[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 56 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4642-S4655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me commend the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota for his comments on both issues. I will talk more about trade on 
another day, but certainly what the Senator said about the wisdom of 
the moratorium could not be better said. I appreciate his leadership 
and that of the distinguished ranking member of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, who is on the floor now and who has already 
discussed this matter at some length.
  Mr. President, I think it is fair to say, it is accurate to say that 
the moratorium is dead. There is no moratorium. It is over. There will 
not be a moratorium in spite of whatever decisions or promises the 
House may have made. The clear recognition in the Senate is that the 
moratorium is worse medicine than the disease itself, that the cure in 
this case is too broad, too problematic, and far too imprudent for us 
to support. So the moratorium is over. It is dead. I am very pleased 
that legislation is now pending to replace this moratorium that will be 
debated tomorrow.
  Let me say, if it reappears, then I am confident that Members, at 
least on this side of the aisle in this Chamber, will again kill it. 
Everyone recognizes we must deal with problematic regulations. Everyone 
recognizes that this is not a partisan issue, that indeed we have to 
confront the proliferation of regulation and recognize that there are 
some which simply do not make sense.
  Bringing balance and common sense to the regulatory process is 
something Democrats have argued for a long time. With bipartisan 
support, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved just last week a 
better and more meaningful way to address regulatory problems. As I 
understand it, the Judiciary Committee and the Energy Committee are 
meeting this week to do the same thing. So by the end of the week, 
three committees of the Senate will have done what we should do: 
Develop a framework to analyze and address many of the problems that 
have proliferated as a result of irresponsible regulation.
  In my view, that is what we should do. That is the subject of the 
President's review that will be made available to us before the end of 
June, and I am very pleased that the White House as well as the 
Congress is working on this in a very comprehensive way.
  Comprehensive reform is what is necessary, not the shortsighted, 
simplistic approach recommended by some of our Republican colleagues, 
especially on the House side.
  So the moratorium is dead. And I think that this week we can come up 
with a meaningful way to achieve regulatory reform. Hopefully, this 
will be the first in a two-step process, one that provides us with an 
opportunity to deal with regulations in a meaningful way.
  Frankly, we could have accomplished comprehensive reform in one step. 
We could have done it at a later date, once we have had a more thorough 
debate. That would have been my preference. But certainly, this can 
work. I think there is broad base of support for examining alternatives 
to the moratorium and we will begin that process tomorrow.
  I think the Reid-Nickles legislation can give us an opportunity to 
review regulation in a selective and meaningful way. It can at least 
begin to address some of the problems that many of us have articulated 
with regard to reform for some time.
  Again, the way to accomplish regulation reform is not through a 
sweeping moratorium that halts the progress of the good along with the 
bad. We should always be wary of temporary ``one-size-fits-all'' 
solutions that do not address the underlying source of the problem. It 
is an approach that will have unintended negative consequences. It is 
our responsibility here in the Congress to distinguish between the 
rules that are good and necessary and those that must be fixed or 
scrapped altogether. Clearly, the authors of the moratorium do not seem 
to feel such a need and would stop even those rules that would have 
broad-based support. That is what I would like to address this 
afternoon.
  I would like to cite a few examples of the kinds of rules that a 
moratorium would have stopped, had it passed. Fortunately, because the 
moratorium, as I said is dead, we do not have to worry about it. But 
had a moratorium been passed, these types of rules would have been 
detrimentally affected. I want to address those briefly this afternoon.
  [[Page S4643]] First of all, our meat and poultry inspection process, 
as everyone understands, is outdated and unable to satisfactorily 
detect bacterial contamination. The results, as we have seen, can be 
lethal.
  In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Agriculture Nutrition 
Subcommittee and Research, Conservation, Forestry, and General 
Legislation. We conducted four hearings to explore the issue of meat 
and poultry inspection in this country.
  At every one of these hearings, there was a clear consensus that we 
must modernize our meat and poultry inspection system. During the 
hearing we uncovered a number of troubling facts. For example, it has 
been estimated that major bacterial pathogens are responsible for up to 
5 million illnesses and 4,000 deaths annually. Foodborne illness attack 
persons at a greater risk such as children and the elderly. In the 
Pacific Northwest four children died after eating contaminated meat, 
while hundreds became ill.
  That tragic event prompted everyone involved in this issue to seek a 
more sensitive and responsible alternatives to the current meat and 
poultry inspection system--one that would prevent such a tragedy from 
every happening again. In fact, the American meat industry even 
petitioned USDA to propose a new rule.
  The current meat and poultry inspection system is based upon sight 
and smell and cannot detect the presence of some deadly human 
pathogens. To correct this problem, the Department of Agriculture on 
February 3 proposed a regulation to improve the inspection of meat and 
poultry.
  This rule is the product of several years' worth of debate with the 
scientific community and food industries. As we all know, the 
moratorium would substantially delay this rule. In the meantime, how 
many more outbreaks will occur? How many more children will become ill 
and perhaps die?
  Americans enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the 
world. But it can and should be improved. Adopting a science-based meat 
and poultry inspection process is an important step. The ill-conceived 
and politically motivated moratorium must not be used to delay 
implementation of this long-overdue regulation.
  The same can be true of seafood inspection.
  Mr. President, on January 28, the Food and Drug Administration 
proposed a rule to improve the inspection of seafood. This is a 
sensible thing to do, given the desire on the part of most of us to 
have the safest food supply possible, but the moratorium would block 
it. Apparently, either those who push this regulatory moratorium are 
unwilling to support the changes necessary to have a safer food supply, 
or the moratorium will have the unintended consequence of stopping yet 
another reasonable and necessary rule. I find neither case acceptable.
  The rule, which is based on the same principles used to overhaul the 
meat and poultry inspections, is designed to better ensure the safe 
processing and importing of fish and fish products.
  The rule will benefit both the seafood industry and consumers. The 
industry will benefit, as consumers will have greater confidence in 
seafood products, leading them to purchase greater quantities of 
seafood, while consumers will benefit by having access to safer fish.
  Unless this rule is covered by the safety and health exception--and 
it is far from clear that it is--then the moratorium will stop this 
rule in its tracks.
  Are we willing to play politics with our food supply, needlessly 
endangering the public in order to score a few cheap political points? 
Or are we going to take responsibility for the health of Americans and 
acknowledge that many of these rules like the seafood safety rule, make 
sense and should move forward?
  The same can be said about head injuries. Mr. President, the 
Department of Transportation has issued a rule requiring protection 
against head impacts in the upper interior of cars, light trucks, and 
light multipurpose passenger vehicles. Each year we delay implementing 
this rule, 1,000 Americans will lose their lives and several hundred 
crippling head trauma injuries will occur.
  The costs associated with these injuries will continue to drive up 
health care costs, insurance rates, and time away from work for injured 
victims.
  The greatest tragedy is that these deaths and injuries will have been 
prevented if the regulations had been kept in place. The moratorium 
would, at a minimum, delay this rule from taking effect for many 
months, costing what otherwise would have been preventable deaths and 
injuries. Is that the result intended by the authors of this 
moratorium? I cannot believe that it is.
  Third, with respect to radioactive waste, although we have identified 
safer alternatives for nuclear waste disposal, that continues to 
represent a very serious problem. In spite of the fact that we are 
making progress, serious problems continue to exist with regard to how 
we dispose of nuclear wastes in the future.
 Efforts have been underway for years to identify better places and 
practices that would assure the safe disposal of nuclear waste for the 
many thousands of years that the waste remains dangerous.

  This year, after considerable deliberation and analysis, the 
Environmental Protection Agency proposed long-awaited rules for the 
disposal of nuclear waste. While I do not expect that we are at the end 
of our quest for safe nuclear waste disposal, these rules represent a 
giant step in the right direction. This rule would apply in particular 
to the first national nuclear waste repository, the waste isolation 
pilot project in New Mexico.
  The nuclear power industry and the Defense Department, as well as the 
Department of Energy, are looking forward to these rules to help create 
additional certainty and safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. The 
moratorium would halt the implementation of these rules. Given the high 
stakes in this debate, including the public health issues, risks and 
economic factors, does it make sense to place a moratorium on rules 
that would move us closer to a means of more safely disposing of 
nuclear waste? I do not think so.
  Finally, during the Governmental Affairs Committee markup, Senator 
Glenn offered an amendment to exempt from the moratorium Environmental 
Protection Agency regulations to control contamination and disinfection 
byproducts in drinking water. As many of us remember, the city of 
Milwaukee not long ago experienced a serious outbreak of disease due to 
contamination of the city's water supply. In 1993, a microscopic 
parasite known as cryptosporidium got into Milwaukee's drinking water 
supply. Ultimately, the outbreak resulted in over 100 deaths and 
400,000 illnesses. There are numerous other cities that have 
experienced the ravages of bacterial contamination in their water 
supply. Just ask the people of Carrollton, GA; Cabool, MO; or Jackson 
County, OR. In the wake of these episodes, the committee nevertheless 
rejected the Glenn amendment. Given the recent experience of residents 
in Milwaukee and other areas, I cannot imagine how anyone could defend 
the moratorium on regulations designed to protect the public water 
supply from contamination.
  So, Mr. President, let us be clear. The regulatory moratorium is not 
a tool of genuine reform. It is a blunt tool of expediency and, if 
enacted, it would have serious negative consequences.
  Fortunately, the moratorium, as I have said, is dead. Real reform 
requires hard work. Real reform allows a serious consideration of 
proposals that will allow us to make a difference in the regulatory 
process by defining good from bad. And that is exactly what we want to 
do here. We want to provide meaningful alternatives to the moratorium, 
and I believe that the so-called Nickles-Reid approach is a beginning 
in that effort. It allows us to assess in a more constructive way which 
regulations ought to be issued and gives us the opportunity to stop 
those that are not well-intended or certainly are not prudent. But we 
will get into that debate tomorrow.
  My purpose in coming to the floor today is simply to say that the 
moratorium is recognized here as something that cannot work, a blunt 
instrument that in our view is far more serious in remedy than the 
actual problem that it is trying to cure.
  So I am hopeful that as we go through this deliberative process, 
first with regard to the very limited nature 
[[Page S4644]] of the Nickles-Reid amendment, and then ultimately in a 
more comprehensive way later on, we can deal with the regulatory 
proliferation as we know it should be dealt with, in a way that 
provides us an opportunity to use discretion, and in a way that gives 
us an opportunity to make better decisions about regulations as they 
affect the American people.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to respond just briefly to a 
couple of comments made by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, my 
friend from South Dakota.
  I noticed he said the GOP moratorium. We are not debating moratorium 
because we do have the substitute to it, but in his charts he said it 
would block better meat, poultry, and seafood inspection. I take issue 
with that because I do not think it does.
  I happen to be the sponsor of the moratorium bill, and, again, we are 
going to offer a substitute, something I think is even better. But we 
do have exceptions. We have exceptions for imminent threat to health or 
safety or other emergencies. That is determined by the President of the 
United States. Maybe Senator Daschle does not have any confidence in 
the President of the United States, but we allow the President of the 
United States to make that determination.
  It also says protection against head injuries and so on. Again, I 
think if the President felt that was a threat to health and human 
safety, he could exempt it. Or if he felt it was necessary for the 
enforcement of criminal laws, he could have exempted it. Or I heard 
some comments about the Safe Drinking Water Act, or could not 
differentiate between good and bad.
  Again, in the bill, on page 9 of the bill, it says the President 
could exempt a regulation if he found that the regulation has as its 
principal effect fostering economic growth, repealing, narrowing, 
streamlining rule regulation, administrative process, or otherwise 
reducing regulatory burdens. The President could exempt it. Senator 
Daschle mentioned safe drinking water. Again, if the President felt it 
was necessary to enact such a regulation in order to save lives--I 
heard the comments of hundreds of lives or something--certainly the 
President would have that authority. As a matter of fact, we did not 
have judicial review. His authority would have been accepted without 
court review or anything.
  So I just mention that. We do not have to continue debating this 
bill. I know Senator Daschle said the moratorium is dead and now we are 
looking at this more streamlined Nickles-Reid bill.
  Let me compare this to the moratorium. The bill that Senator Reid and 
myself are proposing is congressional review of all regulations. The 
moratorium bill that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
did not review all regulations. It reviewed only a small percentage and 
then allowed the President to exempt those.
  We started out with eight exemptions. The committee added another two 
or three and then had some exemptions on specific amendments. So there 
are like 10, at least 10 exemptions in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee but that only applied to significant regulations.
  So for people to say that was so draconian and so unfair and so much 
a terrible disaster, I would say the Nickles-Reid substitute is a lot 
more comprehensive because it has the potential of stopping any 
regulation. It says Congress can review them. It puts the burden on 
Congress. Granted, the bill that was reported out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee had the responsibility on the executive agencies, had 
the responsibility on the President of the United States. The President 
would have to exempt those regulations, due to the following 
exemptions. Now it is on Congress if we are successful.
  Congress has the responsibility--and I want to underline the word 
``responsibility,'' because Congress, in my opinion, in many cases has 
abdicated that responsibility. We have passed laws and then we forget 
about them. We are busy. We do not have time to go in and actually 
follow up and do congressional oversight. And so we pass the laws, and 
bureaucrats take over and enforce them and come up with the rules and 
regulations to make those things happen.
  Now Congress is going to have some responsibility to review those 
rules. Particularly those rules that have significant impact, we are 
going to have to find out does the rule make sense? Is it a good idea? 
And maybe even some of those rules that do not have significant 
impact--maybe they do not have to have $100 million of economic 
impact--we should review those rules as well, and if our constituents 
are telling us that these rules are far too costly or too expensive or 
bureaucratic or too complicated to comply with, maybe we will listen to 
them and maybe we will stop them. Maybe we will make the administration 
more accountable. And I think it is one of the reasons why President 
Clinton should support this legislation. I expect that he will. I 
expect that he will sign this legislation because this will make the 
bureaucrats more accountable. They will know if they come up with a 
regulation, they cannot hide behind the legislation. They know that 
Members of Congress can have them appear before the various committees 
and they will have to justify the regulations. If there is a serious 
opposition to it, they will have to justify it in such a way or else, 
if we can get a majority vote in both Houses, we can rescind it. We can 
repeal it. We can stop it. We can reject it, as we should.
  Mr. President, I know this chart behind me talks about the number of 
pages that are in the Federal Register. It shows the growth that we had 
basically during the Carter years in 1977, 1978, 1979, and in 1980, we 
reached an all-time high. We had actually 73,258 pages in the Federal 
Register. It declined significantly under Ronald Reagan's term, fell 
all the way down at the end of his first term in 1984 down to 48,000-
some pages. In 1986, it reached the low point, I guess, of 44,821. In 
1988, it had gone up to 50,000. At the end of 1992--and I guess that 
was the end of President Bush's term--we were up to 57,000. And under 
President Clinton's term, the first couple of years, the number of 
pages has increased up to almost 65,000, and seems to be continuing to 
increase.
  A lot of these regulations are good and a lot of them are not good. A 
lot of them are not well thought out. Some of them need congressional 
review.
  The Senator from Montana talked about having a hearing in Montana a 
couple weeks ago. Senator Burns talk about having a hearing dealing 
with logging and had somebody from OSHA there who had actually been 
designing the rules and regulations and having that kind of oversight. 
We need more of that. We need the regulators to know that they can be 
held accountable by Congress and, if they pass or try to implement 
egregious rules, that we can have the opportunity to overturn those in 
an expedited process.
  This bill has bipartisan support. I think it is a good substitute. I 
think it is a better substitute, frankly, than the underlying bill. I 
happen to be involved in both of these. And I think this one, because 
it is permanent, because it has, I think, a very good chance of passage 
and signature by the President of the United States, Mr. President, I 
think are very positive reasons why it should be enacted. I hope my 
colleagues would concur.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 629 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 43 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I hate to take exception with my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma, but he said that we are not debating the 
moratorium bill. 
[[Page S4645]] Yes, we are. I hate to disagree, but we are. That is 
exactly what we are debating today. That is what is before us.
  The proposed Nickles-Reid substitute is one that we will address 
tomorrow. I know that the debate today has gotten off on that subject a 
number of times.
  The bill that was voted out of committee, S. 219, the moratorium 
bill, as proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma, with a few changes that 
were made in the committee, was, as I understand it, almost exactly the 
same as H.R. 450, the House bill that has already passed. And that is 
the bill that we are addressing a lot of our concerns toward today, as 
well as S. 219.
  When the Nickles-Reid substitute comes up tomorrow, I may well vote 
for that. I am not against the legislative veto. What I am concerned 
about is the moratorium bill. The House passed a devastating bill that 
is basically the same as S. 219, and that is what we are debating 
today.
  I want to run through some of the regulations that would be stopped 
under a moratorium. I have about 40 minutes remaining, and I would like 
to go through some of these particular regulations that would be 
knocked out if we pass the House bill or if we passed a version that 
would then go to conference and be changed according to the House bill.
  So we are debating the moratorium today and not what may occur 
tomorrow or what may be addressed tomorrow.
  Now what would be affected? Well, we would have a lot of regulations. 
I will not go through all of them here. We have about 120 of them we 
could bring up. Some of them have already been mentioned today.
  Shrimp harvesting that the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, 
Louisiana, and Texas want would be cut back. The final rule was 
published on that December 28, 1994, so that would be affected.
  Another one is on fisheries management under the Department of 
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. The moratorium would 
affect all States with fisheries. The rules that would be affected 
restrict the number of fish that commercial fishermen can catch in 
certain fisheries each year.
  They are based on scientific data and designed to allow for the 
maximum take of fish, while at the same time preventing depletion of 
fish stocks. Depletion has been a serious problem in many fisheries 
around the country.
  Beneficiary of the rule include all fishermen and the consuming 
public. So the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450 would be that many of 
these management specifications were published after November 20, 1994, 
and a moratorium could suspend these specifications, potentially 
allowing unlimited fishing in these fisheries, which could lead to 
long-term decline in the number of fish available for future fishing.
  How about seafood safety administered by the Department of Health and 
Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration? What States will 
be affected? All.
  The rule: FDA is proposing regulations to utilize hazardous analysis 
critical control point [HACCP] principles as a most effective way to 
ensure the safe processing and importing of fish and fishery products. 
HACCP procedures can be used by food processors and importers. 
Beneficiaries of the rule include consumers and the seafood industry. 
Consumers will benefit from safer products and will gain additional 
health benefits by substituting seafood products in place of other 
meats higher in fats and cholesterol.
  The seafood industry will benefit from increased consumer confidence 
in safer seafood products and more uniform inspection procedures.
  What would be the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450? Unless this rule is 
included in a health and safety exception, passage of a moratorium bill 
will prevent the implementation of a final rule, consumption of seafood 
may continue to decrease, and consumers' lack of confidence in the 
safety of seafood products would persist.
  That proposed rule was published January 28 of this year, and the 
final rule is slated for publication in the summer of 1995. That would 
be knocked out if H.R. 450 and S. 219 prevail.
  Another issue: Noncitizen housing requirements of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
  All States would be affected.
  This rule would restrict HUD housing assistance to U.S. citizens, 
nationals, and certain categories of legal immigrants. The 
beneficiaries of the rule would be citizens and legal immigrants who 
would be deprived of limited available housing assistance.
  What would be the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450? U.S. citizens and 
legal immigrants would be deprived of the limited housing assistance 
offered by HUD and, instead, this housing could be available to illegal 
immigrants. That final rule was submitted to OMB on December 30, 1994.
  Another issue: Continuation of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
and Federal National Mortgage Association housing goals administered by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  I believe in the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from 
Oklahoma asked that that be addressed and it was, but it is not in H.R. 
450.
  All States would be affected.
  The rule: By statute, HUD is required to establish housing goals to 
direct the purchase of mortgages by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on 
housing for low- and moderate-income families, housing located in 
central cities, housing located in rural and underserved areas, and 
housing meeting the needs of low-income families and very low-income 
families.
  In October 1993, HUD established these goals for 1993 and 1994. This 
rule extended into 1995 the 1994 housing goals pending the issuance of 
a more comprehensive final rule.
  Beneficiaries of the rule? Very low- to moderate-income families in 
central cities and rural areas and other underserved areas.
  The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219: A moratorium could put a halt to 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meeting housing goals set by HUD in 
accordance with the law and in recognition of the responsibilities of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under their charters. The needs of moderate-
, low-, and very low-income families would not be served, and the 
opportunities for such families to purchase homes would be greatly 
reduced.
  The final rule was published November 30, 1994, after the election.
  Community development block grants is another issue also administered 
by HUD.
  All States are affected by this.
  The rule establishes guidelines to assist the community development 
block grant recipients to evaluate and select economic development 
opportunities for CDBG funds. The rule also makes changes for the use 
of CDBG funds for economic development.
  Who benefits from this rule? State and local communities who receive 
these CDBG funds. The rule reduces administrative burdens on the 
recipients and focuses on assisting residents of low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods.
  The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219: State and local governments will 
have limited use of CDBG funds for economic development which will 
adversely affect the communities served by these State and local 
governments.
  The final rule on this was published January 5, 1995.
  We can see just from these few I read so far that if we agree to H.R. 
450 from the House or if we pass S. 219 here, which is what is before 
us at the moment, then, indeed, as the minority leader said a few 
moments ago, we can assume, I think, that the moratorium is dead; the 
moratorium is dead.
  This is only a beginning. I have probably another 75 or so, and I 
will not be able to go through all of them today, but I plan to go 
through a few more to show that I, too, believe that the moratorium is 
dead and that the more the American people know about what the 
moratorium, H.R. 450 in the House, proposes and what S. 219, its 
companion bill here, which is before us today, proposes, the more they 
will agree that these are ill-considered pieces of legislation and 
should not have been proposed.
  I think whatever changes we may make in this tomorrow and whatever 
bill we may wind up sending over to the House, I want the record to be 
full and complete in the Senate that what would happen under that bill 
in the House, if we accepted it or if we accepted S. 219 here, would be 
devastating to the lives of all individuals in many of 
[[Page S4646]] these different areas. I am just addressing a very, very 
few on the floor today.
  Another one out of the Park Service: Cruise ship access to Glacier 
Bay.
  Only Alaska is affected.
  The rule: The Department of the Interior recently decided to allow 
increased vessel traffic in Glacier Bay. New vessel management plan 
regulations are planned to implement this policy decision.
  The beneficiaries of the rule include travelers to Glacier Bay, area 
businesses, cruise ship industry, and businesses in Alaska.
  The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: A moratorium could delay the 
implementation of this new policy, which could reduce the number of 
potential cruise ship passengers and diminish trade to businesses in 
the area.
  The rule is planned for publication during 1995.
  Another one, administered by the Department of Labor, is the Family 
and Medical Leave Act regulations.
  All States will be affected.
  The regulation would implement the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
1993, which allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid 
leave a year for the birth of a child, adoption of a child, or to care 
for a seriously ill relative.
  The beneficiaries of the rule include both employers and employees, 
who will benefit from the clarification and guidance provided in the 
final rules, including, for example, clarification of what a serious 
health condition really is.
  The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219, without the final rules: 
Uncertainties raised by the law and the interim regulations would 
remain.
  The final rules were published on January 6, 1995, and they will 
become effective on April 6, 1995.
  Another one is under OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, on logging safety. All States are affected. This rule 
addresses the major causes of logger deaths and serious injuries by 
providing safety provisions for chain saws, logging machinery, tree 
harvesting procedures, training, and personal protective equipment.
  Logging companies are expected to benefit from over 4,000 fewer lost 
workday injuries and a standardization of industry safety requirements. 
This rule is expected to prevent an average of 111 logger deaths, 4,759 
lost workday injuries, and 2,639 other serious injuries each year.
  The impact of H.R. 450 or S. 219: The logging occupation has the 
highest death rate of all occupations--14,000 per 100,000 workers--
almost three times the private sector rate. If S. 219 would pass, or 
H.R. 450 were to be accepted, it would allow continuation of the 
carnage that now takes place in the logging industry. Most of the final 
rule went into effect on February 9, 1995, with 12 provisions of the 
final rule having been stayed until August 1995.
  Another one is administered by the Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration. All the coal mining States would be affected. The rule 
relates to the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal 
mines, which has mushroomed in the past 18 years, without special 
safety and health regulations or equipment approval regulations 
necessary to control fire hazards and health concerns of acute and 
long-term exposure to diesel exhaust gases. This rule will provide 
basic common sense standards for use of this potentially dangerous 
machinery.
  The beneficiaries of the rule are mine workers and mine operators.
  State regulatory officials have strongly supported finalizing diesel 
regulations. Many mine operators have already begun implementing some 
improvements in anticipation of the standard rule. The impact of H.R. 
450 or S. 219, a moratorium, would allow diesel equipment to continue 
to be used without specific regulation or safety controls.
  In a 13-year period, there were 10 diesel-related fires investigated. 
Suspension of this rule would stall or halt the good-faith efforts that 
many mine operators have begun to work toward in improving the use of 
diesel equipment in underground coal mines. The final rule is to be 
issued in March 1995--this year. I do not know whether it has been 
issued yet or not.
  Another one from OSHA is a rule to reduce exposure to tuberculosis in 
the workplace. All States are affected. Based on the Centers for 
Disease Control recommendation, this proposed rule will protect 
employees from occupationally acquired tuberculosis, for engineering 
controls, administrative controls, work practice controls, respiratory 
protection, medical surveillance, and training. In order to reduce the 
regulatory burden on facilities with low incidence of TB, this rule 
will be especially tiered on the basis of the location and type of 
facility.
  The beneficiaries of the rule will be the 4\1/2\ million workers 
covered under this rule, and the employers who will have fewer lost 
workdays to this disease. The impact of H.R. 450 or S. 219: Unless 
workplace transmission of TB presented an imminent threat to health and 
safety, a moratorium could prevent effective control of this virulent 
disease, especially in high-risk workplaces and locations.
  Another area that is covered by the Department of Transportation is 
standardizing regulations for domestic shipments of hazardous 
materials. All States are affected. The rule standardizes regulations 
for shipments of domestic hazardous materials, making them more 
consistent with similar international regulations.
  The beneficiaries of the rule are shippers and carriers of hazardous 
materials that are engaged in both domestic and international 
shipments. Without revisions to the final rule, carriers would have to 
comply with differing rules for domestic and international shipments of 
hazardous materials.
  The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: They would increase the cost of 
doing business for international and domestic shippers and carriers of 
hazardous materials, placing an unfair burden on U.S. businesses. 
Moreover, requiring different regulations for domestic and 
international shipments may stifle exports of hazardous materials, 
which had a positive balance of trade of approximately $17 billion in 
1994. The rule was in effect as of January of this year.
  Mr. President, we can go on with others. I would like to state a 
couple more here in this area, and then I want to get over into some of 
the nuclear matters.
  Airworthiness directives were mentioned by Senator Dorgan a few 
moments ago on the floor. These are administered by the FAA. All States 
are affected.
  Periodically, the FAA issues airworthiness directives--AD's, as they 
are known as in the industry. They are designed to rectify potential 
safety problems in aircraft--potential, not imminent.
  Several examples of airworthiness directives that could be suspended 
are: Restrictions on the operation of the ATR-42 and ATR-72 aircraft in 
icing conditions following the October crash in Indiana that we 
remember from last year. Another revision to the airplane flight manual 
to prohibit takeoff in certain icing conditions unless either an 
inspection is performed or specific take off procedures are followed. 
That is applicable to the Fokker F-28 model aircraft; inspection 
modification of the tail cone release assembly of certain McDonnell 
Douglas aircraft to ensure that passengers can escape during an 
emergency evacuation; inspection and repair of landing gear brakes for 
certain Airbus aircraft. This was prompted by an accident in which an 
aircraft was unable to stop on a wet runway. Another one: Replacement 
of bolts, nuts, and washers that hold together parts of the wing flap; 
the new attachments prevent failures that could cause the aircraft to 
roll over upon liftoff, and that is applicable to Boeing 757 aircraft. 
Another requires measures to prevent the sliding cockpit side windows 
from rupturing in certain Airbus models. Failure to prevent that can 
potentially result in rapid decompression of the aircraft.
  The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: The moratorium could prevent these 
types of directives from being issued. The safety concerns they 
address, though significant, may not be sufficiently imminent--repeat, 
imminent--to qualify for an exception under S. 219.
  I know we had discussions this morning about the President making his 
own judgments on these things, because Congress is apparently not 
willing to define what it means by imminent.
  These airworthiness directives were published after November 20, 
1994. They 
[[Page S4647]] are out there now. If S. 219, as it came out of 
committee, or H.R. 450, was accepted, those airworthiness directives 
would not be in effect.
  Standardization of aviation rules is another one that is put out by 
the FAA or followed by the FAA. They standardize regulations between 
the U.S. and European joint aviation authorities regarding flight 
operations, aircraft safety considerations.
  Commuter airlines safety standards are another one where all States 
are affected. The proposed rule is supposed to be issued in March of 
this year, with final rules planned for December 1995. The rule would 
upgrade the standards for commuter airlines to those of major 
airlines--something I am sure we all would like to see happen and not 
be held up by any legislation such as this.
  So once again, I say, when the minority leader came out a little 
while ago and made his statement that the moratorium is dead, I agree 
with that. These are just a few of the things I have been running 
through here today. But the moratorium had better be dead, or we are 
going to have a great deal of discussion on this when it comes back 
from conference with the House, if the House moratorium legislation 
would prevail, as was proposed in S. 219, which is before us today here 
on the Senate floor.
  This is not all on airplanes and on health and safety matters.
  We also have Government securities, large position reporting required 
by the Treasury. The proposed rule for public comment was put out on 
January 24 of this year.
  Another is an agreement to establish water quality standards in the 
San Francisco Bay delta area. The final rule was published January 24 
of this year.
  We go on and on. Reducing toxic air emissions, the Environmental 
Protection Agency rule allows industries--this is one industry wants--
to obtain pollution credits for voluntarily reducing air pollution 
before they are required to by law. Thus, this rule allows interested 
companies--those who now want to invest in clean air--to take credit 
now for early compliance.
  So we get the benefits of cleaner air sooner. Everybody gets a 
benefit of that. Industry wants that.
  Twenty-one companies have applied for the program and 17 more have 
indicated an interest. This is the proposal that came out November 21, 
1994. The final is supposed to come out later this year. That would be 
held up by any moratorium.
  For lead poisoning prevention, most regulations and guidelines have 
been proposed, and are to be finalized in summer or fall. Lead is a 
threat to children, regardless of family income, and adversely affects 
the nervous system, kidney, the hematopoietic system, causing decreased 
intelligence, impaired neurobehavioral patterns, coma, convulsions, 
hypertensions, and even death in children. Regulations on these matters 
would be held up if H.R. 450 or S. 219 would happen to prevail.
  Mr. President, I would like to focus for a few minutes on the effects 
a regulatory moratorium would have on an area which I have long been 
concerned--health and safety as it pertains to nuclear facilities, 
nuclear cleanup, and radiation protection. As we shall see, the 
proposed moratorium will delay a number of important regulatory actions 
that have been crafted to provide for the public's health and safety--
in a cost-effective manner.
  Let me start by making a basic observation. Radiation protection, 
nuclear safety, and radioactive cleanup are complex, technical issues. 
It follows that the regulations governing these issues are also 
complex. To wield indiscriminately the meat ax of a regulatory 
moratorium at the existing nuclear regulatory framework is precisely 
the wrong way to go about improving this situation.
  As currently proposed, the regulatory moratorium would delay the 
implementation of many important nuclear-related regulations--from 
standards for nuclear waste disposal to standards for cleaning up 
radioactively contaminated sites to rules for improving the safe 
operation of Government nuclear facilities to rules governing health 
studies of contaminated or potentially contaminated populations.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not deny that the existing regulatory 
framework for radiation protection standards can be improved. But a 
moratorium is not the way to do it. In fact, I have been working for 
some time to improve the Federal radiation regulatory framework. I 
would like to call my colleagues' attention to an October 27, 1994, 
``Dear Colleague'' letter which I sent to all Senators on this issue. I 
would like to quote from the letter, and I ask unanimous consent that 
it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: I want to draw your attention to the 
     enclosed GAO report on federal radiation protection standards 
     and regulations (Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on 
     Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RCED-94-
     190). the GAO finds that:
       ``Historically, interagency coordination of radiation 
     protection policy, . . . has been ineffective. Time-consuming 
     and potentially costly dual regulation of nuclear licensees 
     has been an issue between EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission (NRC), and standards for major sources of 
     radiation have been lacking for years because interagency 
     disagreements have delayed the completion of regulations.'' 
     ``At present, it is apparent that agencies' radiation 
     standards and protective approaches ultimately reflect a 
     general lack of interagency consensus on acceptable radiation 
     risk to the public.''
       Congressional concerns in this area are long-standing. In 
     1979, I introduced legislation that prompted the Carter 
     Administration to form a federal radiation policy council 
     (later dissolved by the Reagan administration). In 1982, I 
     again introduced legislation which, though never enacted, 
     helped spur formation of the Committee on Interagency 
     Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC), whose 
     primary purpose is to coordinate Federal radiation policy. 
     The enclosed report indicates that, while there has been 
     limited progress recently, much remains to be done.
       A coherent, rational approach to these issues is long 
     overdue. By helping to rationalize this important area of 
     regulation, we will lighten the regulatory burden, streamline 
     the federal bureaucracy and, enhance public protection and 
     public confidence. Another clear benefit from a coherent, 
     consistent radiation protection regime will be a savings of 
     taxpayer dollars from the resulting efficiencies in Federal 
     facility cleanup.
       I believe, consistent with GAO's recommendations, the EPA 
     should take the lead to develop a plan for broadening and 
     strengthening its ongoing radiation protection harmonization 
     effort. I have asked that the EPA report to me with a plan 
     for a path forward to rectify the current radiation 
     regulation regime.
       Such a plan should be developed with input from effected 
     agencies, including the NRC, DOE, and DOD. Clearly, CIRRPC 
     should serve in a coordinating role to assist in this plan's 
     development. I have asked that this plan be developed prior 
     to the beginning of the 104th Congress. After reviewing the 
     interagency plan, I will consider whether any legislative 
     remedies may be necessary to create a coordinated approach to 
     this field of regulation.
       Radiation protection standards affect our entire 
     population. I encourage you and your staff to read this 
     report, and would be interested in any comments you may have. 
     My Governmental Affairs staff contact on this issue is Chris 
     Kline (4-7954).
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Glenn,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, quoting from the letter:

       Dear Colleague: I want to draw your attention to the 
     enclosed GAO report on federal radiation protection standards 
     and regulations (Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on 
     Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RCED-94-
     190). The GAO finds that:
       ``Historically, interagency coordination of radiation 
     protection policy, . . . has been ineffective. Time-consuming 
     and potentially costly dual regulation of nuclear licensees 
     has been an issue between EPA and the NRC, and standards for 
     major sources of radiation have been lacking for years 
     because interagency disagreements have delayed the completion 
     of regulations. At present, it is apparent that agencies' 
     radiation standards and protective approaches ultimately 
     reflect a general lack of interagency consensus on acceptable 
     radiation risk to the public.''

  My letter continues by describing past executive and legislative 
efforts, including several pieces of legislation which I introduced, 
the purpose of which was to coordinate Federal radiation policy. The 
GAO report describes some 26 radiation protection standards, rules and 
regulations, which, when taken together, still result in gaps, 
overlaps, and inconsistencies. In my view, and that of the GAO, the 
radiation protection framework is broken and needs to be fixed.
  [[Page S4648]] That is why, Mr. President, on the same day I 
circulated the ``Dear Colleague'' letter mentioned earlier, I wrote to 
Administrator Browner of the EPA, Chairman, Selin of the NRC, and Dr. 
Gibbons of OSTP requesting that they develop a plan for a ``path 
forward'' to address the inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in current 
radiation protection standards. In my letters to these officials, which 
I ask to be made part of the record, along with their subsequent 
responses, I stated that this plan should clearly identify and 
prioritize the standards and issues which need to be resolved. I asked 
also that the plan identify feasible milestones on which there is 
consensus agreement for progress to move forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
     Hon. Carol Browner,
     Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Browner: Since coming to the Senate, one 
     of my primary interests has been protecting our citizens' 
     health and safety from unnecessary exposure to ionizing 
     radiation. Radiation protection standards affect all 
     Americans, and directly influence the way that billions of 
     taxpayer dollars are spent as we attempt to clean up 
     contaminated facilities. As you clearly know, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plays a key role in the 
     Federal government with regards to regulating radiation. With 
     this in mind, I wanted to bring to your attention a recent 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) report that directly concern 
     programs under your jurisdiction.
       The report ``Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on 
     Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RED-94-
     190)'' examines the existing set of radiation protection 
     standards and analyzes whether these standards provide a 
     coherent, complete, federal framework for public protection. 
     The report describes a federal regulatory regime for 
     radiation that is inconsistent, overlapping and incomplete. 
     The GAO finds large disparities in the standards established 
     by different agencies and no consensus emerging on what those 
     standards should be. In fact, GAO finds that at least 26 
     different draft or final federal radiation standards or 
     guidelines contain specific radiation limits. Some of these 
     agree numerically, but others differ.
       Over the years I have chaired numerous Governmental Affairs 
     Committee hearings and made several legislative proposals 
     which address this issue. For example, in response to 
     legislation I introduced in 1979, President Carter created a 
     federal radiation policy council. While this organization was 
     disbanded by President Reagan, the problems it was intended 
     to address did not go away. I then introduced legislation in 
     1982 which would have created an interagency council to 
     address the fragmented and inconsistent nature or radiation 
     protection regulation. This proposal spurred the creation of 
     the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy 
     Coordination (CIRRPC). Since the mid-80's I have chaired 
     hearings which have highlighted similar problems with the 
     regulation of medical radiation, as well as the impact of 
     inconsistent radiation protection guidance on federal 
     facility cleanup operations.
       The GAO report points out--and I would like to underscore--
     the progress that has recently been made between EPA and the 
     NRC concerning the recent Memorandum of Understanding on this 
     subject. I congratulate you and your staff for the leadership 
     you have displayed thus far, and strongly encourage you to 
     expand this effort into a government-wide exercise in 
     coordination and harmonization of radiation exposure 
     standards and regulations.
       I concur with the GAO's recommendation that the EPA should 
     take the lead in creating coherent, consistent standards in 
     cooperation with other agencies and CIRRPC. A coherent 
     federal approach to these issues is long overdue. By 
     rationalizing this important area of regulation, the EPA 
     could ease the burden on the regulated community while at the 
     same time enhancing public protection and public confidence.
       However, past history has proven that initial progress on 
     this subject can easily become ensnared in interagency 
     disputes and bureaucratic infighting. For this reason, I 
     would request that, prior to the date the 104th Congress 
     convenes, EPA and NRC, in coordination with CIRRPC, develop a 
     plan for a ``path forward'' to address the inconsistencies, 
     gaps, and overlaps in current radiation protection standards. 
     This plan should clearly identify and prioritize the 
     standards and issues which need to be resolved. The plan 
     should also identify feasible milestones on which there is 
     consensus agreement for progress to move forward. Should the 
     EPA prove unable to develop and implement such a plan, I will 
     strongly consider introducing legislation to create an 
     interagency body which would be mandated to produce and carry 
     out this plan.
       I appreciate your past and ongoing efforts in this very 
     important area, and I am willing to assist future activity in 
     any way that I can. Should you have any questions, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me directly. My staff contact on the 
     Governmental Affairs Committee is Chris Kline (202) 224-7954.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Glenn,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
     Hon. Ivan Selin,
     Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Since coming to the Senate, one of my 
     primary interests has been protecting our citizens' health 
     and safety from unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation. 
     Radiation protection standards affect all Americans, and 
     directly influence the way that billions of taxpayer dollars 
     are spent as we attempt to clean up contaminated facilities. 
     As you clearly know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 
     along with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play key 
     roles in the Federal government with regards to regulating 
     radiation. With this in mind, I wanted to bring to your 
     attention a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report 
     that raises a number of important issues.
       The report ``Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on 
     Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RED-94-
     190)'' examines the existing set of radiation protection 
     standards and analyzes whether these standards provide a 
     coherent, complete, federal framework for public protection. 
     The report describes a federal regulatory regime for 
     radiation that is inconsistent, overlapping and incomplete. 
     The GAO finds large disparities in the standards established 
     by different agencies and no consensus emerging on what those 
     standards should be. In fact, GAO finds that at least 26 
     different draft or final federal radiation standards or 
     guidelines contain specific radiation limits. Some of these 
     agree numerically, but others differ.
       Over the years I have chaired numerous Governmental Affairs 
     Committee hearings and made several legislative proposals 
     which address this issue. For example, in response to 
     legislation I introduced in 1979, President Carter created a 
     federal radiation policy council. While this organization was 
     disbanded by President Reagan, the problems it was intended 
     to address did not go away. I then introduced legislation in 
     1982 which would have created an interagency council to 
     address the fragmented and inconsistent nature of radiation 
     protection regulation. This proposal spurred the creation of 
     the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy 
     Coordination (CIRRPC). Since the mid-80's I have chaired 
     hearings which have highlighted similar problems with the 
     regulation of medical radiation, as well as the impact of 
     inconsistent radiation protection guidance on federal 
     facility cleanup operations.
       The GAO report points out--and I would like to underscore--
     the progress that has recently been made between EPA and the 
     NRC concerning the recent Memorandum of Understanding on this 
     subject. I congratulate you and your staff for the leadership 
     you have displayed thus far, and strongly encourage you to 
     expand this effort into a government-wide exercise in 
     coordination and harmonization of radiation exposure 
     standards and regulations.
       I concur with the GAO's recommendation that the EPA should 
     take the lead in creating coherent, consistent standards in 
     cooperation with other agencies and CIRRPC. A coherent 
     federal approach to these issues is long overdue. By 
     rationalizing this important area of regulation, the EPA 
     could ease the burden on the regulated community while at the 
     same time enhancing public protection and public confidence. 
     The NRC, however, as the federal agency with the most 
     relevant and diverse experience in regulating radiation must 
     provide crucial technical assistance and policy guidance 
     based on your experience in this complex field.
       However, past history has proven that initial progress on 
     this subject can easily become ensnared in interagency 
     disputes and bureaucratic infighting. For this reason, I 
     would request that, prior to the date the 104th Congress 
     convenes, EPA and NRC, in coordination with CIRRPC, develop a 
     plan for a ``path forward'' to address the inconsistencies, 
     gaps, and overlaps in current radiation protection standards. 
     This plan should clearly identify and prioritize the 
     standards and issues which need to be resolved. The plan 
     should also identify feasible milestones on which there is 
     consensus agreement for progress to move forward. Should the 
     EPA, in coordination with CIRRPC, the NRC and other agencies, 
     prove unable to develop and implement such a plan, I will 
     strongly consider introducing legislation to create an 
     interagency body which would be mandated to produce and carry 
     out this plan.
       I appreciate your past and ongoing efforts in this very 
     important area, and I am willing to assist future activity in 
     any way that I can. Should you have any questions, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me directly. My staff contact on the 
     Governmental Affairs Committee is Chris Kline (202) 224-7954.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Glenn,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____


                                               [[Page S4649]]

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
     John H. Gibbons,
     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Gibbons: Since coming to the Senate, I have 
     maintained a keen interest in protecting our citizens from 
     unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation. Radiation 
     protection standards affect all Americans, and directly 
     influence the way that billions of taxpayer dollars are spent 
     as we attempt to clean up contaminated Federal facilities.
       Historically, the federal government's program of standards 
     and regulations for radiation exposure have been fragmented, 
     overlapping, and poorly coordinated. In 1979 and 1982 I 
     introduced legislation to address this situation that later 
     prompted the creation of the Committee on Interagency 
     Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) which was 
     chartered under the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, 
     Engineering and Technology, Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy. CIRRPC currently reports to the National Science and 
     Technology Committee's Committee on Health, Safety & Food 
     R&D.
       In light of CIRRPC's role as a coordinating body for 
     federal radiation policy, I want to bring to your attention a 
     recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the current 
     status of federal radiation policy coordination. In its 
     report, ``Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on Acceptable 
     Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RCED-94-190),'' GAO 
     finds that despite some initial efforts at coordination 
     between the EPA and NRC, the federal program for regulating 
     radiation risks is characterized by ``ongoing disagreements 
     on jurisdictional and philosophical issues, including 
     protective strategies. Also, in recent years EPA and CIRRPC 
     have coordinated federal radiation policy ineffectively.''
       The GAO recommends that EPA and NRC expand on their recent 
     coordinating activities to include the effective 
     participation of other agencies and CIRRPC in pursuing 
     interagency consensus on radiation policy. I have asked that 
     the EPA take the lead in implementing this recommendation and 
     report to me on its plans within 90 days. I want to encourage 
     CIRRPC to assist in this endeavor.
       Should EPA, in coordination with CIRRPC and other agencies, 
     be unable to develop and implement such a plan, I will 
     strongly consider introducing legislation to create an 
     interagency body with the mandate to produce and carry out 
     this mission.
       A coherent federal approach to these issues is long 
     overdue. By helping to rationalize this important area of 
     regulation, the CIRRPC could lighten the regulatory burden on 
     the regulated community while at the same time enhancing 
     public protection and public confidence. Another important 
     benefit likely to spring from a coherent, consistent federal 
     radiation protection policy is reduced cost to the taxpayer 
     for the cleanup of contaminated federal facilities.
       I would appreciate learning of your plans for improving 
     CIRRPC's effectiveness, as well as any other proposals you 
     may have for addressing the issues raised by the GAO. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact me directly should you wish to 
     discuss this matter. My Governmental Affairs Committee staff 
     contact is Chris Kline (202) 224-7954.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Glenn,
                                                         Chairman.

  (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would note that a regulatory moratorium 
does none of these things. A regulatory moratorium doesn't ask for a 
plan. It doesn't provide for careful analysis of the existing 
regulatory framework. A regulatory moratorium is a blind and ignorant 
attempt to address complex issues.
  In late January and February of this year, I received the responses 
from NRC, EPA, and OSTP. As a result of my efforts the current Federal 
radiation protection framework is being restructured. The previous 
coordinating body, the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and 
Policy Coordination is being disbanded. While CIRRPC has had some 
success in addressing some issues, it was widely viewed as being 
ineffective.
  In its place, the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by 
Dr. Gibbons, has formed a subcommittee to coordinate interagency 
radiation research activities. This move will more effectively 
integrate radiation research into the rest of the Federal R&D effort.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed letters concerning this.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, Feb. 10, 1995.
     Dr. Alvin L. Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and 
         Policy Coordination, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Young: Thank you for your letter of December 2 
     regarding the future of the Committee on Interagency 
     Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC). We owe 
     you a great debt of gratitude for your outstanding service 
     over the years and accept your decision to resign as chairman 
     of the committee.
       For a number of years CIRRPC has successfully complemented 
     radiation research and policy activities of the Federal 
     agencies. Under your able leadership CIRRPC has produced a 
     number of highly referenced documents and provided a forum 
     for the resolution of often contentious policy and scientific 
     issues. However, a number of factors have led to a recent 
     examination of CIRRPC as the appropriate body to coordinate 
     radiation matters among agencies, evaluate radiation research 
     and provide advice on the formulation of radiation policies. 
     The creation of the National Science and Technology Council 
     (NSTC) as the Administration's mechanism for addressing 
     interagency science and technology issues, the October 1994 
     General Accounting Office report on nuclear health and 
     safety, and our efforts to create a government that works 
     better and costs less are some of those factors.
       The NSTC Committee on Health, Safety and Food (CHSF) 
     leadership has reviewed CIRRPC's role in relation to the 
     charter and the factors described above and recommended that 
     CIRRPC phase out its activities. I have accepted this 
     recommendation with the understanding the CHSF will establish 
     a new subcommittee to coordinate interagency radiation 
     research activities in accordance with the NSTC roles and 
     responsibilities. Accordingly, the CIRRPC charter will not be 
     renewed.
       I want to thank you for your unwavering commitment and 
     leadership over the past decade in the interagency radiation 
     research and policy environs. You clearly have played a 
     critical role in CIRRPC's many successes, and I commend you 
     for your work and dedication.
           Sincerely,

                                              John H. Gibbons,

                                        Assistant to the President
     for Science and Technology.
                                                                    ____

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, Feb. 24, 1995.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Glenn: This letter is to update you on the 
     actions that have been taken since your October 27, 1994 
     letter regarding the GAO report, ``Consensus on Acceptable 
     Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking.''
       Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 
     representatives met with the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the 
     Department of Energy (DOE), and with your Governmental 
     Affairs Committee staff to explore better mechanisms to 
     coordinate radiation standards and radiation effects research 
     activities among Federal agencies.
       I would like to summarize the results of these discussions. 
     The Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy 
     Coordination (CIRRPC) has undergone a review by its parent 
     committee, the Committee on Health, Safety, and Food (CHSF) 
     of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). For 
     over a decade, CIRRPC has coordinated radiation related 
     matters among agencies, evaluated radiation research, and 
     provided advice on the formulation of radiation policies. As 
     a result of the CHSF review, I have decided that CIRRPC's 
     charter will not be renewed. I believe there are more 
     effective and less costly ways of coordinating radiation 
     issues and activities and that we have some excellent 
     mechanisms in place which, with minor reconfiguration, can 
     better achieve national goals.
       First, EPA and NRC agreed to expand the scope of the 
     present Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Clean-up 
     Standards, which currently includes EPA, NRC, DOE and the 
     Department of Defense (DoD). The Steering Committee will 
     immediately begin to develop a consensus on how to address 
     the issues cited in the GAO report, including acceptable 
     radiation risk to the public, the establishment of consistent 
     risk assessment and management approaches, and completeness 
     and uniformity in radiation standards and methods of public 
     education on radiation safety. The Steering Committee will 
     report its progress to OSTP, the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB), and to agency heads.
       Second, since many of the issues involve ``risk 
     assessment'' in the promulgation of Federal regulations, the 
     Interagency Steering Committee referenced above will bring to 
     the Subcommittee on Risk Analysis those regulatory issues 
     that require review by the senior level of government. I 
     chair the Subcommittee on Risk Analysis which is under the 
     Regulatory Working Group chaired by Sally Katzen of OMB.
       Finally, the CHSF will establish a new subcommittee to be 
     charged with coordinating interagency radiation effects 
     research activities across the Federal agencies. This body 
     will provide advice on the needs and priorities of radiation 
     effects research.
       EPA and NRC have shared with us their responses to your 
     October 27 correspondence on this same matter. I am 
     encouraged by their efforts to coordinate radiation 
     activities, particularly the development of an EPA/NRC joint 
     risk harmonization white paper.
       I deeply appreciate your interest in radiation issues and 
     believe that the recent events, which you have helped 
     promote, will 
     [[Page S4650]] provide better and more effective coordination 
     in the years to come.
           Sincerely,

                                              John H. Gibbons,

                                        Assistant to the President
     for Science and Technology.
                                                                    ____

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 1995.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Glenn: I am responding on behalf of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission (NRC) to your letters dated October 27, 
     1994, concerning the Federal government's responsibility to 
     protect the public from ionizing radiation. Your letters 
     discussed the recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report 
     on this subject, ``Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on 
     Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (GAO/RCED-
     94-190), and requested that EPA and NRC, in coordination with 
     the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy 
     Coordination (CIRRPC) develop a plan, prior to the date the 
     104th Congress convenes, for a ``path forward'' to address 
     inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in current radiation 
     protection standards.
       The GAO report combines 26 radiation-related standards or 
     guidelines into three categories: (1) general public, (2) 
     source--(or media-) specific, and (3) occupational. It also 
     identifies differences in ``estimated lifetime risks'' to 
     members of the public, as well as gaps and overlaps among the 
     standards making up categories 1 and 2. Such inconsistencies 
     are explainable in part by legal mandates, regulatory 
     responsibilities, and varied technical assumptions underlying 
     each of the standards (see attachment). However, we recognize 
     the need for more coherent, complete, and consistent 
     radiation standards, as well as a clear communication of 
     these standards throughout agencies and to the general 
     public.
       The report note several ongoing efforts by EPA and NRC to 
     resolve many of these issues. For example, EPA has led an 
     interagency effort to develop and coordinate federal 
     radiation cleanup standards for contaminate sites. The effort 
     has been overseen by the Interagency Steering Committee on 
     Radiation Cleanup Standards composed of senior agency 
     managers. NRC has closely coordinated with EPA in developing 
     standards for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities.
       Also, on December 23, 1994 EPA proposed new federal 
     radiation protection guidance for the public. This guidance 
     has been developed with the help of a working group composed 
     of representatives from 13 federal agencies and a 
     representative of the Conference of Radiation Control Program 
     Directors (CRCPD).
       Finally, the report cited a Memorandum of Understanding 
     (MOU) signed by EPA and NRC in 1992. The MOU provides a 
     formal mechanism for agency cooperation on issues relating to 
     environmental regulation of radionuclides subject to NRC 
     licensing authority. Among other things, the MOU committed 
     the agencies to ``actively explore ways to harmonize risk 
     goals'' and ``avoid unnecessary duplicative or piecemeal 
     regulatory requirements for NRC licensees, consistent with 
     the legal responsibilities of the two agencies[.]''
       Pursuant to the MOU, EPA and NRC are developing a joint 
     Risk Harmonization White Paper which outlines the 
     similarities and differences in the agencies' approaches to 
     radiation risk assessment and risk management. NRC and EPA 
     are currently reviewing a drafting of this paper with other 
     federal agencies involved in enhancing the consistency of 
     federal radiation protection standards. Based on the findings 
     of this white paper, the agencies plan to develop a specific 
     set of actions.
       EPA and NRC have also been working to eliminate unnecessary 
     regulatory duplication. For example, on July 15, 1994, EPA 
     published a final rule rescinding its Clean Air Act (CAA) 
     standards (40 CFR 61, subpart T) for NRC-licensed uranium 
     mill tailings disposal sites after the regulations under the 
     Atomic Energy Act (AEA) were revised to conform with the CAA 
     standard. EPA has proposed to rescind the CAA standard for 
     nuclear power reactors (40 CFR 61, subpart I) and intends to 
     issue a final rescission soon. For NRC-licensed facilities 
     other than nuclear power reactors, EPA and NRC have just 
     resolved a key issue and expect to agree soon on a process to 
     rescind subpart I for this category as well. In each case, 
     rescission will be based on a determination by EPA that the 
     NRC program provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
     public health.
       There has also been a considerable amount of cooperation 
     between EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) on radiation 
     protection issues. DOE has and continues to work actively 
     with EPA in such areas as EPA's radiation cleanup standards, 
     federal radiation protection guidance for workers and the 
     general public, CAA radionuclide standards, radiation dose 
     and risk assessment models, and in the development of DOE 
     implementing Orders and rules for radiation under the AEA.
       The GAO report recommended that EPA, in cooperation with 
     NRC, take the lead in sustaining and broadening the ongoing 
     EPA-NRC harmonization effort to include the effective 
     participation
      of other agencies. Your letter underscored this 
     recommendation and requested the development of a plan to 
     address the inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in the 
     standards.
       As stated in our preliminary response to your letter on 
     November 8, 1994, we welcome your request and agree that more 
     effective federal leadership in radiation policy is needed. 
     We also accept GAO's recommendation that EPA take the 
     initiative in addressing the deficiencies in federal 
     radiation standards. We are taking steps to broaden our 
     ongoing harmonization efforts with the NRC to include senior-
     level participation from other agencies as part of our ``path 
     forward.'' We have already begun to coordinate this effort 
     with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and 
     the Committee on Health, Safety, and Food (CHSF).
       Accordingly, the plan EPA proposes is to continue the 
     efforts of EPA and NRC that are effective and that were cited 
     by GAO; to expand the scope of the Interagency Steering 
     Committee on Radiation Cleanup Standards to include review of 
     other radiation standards; and to select and prioritize new 
     issues for coordination. The committee is an appropriate 
     existing body that can effectively address uniformity of all 
     radiation protection standards. Its membership includes 
     senior level agency representatives from NRC, DOE, EPA, and 
     the Department of Defense (DOD). We also believe there is a 
     need for public information on radiation protection and have 
     incorporated this into our plan.
       More specifically, the plan includes the following:
       1. Continue to develop the Federal Radiation Protection 
     Guidance for the General Public.
       Reach a consensus on how much radiation risk to the public 
     is acceptable.
       Hold public hearings on proposed Federal Radiation 
     Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public on 
     February 22-24, 1995.
       Explore approaches to provide information to the public 
     concerning radiation exposure.
       Finalize recommendations on the guidance for the 
     President's approval by January 1, 1996.
       2. Complete the draft NRC-EPA Risk Harmonization White 
     Paper.
       Complete a coordinated EPA review of the draft white paper 
     by June 1, 1995 and add a description of NRC's and EPA's 
     approaches to selecting
      acceptable risk standards and dose limits and a discussion 
     of the extent to which the agencies may be subject to 
     legislative constraints which inhibit greater risk 
     harmonization.
       Conduct a review of the draft white paper by involved 
     agencies including OSTP by June 1, 1995.
       Develop a set of actions based on interagency review of the 
     draft white paper and submit the proposed actions for 
     approval by the Administrator and Commission by September 30, 
     1995.
       3. Based on the white paper, explore development of 
     consistent risk assessment and risk management approaches to 
     ensure consistency of radiation standards and sufficient 
     protection of the public.
       Begin implementation of actions developed from the white 
     paper after interagency review and approval by November 30, 
     1995.
       Publish interagency consensus tables of nuclide-specific 
     risks from ingestion, inhalation, and direct exposure for 
     uniform federal risk assessments (Federal Guidance Report No. 
     13) by February 1, 1996.
       4. Reduce gaps and conflicting overlaps in radiation 
     standards.
       Expand the scope of the current Interagency Steering 
     Committee on Radiation Cleanup Standards to review, 
     prioritize, and reduce the gaps and overlaps in radiation 
     standards in key policy areas including:
       CAA regulation of NRC-licensed facilities;
       Low-level radioactive waste disposal standards;
       Radioactive mixed wastes;
       Naturally-occurring and accelerator produced radioactive 
     materials (NARM);
       Recycling.
       Hold the first meeting of this refocused, senior level 
     steering committee in February 1995.
       The Steering Committee will report its progress to agency 
     heads and OSTP within six months.
       This proposal has been shared with OSTP and the principal 
     affected federal agencies whose standards were cited in the 
     report, namely, the NRC, DOE, and the Department of Labor 
     (DOL).
       EPA and NRC greatly appreciated your concern and efforts to 
     protect the public from radiation and hope that this plan 
     meets with your approval. We thank you for your offer to 
     assist us and look forward to continuing to work with you on 
     this important public issue.
           Sincerely yours,

                                              Mary D. Nichols,

                                           Assistant Administrator
     for Air and Radiation.
                                                                    ____

                               attachment

       GAO recognized that the different risks associated by the 
     report with the standards result in part from different 
     technical assumptions. For example, the first high risk 
     standard in category two is the cleanup standard for radium 
     contamination in soil at uranium mill tailings sites. GAO 
     estimated that this standard (both the EPA standard and the 
     corresponding NRC implementing regulation) results in a 
     lifetime risk or 1 in 50, by assuming that an individual 
     resides on land with extensive deposits of soil contaminated 
     at this level. However, this is an unrealistic 
     [[Page S4651]] assumption, and such lifetime risks would not 
     likely occur. Given the actual conditions at the 26 sites to 
     which this standard applies, cleanup to the standard will 
     usually result in essentially total removal of the 
     contamination. When this is taken into account, the maximum 
     risk level is substantially lower and, since these disposal 
     sites are located in sparsely populated, arid regions, the 
     chance of exposure is small.
       Further, two of the cited standards (NRC's 1982 low-level 
     radioactive waste (LLW) standards and EPA's 1977 uranium fuel 
     cycle standards) are regulations that use an old methodology 
     to specify dose (which can be related to specific risk 
     levels). This methodology has been superseded by the 
     committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) methodology used 
     by NRC and EPA in more recent rulemakings (e.g. EPA's 1993 
     high-level waste disposal standards, draft cleanup and LLW 
     disposal standards, as well as NRC's draft decommissioning 
     standards). Therefore, comparing the estimated risks from 
     these two sets of standards is complicated by the change in 
     dose units and dose assessment methodology. However, a 
     detailed analysis shows that although the two sets of 
     standards are numerically different, they nonetheless provide 
     a similar degree of protection.
       The report also recognized that the 26 standards or 
     guidelines (see Appendix II of the report) are indicative of 
     the standards' different regulatory applications and 
     separates them into three categories: (1) general public, 
     source- (or media-) specific, and (3) occupational. It 
     correctly distinguishes between standards applicable to all 
     sources of exposure combined (category 1) and standards that 
     apply only to specific sources or individual pathways 
     (category 2). However, the report fails to emphasize that 
     different (lower) standards for category 2 are generally 
     justified. This is because people may be exposed to several 
     different sources or pathways at the same time. On December 
     23, 1994, (59 Fed. Reg. 66414) EPA proposed new federal 
     guidance that would bring the existing standards applicable 
     to all sources of exposure combined into conformity, and 
     provide explicit guidance for relating these upper bound 
     limits to the (lower) source- and pathway-specific standards.
       The other high risk ``standard'' cited in the report, EPA's 
     indoor radon action level, is unlike the other examples in 
     the second category because it is not a regulatory standard.
      Pursuant to the Indoor Radon Abatement Act, EPA uses a 
     nonregulatory approach consisting of a series of action 
     levels indicating the risks associated with different 
     levels of indoor radon and the cost and technological 
     feasibility of reducing radon exposure. Importantly, the 
     Agency does not recommend the cited level as a ``safe'' or 
     ``acceptable'' level but emphasizes that, since 
     significant health risk exists below the action level, 
     mitigation of indoor radon is valuable at lower levels.
       Therefore, although the radiation protection standards 
     listed in Table 1 (and Appendix II) of the report may 
     initially seem inconsistent, further examination reveals that 
     many do in fact provide a consistent degree of protection or 
     are different for legitimate reasons.
       The GAO report also noted that the gaps and overlaps in 
     standards reflect individual legal mandates and independent 
     development by agencies to fulfill their different 
     responsibilities. NRC regulates its licensees under the AEA, 
     for the most part, on a site-by-site basis under the 
     ``umbrella'' of an upper-bound dose limit. This limit is 
     based on international and national recommendations of the 
     International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 
     and the National Council on Radiation Protection and 
     Measurements (NCRP). The limit is coupled with the required 
     application of procedures and engineering controls to reduce 
     potential public doses to levels that are as low as is 
     reasonably achievable (ALARA), which almost always results in 
     significant reductions in actual risk levels.
       EPA, in its primary role as a standards-setting (rather 
     than licensing) agency under the AEA and other statues, 
     regulates by class of facility or source, pollutant, or 
     environmental media. In setting its standards, EPA uses 
     either a risk objective and considers further risk reduction 
     if it is justified by cost/benefit considerations for the 
     class as a whole, or a contaminant goal (often mandated by 
     legislation) and considers technological feasibility, costs, 
     and other factors in determining levels to be achieved in 
     practice. EPA's standards for radionuclides are also 
     significantly influenced by its effort to be consistent with 
     its regulatory policies for chemicals under environmental 
     statutes, most notably the CAA, Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act (CERCLA).
       Although the agencies have often worked together 
     successfully, their differing legal mandates and regulatory 
     responsibilities described above have contributed in large 
     part to the gaps and overlaps cited in the report including: 
     (1) radionuclide air emissions from NRC licensees under the 
     CAA, (2) groundwater protection requirements for 
     radionuclides, (3) radioactive mixed wastes, and (4) NARM.

  Mr. GLENN. Now, as far as the regulatory agencies--EPA and NRC--are 
concerned, they still will play the key role in improving the existing 
radiation protection framework. As part of the administration's plan, 
EPA and NRC will expand the scope of the present interagency steering 
committee on radiation cleanup standards to address other radiation 
issues identified by the GAO, including acceptable radiation risk to 
the public, the establishment of consistent risk assessment and 
management approaches, and completeness and uniformity in radiation 
standard, and public education on radiation safety.
  Mr. President, the decision to expand the scope of this interagency 
steering committee was made because it had been successful in 
addressing one of the primary problems identified by GAO, 
inconsistencies in how different agencies approach radiation 
protection. This steering committee effectively coordinated EPA's 
proposed radiation cleanup standards with NRC's proposed 
decontamination and decommissioning standards. As a result, these two 
major regulatory actions reflect the same risk and protection levels--
something that has been notably absent from previous efforts.
  Now Mr. President, some people may argue that the proposed EPA and 
NRC standards go too far, or not far enough. In fact, I have some 
concerns that these standards may not be enough to protect the public. 
However, through this interagency steering committee, any changes that 
might be made to the rules, based on public and scientific input, will 
be reflected in both rules. At long last we will begin to move away 
from the illogical situation that has existed for some time which has 
led to different levels of protection based solely on the agency that 
is doing the regulating.
  Let me make clear, this interagency committee will have the authority 
to examine the current radiation regulatory framework, recommend ways 
that it can be improved--including consolidating or eliminating 
duplicative standards--and then implement their recommendations. Where 
legislative action may be needed, I am prepared to assist the 
committee's effort.
  Mr. President, I would note that the proposed moratorium would 
sabotage the progress that has recently been made to coordinate these 
standards, resulting in delayed cleanup and increased costs.
  Mr. President, a number of other rules concerning nuclear safety and 
public exposure to radiation will be delayed as a result of this 
moratorium. Let me list these for the information of my colleagues.
  Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance Program 
[10 CFR 602, Final Rule Published Jan. 31, 1995, DOE]. This rule 
establishes open and competitive procedures for providing financial 
assistance relating to health studies. These health studies support the 
Department of Energy's mission to protect the health of DOE and 
contractor workers, as well as residents living near DOE facilities.
  Standards for Nuclear Waste Disposal--primarily for Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant in New Mexico--proposed January 31, 1995, EPA. This 
proposed rule sets standards for transuranic waste disposal, low levels 
of plutonium among other radionuclides. This guidance has already been 
delayed for many years and is critical to solving the nuclear waste 
disposal problem.
  Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites, EPA. This new final rule, issued 
on January 11, 1995, sets out cost-effective standards for preventing 
and cleaning up ground water contamination at inactive uranium 
processing sites. This rule replaces a restrictive and costly interim 
standard.
  Cleanup of NRC-licensed facilities, NRC. This proposed rule provides 
cleanup criteria for the decontamination and decommissioning of NRC-
licensed sites. These criteria include the cleanup and release of these 
facilities for unrestricted and restricted use. These standards are the 
ones I referred to earlier which have been developed in coordination 
with EPA's general standards for radioactive cleanup.
  Rulemaking expected by June 30, 1995. Nuclear Safety Management [10 
CFR Part 830, DOE]. This action establishes requirements for DOE 
contractors and subcontractors for ensuring nuclear safety at DOE 
facilities. These requirements stem from the Department's ongoing 
effort to strengthen the protection of health, safety, and the 
environment from the radiological and 
[[Page S4652]] chemical hazards posed by these facilities.
  Mr. President, a moratorium on this last rulemaking would result in 
delays to long-sought efforts to bring DOE's nuclear facilities closer 
to commercial standards as far as safety is concerned.
  To conclude, I strongly support regulatory reform, and good sense 
efforts to improve the current system. The unfortunate fact, which the 
proponents of the moratorium do not seem to fully grasp, is that to 
improve a regulatory system you must first understand what it is you 
are trying to fix. A meat ax isn't the way to solve the problem; better 
to use a scalpel to save this patient.
  As I have outlined here today, a responsible regulatory reform effort 
for radiation issues is currently underway. The proposed moratorium 
would delay this effort for no good reason. I urge my colleague to 
oppose this moratorium.
  I would summarize by saying a moratorium would bring all of this 
rulemaking to a stop, and the American people would not get the 
protection they deserve. And that is what we are debating today.
  This goes on to describe some of our efforts on the committee to get 
that as an exception while the bill was in committee, and we failed. It 
was a party line vote on E. coli. If there is ever an imminent threat 
to health and safety, that would be it.
  During the committee markup, I submitted an amendment to exempt 
regulatory actions that would reduce pathogens in meat and poultry. 
That amendment was rejected. I would like to discuss this important 
rule to show that the moratorium is indeed both dangerous and 
arbitrary.
  This amendment I offered would address rules to update inspection 
techniques for meat and poultry and would provide a safeguard against 
E. coli and other contamination. Mr. Mueller, whose 13-year-old son 
died from E. coli-contaminated hamburger, testified before the 
committee on February 22.
  He stated:

       I am here to tell you about the dire consequences that 
     would result in enactment of this moratorium. In the fall of 
     1993, my thirteen year old son died from eating a 
     cheeseburger. A new meat inspection rule which would have 
     prevented his death would be stopped by this legislation.

  In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a proposed 
hazardous analysis critical control point [HACCP] regulation to improve 
meat and poultry inspection. This rule would mandate rigorous 
sanitation requirements and scientific testing for bacteria in meat and 
poultry processing.
  Under HACCP, workers regularly monitory hazards in a production 
system on the basis of risk. They identify risks, they monitor the 
controls, and they sample end products periodically to check the HACCP 
process.
  Under HACCP, emphasis is placed on the process rather than the end 
product. Instead of monitoring every carcass for a defect, plant 
employees will regulatory monitor the processing of carcasses: the 
temperature of storage areas, the cleanliness of the equipment, or the 
consistency of carcass washes or other solutions used.
  The employees will keep records of their observations. Samples of end 
products will be tested to make sure that the process is working 
properly and the Government will review company HACCP records.
  HACCP has been endorsed by the United Nations, the World Health 
Organization, the General Accounting Office, the National Food 
Processors Association, the National Broiler Council, the American Meat 
Institute, and the Safe Food Coalition. Ten years ago, the National 
Academy of Sciences recommended that the USDA adopt HACCP for meat and 
poultry inspections. Industry petitioned USDA to mandate the program. 
Now the implementation of HACCP is threatened by this moratorium.
  The meat and poultry inspection laws were written in 1906. Federal 
inspectors are limited to touching, smelling, and visually inspecting 
carcasses to determine whether they are fit for consumption. We all 
know that inspectors are not going to find harmful bacteria like E. 
coli without microscopes and sampling. Clearly, this inspection program 
should be updated.
  As you know, the moratorium bill allows for the President to exempt 
imminent threats to health and safety. The majority in our committee 
argued that E. coli and other contaminants in meat and poultry would be 
an imminent threat to health and safety. We simply do not agree. The 
meat inspection rules are not emergency rules designed to address an 
immediately pressing event or disaster. They have been under 
development for several years now.
  Therefore, I and others strongly believed that we should specifically 
exempt these inspection rules from the moratorium.
  We cannot afford to pass a law that would end up with more needless 
deaths. While we do need to reform our regulatory process, we must not 
give up our responsibility to protect the public health and safety. As 
Mr. Mueller stated in his testimony before our committee, ``My son paid 
the ultimate price for eating one of his favorite foods.'' We have the 
ability to prevent this from happening again, and we should--by 
opposing the moratorium all together.
  Mr. President, I addressed very briefly a moment ago the subject of 
airline safety. I will make a few more comments about that.
  The lack of thought that went into the moratorium is seen in many 
ways. Once example is the effort it took to ensure protections for 
airline safety.
  In the House, the supporters of the moratorium resisted all arguments 
for an exemption for airline safety--in committee and on the floor, 
where they defeated an amendment that contained an exemption for 
aircraft safety. At the last minute, however, on the floor, the 
managers of the bill finally realized what a terrible idea it was, so 
they accepted an exemption.
  In the Senate, the moratorium also contained no exemption for airline 
safety. Even after the bill was redrafted for our committee markup, the 
supporters did not think it important enough to protect the traveling 
public from unsafe aircraft equipment and operations.
  Finally, in markup, I offered amendments that the majority could not 
reject. We exempted:
  FAA airworthiness directives--these are rules that govern aircraft 
safety, such as standards for aircraft engines, wing flap repairs, 
landing gear brakes, et cetera; and
  Commuter airline safety standards--these rules would upgrade 
standards for commuter airlines to those of major airlines.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter I received from the Airline Pilots Association describing the 
urgent need for the commuter airline rules.
  Commuter carriers, which operate aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, 
represent one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. airline 
market and often dominate airline service to many medium-sized cities 
and rural areas. This set of rules would require pilots on small 
commuter aircraft to go through the same training as pilots of the 
large carriers. The rules will also increase crew flight and rest 
requirements.
  These rules were issued on Friday as proposed rules, and the new 
rules are supported by both the Regional Airline Association and the 
Air Line Pilots Association.
  The proposed rules will be available for public comment for 90 days. 
I am sure that some will find provisions to object to, and I am sure 
that the FAA will make changes. Given the projected cost of these 
rules--over $275 million--I am also confident that OMB will use its 
Executive order powers to ensure that the rules are supported by a cost 
benefit analysis.
  This is how the process should work--rules to protect the public from 
harm or to serve some other purpose are proposed, made available for 
comment, analyzed, reviewed and discussed. This is government working.
  I believe the regulatory process needs reform. I've said that many 
times now. But, these air safety rules just prove my point about the 
moratorium. Does the American public want Government shut down, while 
some in Congress talk about reform, or do they want Government to try 
to make good decisions and protect them from harm, while we do our job 
of reform?
  That is the issue. Let us work together to reform the regulatory 
process--which is what we have been doing in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Let us not waste time fighting 
[[Page S4653]] over important protections that all agree save lives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from 
the Airline Pilots Association describing the urgent need for these 
commuter airline rules be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Air Line Pilots Association,

                                                    March 8, 1995.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Glenn: It is my understanding that during the 
     committee's deliberations on S. 219, a bill to establish a 
     moratorium on federal rulemaking, that you will offer an 
     amendment to exempt proposed rules that the Department of 
     Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration plan 
     to issue later this month which would bring commuter airlines 
     up to the same safety standards as the larger carriers. On 
     behalf of the 42,000 members of the Air Line Pilots 
     Association, I wish to express our strong support for this 
     amendment and urge its adoption.
       The Air Line Pilots Association has long advocated ``One 
     Level of Safety'' for all U.S. scheduled airline service. 
     These proposed rules were not developed in a vacuum. Many of 
     them have been pending for years and have already undergone 
     intensive review and analysis. Some originated with 
     recommendations from the National Transportation Safety 
     Board. In addition, because of the spate of accidents last 
     year, Secretary Pena, convened a two-day safety conference in 
     January, where hundreds of representatives from industry and 
     government worked together to develop the top 70 priorities 
     for increased air safety. ALPA was deeply involved in this 
     process and we believe the regulations that will be put 
     forward later this month will go a long way on the road 
     toward the goal of ``Zero Accidents.'' Now is not the time to 
     delay, it is the time to proceed.
       ALPA understands and agrees with the goals of eliminating 
     burdensome, costly regulations and to bring common sense into 
     rulemaking. However, safety should not be compromised in the 
     process. The traveling public should not have to wait for a 
     fatal accident before the government acts. We should be in 
     the business of preventing accidents rather than responding 
     to them.
       I strongly urge that the committee adopt your amendment and 
     allow these much needed safety regulations to go forward.
           Sincerely,
                                              J. Randolph Babbitt,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 54 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we could go on for a number of hours here 
reading all of these things, but I think I have made my point. I hope 
today we could agree that a straight moratorium, as proposed by S. 219, 
which is the bill we are debating here today--the substitute has not 
been laid down yet, and H.R. 450, its companion piece over in the 
House--is indeed ill thought out, ill considered, and bad for America 
and the American people, American business and industry.
  In what time I have remaining I would like to just read a short table 
of contents of different regulations. Some of these have several 
regulations that would be held up if we passed this moratorium 
legislation. All of these have some beneficial effect on the American 
public, or in particular businesses or industries.
                           Table of Contents


                      i. public health and safety

       (1) Towing Vessels Safety Regulations.
       (2) Commuter Airline Safety Standards.
       (3) Head Impact Protection.
       (4) Cleanup of Nuclear Facilities.
       (5) Prevention of Oil Spills.
       (6) Environmental Review in Public Housing.
       (7) Recovery of License Fees.
       (8) Meat and Poultry Inspection.
       (9) Alcoholic Beverage Labeling.
       (10) Improved Poultry Inspection.
       (11) Protection of Florida Keys.
       (12) Pesticide Regulation Flexibility.
       (13) Waste Management.
       (14) Safety Zones for America's Cup.
       (15) Airline Crew Assignments.
       (16) Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest 
     Requirements.
       (18) Disease-Free Food.
       (19) Security of Sensitive Information in Aviation.
       (20) Bike Helmet Safety Standards.
       (21) Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture.
       (22) Radioactive Material Reporting.
       (23) Child-Resistant Packaging.
       (24) Lead-Free Cans.
       (25) Nuclear Power Plant Safety.
       (26) Approval of State Air Quality Plans.
       (27) Reducing Toxic Air Emissions.
       (28) Safe Drinking Water at Lower Cost.
       (29) Lead Poisoning Prevention.
       (30) Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites.


                           ii. worker safety

       (1) Logging Safety.
       (2) Ventilation in Underground Coal Mines.
       (3) Safe Practices for Diesel Equipment in Underground Coal 
     Mines.
       (4) Child Labor.
       (5) Reducing Exposure to Tuberculosis in the Workplace.
       (6) Worker Exposure to Cancer Causing Agent.
       (7) Worker Exposure to Reproductive and Developmental 
     Risks.


                  iii. economic growth and opportunity

       (1) Small Business Development Center Program.
       (2) Streamlining Loan Procedures for Small Business.
       (3) Lower Electric Rates.
       (4) Expanded Markets for American Farmers: (a) Sheep and 
     Lamb Producers; (b) Fruit, Vegetable, and Dairy Producers.
       (5) Lower Costs for American Cotton Producers.
       (6) Reducing FHA Fund Losses.
       (7) Energy Efficient Applicances.
       (8) Utility Rate Recovery.
       (9) Education Funding Flexibility.
       (10) Drawbridge Regulations.
       (11) Missing Pension Beneficiaries.
       (12) Indian Self Determination and Self Governance.
       (13) Forestry Regulations.
       (14) Landowner Relief Under Spotted Owl Regulation.
       (15) Cruise Ship Access to Glacier Bay, Alaska.
       (16) Alternative Fuel Providers.
       (17) Extension of Port Limits, Hawaii.
       (18) Recordkeeping by Casinos.
       (19) Cable Rate Restructuring.
       (20) Radio Frequency Allocation.
       (21) Mobile Radios.
       (22) Video Dialtone.


                         iv. government reform

       (1) Public Financing for Presidential Candidates.
       (2) Political Campaigns Disclaimers.
       (3) Efficient Clearance of Federal Checks.
       (4) Government Securities Large Position Reporting 
     Requirements.
       (5) Capital Sufficiency.
       (6) Government Securities--Risk Assessment.
       (7) Environmental Information ``One Stop Shopping.''
       (8) Housing Reforms.


               v. help for families and the middle class

       (1) Student Loan Borrower Harassment Defenses.
       (2) Caller ID.
       (3) Mortgage Lending for Moderate Income Individuals.
       (4) Foreclosure Alternatives.
       (5) Increasing Home Ownership Opportunities for First Time 
     Buyers.
       (6) Pell Grant Availability.
       (7) Avoiding Homeowner Foreclosure.

  Mr. President, I read all these to show the diverse nature of what we 
are dealing with here. This is not some little minor matter. It affects 
all businesses and industries. A moratorium would affect health and 
safety for this country and all of our people. I go on at this length 
today talking about these things because H.R. 450 has already passed 
over in the House. When we go to conference, we will be dealing with 
all these things I mentioned today and more. We have not even listed 
all the impacts of what this moratorium would do.
  I realize tomorrow we will have the Nickles-Reid substitute for this, 
which provides for legislative veto. I have favored legislative veto. 
But I do not want to see it combined in conference with some of the 
things I have mentioned here today, which go too far and which I think 
never should have been proposed to begin with.
  Our status on regulatory reform is this: We have passed regulatory 
reform out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is a good bill. 
Senator Roth deserves a lot of credit for bringing that bill to the 
floor and making it a good, tough, solid bill. We should not be just 
picking little bits and pieces, such as a legislative veto, out of that 
bill. Those are parts of that bigger bill, and it is voted out now. It 
will be ready for floor action shortly. I see no reason why we should 
be picking out pieces of it for separate legislation unless the intent 
is to go to conference with the House and come back with something that 
goes part way toward what the House has done with H.R. 450 and which 
has been proposed here in the Senate with S. 219.
  The President last September issued a directive to all Government 
agencies and departments to go through all rules and regulations and 
come up with a sweeping proposal for correcting the problems we have 
with the rules and regulations in effect now--all of them.
  That will be with us on the 1st of June. They have committed to 
having 
[[Page S4654]] it to us on the 1st of June. So this legislation just 
makes little sense to me. We will have the President's proposals before 
us on the 1st of June, which is just about 30 working days from now if 
you take out the Easter break period. We will be able to take up those 
considerations along with regulatory reform and not even try to do 
something where we go to conference with the House on their moratorium 
bill.
  I may have more to say on this subject tomorrow. We will be looking 
forward to the proposal I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma 
is going to make tomorrow. But I hope we could get ahead with 
regulatory reform on a broad front and not just on this narrow issue of 
legislative veto. If we make it something that has to be conferenced 
with the House, as I see it, we can only lose.
  If we go over to the House with this and we say it is this or 
nothing, the House is liable to not agree with that. I do not know 
where we go from there with compromise, which is usually the way we get 
by our conferences.
  So, Mr. President, we will have more to say on this tomorrow, I am 
sure. I have asked for extensive things to be put in the Record today, 
I realize. But I think it is so important because, as the minority 
leader said a little while ago here on the floor, the moratorium is 
dead. If it is not, it should be. We want to make sure that it is.
  As for the legislative veto, we may be able to vote on that tomorrow. 
I do not know. If we can say the moratorium is dead and regulatory or 
legislative veto is what we are really going to stick with, and we are 
not going to come back with something that accommodates the House, then 
I think legislative veto may be the way we all want to go. We might 
even get a unanimous vote tomorrow. I do not know.
  I thank the Chair. I look forward to more debate on this subject 
tomorrow.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have just a couple of very brief 
comments.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 70 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. It will be my intention to yield most of that time in 
just a few moments.
  Mr. President, after listening to the long list of regulations that 
are so important and so effective, I wonder how we could be safer with 
big Government doing so many wonderful things for us and saving so many 
lives. When you listen to the litany of regulations affecting 
everything, all the way down to safety zones for America's Cup--I did 
not know we had regulations dealing with safety zones for America's 
Cup, but I am sure they will be a lot safer. But I hasten to add that 
the bill that was before us only applied to regulations that had 
significant economic impact. So the moratorium that passed out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee would not have limited the regulations 
dealing with safety zones for America's Cup. It would have had no 
impact on them. As a matter of fact, most of the regulations that were 
mentioned would not have been impacted by the legislation that was 
reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee because the 
committee decided to only impact significant regulations.
  I have heard a couple of my colleagues say the moratorium bill is 
dead. But I should mention that the bill that Senator Reid and I are 
pushing has a moratorium on significant regulations for 45 days to give 
Congress a chance to review them, and maybe a chance to repeal them. So 
there is a moratorium on significant regulations, just as there is a 
moratorium that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The 
Governmental Affairs Committee moratorium would last until we pass a 
comprehensive bill. We may pass a comprehensive bill in 45 days and 
have it signed by the President. Or it could last until the end of the 
year. I make mention of that.
  I think when people said there is no moratorium, actually we have a 
moratorium on significant regulations. That is what was in the bill 
that was passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. But we have 
it for different purposes. In the bill that passed out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, it said we would exempt the small 
regulations and then the President could exempt. The moratorium would 
only apply to significant regulations, and then the President had lots 
of exceptions, A through H in exceptions, that the President could 
determine would be exempt. My thought was that they ended up with 
almost no regulations covered.
  The substitute that Senator Reid and I will be pushing allows 
Congress to review all regulations. It is not just the significant ones 
that we are able to review for all regulations. Hopefully, Congress 
will do that. Hopefully, Congress will do a better job. We may even 
have the opportunity to review the safety zones for America's Cup. I do 
not know why I am intrigued by that. But I did not know the Federal 
Government had to be involved in making safety zones for America's Cup. 
You would think that they would be quite able to do that without the 
big hand of Federal Government. Maybe that is necessary. I am not sure.
  But I see my friend and colleague from Rhode Island. Mr. President, 
it is my intention to yield back the remainder of the time shortly 
after Senator Chafee's comments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Oklahoma for the time he has given me. My comments will not be too 
long.
  Mr. President, tomorrow the Senator will vote on an amendment by the 
Senators from Oklahoma and Nevada; that is, a complete substitute to 
the moratorium bill that is currently before us in the Senate. When we 
take that action, the Senate will be on record in opposition to a 1-
year moratorium. Will they be for a moratorium? Yes. But it is a 45-day 
moratorium, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, solely applying 
to what are defined as significant regulations.
  But this concern that I have is when the Reid-Nickles substitute goes 
to conference with the House bill, that some version of the moratorium 
incorporated in the House bill will come back from that conference. The 
moratorium in the House bill applies to all regulations, and it is for 
a year.
  I share the concern that others have voiced that the legislation that 
comes back from the House will include some significant moratorium, or 
let us say 6 months, or maybe even a year. I would vigorously oppose a 
conference report if it included that type of moratorium.
  There are many other problems with the House-passed bill. First, the 
House bill makes no distinction between good regulations that are 
needed and poor regulations that are poorly designed and unneeded.
  For instance, the Senator from Michigan has mentioned the rules-
setting quality standards for bottled drinking water which are to be 
issued by the Food and Drug Administration this coming April, next 
month. These rules would be blocked by the House bill. The bottled 
water industry actually wants these rules to restore consumer 
confidence. They have been urging FDA action, the Food and Drug 
Administration action, for years, but they would be blocked by the 
House bill. The proponents in the House would say President has the 
power to exempt rules like that for bottled drinking water because they 
are needed to address an imminent threat to public health and safety. 
But it is hard to believe that the bottled water industry would want 
the President of the United States to declare that their product 
represents an imminent threat to health and to the people of the United 
States before this rule could be issued.
  There are many other regulations that are supported by the regulated 
community that would be suspended by the House bill. For example, last 
December, EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, issued a rule that resolves a 20-year dispute between 
agriculture interests, the cities, and environmentalists over waters 
discharged into the San Francisco Bay. This comes under the Clean Water 
Act. Reaching an agreement involving all those California interests was 
some accomplishment. Even though all the affected interests now support 
the agreement, it would be set aside for a year under the House bill. 
As a result, sensitive wetland resources in the San Francisco Bay area 
would experience further damage for no good reason.
  [[Page S4655]] One frequently heard argument for the House moratorium 
of 1 year is the need to establish new procedures for development and 
review of major regulations. What we need, the reason we have to have 
this year's waiver, is we need some new approaches. We have to have a 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. But most major rules already 
use those tools. There are many regulations that are necessary to 
protect health, safety, and the environment that have been designed by 
using cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments. These would be 
needlessly delayed by the moratorium.
  For example, in February, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed 
changes to meat and poultry inspections to prevent life-threatening 
infections. The science supporting that regulation is not going to be 
different between now and next year. They are already using risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analyses. Yet, that rule would be set 
aside. There is a possibility of more lives being endangered in the 
interim.
  Those on the other side supporting the House measure would say, ``Oh, 
well. Those foods currently represent an imminent threat to health, and 
the President could, therefore, exempt them from the delay.'' But that 
action by the President of the United States could be challenged in 
court and in the House bill. There is judicial review in the House 
bill. Thus, they could be held up for a considerable time.
  Another major concern with the House bill that has not been discussed 
here on the floor is the impact of the moratorium on the efforts by the 
States to carry out the Clean Air Act and other laws. Let me explain. 
The way the Clean Air Act works is State plans to reduce smog and 
carbon monoxide pollution must be promulgated as Federal regulations 
before they become effective. In other words, the State comes up with a 
plan, files a plan, and the EPA then issues the regulations. But it is 
the Federal Government that issues the regulations. EPA actually 
proposes the State plan in the Federal Register.
  What the EPA does is take what the States have given them, puts it in 
the Federal Register, considers comments and then promulgates the State 
plan as a Federal rule. States have been working for 4 years to develop 
new plans under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Just as they 
are completing this difficult job, the House bill would impose a year-
long recess on their efforts. These are plans, mind you, that are 
written by the States, and they are going to be delayed.
  Now, what is the purpose of all that? The House moratorium is also 
retroactive. It repeals regulations already in effect only to reinstate 
them at a later time, a year from now. This is going to cause a lot of 
confusion in the regulated community and actually can impose some very 
unfair costs on some industries.
  Example: Under the moratorium bill passed by the House, the Clean Air 
Act program for reformulated gasolines that became effective last 
January 1 would be suspended, which would cost the oil companies that 
are complying with this rule tens of millions of dollars as 
noncomplying gasoline, nonreformulated gasoline would be allowed to 
enter into the reformulated market areas. Now, perhaps this will 
surprise some.
  By the way, this is not some kookie regulation dreamed up by a bunch 
of tree huggers from EPA. Reformulated gasoline is a requirement of the 
Clean Air Act that was added to the law by an amendment on the floor 
sponsored by the two leaders, the current Democratic and current 
Republican leader; namely, Senators Dole and Daschle. That came when 
the Clean Air Act amendments were before the Senate in 1990. The 
regulation went into effect last January 1. But that is during the 
period covered by the House moratorium. So the requirement would be 
suspended.
  The oil companies subject to the regulation have built up stocks of 
millions of gallons of reformulated gasoline to meet the demand in 
their markets. Information from the Congressional Research Service 
indicates the oil industry now has 1.85 billion--that is not million, 
that is billion, B as in billion--gallons of reformulated gasoline in 
storage right now.
  If the House moratorium bill should be enacted, the reformulated 
gasoline requirement would be suspended and cheaper conventional 
gasoline could be brought into those markets. The oil companies that 
are complying with the law could probably still sell their reformulated 
gasoline. Sure, they could sell it, but they would have to obviously do 
it at the price of conventional gasoline, which is some 3 cents a 
gallon less expensive because of the costs that have gone into making 
the reformulated gasoline. So that will be a loss of about $55 
million--$55 million--if the House moratorium were enacted.
  Mr. President, my vote on the final bill will, of course, depend upon 
the amendments that might be offered and adopted during the course of 
this debate. But I did want to join with others to express my grave 
concerns about the House moratorium bill. Should I vote for this bill 
later this week, I would oppose any report that came back from the 
conference with a regulatory moratorium, that is, a year, 6 months, 
something to that effect, which is quite different from the 45-day 
delay that is in this legislation here before us.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know of no other Senators who wish to 
speak on this issue. So I will yield back the remainder of our time.


                          ____________________