
responsive, streamlined process that saves the American people money 
and aggravation, particularly businesspeople.
  What I would regret very much is that 6 months, a year from now, if 
this legislation becomes law, if we saw articles about a Federal agency 
spending $1.6 million proposing a regulation and doing a regulatory 
impact analysis for a regulatory matter that was, say, much less than 
that. You can pick out an abundant amount of examples, raising, 
lowering bridges, setting time zones. All these things potentially 
could have a $50 million impact triggering this procedure, but I think 
the American people would say why are we spending money doing something 
we have done year in and year out which has very little effect at all 
on small business or most Americans or if it does have an effect it is 
not at all deleterious or harmful.
  I think again we have to be very, very careful. If we stick with what 
seems to be working, which is the $100 million threshold, I believe we 
will have a bill that is better than the present model and one that we 
can support strongly.
  Again, I would urge everyone to support the amendment to raise the 
threshold to $100 million.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in order to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Rhode 
Island.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform the Members here and in 
their offices and wherever they may be working at the moment that we 
are nearing the end of the legislation at hand.
  As I understand it--and this is where I ask the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Reed] to correct me--after this vote is taken, whether by 
voice vote or by recorded vote, whatever, then we are at a point where 
we can move to final passage; is that correct?
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that when we complete this vote, and I would 
at this point request a recorded vote when it is in order to do so, we 
are very close to final passage. I believe the gentleman might have 
colloquy with another Member.
  Mr. GEKAS. That is correct.
  Mr. REED. There very well might be an issue that I would raise but 
not with the anticipation of calling for a vote or actually formally 
presenting an amendment, but I would like to reserve that right, if I 
may.
  I am also told that the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] has an amendment and he is not here yet, but I am sure he 
will be here. I cannot speak for the ranking member.
  Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman threw cold water in my face now. I thought 
that we were going to be in good-faith compliance with the wishes of 
Members to wind this down.
  At any rate, we have an idea that we are winding down. I am ready, 
then, to call for the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment and to 
proceed to final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 185]

                               AYES--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     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
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--266

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     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
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     [[Page H2439]] Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     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
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Istook
     Kleczka
     Moakley
     Rush
     Thornton
     Velazquez

                             {time}   1644

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Istook against.

  Ms. DANNER and Mr. WISE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: Page 9, line 21, strike 
     the close quotation marks and the period following and insert 
     after line 21 the following:
       ``(5) In a rulemaking involving a major rule, the agency 
     conducting the rulemaking shall make a written record 
     describing the subject of all contacts the agency made with 
     persons outside the agency relating to such rulemaking. If 
     the contact was made with a non-governmental person, the 
     written record of such contact shall be made available, upon 
     request to the public.''.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the sunshine 
amendment that would require that there be a written record of any 
contacts between agency persons and persons outside of an agency during 
the rulemaking process. The necessity for this rule has come from long 
experience for those of us who have served on the Committee on 
Government Operations or the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, in connection with this sunshine amendment, 
Justice Brandeis once said there is no better antiseptic than sunshine 
in order to prevent the misdeeds of government, and that is exactly 
what this amendment is about.
  While we are trying to seek accountability in the regulatory process, 
we should ensure that what often goes on behind the scenes and off the 
record is accountable also. That is all that this is about. Regulations 
are public law and should not be conducted in secrecy.
  Now, in truth we have an Executive order that covers this, and what 
we are doing is putting it into the law, nothing more, nothing less. 
The amendment would ensure that the regulatory process is open and 
accountable and that there are records of those who seek to influence 
regulations from behind the scenes.
  This is not an abstract matter. It is the real world. It comes out of 
many years in which special interests were able to shape regulations 
regardless of whatever new procedures were put in place without any 
record or trace of their involvement, and what we are trying to do is 
make sure that we know everybody that had a hand, a meeting, a phone 
call involved in the shaping of these all-important rules.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the Government is already living in this 
sunshine. As I have already indicated, President Clinton's Executive 
Order 12866 has already put in place many of the sunshine requirements 
that we are proposing here today.
  The amendment before the House would do two things. First, it would 
require that all communications between an agency and the Office of 
Management and Budget during the consideration of this rule be 
recorded. During past administrations there were countless examples of 
the OMB informally rewriting agency rules before they were submitted to 
them for review, only there was no way for congressional committees to 
conduct oversight of this process because no records were kept of this 
highly influential and highly secret process. We want sunshine.
  Second, my amendment would require that all communications, including 
oral ones between Government officials involved in a particular 
regulation and private parties, be recorded and that such a record be 
publicly available. This is to prevent what we have seen in the past as 
backdoor channels whereby favorite special interests were able to 
profoundly influence regulations behind the scenes without any public 
record.
  Is there anybody here that would not want this kind of openness to be 
a part of the law that we are passing here today?
  It is a terrible abuse of the principles of openness that the 
Administrative Procedures Act symbolizes.
  We on this side of the aisle continue to be concerned about the 
possibility of perverting the requirement for openness and 
accountability in the regulatory process by allowing ex parte or third-
party contacts to be off the record at critical stages of the 
regulation process.
  Congressional investigations over the years have
   repeatedly documented the profound impact that such secret contacts 
have had on important regulations affecting public health and welfare. 
Remember the Clean Air Act where we had all kinds of problems in terms 
of behind-the-scenes activity in which we found out that the Clean Air 
Act, the rules on it, were being negotiated secretly? The Nutrition 
Labeling Act with the Food and Drug Administration had the same 
problem. We had the biodiversity accord scuttled during the summit in 
Rio because of outside, behind-the-scenes undermining of the U.S. 
support. We had the guidelines on disabled access to public housing 
weakened as a result of backdoor intervention that was not recorded and 
not very well known. I have a long list that goes on and on.

  We believe that it is consistent with the spirit of the 
Administrative Procedures Act that should be kept when Government 
officials involved in writing regulations meet with private parties, 
attempting to influence the outcome of those regulations, and it might 
not always be illegal or subversive. It could be a good-faith meeting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Doggett and by unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CONYERS. What I am saying now is that every meeting or call 
between the private sector and the OMB 
[[Page H2440]] or the White House may not be subversive or ill-
motivated. It may be a perfectly legitimate attempt to get a position 
or something on the record. What we want to know before the rule comes 
out is what happened, and that is what this does.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield, if I understand, all you 
are really trying to do is take an Executive order that is in place now 
and put it into the statute, so we will be assured that any future 
administration would follow this principle of sunshine.
  Mr. CONYERS. Precisely, that and no more, and we continue the rule in 
the Administrative Procedures Act which does not cover these kinds of 
activities once it leaves the agency and goes to OMB and to the White 
House and elsewhere in the executive branch.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I have some other questions for you, but the most 
obvious question is why would anybody be against this? Surely this is 
an acceptable amendment, and it will not be necessary for us to talk 
further if it is acceptable to the sponsors of the legislation. Surely 
they do not have any argument against this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Surely. We debated it in the full committee with not the 
complete success that got it or that would have gotten it included in 
the bill.
  I would just like to make a couple of concluding remarks.
  Because even the Reagan administration, what I have not quoted 
recently, in the so-called Graham memorandum governing regulatory 
review procedures by OMB, recognized the need to address the problem of 
secret off-the-record contacts.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan characterizes his amendment 
as a sunshine amendment. It is more like a sunstroke amendment. It 
paralyzes everybody with whom it comes into contact.
  Having said that, in my characteristic way, even though I believe 
that this is trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer, I find no great 
reason to oppose it. It simply will pile the agency up with more memos 
and more graphs that it has to contain in the file.
  I am not saying to the gentleman that, as this bill moves farther, 
that I will not be consulting with him with an idea of how we can make 
the amendment better. I have some ideas. But for now, I will accept the 
amendment with no promise to him that I am going to stay in concert 
with him on this issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. GEKAS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank you for your unwavering, steadfast, and totally 
committed support that you bring from the other side to this amendment. 
And I assure the gentleman that we on the Judiciary Committee will work 
to keep the kinds of recording activities that this suggests to a 
minimum. We are talking about recording a phone contact or a meeting, 
not a complete recall of the entire transaction.
  Mr. GEKAS. Reclaiming my time, by that statement, the gentleman 
acknowledges that this may be overinclusive. We will work to see what 
exactly the gentleman thinks might have to be required to be kept in 
the agency file.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, Mr. 
Chairman, let me just thank you very much for adding to, I think, what 
was offered as a conciliatory amendment, not to burden small businesses 
or to burden any other process under this legislation but simply it is 
a two-way street. I want to add my support to this amendment. It is to 
list not only those who are in the private sector but I think you will 
find it constructive that you would also list contacts from those from 
other government agencies or the executive branch or the White House, 
because that, too, has on occasion the opportunity to influence what 
goes on.

                              {time}  1700

  So, consider it a sunshine, not to burden the private sector or small 
businesses but as well as the gentleman has gleaned from it by his 
willingness to accept it, as well as a protection of the private sector 
from government intrusion.
  So they too have knowledge of who is weighing in on various 
regulations. I think it is an excellent amendment. I appreciate the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] in his receptiveness for what I 
think will add to the process by providing that sunshine on the issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. Seizing back my time, I yield further to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  Mr. Chairman, having worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] on a variety of committees in the Committee on the Judiciary 
over a dozen years or more, I say it is true that his record as 
committee chairman in this new role--where I have not witnessed him 
before--on judiciary, it is true that his record as being a committee 
chairman in this leadership position that he is discharging it in a 
very excellent way and he deserves the accolades on that subject.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members we should vote in acceptance 
of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406, 
noes 23, not voting 5, as follows:
                             [Roll No 186]

                               AYES--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     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
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     [[Page H2441]] Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--23

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Bereuter
     Bonilla
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooley
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Forbes
     Hancock
     Hayworth
     Johnson, Sam
     King
     Linder
     McIntosh
     Molinari
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Stump
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Moakley
     Rush
     Souder

                              {time}  1719

  Messrs. BAKER of California, LINDER, COBURN, COOLEY and HAYWORTH 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MYRICK and Messrs. NEUMANN, MANZULLO, BARR, and ROYCE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: On page 8, line 12, 
     strike ``major'' and insert ``five percent''.

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before I get into the amendment, I wish to 
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island and others, including members of the Committee on Small 
Business, who have worked very diligently on this legislation, however 
I guess one of my biggest problems is that I happen to have a bad 
habit, I guess, up here when I read the bills, and, as I read this 
bill, I find that there is something in here that I do not quite 
understand, and I am talking to the gentleman from Rhode Island and 
other Members that are on this side of judiciary. I find that the 
matter was not even discussed in committee because of limited time in 
markup, and I have come to the conclusion that the use of the word 
``major'' where it is used is purely subjective, and it may mean 
something to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and a completely 
different something to me, and a completely different something to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island or anybody else in this Chamber, and, as 
far as the regulatory bodies, it would mean different things to 
different people, and what it means to me is that, being so ambiguous, 
that we end up possibly with a bunch of lawsuits over it, and I do not 
think that is what the gentleman really wants and I do not want. Nobody 
wants that in here.
  So, this is an attempt, and I will agree that it may not be the right 
figure, that 5 percent may not be a right figure, but it is an attempt 
to bring to the gentleman from Pennsylvania another what I consider a 
major problem. The bill says a major rule means any rule subject to 
section 553c or Administrative Procedures Act is likely to result in an 
annual effect on an economy of 50 million or more. I have no objection 
to that, none whatsoever. That makes sense. That is pretty easily 
readily identifiable, but then it goes on to say a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or 
local government agencies, or geographic regions.
  Now what is a major increase in costs or price?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may recall, part of the 
drafting of our final bill here was as a result of lifting from the 
executive order issued by president Reagan and during his 
administration covering this same subject matter. Now since that time, 
right up until the time that we are having this colloquy, the agencies 
have built up a body of experience and files that have from time to 
time interpreted ``major.'' Now right or wrong, Mr. Chairman, there is 
a definition lurking out there among the agencies which they have 
applied or refused to apply because they determined it was not major. 
Now we are drawing on that body of experience in incorporating that 
phraseology into this language.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say that what the gentleman complains 
of, that it is ambiguous and so forth, occurs in every bill we have 
ever offered here, and the final arbiter, as in this legislation and 
what we specifically project for this legislation, those final arbiters 
result in judicial review. That is what we want. So where the 
individual small business person or an agency, executive director, 
conflict on what is major, the courts will finally decide that. So it 
is a reasonable effort here to give an alternative to the agencies to 
determine what is or what is not a major increase as we----
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is again, I think, one problem, and I will not deny 
that has happened to other legislation that has passed through this 
body, that this body and the other body does not really want to address 
the issue. It is passed on to the regulators, and then we leave it up 
to them to decide, and then, if they do not decide right as far as some 
individuals who are being affected by the regulations are concerned, 
they file suit, and we end up in a court, and we let the court decide.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask, why can't we decide? Why can't we write it 
so we know what it means, and they know what it means, and everybody 
else knows what it means?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Yes.
  Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman has spoken eloquently in defense of the $50 
million which is a stated amendment, and so we agree with him; no one 
can dispute that line. But the major increase or even a major rule or 
other phraseologies that we imply in this bill are always subject to 
court review, and any bill that my colleague has ever sponsored, any 
paragraph within that, is subject to judicial review. That is why we 
have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, what I have proposed in my amendment 
is less subject to a substantive determination than what we have here.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. But the gentleman has admitted that the agencies--and I 
will not deny that they themselves have now over the period of years 
said what they think major means. Now I do not know that every agency 
agrees with each other as to what major means, and I do not say that 
the 5 percent increase that I put in cost of prices is the right 
amount, but it is much--it is like the 50 million. Whatever figure goes 
in, whether it is 5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 15 percent, 12 
percent or whatever it is that we want to do, that is really easily 
ascertainable. That is very easily ascertainable.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman states as a fact that it would 
be easily ascertainable, but I think that 
[[Page H2442]] that could be as much subject to judicial review as the 
word ``major.'' In ``major'' we have a body of experience and files for 
a dozen years which can help the courts interpret 5 percent. Does that 
mean the overall cost? Does that mean profit cost? Does that mean 5 
percent of the total package, 5 percent of a shipment? Does it mean 5 
percent of the geographic region's products? So 5 percent itself is 
subject to judicial review and interpretation. When the consumer on the 
one hand says one thing, and the agency head says something else, and 
the small businessman says something different than what the 5 percent 
is that they are applying, and, as a matter of fact, our version has 
more precedent upon which the final decision can be made by the judge.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to withdraw the amendment or I 
am going to ask the Members to soundly defeat this just to keep a kind 
of balance in what is already a part of the Executive order that we 
have transplanted from the Reagan Executive order to our bill.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman. All I am 
attempting to do is make a little more sense out of a matter that the 
gentleman agrees it is left to the bureaucrat to make determination, 
and readily agrees with this language bureaucrats will continue to make 
the determination, not Members of Congress, and that if they do not 
make it the way some people agree to do, you have nothing but the 
Federal courts, so the judges make the decision. They may even 
disagree, depending on the rulemaking.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I think the House should decide whether 
they want a definitive matter in here or subjective. The gentleman says 
that the 5 percent is just subjective. I do not believe so. I think if 
I look at a price in a store or anyplace else and I can say that it is 
a 5-percent increase or a 3-percent increase or a 10-percent increase, 
I can figure it out better than if I see it is a major or minor 
increase.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to say 
that while I do not agree with the 5-percent figure in the gentleman's 
amendment, it does raise a significant issue. The gentleman thinks the 
figure ought to be 5 percent. I would probably think it ought to be 25 
percent, and I think that really points up the issue that the gentleman 
is making here and bringing to us.
  The problem is there is no definition of what that means in this 
bill, and the very sponsors of the bill who are saying we are trying to 
cut down on the authority of regulators and agencies to promulgate 
regulations come right around the corner and now say we are going to 
leave the definition of what is major up to the very regulators which 
we distrust.
  So here we are again delegating responsibility, abdicating, I might 
say, responsibility that we ought to take as a body to define what we 
mean in a law to agencies, and then next month, next year, we will be 
right back here second-guessing the way they have exercised that 
authority that we have delegated to them. And this is a vicious circle 
we are engaged in.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
                     amendment offered by mr. reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment designated amendment A.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reed: On page 16, line 11, insert 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 207. JUDICIAL REVIEW

       Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 206 is further amended by adding after subsection (k) 
     the following:
       (l)(1) When an action for judicial review is instituted--
       (A) any regulatory impact analysis for such rule shall 
     constitute part of the whole record of agency action in 
     connection with the review; and
       (B) the reviewing court may order an agency to prepare a 
     final regulatory impact analysis for any final rule that the 
     agency or the Director determined was a major rule (other 
     than a rule described in subsection (k)) and for which the 
     agency failed to prepare such analysis.
       (2) Except as provided in (1), a regulatory impact analysis 
     prepared for a major rule pursuant to subsection (i) and the 
     compliance or noncompliance of an agency or the Director with 
     the provisions of subsections (i) through (k) shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.''
       Page 16, line 12, strike ``207'' and insert ``208''.

  Mr. REED (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, first let me say it is my intention to 
discuss briefly this amendment, because it is important, and then ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw it.
  This amendment focuses on the issue of judicial review in title II of 
this legislation. It is an important issue because I think we are all 
concerned about having an economical judicial review process. The 
language now is not specific enough, and I would in this amendment make 
it more specific by making it clear that the review process would only 
be commenced upon final regulation of a rule and not somewhere or 
anywhere within the process itself.
  I think that leads to a more efficient adjudication of the rules, it 
allows for a more coherent review by the judicial authorities, and it 
saves money for the American taxpayers.
  In addition, this amendment would limit the review with respect to 
the regulatory impact analysis to the procedural aspects. Was it 
performed, did the agency act arbitrarily and capriciously in 
performing that analysis. It would not invite, encourage, require a 
battery of experts to battle over every detail, whether the tests 
should have been done on cats, dogs, are applicable to large people or 
small people, et cetera.
  This is important legislation, and I would ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that as we consider this bill in the future 
that we would once again return to this issue of judicial review and 
ask with your good offices if we could once again study it.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about the element of 
judicial review and have some trepidations about agreeing with the 
gentleman on any part of what you have just said. I am willing and want 
to discuss further the ramifications of what the gentleman is 
discussing here for some future debate with you.
  I must tell the gentleman, judicial review in my judgment is the 
heart and soul of this legislation, and I will not be a party to 
shrinking it. But to improve the language, I would be glad to meet with 
the gentleman.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I am very sensitive to shrinking 
anything. So I do not want to shrink judicial review. I am a supporter 
of judicial review. I just want to make sure the review is efficient, 
cost effective, and reaches the merits on a final point and not several 
points in the process.
  I believe with the gentleman's proffer of working together, we can 
work out these details. I hope I can persuade the gentleman this 
language or some version will be an improvement and not a detriment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                         TITLE III--PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 301. PRESIDENTIAL ACTION.

       Pursuant to the authority of section 7301 of title 5, 
     United States Code, the President shall, within 180 days of 
     the date of the enactment of this title, prescribe 
     regulations for employees of the executive branch to ensure 
     that Federal laws and regulations shall be administered 
     consistent with the principle that any person shall, in 
     connection with the enforcement of such laws and 
     regulations--
       (1) be protected from abuse, reprisal, or retaliation, and
       [[Page H2443]] (2) be treated fairly, equitably, and with 
     due regard for such person's rights under the Constitution.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?
  If not, are there any other amendments?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say we are winding down on this 
legislation. I want to again thank the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Reed] for his superb cooperation, and the minority members of the 
subcommittee. I would like to thank my staff, Ray Smietanka, Roger 
Fleming, and Charlie Kern, and even the gentleman from Alaska, who is 
watching these proceedings. I thank everybody in sight.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, 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. 
Hastert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 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. 926) 
to promote regulatory flexibility and enhance public participation in 
Federal agency rulemaking, and for other purposes, 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 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, 
nays 15, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No 187]

                               YEAS--415

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

                                NAYS--15

     Becerra
     Bonior
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Johnston
     McKinney
     Nadler
     Rangel
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Moakley
     Rush

                              {time}  1758

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida and Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________