[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4686-S4691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act 
of 1995, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 219) to ensure economy and efficiency of Federal 
     Government operations by establishing a moratorium on 
     regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, with an amendment to strike 
all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the 
following:
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that effective steps for improving the 
     efficiency and proper management of Government operations 
     will be promoted if a moratorium on certain significant 
     regulatory actions is imposed and an inventory of such 
     actions is conducted.

     SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS.

       (a) Moratorium.--During the moratorium period, a Federal 
     agency may not take any significant regulatory action, unless 
     permitted under section 5. Beginning 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the effectiveness of any 
     significant regulatory action taken during the moratorium 
     period but before the date of the enactment shall be 
     suspended until the end of the moratorium, unless an 
     exception is provided under section 5.
       (b) Inventory of Rulemaking.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and on a monthly basis 
     thereafter, the Administrator of the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall conduct an inventory and publish in the Federal 
     Register a list of all significant regulatory actions covered 
     by subsection (a), identifying those which have been granted 
     an exception as provided under section 5.

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

       (a) In General.--Any deadline for, relating to, or 
     involving any action dependent upon, any significant 
     regulatory action prohibited or suspended under section 3 is 
     extended for 5 months or until the date occurring 5 months 
     after the end of the moratorium period, whichever is later.
       (b) Deadline Defined.--The term ``deadline'' means any date 
     certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
     authority established by or under any Federal statute or 
     regulation, or by or under any court order implementing any 
     Federal statute or regulation.
       (c) Identification of Postponed Deadlines.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and 
     [[Page S4687]]  Budget shall identify and publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of deadlines covered by subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 5. EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, shall not apply to a 
     significant regulatory action if--
       (1) the head of a Federal agency otherwise authorized to 
     take the action submits a written request to the President, 
     and a copy thereof to the appropriate committees of each 
     house of the Congress;
       (2) the President finds, in writing, the action is--
       (A) necessary because of an imminent threat to human health 
     or safety or other emergency;
       (B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
       (C) related to a regulation that has as its principal 
     effect fostering economic growth, repealing, narrowing, or 
     streamlining a rule, regulation, administrative process, or 
     otherwise reducing regulatory burdens;
       (D) issued with respect to matters relating to military or 
     foreign affairs or international trade;
       (E) principally related to agency organization, management, 
     or personnel;
       (F) a routine administrative action, or principally related 
     to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts;
       (G) limited to matters relating to negotiated rulemaking 
     carried out between Indian tribes and the applicable agency 
     under the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-413; 108 Stat. 4250); or
       (H) limited to interpreting, implementing, or administering 
     the internal revenue laws of the United States; and
       (3) the Federal agency head publishes the finding in the 
     Federal Register.
       (b) Inapplicability of Exceptions.--The authority provided 
     under subsection (a) shall not apply to any action described 
     under section 6(B)(ii).

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     ``agency'' as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 
     5, United States Code (relating to administrative procedure).
       (2) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period'' 
     means that period of time beginning November 9, 1994, and 
     ending on December 31, 1995, unless an Act of Congress 
     provides an earlier termination date for such period.
       (3) Significant regulatory action.--The term ``significant 
     regulatory action'' means any action that--
       (A)(i) consists of the issuance of any substantive rule, 
     interpretative rule, statement of agency policy, guidance, 
     guidelines, or notice of proposed rulemaking; and
       (ii) the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget 
     finds--
       (I) has an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a 
     sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities;
       (II) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
     interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency;
       (III) materially alters the budgetary impact of 
     entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
     rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
       (IV) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
     legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
     set forth in Executive Order 12866; or
       (B)(i) withdraws or restricts recreational, subsistence, or 
     commercial use of any land under the control of a Federal 
     agency, except for those actions described under paragraph 
     (4) (K) and (L); or
       (ii) is taken to carry out--
       (I) the Interagency Memorandum of Agreement Concerning 
     Wetlands Determinations for Purposes of Section 404 of the 
     Clean Water Act and Subtitle B of the Food Security Act (59 
     Fed. Reg. 2920) (referred to in this clause as the 
     ``Memorandum of Agreement''); or
       (II) any method of delineating wetlands based on the 
     Memorandum of Agreement for purposes of carrying out subtitle 
     C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3821 et seq.) or section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
       (4) Rule; guidance; or guidelines.--The terms ``rule'', 
     ``guidance'', or ``guideline'' mean the whole or a part of an 
     agency statement of general or particular applicability and 
     future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe 
     law or policy. Such term shall not include--
       (A) the approval or prescription, including on a case-by-
     case or consolidated case basis, for the future of rates, 
     wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganization 
     thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or 
     allowances therefor or of valuations, costs, or accounting, 
     or practices bearing on any of the foregoing;
       (B) any action taken in connection with the implementation 
     of monetary policy or to ensure the safety and soundness of 
     federally insured depository institutions, any affiliate of 
     such an institution, credit unions, the Federal Home Loan 
     Banks, or Government sponsored housing enterprises, or to 
     protect the Federal deposit insurance funds;
       (C) any action taken to ensure the safety and soundness of 
     a Farm Credit System institution or to protect the Farm 
     Credit Insurance Fund;
       (D) any action taken in connection with the reintroduction 
     of non-essential experimental populations of wolves before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (E) any action by the Environmental Protection Agency that 
     would protect the public from exposure to lead from house 
     paint, soil, or drinking water;
       (F) any action to provide compensation to Persian Gulf War 
     veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as 
     provided under the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act 
     (title I of Public Law 103-446; 108 Stat. 4647) and the 
     amendments made by that Act;
       (G) any action to improve aircraft safety, including such 
     an action to improve the airworthiness of aircraft engines;
       (H) any action that would upgrade safety and training 
     standards for commuter airlines to the standards of major 
     airlines;
       (I) the promulgation of any rule or regulation relating to 
     aircraft overflights on national parks by the Secretary of 
     Transportation or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 
     the procedures specified in the advanced notice of proposed 
     rulemaking published on March 17, 1994, at 59 Fed. Reg. 12740 
     et seq., except that this subparagraph shall not apply to any 
     such overflight in the State of Alaska;
       (J) any clarification of existing responsibilities 
     regarding highway safety warning devices;
       (K) any action that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, 
     or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, 
     recreational, or subsistence activity relating to hunting, 
     fishing, or camping, if a Federal law prohibits such activity 
     in the absence of agency action; or
       (L) the granting of an application for or issuance of a 
     license, registration, or similar authority, granting or 
     recognizing an exemption, granting a variance or petition for 
     relief from a regulatory requirement, or other action 
     relieving a restriction, or taking any action necessary to 
     permit new or improved applications of technology or allow 
     manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of a substance or 
     product.
       (5) License.--The term ``license'' means the whole or part 
     of an agency permit, lease, certificate, approval, 
     registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption, or 
     other form of permission, including any such form of 
     permission relating to hunting and fishing.
       (6) Public property.--The term ``public property'' means 
     all property under the control of a Federal agency, other 
     than land.

     SEC. 7. EXCLUSIONS.

       This Act shall not apply to any significant regulatory 
     action that establishes or enforces any statutory rights that 
     prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, 
     age, national origin, handicap, or disability status.

     SEC. 8. CIVIL ACTION.

       No determination under this Act or agency interpretation 
     under section 6(4) shall be subject to adjudicative review 
     before an administrative tribunal or court of law.

     SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

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

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 410

   (Purpose: To ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government 
   operations by establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking 
                    actions, and for other purposes)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Reid, 
Bond, and Hutchison, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr. 
     Reid, Mr. Bond and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 410.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that effective steps for improving the 
     efficiency and proper management of Government operations 
     will be promoted if a moratorium on the effectiveness of 
     certain significant final rules is imposed 
     [[Page S4688]]  in order to provide Congress an opportunity 
     for review.

     SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS; CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       (a) Reporting and Review of Regulations.--
       (1) Reporting to congress.--
       (A) Before a rule can take effect as a final rule, the 
     Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each 
     House of the Congress a report containing--
       (i) a copy of the rule;
       (ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
       (iii) the proposed effective date of the rule; and
       (iv) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the 
     rule, if any.
       (B) Upon receipt, each House shall provide copies to the 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of each committee with 
     jurisdiction.
       (2) Effective date of significant rules.--A significant 
     rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     take effect as a final rule, the latest of--
       (A) the later of the date occurring 45 days after the date 
     on which--
       (i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1); or
       (ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register;
       (B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described under section 4 relating to the rule, 
     and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the 
     earlier date--
       (i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to 
     override the veto of the President; or
       (ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which the 
     Congress received the veto and objections of the President; 
     or
       (C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, if 
     not for this section (unless a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 4 is enacted).
       (3) Effective date for other rules.--Except for a 
     significant rule, a rule shall take effect as otherwise 
     provided by law after submission to Congress under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Termination of Disapproved Rulemaking.--A rule shall 
     not take effect (or continue) as a final rule, if the 
     Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described 
     under section 4.
       (c) Presidential Waiver Authority.--
       (1) Presidential determinations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), 
     a rule that would not take effect by reason of this Act may 
     take effect, if the President makes a determination under 
     paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such 
     determination to the Congress.
       (2) Grounds for determinations.--Paragraph (1) applies to a 
     determination made by the President by Executive order that 
     the rule should take effect because such rule is--
       (A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       (B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; or
       (C) necessary for national security.
       (3) Waiver not to affect congressional disapprovals.--An 
     exercise by the President of the authority under this 
     subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under 
     section 4 or the effect of a joint resolution of disapproval 
     under this section. --
       (d) Treatment of Rules Issued at End of Congress.--
       (1) Additional opportunity for review.--In addition to the 
     opportunity for review otherwise provided under this Act, in 
     the case of any rule that is published in the Federal 
     Register (as a rule that shall take effect as a final rule) 
     during the period beginning on the date occurring 60 days 
     before the date the Congress adjourns sine die through the 
     date on which the succeeding Congress first convenes, section 
     4 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding Congress.
       (2) Treatment under section 4.--
       (A) In applying section 4 for purposes of such additional 
     review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated 
     as though--
       (i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a 
     rule that shall take effect as a final rule) on the 15th 
     session day after the succeeding Congress first convenes; and
       (ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       (B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect 
     the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report must be 
     submitted to Congress before a final rule can take effect.
       (3) Actual effective date not affected.--A rule described 
     under paragraph (1) shall take effect as a final rule as 
     otherwise provided by law (including other subsections of 
     this section).
       (e) Treatment of Rules Issued Before This Act.--
       (1) Opportunity for congressional review.--The provisions 
     of section 4 shall apply to any significant rule that is 
     published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take 
     effect as a final rule) during the period beginning on 
     November 20, 1994, through the date on which this Act takes 
     effect.
       (2) Treatment under section 4.--In applying section 4 for 
     purposes of Congressional review, a rule described under 
     paragraph (1) shall be treated as though--
       (A) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a 
     rule that shall take effect as a final rule) on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       (3) Actual effective date not affected.--The effectiveness 
     of a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be as otherwise 
     provided by law, unless the rule is made of no force or 
     effect under section 4.
       (f) Nullification of Rules Disapproved by Congress.--Any 
     rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or 
     effect by the enactment of a joint resolution under section 4 
     shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.
       (g) No Inference to be Drawn Where Rules Not Disapproved.--
     If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 4, no court or agency may infer any 
     intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the 
     Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint 
     resolution of disapproval.

     SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL PROCEDURE.

       (a) Joint Resolution Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term "joint resolution" means only a joint 
     resolution introduced after the date on which the report 
     referred to in section 3(a) is received by Congress the 
     matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 
     ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the ____ 
     relating to ____, and such rule shall have no force or 
     effect.'' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in.)
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) In general.--A resolution described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress 
     with jurisdiction. Such a resolution may not be reported 
     before the eighth day after its submission or publication 
     date.
       (2) Submission date.--For purposes of this subsection the 
     term ``submission or publication date'' means the later of 
     the date on which--
       (A) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     section 3(a)(1); or
       (B) the rule is published in the Federal Register.
       (c) Discharge.--If the committee to which is referred a 
     resolution described in subsection (a) has not reported such 
     resolution (or an identical resolution) at the end of 20 
     calendar days after the submission or publication date 
     defined under subsection (b)(2), such committee may be 
     discharged by the Majority Leader of the Senate or the 
     Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, as the case 
     may be, from further consideration of such resolution and 
     such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar 
     of the House involved.
       (d) Floor Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--When the committee to which a resolution 
     is referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 
     (under subsection (c)) from further consideration of, a 
     resolution described in subsection (a), it is at any time 
     thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the resolution, and all points of order 
     against the resolution (and against consideration of 
     resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to 
     amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, the 
     resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the 
     respective House until disposed of.
       (2) Debate.--Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 
     to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally 
     between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A 
     motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. 
     An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion 
     to recommit the resolution is not in order.
       (3) Final passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of 
     the debate on a resolution described in subsection (a), and a 
     single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if 
     requested in accordance with the rules of the appropriate 
     House, the vote on final passage of the resolution shall 
     occur.
       (4) Appeals.--Appeals from the decisions of the Chair 
     relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the 
     procedure relating to a resolution described in subsection 
     (a) shall be decided without debate.
       (e) Treatment if Other House Has Acted.--If, before the 
     passage by one House of a resolution of that House described 
     in subsection (a), that House receives from the other House a 
     resolution described in subsection (a), then the following 
     procedures shall apply:
       (1) Nonreferral.--The resolution of the other House shall 
     not be referred to a committee.
       (2) Final passage.--With respect to a resolution described 
     in subsection (a) of the House receiving the resolution--
       (A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (B) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of 
     the other House.
       (f) Constitutional Authority.--This section is enacted by 
     Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, 
     [[Page S4689]]  respectively, and as such it is deemed a part 
     of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only 
     with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in 
     the case of a resolution described in subsection (a), and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     SEC. 5. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL 
                   DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--In the case of any deadline for, relating 
     to, or involving any significant rule which does not take 
     effect (or the effectiveness of which is terminated) because 
     of the enactment of a joint resolution under section 4, that 
     deadline is extended until the date 12 months after the date 
     of the joint resolution. Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to affect a deadline merely by reason of the 
     postponement of a rule's effective date under section 3(a).
       (b) Deadline Defined.--The term ``deadline'' means any date 
     certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
     authority established by or under any Federal statute or 
     regulation, or by or under any court order implementing any 
     Federal statute or regulation.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     ``agency'' as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 
     5, United States Code (relating to administrative procedure).
       (2) Significant rule.--The term ``significant rule'' means 
     any final rule, issued after November 9, 1994, that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget finds--
       (A) has an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a 
     sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities;
       (B) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes 
     with an action taken or planned by another agency;
       (C) materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlement, 
     grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
     obligations of recipients thereof; or
       (D) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
     legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
     set forth in Executive Order 12866.
       (3) Final rule.--The term ``final rule'' means any final 
     rule or interim final rule. As used in this paragraph, 
     ``rule'' has the meaning given such term by section 551 of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 7. CIVIL ACTION.

       An Executive order issued by the President under section 
     3(c), and any determination under section 3(a)(2), shall not 
     be subject to judicial review by a court of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY; SEVERABILITY.

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

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

       Nothing in this Act shall apply to rules that concern 
     monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and shall apply to any significant rule that takes 
     effect as a final rule on or after such effective date.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Reid 
and myself and several other Senators discussed at length yesterday, so 
I do not think I have to go into too much detail.
  But just to summarize what this amendment would do, this amendment 
would provide for a 45-day congressional review of regulations--all 
regulations. Significant regulation would have a moratorium. They would 
be suspended for 45 days.
  This would give Congress an expedited procedure to where we could 
repeal or reject those regulations if we deem it necessary. We could 
reject any of the regulations, whether they be significant or whether 
they be smaller regulations.
  We also have a look back. We can look back at the significant 
regulations that were enacted since November 20, 1994, and have a 
chance to reject or repeal those. Those regulations would not be 
suspended. They would still be in effect, but if Congress so desired, 
if we were successful in passing a resolution of disapproval through 
both Houses and if that resolution is signed by the President, then 
those regulations would be repealed.
  Likewise, on any of the prospective regulations that might come out, 
we would have 45 days for an expedited procedure, and if Congress 
passed a resolution of disapproval, then those regulations would be 
stopped. Of course, again, the President would have the opportunity to 
veto that resolution and we would have the opportunity to override that 
veto.
  Mr. President, I think this is good reform. It is a substitute to the 
bill as reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I think, 
frankly, in my opinion, it is a significant improvement. I was a 
sponsor of the bill that came out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. We had 36 cosponsors. That is the so-called reg moratorium.
  Some of my colleagues have labeled that bill draconian, they say it 
will be a disaster, so on. My final analysis was that bill would not do 
very much because the bill, as reported to the House, pertained to all 
regulations with lots of exceptions. When it was reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, it applied to significant regulations.
  To put this in a framework, the administration on November 14 
published in the Federal Register that they were reviewing and working 
on 4,500 rules and regulations that would be effective for the years 
1995, 1996, and 1997--4,500. Many of those had significant economic 
impact. I thought we should have a review of those or stop those. But 
the bill that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee applied 
only to significant. That would be several hundred, maybe 800 or 900 
out of the 4,500, and then the Governmental Affairs Committee had 
several exceptions.
  We had several exceptions when we introduced the bill. I believe we 
had eight exceptions: For imminent public health and safety; exceptions 
for actions that would streamline the process and make Government work 
more efficiently and effectively; exceptions dealing with criminal 
statutes.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee had a lot more exceptions. The net 
result was, in my opinion, the bill passed out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee was a temporary moratorium. It would only last until 
Congress passed a comprehensive reform bill. My guess is we will 
probably do that in 2 or 3 months. So instead of having a year 
moratorium as people anticipated, the bill said it would last until the 
end of the year or until Congress passed a comprehensive regulatory 
reform bill. I think we will do that in a couple of months. I hope we 
do. I think it is important to do with cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment. So my guess is the temporary moratorium would only last a 
couple months.
 And then, like I said, it would apply not only to significant 
regulations. The bill before us gives Congress an expedited procedure 
to reject all regulations, whether significant or not. I think it is 
more permanent, because we are talking about permanent statutory 
change. So not only this Congress--not just for the next 100 days or 
for this year--but this Congress and future Congresses will have the 
right and the responsibility, in my opinion, to not only review, but to 
analyze these regulations and to reject those that we find are too 
expensive, reject those we find do not make sense. Again, it applies to 
all regulations, not just to the significant ones.

  I think it is an improvement on the bill as reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I thank Senator Roth and other 
colleagues for their work on that. I know it was not an easy markup in 
conference.
  I think the substitute we have today, which is supported by Senators 
Dole, Roth, and several others, is a better substitute for another 
reason. It is bipartisan. I want to compliment Senator Reid for his 
cosponsoring this approach, as well as several other colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle that have mentioned to me they think this is a 
good approach. This should actually pass regardless of whether you have 
a Republican-controlled Congress or a Democrat-controlled Congress. 
This says Congress should be making the decision. Congress should use 
their oversight and should have the responsibility to make sure the 
bureaucrats, the regulators, actually follow through 
[[Page S4690]]  with our intentions and desires on legislation. This 
will give us that responsibility.
  I am optimistic. I think this is a good substitute, one that deserves 
very strong bipartisan support. I hope we have a very strong vote in 
the Senate later today and one that I hope my colleagues in the House 
would concur is an improvement over the House-passed bill and, 
hopefully, they will recede to the Senate when we go to conference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, might I inquire, what is the parliamentary 
procedure now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma offered an amendment 
to the committee substitute for S. 219.
  Mr. HARKIN. The substitute is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                 Amendment No. 411 to Amendment No. 410

(Purpose: To condemn the conviction and sentencing of American citizens 
                             held in Iraq)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 411 to amendment No. 410.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING AMERICAN CITIZENS HELD IN 
                   IRAQ.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On Saturday, March 25, 1995, an Iraqi court sentenced 
     two Americans, William Barloon and David Daliberti, to eight 
     years imprisonment for allegedly entering Iraq without 
     permission.
       (2) The two men were tried, convicted, and sentenced in 
     what was reported to be a very brief period during that day 
     with no other Americans present and with their only legal 
     counsel having been appointed by the Government of Iraq.
       (3) The Department of State has stated that the two 
     Americans have committed no offense justifying imprisonment 
     and has demanded that they be released immediately.
       (4) This injustice worsens already strained relations 
     between the United States and Iraq and makes resolution of 
     differences with Iraq more difficult.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--The Senate strongly condemns the 
     unjustified actions taken by the Government of Iraq against 
     American citizens William Barloon and David Daliberti and 
     urges their immediate release from prison and safe exit from 
     Iraq. Further, the Senate urges the President of the United 
     States to take all appropriate action to assure their prompt 
     release and safe exit from Iraq.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution and not really related to the bill at hand. But it responds 
to an urgent matter.
  On Saturday morning, March 25, an Iraqi judge sentenced two American 
citizens, David Daliberti and William Barloon, to 8 years in prison for 
illegal entry into Iraq, under paragraph 24 of Iraq's residence law.
  Apparently, the men had innocently and mistakenly entered Iraqi 
territory last March 13 while attempt to go visit friends at the U.N. 
observer mission in the demilitarized zone.
  According to the State Department, no American official was present 
at the trial, which lasted about 1\1/2\ hours. Both Americans were 
represented by a court-appointed Iraqi attorney. The Polish 
authorities, who are representing us in Iraq, were given less than an 
hour's notification before the trial was to begin.
  One of those Americans sentenced, William Barloon, is from New 
Hampton, IA. He is an engineer for the McDonnell Douglas Corp. He has 
lived, for the past 2 years, in Kuwait with his wife, Linda, and their 
three children. His family and friends are rightfully shocked, angered, 
and frustrated by the sentence. I share the concerns of Mr. Barloon's 
family and friends in Iowa and offer this amendment to publicly support 
them to do whatever I can to ensure the prompt and swift return of 
their loved one.
  I have been, and my staff has been, closely monitoring the diplomatic 
efforts underway and have expressed my concern to the Secretary of 
State, Warren Christopher.
  Mr. President, there is absolutely no justification for these 
sentences. These two Americans, who work for private contractors in 
Kuwait, inadvertently crossed over into Iraq when attempting to visit 
friends in the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait. They 
committed no offense justifying jail sentences. Allegations of 
espionage to the contrary, these men were not in Iraq for any nefarious 
purpose. They did not commit any criminal actions.
  In addition, Mr. President, their stay in Iraq was very brief. They 
had then attempted to return back into Kuwait, probably when they 
discovered that they had crossed over. According to the State 
Department, they were merely charged with being in Iraq illegally, 
without proper documents, in violation of that country's residence law.
  Mr. President, I have long been a defender of human rights throughout 
the world. And today I rise to speak out in defense of the human rights 
of two Americans unjustly sentenced to 8 years in prison for what 
essentially amounts to an honest mistake of not knowing where they 
were.
  Imprisonment in this case is unconscionable. Both Mr. Daliberti and 
Mr. Barloon, on the basis of their fundamental human rights and 
humanitarian considerations, should be immediately and unconditionally 
released.
  Finally, it has been suggested that Iraq may be seeking to take 
advantage of this incident as leverage in whatever real or perceived 
grievances Iraq has with the United States, or to gain some advantage 
internationally. I do not know if that is the case. I do not wish to 
comment on that. I just hope it is not the case. But if that is the 
case, then I urge them to reconsider using this incident in such a 
manner, because I can tell you one thing--any attempt to use this 
incident in such a manner can only be counterproductive, there is 
nothing for Iraq to gain by using this incident in the hopes of gaining 
leverage in bilateral or international relations.
  I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this amendment. It will 
put the United States Senate on record as condemning Iraq's actions in 
this case and urges the President to take all appropriate measures to 
secure the immediate release of Mr. Daliberti and Mr. Barloon so they 
may be reunited with their family and friends.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record 
two articles from The New York Times of this morning.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           In Hometowns, Spy Charges by Baghdad Are Dismissed

                           (By Dirk Johnson)

       New Hampton, IA, March 27.--This Iowa town was draped in 
     yellow ribbons today in a gesture of support for its native 
     son, William Barloon, who with another American, David 
     Daliberti, has been sentenced to an eight-year prison term in 
     Iraq after their puzzling foray into that country two weeks 
     ago.
       Nobody here could imagine any good reason for the two men 
     to cross the Kuwaiti border, which is marked with a 10-foot-
     deep, 16-foot-wide trench. Even so, friends and family of the 
     two men, civilian workers for American defense contractors in 
     Kuwait, scoff at the accusation by Iraq that the men were 
     involved in underhanded activity.
       ``From what I know of Billy, I don't think he'd make a very 
     good spy,'' said Kevin Kennedy, a lawyer in this town of 
     4,000, adding that Mr. Barloon was ``better at telling a 
     story than keeping a secret.''
       Mr. Daliberti's father, Raymond Daliberti, said it was 
     ridiculous to believe that his soon was a spy. ``If he is, he 
     must be the dumbest spy in the world,'' the elder Mr. 
     Daliberti said in Jacksonville, Fla.
       State Department officials, who have denounced the prison 
     sentences, say the two men mistakenly crossed into Iraqi 
     territory while trying to visit friends in the demilitarized 
     zone between Kuwait and Iraq.
       Mr. Barloon, 39, worked for the McDonnell Douglas 
     Corporation in Kuwait on support crews for F-18 fighter jets. 
     Mr. Daliberti, 41, worked for Kay and Associates, a 
     subcontractor for McDonnell Douglas.
       A spokesman for McDonnell Douglas, Tom Williams, said the 
     men ``wound up in Iraq by accident--an honest mistake.'' He 
     said he had no details to add to the reports of officials in 
     Washington.
       Mr. Barloon, who moved away from here in 1973, grew up in a 
     brick-and-frame house on Hamilton Street, where his mother, 
     Mary Rethamel, still lives. His father, Ed Barloon, a tavern 
     owner, drowned in a quarry here when the son was about 5. As 
     a teen-ager, he worked summers at a truck stop, and joined 
     the Navy after his junior year in high school.
       The Rev. Carl Schmitt, pastor of St. Joseph's Roman 
     Catholic Church, whose elementary school Mr. Barloon 
     attended, said townspeople here were indignant over the 
     severity of the punishment imposed by Iraq.
       [[Page S4691]] ``We feel devastated and frustrated,'' 
     Father Schmitt said. ``People are trying to deal with the 
     anger. I tell people we aren't going to gain anything by 
     spreading more hatred in the world.''
       Mr. Daliberti was born in Tennessee, but spent most of his 
     childhood in Jacksonville, where his father worked as an 
     aviator machinist at Cecil Field Naval Air Station, and where 
     he would develop a passion for jets. After four years in the 
     Navy and a string of civilian jobs near Jacksonville, Mr. 
     Daliberti took a job in Kuwait three years ago as a trainer 
     of mechanics on F-18 jets.
       ``He loved the people over there and was getting along 
     great,'' his father said.
                                                                    ____

      United States Denies Two Americans Entered Iraq as Saboteurs

                         (By Steven Greenhouse)

       Washington, March 27.--The Clinton Administration today 
     rejected assertions from Baghdad that two Americans being 
     held prisoner there had crossed into Iraq as saboteurs or 
     spies.
       White House and State Department officials said again today 
     that the two had strayed mistakenly and innocently into Iraq 
     while trying to visit a friend south of the border in Kuwait 
     and did not deserve the eight-year prison sentences an Iraqi 
     court imposed on them on Saturday.
       ``It was an innocent mistake,'' said Michael D. McCurry, 
     the White House spokesman. ``These two crossed across the 
     border and had no intention to conduct any kind of sabotage 
     at all.'' He also denied their motive was espionage.
       Saddi Mehdi Saleh, the Speaker of Iraq's Parliament, told 
     The Associated Press today: ``We have no aggressive 
     intentions toward these two Americans. But we have just 
     applied Iraqi law according to the manner we do to all the 
     foreigners who are coming for sabotage or other political 
     reasons.''
       He added: ``Sending spies or saboteurs, we reject this 
     equation and don't agree with it. The United States of 
     America must understand this fact.''
       Mr. Saleh later denied that he had said the two Americans 
     planned acts of sabotage. Instead, he asserted that their aim 
     was to create an incident that would prolong United Nations 
     sanctions against Iraq.
       United States officials said today that the two men--David 
     Daliberti, 41, of Jacksonville, Fla., and William Barloon, 
     39, of New Hampton, Iowa--had apparently made a wrong turn 
     and strayed into Iraq when they were seeking to visit a 
     Danish friend at a United Nations compound in Kuwait, a half-
     mile south of the Iraqi border.
       According to interviews with American and United Nations 
     officials, the two Americans drove north from Kuwait City on 
     March 13 to visit their friend, who was in a Danish 
     engineering unit that is part of the 1,142-member United 
     Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission.
       It is well known that many Westerners who live in Kuwait 
     visit acquaintances who are part of the United Nations 
     mission because alcoholic beverages are readily available in 
     its compounds, unlike elsewhere in Kuwait.
       The two, who worked on a McDonnell Douglas contract to 
     maintain Kuwaiti military aircraft, were apparently allowed 
     to pass into Iraq by both a United Nations border patrol and 
     an Iraqi border patrol. Iraqi police arrested them a few 
     minutes later when they sought to cross back into Kuwait.
       One American official said ``we're as baffled as everyone 
     else'' how they could have mistakenly entered Iraq.
       Secretary of State Warren Christopher told reporters: ``The 
     sentences were unjustified. These men strayed into Iraq and 
     we certainly think they should be promptly released. There's 
     no basis for the kind of sentences that were imposed.''
       Mr. Christopher specifically denied suggestions that the 
     two men were working for the Central Intelligence Agency, 
     telling reporters, ``There is no basis for those reports.'' 
     He said such rumors would complicate efforts to win their 
     release ``only if'' the Iraqis ``let it complicate it.''

  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for letting me speak 
and propose this amendment at this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, 
Senator Harkin from Iowa, for this amendment. I am sympathetic to it 
and I will support it.
  I might tell my colleagues we do not expect to vote now, and probably 
we will ask for the vote. We will check and see on the Democrat side if 
it is OK to vote at 12 noon. If not, we will announce the vote shortly.
  I am sympathetic for a lot of reasons. Certainly it is an injustice 
when we have two American citizens who are working for a company, 
McDonnell, to be taken hostage and be sentenced for 8 years for 
mistakenly crossing the border.
  I am sympathetic for another reason, because I found out the hard 
way. We had an Oklahoman that also was taken captive and held in Iraq 
for some time in 1993, Ken Beaty, an Oklahoman from Mustang, OK. He 
worked for an oil company. He was jailed for 205 days, I tell my 
colleague, in April 1993 through November 1993. He is 45 years old. 
Eventually we were successful. My colleague, Senator Boren, Members 
might recall, went to Iraq to obtain his release. I hope we will have 
even a speedier resolution for these two individuals. Certainly it is 
an outrage that this type of a sentence was given for an innocent 
trespass. Eight years is certainly outrageous.
  I concur with my colleague. The Senate should speak out in this 
amendment. I have no objection, and I suspect we will be voting on it 
around 12 o'clock.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I want to thank the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  I know the managers of the bill--we do not want to load the bill with 
amendments and resolutions, but this is important. I appreciate his 
willingness to go away and get this up and get the Senate to express 
itself on this amendment. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________