[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4699-S4703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the first chapter of one of the 
most significant debates that will occur during the 104th Congress: the 
debate about regulatory reform.
  If we take the right approach to regulatory reform, we can provide 
more protection for public health. At the same time, we can cut costs 
and cut red tape.
  But if we take the wrong approach, we may jeopardize public health. 
And we may create more redtape, litigation, and delay.
  So the stakes are high. Fortunately, it looks like we are getting off 
to a good start.
  Last week, I was not so sure. We faced a short term moratorium that 
would have blocked some urgently needed rules. We also faced a long-
term reform bill that would repeal some of the laws that protect our 
air, our water, and our neighborhoods.
  In both cases, we seem to be coming to our senses. The moratorium is 
about to be replaced with the Nickles-Reid amendment. And the 
Government Affairs Committee declined to adopt radical versions of 
long-term regulatory reform. Instead, it reported a solid, bipartisan 
bill.


                     concerns about the moratorium

  Today we are considering the bill to impose a short-term moratorium. 
Let me briefly explain why such a flat, broad-based moratorium is a bad 
idea.
  In a nutshell, it does not distinguish good rules from bad.
  All too many rules fall into the second category: stupid, unnecessary 
rules that impose high costs and just plain make people angry.
  For example, OSHA recently proposed new rules that would require 
loggers to wear steel-toed boots.
  Seems to make sense. Unless you are working in western Montana in 
winter, on a steep slope and frozen ground. In that case, steel-toed 
boots may be slippery and unsafe. Especially if you are carrying a live 
chain saw.
  For that reason, western Montana loggers thought that the
   rules made no sense at all. So we convinced OSHA to back off, talk 
to Montana loggers, and reconsider. But there are other rules that do 
make sense. That protect public health. That protect the environment. 
And that are urgently needed.

  Yesterday, Senator Glenn gave some very compelling examples: E. coli; 
airline safety; radioactive waste; and others.
  Let me mention one such rule, which is of particular concern to the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. It is the rule, or cluster of 
rules, for cryptosporidium. Cryptosporidium is a deadly pathogen. It 
occurs in drinking water. As we all know, it was responsible for the 
deaths of hundreds of people, and the illness of hundreds of thousands 
more, in Milwaukee.
  EPA has been working with public water suppliers to develop an 
information collection rule. This rule will provide EPA, States, and 
public water suppliers with critical information about the occurrence 
of cryptosporidium and other pathogens. It also will provide 
information about the effectiveness of various treatment methods. It 
will be the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent further poisoning.
  However, if the moratorium is enacted, the information collection 
rule cannot be issued. If that happens, water suppliers will not be 
able to monitor for cryptosporidium during spring runoff, when it is 
thought to be more prevalent. That will prevent us from gathering data 
for at least another year. And that, in turn, will further delay the 
development of an effective treatment method. As a result, we will run 
the risk that another outbreak will occur, and that hundreds more 
people will die.


                       The Nickles-Reid Amendment

  Fortunately, the moratorium is being withdrawn, at least for now. 
Instead, we are considering the Nickles-Reid amendment.
  To my mind, this amendment is much closer to the mark. It requires 
that Government agencies submit their new rules to Congress. And it 
sets up a fast-track process for reviewing those rules. That way, 
Congress can distinguish good rules from bad. If an agency goes 
haywire, like OSHA did with its logging rule, Congress can reject the 
rule. But if an agency is doing a good job, the rule will go into 
effect, and public health will not be jeopardized.
  Of course, the amendment is not perfect. In particular, I hope that 
we can improve some of the fast-track procedures. But, on balance, the 
Nickles-Reid amendment improves the process for reviewing agency rules.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I also believe that the Nickles-Reid amendment does 
something more. It sets the right tone for the upcoming debate about 
regulatory reform. We must get past the slogans, and get down to the 
hard work of making Government rules more effective and understandable.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the members of the 
Government Affairs Committee and with all Senators to accomplish this 
important objective.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I might mention to our colleagues that we 
have made significant progress in the last couple of hours in 
negotiations on a few amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of 
Senator Reid, and also Senator Levin, Senator Glenn, and Senator 
Domenici, who have had some amendments, and we are working those out. 
Hopefully, we will be able to agree to some of those.
  I might mention to my colleagues, I discussed this with the majority 
leader, and he very much would like to pass this bill tonight. It is 
our expectation to finish this bill tonight, partly because we need to 
go to the supplemental appropriations or the rescissions bill that was 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee last Friday. That may take 
some time.
  So the majority leader has let it be known that he plans to go to 
that bill tomorrow. So we need to finish this bill.
   [[Page S4700]] I want to thank my colleagues who have been 
cooperative in working with us in trying to come to a resolution of 
some of the items in dispute on this package. I am optimistic that we 
will be successful.
  I am ready to consider an amendment by the Senator from Michigan, and 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his work on this substitute. It is a very important 
substitute. It embodies a principle which is a very important 
principle, and that is that the Congress should be responsible and 
accountable for these major regulations that are imposed on people. We 
should not just simply pass laws and then go on to the next law without 
keeping a very sharp focus on what the agencies do through the 
regulatory process.
  So what we used to call legislative veto--something I supported even 
before I came to the Senate and have continued to do so--we now are 
going to call legislative review because it is slightly different from 
the veto mechanism which was adopted about a decade ago.
  This legislative review process of the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Oklahoma is a very, very significant improvement, I 
believe, on what the current process is of regulatory review. Of 
course, it is a major change in approach from the moratorium which is 
before us.
  Before I offer my amendment, I want to commend my friend from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada for the work that they have done 
on this legislative review substitute.


                 Amendment No. 412 to Amendment No. 410

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     Glenn, proposes an amendment numbered 412 to amendment No. 
     410.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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:

       On page 9, line 2, strike everything after ``discharged'' 
     through the period of line 6 and insert the following: ``from 
     further consideration of such resolution in the Senate upon a 
     petition supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate or 
     by motion of the Majority Leader supported by the Minority 
     Leader, and in the House upon a petition supported in writing 
     by one-fourth of the Members duly sworn and chosen or by 
     motion of the Speaker supported by the Minority Leader, and 
     such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar 
     of the House involved.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is sent to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Glenn and myself. It is something which we have 
worked out with the floor managers. I thank them for their efforts.
  This amendment modifies the procedure for discharging a joint 
resolution of disapproval from committee. By amending the substitute 
this way, this will conform much more closely to the legislative review 
provision which was passed in the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
week by a vote of 15-0 on the regulatory reform bill.
  This amendment would continue to allow for a committee to vote by 
majority to discharge a joint resolution of disapproval of a 
regulation. That would continue as it is in the substitute. The 
majority of a committee could discharge a resolution of disapproval of 
a regulation.
  What this would add is that where a petition is filed by 30 Members 
of the Senate, or by the consent of the majority and minority leaders, 
that we also then would have the discharge of a resolution of 
disapproval of a regulation. The intent is to protect rights of a 
significant minority of the Senate to obtain the discharge of a 
resolution of disapproval.
  Since the discharge triggers these expedited procedures, it is 
important that it be a balanced and a fair process and that a 
significant minority of Senators have the opportunity to accomplish 
that.
  This amendment, we think, does accomplish that. I want to thank my 
cosponsor, as well as the managers, for their willingness to work this 
out.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I fully support the amendment by the 
Senator from Michigan. I think it does several things. It protects the 
rights of the minority. It provides a dual method of getting rules and 
regulations considered. It can be initiated not only by the majority 
and minority leaders, but also by a petition of 30 Members.
  And this does something else. It means that we will not just have 
frivolous actions brought up. If you have to get 30 Members of the 
Senate of the United States to agree on anything on a petition, it is 
going to be something significant; it is not going to be a frivolous 
matter. You are not going to be able to get a couple of friends and be 
able to call a rule up, or get a buddy-buddy vote out of somebody and 
call a rule up on that basis.
  When you have to get 30 Members to do it, it has to be something 
substantive, and I agree with that. That is why I am very glad to 
support the proposal by the Senator from Michigan.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friends and colleagues 
from Michigan and Ohio, as well as Senator Reid and Senator Bond. All 
four Senators have been involved in this issue in trying to make sure 
that we protect minority rights, and that is what this amendment does. 
I think it is an improvement.
  We have no objection on this side, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 412) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to compliment 
Senators Nickles and Reid on their amendment. Very shortly, hopefully, 
I will have an amendment that I will talk about. But let me just speak 
to the substitute amendment that was offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid.
  First, there is no question that there is plenty, plenty of blame to 
go around for the unreasonable, irrational regulatory maze that exists 
in this country. There is plenty of blame to go around, because 
Congress passes laws that require regulations.
  Bureaucrats decide that they have to write regulations, and many 
times we tell them they must. The courts of this land are very prone to 
get involved in the adequacy of regulations. And so between the 
agencies of Government and those who write regulations, and courts who 
interpret them, it is really obvious to millions of Americans that we 
have a very unworkable regulatory system.
  Many of the ultimate regulations, as implemented, in particular 
against small business people, are sufficiently unreasonable and 
unworkable that they are causing millions of Americans--men and women--
to be very angry at their country. As a matter of fact, one of the 
single most reasons for Americans being angry at their country is 
regulations that do not make sense, or are unintelligible or cost too 
much for what the entity regulates knows they are being asked to do. 
And there is no easy way to fix it. As a matter of fact, I have spent 
well on a year trying to figure out some generic ways to address this 
maze of regulatory, burdensome regulations causing great anxiety among 
men and women, in particular, small business people. I am sure as we 
move through our next step beyond that bill to try to get regulatory 
reform, there will be some more good ideas.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the Chair)
  Mr. DOMENICI. But for now, an approach that will say new regulations, 
before they become effective, must go to the committees of jurisdiction 
on the Hill for their perusal to see whether or not the committees that 
pass the 
[[Page S4701]] laws think that the regulations passed by the regulators 
are beyond the law and unreasonable and unworkable and will have a 
chance to look at them. And, yes, under this 45-day moratorium, prior 
to the final adoption, Congress occasionally can pick one of those and 
do it in an expedited manner, deny its efficacy, and say it is not 
going to be carried out.
  So in a very real sense, we have set upon the committees of the 
Congress--that is, Senate and House and the staff that works for us--a 
very difficult job, because now we are saying in a couple of years we 
will have looked at the new regulations in this process, and if we let 
them get by, shame on us. If we have this overview process thrust upon 
us by this amendment and we let the regulations get by, and 2 years 
after they are in place, we go to a hearing in Maine, New Mexico, 
Idaho, or Ohio--or we might even have a hearing in Oklahoma, but that 
would be very difficult--the people would say, ``Look at this 
regulation; it does not have any common sense and it is too expensive. 
There is no cost benefit ratio that is meaningful.'' Shame on us, 
because this bill, which I hope becomes law, is going to say: Congress, 
you had a shot at it because these significant regulations which we 
estimate based on past performance may be 900 a year, and we are going 
to have a chance to look at them.
  Madam President, shortly, an amendment is going to be offered that I 
have authored. It has been worked on by both sides to try to make sure 
that we all understand it. But it came to me that there is a 
governmental entity that works for us called the GAO. And they have 
been, in the past, asked by committees, asked by individual Members of 
Congress, to go check on something, go audit something, go review 
something. And I will admit that, in the past, they were subject to 
some very, very proper criticism. I do believe they got very cozy with 
certain Members. I do believe many of their reports were not clear peer 
review because they were doing them for a certain purpose. But I 
believe, nonetheless, that they have a great quality of expertise and a 
desire to be helpful to the Congress.
  So, essentially, what I suggested to my friends, Senator Nickles, 
Senator Reid, and others from the Government Operations Committee, 
including the ranking member, Senator Glenn, I suggested that we ought 
to use the GAO in this process, so that as our committees have to do 
these reviews, we will have the benefit of a pool of resources to go 
check on the agencies and to advise us as to whether or not they have 
done their job regarding the significant regulations they are going to 
be issuing.
  I, frankly, believe the GAO is perfectly fit for this job. We still 
have a very significant GAO. Some will say it is going to be cut. Some 
here want to cut it in half. I guess some would want to do away with 
it. But I do not believe any of those things are going to happen. It 
may get a good reduction in amount, but it is going to be here because 
it does some very positive things. When we had the S&L crisis, it was 
important that they did a lot of auditing. We would have to go out and 
hire independents to do that, and would they be at Congress' beck and 
call and have real professionalism? I do not know.
  We are going to offer an amendment that is going to essentially say 
that the General Accounting Office gets into this new process of 
review, by being our arm in looking carefully at what the regulators 
have put together to make sure that they have complied with the legal 
requirements. And, yes, upon request, they can look at the cost-benefit 
ratio. Essentially, they are going to be there before we ever get these 
regulations to the committee; they are going to be seeing whether the 
agencies did it right. I think that is invaluable. I think we will, 3 
or 4 years from now, thank the Lord that we put them in this process, 
because it is so tough to review these regulations, especially the 
significant ones, that I am not sure the committees and our staffs 
would get it done, or they would constantly, most probably, be in a 
catch-up state because it is so tough.
  You have to do it timely if you are going to kill any of these 
because they are infective, because after 45 days, you cannot do 
anything to them; they are final. That is our own law that we are about 
to adopt here. To make that period any longer probably prejudices the 
regulatory process. So I think we will have to live with that. I 
compliment those who put it together, and I urge the Senate to adopt an 
amendment which puts the GAO in this with their resources to advise and 
help the committees as we attempt to review the process of reviewing 
the significant regulations affecting our lifestyles, businesses, and 
many individual Americans that are regulated by our Government.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the comments of my 
colleague from New Mexico. I know he has considered this very 
carefully. As to his initial comments about the bill and the need for 
it, the need for regulatory reform, I could not agree more. I think we 
are long overdue in addressing this issue. We have dealt with 
regulatory reform in the Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, we 
have voted out a bill.
  Let me compliment my chairman, Senator Bill Roth, on this. We have 
voted a bill out that does all of the things that the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico just enumerated. The regulatory reform bill 
that we voted out requires risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. 
Cost-benefit analysis now, under current law, is done by Executive 
order. But under the regulatory reform bill, we would lock that in and 
say that all major regulations have to have a risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis done. And then in that legislation we voted out, also, 
we required that there be a review of those regulations not less than 
once every 10 years. In other words, there is a sunset provision in 
there that says that no matter how good the regulations are, they 
should be looked at for adequacy and for improvement and for sunsetting 
at least once every 10 years. `
  Now, in that legislation we also have a 45-day legislative veto, 
which is about the same as what we have here. That legislative veto 
would apply to all significant rules.
  Once it is modified, the committee could call it up the same as this 
legislation now. We also provided that when a final rule is written, we 
would allow judicial review.
  That is not the legislation that is before Congress today. That is 
the regulatory reform bill we voted out, and I think that is the one we 
should be considering because it includes not only the 45-day 
legislative veto that we are talking about here today as a substitute 
for S. 219, but it would add the whole package of regulatory reform--
risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis--not just by Executive order of 
the President, as it is now, but require it in law.
  We would also require a review of all major rules on a 10-year basis; 
we would have a 45-day legislative veto similar to the one we have 
here; and we would provide for judicial review on the final rule. That 
is a complete package and one I hope we have up very shortly.
  Now, specifically, as to the comments of the Senator from New Mexico 
on the GAO, I agree on the excellence of GAO's capability and the 
excellent work that they do. They are an ideal group to look at these 
matters.
  My only concern is whether we might be overloading GAO. When we are 
talking about requiring GAO to do a complete analytical analysis of 
everything that comes up, that is one thing. If we are requiring them 
to make sure that the procedures required by law have been met by each 
agency and department in putting their risk assessment or cost-benefit 
together, if it is a procedural analysis to make sure everything is 
done, that is quite a different thing.
  GAO is ideally situated to do the second of those, to make sure that 
all the boxes have been checked, to make sure that all the procedures 
have been followed. If we are to ask GAO to do their own complete risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis, completely separate from any that 
the agencies have done, that is something else entirely, of course.
  I point out that just the significant rules number some 800 or 900 a 
year; some years, probably 1,000. With the average number of work days 
a year here being somewhere between 250 and 270, that means that GAO 
would have to crank out about three to four of 
[[Page S4702]]  these analyses every single working day. That is an 
enormous job.
  To require GAO to do these new tasks when there have been proposals 
in the budget to cut GAO by 25 percent does not make much sense. But I 
agree that this is a good thing for GAO to be looking at. They are 
ideally situated to do it.
  In the other bill, the regulatory reform bill that we have voted out 
of committee, there are provisions for peer review for cost-benefit 
analyses and risk assessments. We did that because we thought the job 
was going to be sufficiently large that we would not be able to just 
ask GAO or someone else to do all that analytical and assessment work. 
Yet, we wanted somebody to say that the agencies and departments were 
doing a reasonable job. So we set up a peer review process.
  I am sure when that legislation comes to the floor, we will be 
debating that provision to see its adequacy compared to just having GAO 
do it. So there are two different procedures here that we are looking 
at.
  On the regulatory reform bill that I hope we consider within the next 
month or so, we provided for peer review as a way of doing the same 
thing that the Senator from New Mexico is talking about doing with GAO.
  I certainly do not object to the GAO proposal so long as we 
understand, when the Senator proposes it, that it will be on the basis 
of making sure that the processes have all been gone through that are 
requested. That would be what GAO would be certifying. GAO would not be 
required to do their own complete, independent, cost analysis, cost-
benefit ratio and risk assessment, as a completely independent action, 
which would tie up several times the number of people we have in GAO.
  I think that is what the Senator from New Mexico intended that it 
be--a review to make sure that all the proper procedures have been gone 
through.
  I know he has not formally submitted the amendment yet, but I made 
those comments on it anyway, in advance. I wanted to point out the 
details of the regulatory reform bill that I hope we have on the floor 
within the next 30 or 45 days.
  It would require risk assessment/cost-benefit not just by Executive 
order, but in law. No future President could just take that off, out of 
effect, by just taking out the Executive order. These would be required 
by law, risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses.
  Each one of those regulations would be reviewed on not less than a 
10-year basis or it would sunset. We have the same 45-day legislative 
veto that would be in this legislation here now. All significant rules 
would come back to the committee and they would be asked to see whether 
they want to be notified for judicial review on each rule.
  That is a complete regulatory reform package. We did a lot of work 
for which Senator Roth deserves a lot of credit. We stuck with this 
complete reform package and molded it. It was a bipartisan effort. We 
voted it out, on a unanimous basis, of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, 15 to 0.
  I think it is a very powerful, tough bill. I hope we consider it, 
because what we are considering today is just part of that bill. It is 
a separate 45-day legislative veto.
  I look forward to having that bill out on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind 
remarks.


                 Amendment No. 413 to Amendment No. 410

 (Purpose: To provide reports to Congress from the Comptroller General)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Nickles, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for himself and 
     Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 413 to amendment 
     No. 410.

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

       On page 2, strike lines 6 through 20, and insert in lieu 
     thereof and renumber accordingly:
       ``(1) Reporting to congress and the comptroller general.--
       (A) Before a rule can take effect as a final rule, the 
     Federal agency promulgating such rule submit to each House of 
     the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report 
     containing--
       (i) a copy of the rule;
       (ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule; and
       (iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.
       (B) The Federal agency promulgating the rule shall make 
     available to each House of Congress and the Comptroller 
     General, upon request:
       (i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the 
     rule, if any;
       (ii) the agency's actions relevant to section 603, section 
     604 section 605 section 607, and section 609 of P.L. 96-354;
       (iii) the agency's actions relevant to title II, section 
     202, section 203, section 204, and section 205 of P.L. 104-4; 
     and
       (iv) any other relevant information or requirements under 
     any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders, such as 
     Executive Order 12866.
       (C) Upon receipt, each House shall provide copies to the 
     chairman and Ranking Member of each committee with 
     jurisdiction.
       (2) Reporting by the comptroller general.--
       (A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each 
     significant rule to the committees of jurisdiction to each 
     House of the Congress by the end of 12 calendar days after 
     the submission or publication date as provided in section 
     4(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall include 
     an assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural 
     steps required with subsection (A)(iv) through (vii).
       (B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller 
     General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller 
     General's report under subsection (2)(A) of this section.''
       On page 14, at the beginning of line 5, insert, ``section 
     3(a)(1)-(2) and'', and on line 5 strike ``3(a)(2)'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``3(a)(3)''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this is the amendment that I allude to 
in my brief remarks about the 45-day holdover or moratorium while 
Congress is given an opportunity to review regulations and processes.
  We have changed it in two or three ways since I first submitted a 
draft of this amendment. I think it is very workable now. Essentially, 
we are now talking, as I understand it, about the significant--
significant--regulations. My friend from Oklahoma says that that is 
about 900 a year.
  We have made the Federal agencies promulgating the rule responsible 
to make available to each House of Congress and the Comptroller 
General, upon request, information that is necessary so we can see if 
they have done a good job. That means the GAO will not have to be 
involved in any one of those, nor will they have to give every cost-
benefit analysis, but rather the ones they request.
  I believe we will be very pleased we adopted this in a few years, 
when we find out what a resource GAO will be, and how much more 
effective they will make our committees and our committee staff, both 
here and in the House.
  I do not think I have to say any more. I hope the amendment is 
adopted soon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to congratulate and compliment 
my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his 
amendment.
  I think it is an amendment which improves this bill. It basically 
says the Federal agency, when they promulgate the rule, shall make it 
available to each House of Congress. That was in our bill.
  But he also says it needs to be made available to the Comptroller 
General. This is for them to analyze it, for them to make sure that the 
cost-benefit analysis has been made, that they are complying with the 
unfunded mandates legislation.
  I just compliment the Senator. I think this improves it. I think this 
enables Congress to be able to rely on GAO and the Comptroller General 
to make sure that some of these regulations are not excessive in cost.
 So, this is a compliment to the bill.

  I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Reid, for his 
help on this, as well as Senator Levin and Senator Glenn, as we were 
negotiating on this amendment and actually combining this amendment 
with an amendment that Senator Levin and also Senator Bond were working 
on.
  So, we have had several Senators trying to make some improvements in 
this section. I think this has made our 
[[Page S4703]]  legislation better, so I urge my colleagues on both 
sides to agree to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I extend my appreciation to the senior 
Senator from New Mexico for improving this substitute. I say that 
because I look at this legislation a little differently than some in 
this Chamber. I know there are some who are saying we are going to have 
a bill later on that is going to be a lot better. Having served here 
and in the other body for a while, I recognize we have to do the best 
we can with what we have at a given time. The better we make this bill, 
the better it is going to be for the American people in case something 
better does not come along later.
  So I appreciate very much the work of the Senator from New Mexico. He 
and I go back 6 or 8 years working on the General Accounting Office. I 
think this is a responsibility they should have. They are equipped to 
do a good job on this assignment they will be given. I think it is a 
good amendment and I hope it is adopted very quickly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators from Nevada and Ohio. I do believe 
this will help the bill. Senator Nickles and I are pleased to be 
helpful. I think in a few years the process you were recommending will 
be working very well and we will know a lot more about bad regulations 
before they get placed in effect and then find out later they are 
hurting our people.
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I wanted to clarify a couple of matters 
here. We have in the reporting by the Comptroller General, as I 
understand it--we say he will--

       . . . provide a report on each significant rule to the 
     committees of jurisdiction to each House of Congress by the 
     end of 12 calendar days after the submission or publication 
     date as provided in section 4(b)(2). The report of the 
     Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the 
     agency's compliance with procedural steps required with 
     subsection (A)(iv) through (vii).

  I think those words were added. I presume they were. I just wanted to 
check and make sure that is the wording that was in the legislation?
  Mr. DOMENICI. They are in the legislation. And after discussing the 
issue with all four Senators and their staffs, I think those are 
appropriate words, because I do not think in 12 to 15 days the GAO can 
do a thorough substantive review, but they can do a procedural review 
as prescribed.
  Mr. GLENN. I agree with my colleague. That clarifies it and makes 
sure what we are not expecting from the GAO is their own complete risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis as original work. That would 
overburden them on the 800 or 900 significant regulations that are 
issued each year and leaves it open that once one of these regulations 
or rules is reported back, if a committee wishes to get into it more, 
then they can. Or they could possibly even ask for a complete GAO 
original study as we do now of different pieces of legislation. That 
would still be possible. But this limits it to the GAO reviewing 
whether the agency has complied with procedural steps required in law. 
I am glad to have that clarified.
  With that understanding I believe we would be happy to accept this on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, we have no objection to this amendment 
on this side and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 413) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask that I may use just a minute or two 
of my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________