[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4713-S4715]
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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as 
a cosponsor to the pending substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the substitute. I have supported 
what we call legislative review--the earlier form being called 
legislative veto--not only when I got to the U.S. Senate but before I 
got to the U.S. Senate. It was actually, believe it or not, part of my 
election platform when I first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1978, because 
I believed that elected officials should have the responsibility to 
review important regulations of the bureaucracy.
  I found, as a local official, that I was too often confronted with 
regulations which had major impacts on my community, and I was told, if 
you want to go and complain about those regulations, go to the agencies 
somewhere out in the yonder somewhere, see if you can find that agency 
or the regional office of that agency somewhere. I was shunted around 
from unelected official to unelected official. I wanted very much to 
have an elected person accountable to me for major regulations, be it 
an elected President or be it an elected Member of Congress.
  So I very much supported legislative veto starting in 1979 when I 
worked with Elliott Levitas in the House and Harrison Schmitt in the 
Senate on Government-wide legislative veto, as well as a specific 
provision for the Federal Trade Commission.
  As a matter of fact, Senator Ribicoff, who was then chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, held a series of hearings on regulatory 
reform, did a major study which was the basis for an omnibus regulatory 
reform bill called S. 1080 that passed the Senate in 1982 but died in 
the House.
  I sponsored the legislative veto provision that was added to the FTC. 
The reason we did that was because of some major controversial rulings 
of the FTC relative to used-car dealers and funeral directors and other 
major industries and segments of our economy.
  Senator Schmitt and I, in March 1982, offered a Government-wide 
legislative review amendment to the regulatory reform bill that I have 
made reference to. And some of the same key players who are active 
now--Senators Nickles, Grassley, and Cochran--were all cosponsors of 
that legislative veto provision. That amendment was adopted by an 
overwhelming vote. We would be in a lot better shape today had that 
provision been enacted into law.
  That provision, like Nickles-Reid, required a joint resolution of 
disapproval as distinguished from just a concurrent resolution or a 
simple resolution. The Supreme Court in Chadha had ruled that the 
concurrent resolution form of legislative veto was unconstitutional.
  After the defeat of that omnibus regulatory reform bill, S. 1080, in 
the House, Senator Grassley tried to resurrect it in the 98th Congress. 
I supported that effort. But, again, we did not make it.
  So, Mr. President, with that kind of long history of support for 
legislative 
[[Page S4714]]  veto, here called legislative review because it is 
somewhat different from those original forms, I am happy to cosponsor 
the substitute that is before us. And I am particularly pleased because 
I think this has a good chance of becoming law. This is real reform.
  I believe it is the most significant reform that we can make in this 
area, because regulation is legislative in nature. Except for these 
rules of specific applicability or individual applicability which we 
have now exempted, when rules are adopted by agencies, they are 
significantly legislative in effect. They apply to large numbers of 
people, usually prospectively. And it is because of that legislative 
nature of these major rules that we should keep some political 
accountability. We should be politically responsible for the actions of 
the agencies to make sure that what they are doing carries out our 
intent and to make sure that what they are doing in fact is cost 
effective.
  Mr. President, the delay that is involved in this form of legislative 
review is insignificant. The Administrative Procedures Act already has 
a mandatory 30-day delay before a rule can become effective. There may 
be a little problem when Congress is out of session, but we are just 
going to have to live with that. But this 45-day period of delay to 
give Congress an opportunity to use an expedited process to review a 
rule that it chooses to on an individual basis makes us accountable for 
the rules that affect large numbers of people's lives in this country. 
We should accept that responsibility. We should be accountable for this 
kind of agency activity.
  This legislative review approach will do just that, and it does it in 
a very reasonable way. It is not a lumping of all rules together like 
that moratorium was and say freeze everything. This, to the contrary, 
takes a look at individual rules by the Congress, and the only delay 
that is involved, that 45-day delay, makes it possible for us 
legislatively to look individually at rules to make sure again that, 
before a rule goes into effect, it is cost effective and carries out 
our intent.
  So, Mr. President, again, I am pleased to cosponsor this substitute. 
I congratulate Senator Nickles and Senator Reid on this substitute. The 
Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada are to be 
congratulated on this substitute and I think it has been improved by a 
series of amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate began debate on 
overhauling how the Federal Government imposes regulatory regulations. 
This legislation is the first of several bills the Senate may consider 
that have far-reaching implications for every policy that we consider 
on the floor.
  In the last 20 years, this Congress has passed many laws to protect 
the public health and safety. The regulations to implement these laws 
were largely written by Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush.
  The theory behind this legislation is that regulators have been 
running amok.
  If that is so, they have been running very slowly. Today, every car 
ad brags about airbags, but it took 20 years to get the regulations in 
place to protect us from accidents.
  In 1987, I started trying to get meat inspection reformed. It has 
taken 8 years to get those regulations issued--they are not final--even 
though they will save 4,000 lives a year.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon consider a bill that will 
delay them at least 2 years more.
  This proposed legislation is not an antidote to regulators run amok. 
It is regulatory reform run amok. I believe in regulatory reform. The 
Laxalt-Leahy regulatory reform bill passed the Senate unanimously in 
1982--13 years ago.
  I believe that first, Congress should decide what responsibility we 
have to avoid harming our neighbors--what values it wants to protect. 
Then the agencies should use cost-benefit analysis--and whatever other 
tools are available to make the best decision.
  This bill takes a fundamentally different approach to regulatory 
reform.
  This bill is hypocritical.
  Under this legislation USDA will continue to give a ``grade A'' label 
to unsafe meat.
  This bill is so unworkable that the corporate lawyers insist on being 
exempted from it. Permits to put a product on the market are exempt 
from all reform. To protect the public, however, you have to do a 
judicially reviewable, peer reviewed, cost-benefit analysis and a peer 
reviewed, judicially reviewable, risk assessment.
  This bill is unworkable. My regulatory reform bill used cost-benefit 
analysis as a tool to make sure regulation is done right. This bill 
takes a useful tool, and turns it into a rigid rule.
  My bill made sure that rules were based on a cost-benefit analysis. 
This bill is a recipe for paralysis.
  Instead of making sure there are good decisions, it makes sure that 
there will be no decisions.
  This bill is antidemocratic. Even the Reagan Department of Justice 
rejected putting the courts in charge of cost-benefit analysis because 
it was antidemocratic.
  An elite group of economists using formulas we do not understand, and 
values we do not share, will veto laws passed by Congress designed to 
protect the health and safety of the American people.
  Perhaps this legislation can be fixed. If not, President Clinton 
should veto it.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise with great ambivalence about the 
legislation that we are considering today. I have expressed grave 
reservations about efforts to impose a regulatory moratorium, similar 
to that reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I believe 
such legislation to be extreme, because it assumes all regulations are 
bad, and does not allow for distinctions between necessary regulations 
and superfluous regulations.
  While I agree that we should scrutinize regulations to assure that 
they are justified and reasonable, I believe a straight moratorium to 
be irresponsible. In that context, I am pleased that a bipartisan 
substitute has been offered to change the focus of this bill toward a 
legislative veto, which allows Congress to formally review major 
regulations.
  However, even though the substitute we are considering today is 
reasonable, I am concerned that the regulatory moratorium concept is 
not dead. The House has passed moratorium legislation, and will be 
pushing to have that version enacted.
  Foremost among my concerns with a moratorium is the status of pending 
drinking water regulations addressing cryptosporidium. Just under 2 
years ago, the residents of Milwaukee experienced a debilitating 
outbreak of the parasite cryptosporidium in the drinking water. Buy the 
time the parasite infestation had fully run its course, 104 Milwaukee 
residents had died, and over 400,000 had suffered from a debilitating 
illness.
  And it turns out that this problem was nothing new to this Nation. In 
reality, while the Milwaukee incident is the largest reported 
cryptosporidium outbreak in U.S. history, it is just one of many 
outbreaks nationwide. Other major outbreaks in recent years include a 
1987 cryptosporidium outbreak in Carrollton, GA, that sickened 13,000 
people, and a 1992 incident in Jackson County, OR, that caused 15,000 
people to become ill. There are numerous other examples of parasite 
contamination nationwide.
  But despite these outbreaks, no regulatory actions had been taken to 
protect consumers against future outbreaks. With the Milwaukee 
disaster, the Nation finally woke up to the problem. In the aftermath 
of Milwaukee, EPA is now in the process of promulgating a package of 
regulations to require communities to test for cryptosporidium in their 
drinking water, and ultimately to treat the water to remove 
cryptosporidium threats. These regulations are long overdue and must 
not be delayed any further.
  Mr. President, I offer the cryptosporidium example to remind my 
colleagues that there are instances in which the Federal Government has 
not done enough. Much of the rhetoric of recent months has been focused 
on the extreme horror stories of overregulation. While some of these 
concerns are valid, we must also remember the horror stories of 
underregulation. I believe that the 104 deaths and 400,000 illnesses in 
Milwaukee are a testimony to the dangers of government inaction.
  I certainly believe that the cryptosporidium threat in this Nation 
[[Page S4715]]  constitutes an imminent threat to human health and 
safety, and should, therefore, be theoretically exempted from any 
regulatory moratorium bill. However, I am concerned that the 
bureaucratic process necessary to make a declaration of imminent threat 
will cause unnecessary delay and place the people of this Nation at 
future risk.
  So while I will support this substitute to establish a legislative 
veto, I do so with reservations about the potential of a resurrected 
regulatory moratorium. If such an effort is renewed in this body, I 
will strongly oppose such legislation.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                 Amendment No. 418 to Amendment No. 410

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe the last matter this evening, at 
least as far as the Senator from Nevada is concerned, is an amendment 
offered on behalf of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. I send 
the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 418 to amendment No. 410.

  Mr. REID. 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 3, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(4) Failure of joint resolution of disapproval.--
     Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), the 
     effective date of a rule shall not be delayed by operation of 
     this Act beyond the date on which either House of Congress 
     votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     section 4.
       On page 8, line 4, delete everything from ``after'' through 
     ``Congress'' and insert on line 5 ``including the period 
     beginning on the date on which the report referred to in 
     section 3(a) is received by Congress and ending 45 days 
     thereafter,''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the staffs have been working on this 
amendment most of the afternoon. It is technical in nature. It 
clarifies what was the intent of the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Oklahoma. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has cleared 
the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment, and we 
have no objection to it. I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 418) 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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 419 to Amendment No. 410

 (Purpose: Making technical corrections to the Nickles-Reid substitute)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment making technical 
corrections to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 419 to amendment No. 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:

       On page 12, line 7, strike the word ``significant'';
       On page 13, line 2, of amendment No. 415, strike the words 
     ``, issued after November 9, 1994,'';
       On page 14, line 23, strike the word ``significant''.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as I mentioned, this is a technical 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 419) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments on this 
bill.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Nevada knows of none on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question then is on agreeing to amendment No. 410, as amended, the 
substitute offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on the Nickles-Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Nickles-Reid 
substitute amendment No. 410, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 410), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 ask unanimous consent that final 
passage occur on S. 219, as amended, at 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 
29, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague, 
Senator Reid.
  I wish to thank him and the Senator from Michigan and the Senator 
from Ohio, Senator Glenn, for their leadership and cooperation in 
enabling us to come to final passage.
  I will remind my colleagues, for those who have not been following 
this, that we will have final vote tomorrow at 10:45. We were 
discussing 11, but it has been requested that the vote be at 10:45 a.m.

                          ____________________