[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4705-S4709]
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.


                 Amendment No. 415 to Amendment No. 410

 (Purpose: To ensure that a migratory birds hunting season will not be 
    canceled or interrupted, and that commercial, recreational, or 
subsistence activities related to hunting, fishing, or camping will not 
                      be canceled or interrupted)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, at this time, I rise to offer an amendment 
with my friend, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and also Senator Pressler, 
Senator Wellstone, and Senator Cochran. This amendment would ensure 
that the 45-day suspension of a significant rule does not include the 
regulations opening duck hunting season. The amendment I am offering at 
this time was adopted by the Governmental Affairs Committee when it 
considered S. 219, but it was not included in the Nickles-Reid 
substitute.
  The substitute would suspend for 45 days any significant rule to give 
Congress time to review the regulation. The annual rule regulating duck 
hunting, which has a direct effect on the economy of $686 million 
annually, would be considered a significant rule. The effect of this 
45-day suspension on the duck hunting season would be most severe. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service is required by law to issue regulations each 
year to open and close the duck hunting season. Each year, in late 
July, after the young birds are large enough to be counted, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service then gathers information about the various duck 
populations. They then have roughly 2 months to draft and finalize the 
duck hunting regulations, which are typically issued 2 or 3 days before 
the hunting season begins.
  Because these regulations are significant regulations, they would be 
suspended for 45 days, which would cut a month and a half from the duck 
hunting season. I do not believe this effect on duck hunting is 
necessary or useful. It is counterproductive, and it may be a classic 
case of unintended consequences.
  Our amendment today simply says that for the purposes of the Nickles-
Reid substitute, duck hunting regulations would not be considered 
significant and, therefore, would not be suspended for 45 days. The 
duck hunting rule, like all other rules under the Nickles-Reid 
substitute, would still be reported to Congress.
  Mr. President, I do not think that in the name of regulatory reform, 
we should eliminate 45 days of the duck hunting season. I believe our 
amendment is simple and it is straightforward. I thank my colleagues 
for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
  I sincerely appreciate the help and the strong support of my good 
friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, who has worked with 
us very carefully to develop this amendment as it is.
  Mr. President, I have not actually sent my amendment to the desk. I 
send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Cochran, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 415 to amendment No. 410.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. 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 13, beginning on line 12, strike all through line 8 
     on page 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(2) Significant Rule.--The term ``significant rule''--
       (A) 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--
       (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;
       [[Page S4706]] (ii) creates a serious inconsistency or 
     otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by 
     another agency;
       (iii) materially alters the budgetary impact of 
     entitlement, 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.
       (B) does not include any agency action that establishes, 
     modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for 
     a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity relating 
     to hunting, fishing, or camping.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Pryor. 
We are delighted Senator Pressler and several others on the committee 
have joined now.
  The amendment, I think, addresses concerns many others have had 
concerning the potential impact this amendment would have on hunting, 
camping, or fishing activities. In Alaska, those activities are of 
major importance to our daily life.
  The amendment will make it clear now that regulatory actions to open, 
close, or manage commercial, recreational, and subsistence hunting, 
fishing, and camping activities will not be included under the 
definition of ``significant rule.''
  As an example, let me point out to the Senate that over 54 percent of 
all the fish that are caught commercially in waters off the United 
States are caught off my State of Alaska. These fisheries are some of 
the world's largest and they certainly are the healthiest in all the 
world because of our proper fisheries management concepts.
  In some cases, the delay of even 24 hours in closing a fishery could 
have tremendously detrimental impacts on the health of the fish 
resource. Yet the action to close the fishery could be found to have an 
adverse effect on a sector of the economy, namely the fishing vessels 
that might have to stop fishing.
  We cannot afford to risk the long-term health of our fisheries if 
someone could successfully argue that closing of a fishery or 
restriction on the use of certain gear in an area is a significant rule 
that must be delayed for 45 days under this bill.
  This is not hypothetical. There are people that will do just that. 
Just last month, the Secretary of Commerce, based on a recommendation 
from our North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, issued an 
emergency order to shut down scallop fishing in Federal waters off 
Alaska.
  That is a major fishery, but it had to be done. The emergency order 
was necessary because one boat, just one boat--it was called Mr. Big, 
incidentally--found a loophole in the law that allowed it to take more 
scallops than the State of Alaska had allowed all boats of the fleet to 
take for the whole season.
  I do hope Members here will join in supporting this amendment 
unanimously. It is essential to duck hunters. I hope we are all duck 
hunters--up our way, we are all duck hunters. And I do hope people 
understand it means a great deal to some of the people who rely on 
subsistence hunting and fishing in my State.
  It is an essential amendment. It is one I tried to offer in 
committee, and some people did not understand it. I am happy to see 
that now they do.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to clarify a couple of things. We 
have been through this. I think it is satisfactory.
  I want to be sure the definition that was made in the committee on 
the previous amendment was something that could not be expanded into 
things never intended as far as the hunting and routine rules and 
regulations and others that are done on an annual basis. I think this 
just changes the definition of what is considered a significant rule. 
In effect, what it does by changing the designation a little bit, as I 
understand it, is permit all the previous rules, regulations, and 
procedures to continue as they have in the past so they will not be cut 
out.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it really, 
from my perspective, looks at the management tools of the State, and 
Federal fish and game management agencies in particular--there are 
others involved also--and says that they can continue their management 
practices that are designed to protect the resource base. Some open, 
some close, some limit, some alter, some add, and some subtract. But 
they are done on a basis of public knowledge. But the public knowledge 
is of the regulations that give them the opportunity to step in and 
issue an emergency regulation to take care of a situation or to change 
a pattern of, say, hunting in order to protect the species. I think 
that is in the public interest. That is what we intended all along. 
This is excepted from the 45 days.
  The Senator referred to the prior bill--not Senator Pryor's bill but 
the former bill. I think the Senator may be referring to an amendment 
that I offered because of the form of that bill to deal with specific 
circumstances in Alaska. I do not have to offer that amendment because 
this is a 45-day general moratorium now, and those amendments that I 
talked about in committee are in fact covered under this type of 
general regulation now in terms of the significant-rule concept.
  Mr. GLENN. As I understood it from the explanation given earlier this 
afternoon, I understood that this does not provide any new exemptions 
for additional hunting or additional opening up of tracts or anything 
that is not there right now.
  Mr. STEVENS. It could. I just gave an example of one. Just this last 
month the Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation closing the scallop 
fishery because an emergency developed. That is the kind of thing that 
cannot wait 45 days. That is a type of action that has been taken care 
of in the process of protecting our migratory waterfowl. Ducks 
Unlimited comes in with a study and says, ``Look, you should change 
this anyway. You should open that flyway. You should change that 
season.'' They will come in for some emergency modifications during the 
period for hunting season. This says that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
are to know to go ahead. That is what you are supposed to do; no delay 
on those items of the kind we have mentioned. Subsection B and 
subsection A carry some specific concepts about what has to be 
affected.
  Mr. GLENN. I certainly have no objection to that because that 
provides regulations in the same way it has been done for a long time. 
It does not really provide any new escape hatch for anybody, as I 
understand it. So I think that would be acceptable on our side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on this floor and in the Senate as a 
whole, there have been a lot of attacks on environmental regulations. 
That seems to be the way to go these days. But I think the Senator from 
Alaska gave a very powerful talk on illustrating why these regulations 
are necessary. Indeed, he felt so strongly that he did not want--I 
agree with him--these regulations that apply to fishing, hunting, and 
camping to be held up for 45 days. In his powerful statement, the 
Senator from Alaska illustrated that in some cases these regulations 
have to go into effect immediately.
  So I hope that rebuts some of the feeling around this floor that all 
environmental regulations are useless and that we ought to attack them, 
which is, unfortunately, too often said around here. I am not saying 
necessarily right here on the floor. I am talking about in the 
committees, in the conversations. Thank goodness we have some of these 
environmental regulations.
  So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Alaska. Somebody can 
contradict me, but there are certain regulations under this bill we are 
dealing with that are held up for 45 days. Under this category they 
fall under ``significant regulations.'' But what the Senator from 
Alaska has done is he has said that significant regulations or delay 
for 45 days does not apply to this category of regulation that he has 
defined; namely, those that establish, modify, open, close, or conduct 
regulatory programs for commercial, recreational, or subsistence 
activities relating to hunting, fishing, or camping.
  So I think it makes sense. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and 
hope he will be a strong fighter for environmental regulations here on 
the floor in the future.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I seldom get personal on the floor, but I 
recall standing behind my friend 45 years 
[[Page S4707]]  ago when we entered law school. And we signed into the 
same law school, but I do not think we have agreed in the 45 years 
since. I am delighted we have once, despite our prior disagreements. It 
is nice to have one time for agreement. There are some environmental 
regulations that are useless. We should burn the paper they are on. But 
this is not one of them.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am happy to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Is there further debate?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment. I 
compliment my friends and colleagues, Senator Pryor from Arkansas and 
Senator Stevens, and I compliment Senator Stevens for his leadership. I 
think it is a good amendment. It further clarifies that what we are 
doing in this bill in no way would have any harmful impact whatsoever 
on hunting and fishing and delay those activities in any way 
whatsoever.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just one 
moment, I failed to thank my good friend John Roots on our behalf, who 
has worked so hard on this staff and Senator Pryor's staff. I thank him 
very much.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I may, I do not want to spoil the 
opportunity to pass this amendment because I think it is going to be 
accepted by everyone. So I will sit down. I could not help but catch it 
when my good friend and colleague from Alaska was talking about his 
good friend and our colleague from Rhode Island when he referred to 
their ``prior disagreements.'' I am very hopeful that they will just 
use ``former disagreements.'' I think that would be a little more 
helpful here. [Laughter.]
  Mr. President, I thank the managers. I thank them for the support for 
this amendment. I hope it will be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  The amendment (No. 415) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 413, As Modified

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send to the desk technical amendments. 
This changes a couple of letters and numerals. They are technical 
corrections to amendment No. 413 that were made earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 413), as modified, 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 shall 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 by subsection B(i) through (iv).
       (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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs Committee's 
unanimous bipartisan regulatory reform bill has a legislative veto of 
major rules in it. Major rules. I believe this is a good proposal, 
because there are anywhere from between 700 to 900, some estimates have 
gone as high as 1,000, ``major'' or ``significant'' rules issued each 
year. And that word ``significant'' means something special, because 
these are the rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100 
million per year or more, or otherwise have a significant impact on the 
economy or a region of the country, or other important effect.
  These 700 to 900 major rules or regulations are the big rules out of 
the approximately 4,000 rules that are issued every year--4,000. One 
estimate today when we were discussing another bill was that these 
rules in some years run as high as 4,800 to 5,000.
  Let us say an average of 4,000 rules are issued each year by Federal 
agencies. A legislative veto, where we call rules back up or have the 
potential for calling them back up for review, for all 4,000 rules, I 
think, is just too much. What kind of regulatory overload are we 
putting on the Congress? Will we be so overloaded in these rules that 
we will not be able to adequately consider ones that we should 
consider?
  It is the major rules that we care about, the ones that are 
significant. These are the big rules that implement the primary 
policies and requirements of our laws on public health and safety, on 
environmental protection, economic policy, communications, farm policy, 
and all the rest.
  We have a hard enough time getting our work done the way things are. 
I do not think we should create an almost automatic process to bring up 
every rule under the Sun.
  Let me give some examples. Just from yesterday's Federal Register, I 
see rules on drawbridge closings, rules on safety zones in New Jersey's 
Metedeconk River, Federal prison work compensation program rules, 
Justice Department claims settlement rules, FAA--the Federal Aviation 
Administration--class D airspace rules.
  And I would say from some personal experience, FAA just a short time 
ago redid all the airspace designations, A, B, C, D, and F, right on 
down the line, to show what areas planes can fly into and out of 
without radios, being on instrument control, visual flight rules, and 
so on. These kind of rules are still being flushed out and changed a 
bit. So one of the things in the Federal Register is for class D 
airspace rules.
  There is the postsecondary education ``borrower defenses'' 
regulations.
  Let us not forget that the reason we have agencies and an open 
``notice and comment'' administrative process is so that Government can 
get its work done in a fair and orderly and semiefficient process. At 
least, that is the goal.
  We need regulatory reform. And I am first to support regulatory 
reform. We worked on it for several years in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. So we know we need regulatory reform, and I am all for it. I 
have been saying that for some time. But we do not need to create more 
gridlock by trying to run, or have the potential of running, 4,000 
rules through Congress each year. That is a bottleneck that we just do 
not need.
  We are trying to make Government work better, not grind to a complete 
halt.
  So I think we need to keep the legislative veto focused on the big 
rules that really matter, that really mean something, ones that we 
should be addressing.
  The amendment I was going to submit limits the legislative veto to 
significant rules--just significant rules, 
[[Page S4708]]  not all the smaller rules, the significant ones--that 
fit the definition that I gave a moment ago. Again, this matches the 
scope of the provision we passed in the Governmental Affairs Committee 
by a vote of 15 to 0--eight Republicans and seven Democrats.
  The amendment that I was planning to submit would make the following 
changes to the Nickles-Reid substitute:
  One, the amendment would insert the word ``significant'' into the 
substitute at three places--in sections 3(a)(1)(A), 3(b), and 3(d)(1). 
With this change, the congressional hold-over and process covers 
``significant rules'' instead of all ``rules.''
  No. 2, the amendment would have stricken one subsection, section 
3(a)(3). This would have deleted the paragraph relating to effective 
date for other rules which refers to the submission of nonsignificant 
rules to Congress for review.
  Again, the single purpose of this amendment would have been making 
the legislative veto process apply to significant rules. This is what 
the Governmental Affairs Committee supports unanimously, and I think it 
makes good sense.
  The alternative, congressional review of potentially all 4,000 rules 
issued each year, makes little sense to me at all.
  Mr. President, I will not submit this amendment. I did want to 
address it, but I will not submit it because I know from discussions 
with the floor leaders that we are not going to get this adopted. The 
votes are there to defeat this.
  So I would rather not have a vote on it now. I think the best thing 
to do is not submit it, but talk a little bit about it and let people 
know how important I think it is and, hopefully, out of the conference 
process with the House, we might be able to address this problem.
  But let me just say a couple more things. Four thousand rules could 
be sent to Congress and parceled out to appropriate committees--just 
think of that--4,000 rules. That would be the potential. I am not 
saying all 4,000 rules are going to be called up every time. But let me 
say this: For each rule, you sure are going to have some lobbyists out 
there interested in that rule. We are going to have lobbyists coming 
out of the woodwork to lobby one or more Members to move a resolution 
of disapproval through the appropriate committee. That can be done 
through committee. So these lobbyists would be trying to get Members to 
move that resolution of disapproval.
  If the committee does not act within 20 days, the lobbyists will work 
to get 30 Members to sign a petition of discharge or will pressure the 
majority and minority leaders to discharge the committee.
  So the lobbyists and special interests will have special ways of 
doing this, first with committee members. If that does not work, then 
they will try for the majority or minority leaders, or within 20 days 
they can do the 30-Members approach of signing a petition to have that 
particular rule brought up for reconsideration.
  If the committee reports out a resolution of disapproval or the 
committee is discharged, the disapproval of the rule will be the 
subject of lobbying by those parties affected. All this could happen; 
the potential is there for it to happen up to 4,000 times a year.
  If we think the demands for lobby reform have been great before, you 
just wait until the public sees the lobbying feeding frenzy, like 
piranhas, looking at this legislation, and the potential for redoing 
legislation that they may have just lost a point on in the recent past 
when the original legislation was passed.
  So that kind of a lobbying feeding frenzy could take place after we 
provide expedited procedures for congressional review of all these 
rules.
  That might just be for starters. Consider what will happen if we pass 
a controversial bill that produces significant political argument. All 
these things are not bound up just in money. Significant rules can have 
a basis other than money.
  Think of this one: We pass a controversial bill that produces 
significant political argument--let us take a hot button item like 
abortion. We know what happens every time that issue comes up in the 
Congress. When we have to debate abortion legislation, every 
regulation, every rule, no matter how minor, will have a whole string 
of Senators and lobbyists and outside groups who will want to bring 
that regulation back to the floor, not necessarily because they think 
the regulation does not reflect congressional intent--it may be perfect 
and may have passed with a majority and have expressed congressional 
intent perfectly. Because what they want under our expedited procedures 
is to spend 10 hours in political and ideological argument, regardless 
of the original bill that might have just passed. So we are opening all 
of that up.
  I had hoped to close some of that up by designating just the 
significant rules for reconsideration.
  When we open up this additional time under our expedited procedures 
to spend extra hours, the 10 hours in political or ideological 
argument, about something that just passed--and I used the example of 
abortion because we all know how impassioned the pleas get around here 
and how emotional that issue is, think of what happens if we pass 
something in that regard and we are out here with the agencies doing 
rules and regulations to back up what the Congress just passed. Then we 
find that once the rules and regulations are written, do we think that 
the lobbying groups will not immediately come back up and do everything 
they possibly can do to get that back on the floor again for additional 
discussion? You can bet they will.
  Is that what we want? Do we want to provide a forum for continually 
revisiting issues that have been settled by a vote because a vocal and 
determined minority will now have the review of regulation by Congress 
as a convenient trigger for such debate?
  Well, I know when to put amendments in, I hope, and I know when the 
amendments are not worthy to be put in because they are just going to 
be voted down. I think the second is the situation I find myself in 
right now.
  I think this would be better legislation if we had in there the 
amendment I was going to propose. But since we will not have it in 
there, I just want everyone to know that I will be voting for the 
legislative veto, but with my fingers crossed that we do not wind up 
creating a real gridlock in legislative reconsideration of legislation 
just passed for which the rules and regulations are being written.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


          Amendment No. 412, as Modified, to Amendment No. 410

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a copy of amendment No. 
412, which has already been adopted, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be modified as indicated on this document that I am 
sending to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have been working with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Levin, as well as Senator Byrd from West Virginia. 
We have no objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
       On page 9, line 2, strike everything after ``discharged'' 
     through the period on 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, 
     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, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator 
from Oklahoma, and I particularly thank Senator Byrd for pointing out 
to us the problem which could have been raised unintentionally by that 
amendment.


                 Amendment No. 416 to Amendment No. 410

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 416 to amendment No. 410.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
   [[Page S4709]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14, strike lines 3 through 7, and insert in lieu 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       No determinationa, finding, action, or omission under this 
     Act shall be subject to judicial review.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the issue of 
judicial review. It has been agreed to by the managers of the bill, and 
I thank them for their cooperation and support.
  I want to thank the Senator from Ohio also for the tremendous work 
that he has put in on this amendment and also on the entire bill. I 
will have something more to say about his comments relative to which 
rules should be subject to legislative review, because I happen to 
agree with his comments a few moments ago.
  The purpose of this amendment, which I understand has been agreed to 
by the managers of the bill, is to be more precise on the question of 
judicial review. The substitute that is before us in two sections 
specifies that they are not subject to judicial review, and the problem 
is that there could be an ambiguity raised unintentionally about the 
reviewability then of other sections which do not have that language.
  So the concern that some of us have is the implication relative to 
other sections of the bill by the specific language in two sections of 
the bill.
  My amendment states that no determination, finding, action or 
omission under this act shall be subject to judicial review, which 
clarifies the judicial nonreviewability of this act. I understand that 
this has been cleared by the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Is there further debate on the 
amendment of the Senator from Michigan?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Michigan. We have no objection to this amendment. This amendment 
precludes judicial review of determinations, findings, actions, or 
omissions with respect to this act. However, judicial review of 
regulations not disproved by Congress is not affected by this act. Of 
course, it is expected that the courts will give affect to any 
disapproval of the regulation.
  Moreover, instructions to the courts contained in the act, such as 
section 3(g) regarding inferences not to be drawn from this inaction 
are neither determinations, findings, actions or omissions, within the 
meaning of the amendment; and therefore courts are expected to accept 
such direction from the Congress. Therefore, we have no objection to 
this amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 416) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 414, as Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as to amendment No. 414, which was 
previously accepted, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 5 of amendment No. 414 is modified as follows:
       (2) Final agency action.--The term ``final agency action'' 
     means agency action with respect to which all available 
     administrative remedies have been exhausted.
       (3) Term grazing permit.--The term ``term grazing permit'' 
     means a term grazing permit or grazing agreement issued by 
     the Secretary under section 402 of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752), section 19 of 
     the Act entitled ``An Act to facilitate and simplify the work 
     of the Forest Service, and for other purposes'', approved 
     April 24, 1950 (commonly known as the ``Granger-Thye Act'') 
     (16 U.S.C. 580l), or other law.

     SEC.  03. ISSUANCE OF NEW TERM GRAZING PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, regulation, policy, court order, or court sanctioned 
     settlement agreement, the Secretary shall issue a new term 
     grazing permit without regard to whether the analysis 
     required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws has been 
     completed, or final agency action respecting the analysis has 
     been taken--
       (1) to the holder of an expiring term grazing permit; or

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request of the Senator from Iowa?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________