[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4750-S4755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this year we are going to be involved in 
a very significant debate about the Conservation Reserve Program. From 
time to time, I want to address the Senate on various agricultural-
related issues. Perhaps one of the most important of all is the 
Conservation Reserve Program. It has touched nearly every facet of life 
in rural States, including that of the distinguished Presiding Officer. 
It has reduced soil erosion, it has substantially increased wildlife 
habitat, it has improved water quality, and it has reduced crop 
surpluses.
  As I look back at the many programs that Congress has contemplated, 
considered, and ultimately enacted in the last 10 years, I think one 
would be hard pressed to find a program that has worked better than the 
CRP. No program has more effectively invested Federal dollars in 
natural resources than has the CRP. As a consequence of the program's 
tremendous success, it enjoys broad support from agricultural groups, 
conservation groups, environmental groups, and virtually everybody else 
in rural America.
  Mr. President, 2.1 million of the 36.4 million acres enrolled in the 
CRP are located in my State. In South Dakota, the erosion rate on CRP 
land fell from 12 tons an acre to just over 1 ton an acre over the last 
10 years--a dramatic reduction in destructive and wasteful erosion. All 
told, the CRP has generated a reduction of soil erosion in my State 
alone of over 22 million tons.
  Nationwide, soil erosion has decreased by 19 tons per acre. So the 
program has had an even greater effect in other States than it has had 
in South Dakota.
  Chart 1 shows where the bulk of the success has been. The red depicts 
those areas where we have seen significant soil erosion reduction--the 
Mountain States, the southern plains, and the northern plains, which 
includes, of course, South Dakota. We have seen about 126 million tons 
of soil erosion reduction in the Mountain States; 145 million tons of 
soil erosion reduction in our area of the country; and in the southern 
plains, we have seen the greatest success story of all, 170 million 
tons in soil erosion reduction.
  So in every part of the country, we have seen a substantial degree of 
progress in reduction of soil erosion. But if you look more carefully 
at the chart you will see that where the greatest potential lies for 
soil erosion, where we saw the greatest consequences of soil erosion in 
the past, we have now seen the greatest progress. That really, in one 
picture alone, depicts what I consider to be the success story of CRP 
over the last 10 years.
  Simply looking at the topsoil savings really does not tell the whole 
story, however. Costs to society of impaired water quality from 
farmland erosion are $208 billion a year. We are substantially 
preserving and improving water quality through the CRP because it idles 
so much highly erodible land.
  The CRP has also had a significant positive effect on several species 
that were endangered. The prairie chicken and the sharp-tailed grouse 
were threatened and endangered species. Those have come back to 
flourish as a result of the efforts in CRP.
  More than 85 percent of the CRP acres have now been planted to 
grasses. The CRP also has fostered tree plantings on 3,600 square 
miles. That, Mr. President, is the equivalent of Yosemite and Glacier 
National Parks combined. In a sense, with the CRP, we have actually 
created the equivalent of two new national parks, if you just consider 
the effect in tree plantings alone. So the program has created a 
substantial new incentive to plant trees and, obviously, when trees are 
planted, it is far less likely that the enrolled land will come back 
into production in the future.
  In my State, of course, pheasants are very prominent, and we are very 
proud of the fact that we are probably the pheasant capital of the 
world. We have attracted 128,000 hunters in 1993 who spent more than 
$50 million in our rural communities. More than $13 billion in 
resource-based benefits to society have been generated by the CRP over 
the life of the program.
  So I guess the short summary is, Mr. President, if you look at 
endangered species, if you look at the tree plantings, if you look at 
the consequences for recreation and tourism--and in my State, something 
I love personally to do, the opportunities for more pheasant, goose, 
and duck hunting--CRP has vastly expanded the opportunities to do the 
kinds of things that we go out West to do each and every year.
  CRP has also had significant consequences with regard to reductions 
in Federal spending. We have saved the Federal Treasury $16 million in 
subsidy payments just in 1 year alone by removing the marginal lands 
from production. We save money in large measure because the CRP gives 
farmers an opportunity to do something other than plant for the program 
on their highly erodible acres. It is no longer necessary for producers 
to plant their erodible land just to get deficiency payments, to get 
disaster payments, or to get whatever other payments the Federal 
Government may have. Now, CRP gives them an ecologically and 
economically sound alternative.
  In South Dakota, nearly 1.5 million cropland base acres were enrolled 
into the CRP. If commodities had been planted on this land, taxpayers 
would have paid crop subsidy payments on these acres, and the figure 
would have been millions of dollars more than what it is right now.
  Chart 2 depicts really the anticipated result of what would happen if 
we lost the CRP in the future. The post contract CRP land uses have 
been the subject of a good deal of discussion. What we see here is that 
all of the green would be what we anticipate going back into 
production. There would be plant to crop, 43 percent; cash rent to 
other farmers, 13 percent; annual set-asides, 4 percent; and, of 
course, some would go into the 0/92 program.
  In essence, you have a good percentage of current CRP acreage that 
would go back into the same kind of production activity that we 
experienced in the mid-1980's, that massive production was one of the 
primary causes of the cataclysmic economic situation that rural America 
experienced in the mid-1980's.
  The contracts begin to expire this year, and over half of the CRP 
contracts will expire by 1997. All will expire by the year 2001. Only 
63 percent of contract holders now plan to return the CRP acres. That 
is this green that I have mentioned. Only 9 percent would voluntarily 
keep their land in wildlife habitat or trees. That is something we hope 
to expand dramatically. Obviously, 9 percent is a good start, but we 
have to go a lot further than 9 percent if, indeed, the CRP will have 
the lasting benefits that we all hope it will have.
  The third chart depicts, Mr. President, the effect of the CRP on the 
actual farm program itself.
   [[Page S4751]] When all CRP contracts expire, wheat and sorghum 
prices may actually fall by 36 cents. The effects of CRP on farm 
program expenditures and prices are even more impressive in the 
aggregate. This chart depicts the millions of dollars we can save with 
the continuation of the CRP. As you can see, continued enrollment of 50 
percent of the CRP acres are depicted in the purple; 100 percent in the 
red. For example, if in 1996, 100 percent of the CRP acres are 
reenrolled, as we hope they will be, we could actually save about $100 
million in farm program expenditures. But the real savings come in the 
outyears. The program could generate savings in the years 2000 and 2001 
of over $1.5 billion a year. As you can plainly see, a substantial 
amount of savings is generated as a result of the CRP.
  I am very hopeful that people will understand that CRP generates 
those savings, in large measure, because the program effectively helps 
manage the supply of many program crops. If we lose this supply 
management tool, sorghum prices would fall 36 cents; barley prices 
would fall 53 cents; corn prices would fall 6 cents; and oats prices 
would fall 17 cents. Without the CRP, we would, once again, be forced 
to consider more dramatic efforts to try to bring balance to commodity 
prices by increasing farm program benefits and outlays.
  CRP can certainly be improved, Mr. President. We want rental rate 
reform. We want expanded economic uses of CRP acreage, including 
limited haying and grazing. We want partial field enrollments. We want 
management to control noxious weeds. We want competitive bids for 
enrollment. We want sensible reform. And I think we can build a strong, 
bipartisan consensus in support of continuing the CRP and reforming it 
to ensure that its benefits will grow in the future.
  I know that there are those who are here to resume debate and 
consideration of amendments on the Reid-Nickles legislation.
  At this time I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think time is now controlled. I wonder if 
the Senator from Nevada will yield me 2 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say to my friend from Oklahoma, 
it is my understanding that there is a Republican Senator who wishes to 
speak for a couple minutes; Senator Boxer wishes to speak for a couple 
minutes; and Senator Levin for 6 minutes. It is my understanding that 
the majority leader also wishes to speak prior to the vote. Is that 
true?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 10:50 
a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could, with the approval of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, the Senator from Michigan wishes 2 minutes; the Senator 
from California, 2 minutes; the Senator from Texas, 2 minutes. Is that 
true?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Could we have that, and the remainder of the time will be 
split between me and the Senator from Oklahoma?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the American people are winning a double 
victory today here in the Senate. First, we are defeating the 
regulatory moratorium. This bill that came over from the House was a 
reckless and arbitrary bill. It caught all new regulations in its web. 
Even health and safety regulations would have been stymied, which are 
important to gaining uniform, high-quality mammograms; new regulations 
that would have protected children from unsafe toys; new regulations 
that would have protected the American people from E. coli bacteria. 
All of those would have been caught and stymied in the House regulatory 
moratorium. It was a bad, reckless, arbitrary bill. It is important 
that the Senate stop it, and we did stop it. For that, I think the 
American people can claim victory No. 1.
  Victory No. 2 is that we are passing legislative veto or legislative 
review. It is long overdue that Congress take the responsibility to 
look at the regulations which come out of the regulatory process and to 
have a realistic opportunity to veto those regulations which are 
excessive, which cannot be justified by the benefits, and which are not 
carrying out legislative intent.
  For 15 years, I have fought for legislative veto. When I came here, I 
introduced and got passed, with Senator Boren and others, legislative 
veto legislation. Today's generic legislative veto or review 
legislation is a great victory for the American people. It will put the 
responsibility here to look at regulations one on one, not to sweep all 
regulations into a net and to sweep out the good with the bad, but to 
force Congress to take responsibility to look at regulations one on one 
and to veto those which are excessive or cannot be justified by the 
benefits.
  Finally, Mr. President, we must make sure that in conference this so-
called moratorium stays dead. It does not belong on the books, and it 
is now up to the Senate not just to win these two victories for the 
American people today, but to maintain these two victories as we 
proceed to conference with the House.
  I congratulate the Senators from Oklahoma and Nevada for this 
legislative review mechanism. It is a very significant achievement. 
They are to be congratulated for their efforts. I also thank Senator 
Glenn for the work he has put in on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senators Reid and 
Nickles for drafting the alternative to the regulatory moratorium bill 
passed by the House. The truth is almost anything would be better than 
the House bill, but in fact the Nickles-Reid bill is a very reasonable 
response to the problem of unreasonable regulations.
  It is good to see the Senate playing the role the Founding Fathers 
intended for it. We have rejected a poorly conceived and inadequately 
considered House bill and offered instead a reasonable and workable 
solution, one that does not relinquish our responsibility to public 
health and safety.
  Unfortunately, this responsible alternative must be conferenced with 
the draconian House bill. Our Republican colleagues say they will try 
to convince House conferees that the Nickles-Reid bill is a better 
approach, but they also say they continue to support the moratorium 
itself. Let me be very clear about this: I oppose a regulatory 
moratorium, and if the conferees return to the Senate with anything 
like it, I will filibuster it.
  A moratorium would bring to a dead stop scores of sensible rules, 
including safety standards to protect our children from food poisoning, 
our workers from cancer-causing indoor air pollution, and our elderly 
people from deadly contaminants in tap water.
  A moratorium is bad for California and bad for the Nation. It would 
stop needed health and safety standards and do nothing to address the 
underlying problems that produce unreasonable, burdensome, or 
unnecessary regulations.
  Let us look at some of the standards that would be stopped by the 
House bill.


                    safer meat and poultry products

  The moratorium would stop new meat and poultry inspection rules 
proposed by the USDA. These rules would help end the threat that has 
killed hundreds of Americans in the past few years, including Eric 
Mueller, a 13-year-old from Oceanside, CA.
  In late 1993, Eric died from eating a fast-food cheeseburger tainted 
with the E. coli bacteria. Eric had been his class president, on his 
school's honor roll, captain of his soccer team, an assistant coach for 
his little sister's soccer team, a member of his school's surfing team, 
a member of the school band, and a member of Oceanside's all-star 
Little League baseball team.
  Death by E. coli poisoning is a very painful and tortuous death. 
Eric's father recently testified before the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to protest the regulatory moratorium. He told the committee:

       As a parent standing by and watching my only son go through 
     incredible agony and pain before he lost consciousness and 
     died, was something I don't even wish on my worst 
     [[Page S4752]] enemy. Immediately before slipping into 
     unconsciousness, Eric screamed, ``Get my Dad!'' Those were 
     the last words he ever said. I couldn't do anything for him. 
     I am haunted daily by this incredible, totally senseless 
     tragedy.--Statement of Rainer Mueller before the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, February 22, 1995.)

  Implementation of the USDA's proposed rules to improve meat and 
poultry inspection would help prevent or reduce the 20,000 illnesses a 
year and 500 deaths a year from E. coli bacteria. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control, foodborne illness from all food sources 
range from 6.5 million to 81 million cases each year, and up to 9,000 
deaths. We cannot afford to impose a moratorium that would simply cause 
more needless death and injury from contaminated meat.


                   protection from lead contamination

  The moratorium would also leave American children vulnerable to the 
ravages of lead poisoning. This is a totally preventable tragedy that 
strikes families all across the nation.
  In 1990 the Sauser family bought a 67-year-old home in Kalamazoo, MI, 
which they decided to renovate themselves. The Sausers were never 
informed of the possibility of lead-based paint hazards. The family 
refurbished hardwood floors, repaired cracks in the plaster, and 
scraped and sanded old paint from the windowsills, door frames, and 
walls, unaware that renovation work that disturbs lead-based paint can 
create serious lead poisoning hazards.
  Six months into the renovations, 2\1/2\-year-old Jonathan began 
acting up--he was easily excited, easily frustrated, and violent. Soon 
after Jonathan's negative behavior change, Margaret Sauser became 
pregnant with their second son. Although Cameron was born a little 
early, he seemed healthy. Then, at 11 months, his weight and height, 
which had been in the 95th percentile at his birth, dropped to the 25th 
percentile. It also became clear that he was not progressing in speech 
or movement as a healthy baby should. Meanwhile, Jonathan was still 
throwing himself into walls.
  Eventually both boys were diagnosed as lead poisoned. The poisoning 
had come from their home's lead pipes and by the dust created by their 
home's renovation. The lead hazard in the home was so severe that no 
matter how much cleaning, mopping, and washing the parents did, the 
boys' blood lead levels continued to climb.
  The family could not afford to move and eventually had to declare 
bankruptcy in order to get the boys into lead-safe housing. At age 2, 
Cameron Sauser has hearing loss and is developmentally delayed. His big 
brother Jonathan, now age 6, is still hyperactive and doctors believe 
he has attention deficit disorder due to lengthy exposure to lead and 
possible neurological damage.
  Some 1.7 million American children have blood lead levels high enough 
to cause reading and learning disabilities, reduced IQ and
 attention span, and growth, behavioral, or developmental problems. The 
principal source of lead exposure is lead-based paint.

  Regulations that are set to become effective October 28, 1995, 
require that people be notified about the potential danger associated 
with lead-based paints used in homes built prior to 1978. Until the 
regulations are in place, the kind of tragedy that happened to the 
Sauser's will happen again and again. In fact, after the house that 
poisoned the Sauser's two sons was repossessed, it was sold to another 
unsuspecting family with three young children.
  According to HUD, approximately 57 million pre-1978 housing units 
contain lead-based paint, of which 13.2 million contain chipping and 
peeling lead-based paint. EPA has proposed certification and training 
standards for lead-based paint testing and abatement work. These 
regulations will ensure such work will be done in a safe manner, but 
would be delayed by a moratorium.


                        drinking water standards

  Public health in the United States also continues to be threatened by 
contaminated drinking water. Under the current Safe Drinking Water Act 
that is being criticized as overly burdensome--a law approved by a 
Republican-controlled Senate by a vote of 94 to 0 and signed into law 
by President Ronald Reagan--people all across America have been getting 
sick and even dying from drinking tap water.
  In 1987, 13,000 people became ill in Carrollton, GA, as a result of 
bacterial contamination in their drinking water. In 1990, 243 people 
became ill and 4 died as a result of E. coli bacteria in the drinking 
water in Cabool, MO. In 1992, 15,000 people were sickened by 
contaminated drinking water in Jackson, County, OR. And in late 1993, 
over 400,000 people in Milwaukee became ill and 120 died as a result of 
drinking the water from their taps.
  The House regulatory moratorium bill would disrupt efforts to 
establish a new rule on microbiological contaminants in drinking water 
supplies. The new safety standards, produced by a team consisting of 
industry, State, and local government and citizen representatives would 
protest against cryptosporidium, E. coli, and other contaminants. The 
moratorium would delay the information collection necessary to finalize 
the standards.


                           second-hand smoke

  The moratorium would also delay OSHA's proposed rule to protect 
workers against second-hand smoke in the workplace. According to the 
American Lung Association, environmental tobacco smoke causes an 
estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths, 12,000 non-lung cancer deaths, and 
35,000 to 40,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease each year. The 
Association also estimates that 14 million to 36 million nonsmoking 
adults are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work. Those 
workers are 34 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those 
who work in smoke-free environments.
  I should say a word about some of these regulations and the argument 
that the moratorium might not affect them. As the
 Senate sponsor of the moratorium says, the rules on E. coli and 
cryptosporidium might come under the ``imminent threat to public health 
or safety'' exemption of his bill. But he has been asked repeatedly for 
a definition of ``imminent threat'' from the bill's backers and has yet 
to respond. Would the rules on lead contamination or indoor smoke come 
under the exemption? What about the bay-delta water accord that is so 
important to my State of California? Because we have no definition of 
imminent threat it is impossible to say.


                     san francisco bay-delta accord

  I believe that the exemption would not apply to rules like the one 
implementing the historic bay-delta agreement--an agreement that will 
have major repercussions in California and all across the country.
  Late last year, California farmers, bankers, municipalities, and 
environmentalists all came together to approve a plan to provide the 
certainty they need to allocate water in the San Francisco Bay-Delta 
among competing users. The agreement is a direct result of years of 
negotiation, and provides a blueprint for managing fresh water 
supplies, minimizing water quality impacts on San Francisco Bay, and 
providing the assurances that the financial community needs to support 
economic activities throughout California.
  The beneficiaries of the agreement, memorialized in an EPA rule 
finalized in January, are the consumers of food produced with delta 
water--45 percent of the Nation's fruit and vegetable production--and 
the 20 million Californians who rely on the delta for drinking water.
  Due to the lack of an agreement, no new investment decisions had been 
made with respect to new canals, major construction projects, water 
allocation, alternative sources of water supply, canal systems, or 
reservoir management in the bay-delta for the last 20 years.
  The moratorium could void the agreement and eliminate the opportunity 
it offers to maintain the delta as a viable source of drinking and 
irrigation water. Long-term use of the bay-delta as a viable source of 
water would be threatened because of over-use and lack of coordination 
among the millions of users of bay-delta water, especially during 
droughts. Vacating the agreement could threaten the State of 
California's credit rating and our economy.


                       truth in poultry labeling

  Finally, Mr. President, the moratorium would stop a very simple rule 
designed to protect consumers against fraud every time they go to buy a 
chicken or turkey at the supermarket. 
[[Page S4753]] Current law allows poultry that has been frozen hard as 
a bowling ball to be thawed out and labeled ``fresh'' for sale to 
consumers--consumers who will pay significantly more for a fresh 
project.
  In January the Agriculture Department proposed a commonsense rule to 
restrict the use of the term ``fresh'' to poultry that has never been 
kept frozen. In fact, this was actually just a reissuance of a rule 
that was first proposed at the end of the Reagan administration and 
then shelved. The moratorium would
 add at least another year to the delays that began in 1988. While 8 
years is far too long for consumers to wait for basic truth in 
labeling, the 45-day review period contemplated by the Nickles-Reid 
bill is not unreasonable.

  Mr. President, like many of the provisions of the Contract With 
America, the regulatory moratorium may look at first glance, but it 
begins to look pretty ugly upon closer examination. The moratorium is 
nothing more than a valentine to industry, to polluters, to the tobacco 
companies, and others who would prefer not to live up to the 
responsibilities we all share to our neighbors, our communities, and 
our Nation.
  Our responsibility is to improve the lives of all the American 
people, not just the bottom line of the corporations. We must do the 
hard work to produce real regulatory reform--not walk away by putting a 
stop to all regulations, reasonable and unreasonable alike.
  I agree with Senator Glenn that we should simply declare the 
moratorium dead. The 45-day review provided in the Reid-Nickles bill 
will give Congress another chance to stop the unintended consequences 
of well-intentioned regulations before they burden the American people. 
If the bill comes back from conference in this form, I will give it my 
full support. However, if it comes back looking like a moratorium, on 
behalf of the people of my State and the 49 others, I will stand on 
this floor as long as it takes to stop it.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Texas 2 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on the day that President Clinton gave the 
last State of the Union Address during which he talked about reducing 
the regulatory burden, his administration published over 300 pages of 
new regulations in the Federal Register. In fact, in the first 2 years 
of the Clinton administration, the level of regulatory burden, as 
measured by the number of pages in the Federal Register, has been 
higher than the first 2 years of any President in the history of the 
United States. Despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, the Clinton 
administration is imposing more regulations than any administration at 
a comparable point in that administration's term in the history of the 
United States of America.
  I congratulate our leader here, Don Nickles, for bringing to a final 
vote a bill that does make some marginal improvement. But this bill is 
a far cry from the original bill. I think a regulatory moratorium is 
called for. I think it is something that is needed. I am still strongly 
in support of it. And while you might say this is a kiss, it is a kiss 
from your sister and not your sweetheart.
  This is not something that is going to dramatically change American 
Government. The Congress is already burdened with doing what it is 
doing. The idea that we will be able to go through regulations and 
assess them, I think, is fairly unrealistic.
  There will be one positive result that will come out of it, however. 
That is, we will be able do zero in on some items where clearly the 
Federal Government is dramatically increasing the cost of doing 
business, dramatically limiting our ability to create jobs, and making 
decisions through regulations that do not make any sense.
  So, this is a marginal improvement. This is a long way from a 
victory. I think the House approach was better. I intend to vote for 
this because it is an improvement on the current procedure.
  This is not the end of this debate. This is the first short step in 
trying to bring rationality to Government regulations which, today, 
cost the average American family $5,000 a year.
  Something has got to be done about these regulations. This is a 
marginal improvement. This is a long way from victory.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Texas 2 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue.
  I was one of the original cosponsors of the moratorium bill. I would 
like to say to my senior colleague from Texas that I agree with 
everything he said. But I would just add that a kiss from your sister 
is better than no kiss at all.
  I think it is very important that we understand that we are taking a 
giant first step toward reining in regulators that have gone far beyond 
congressional intent.
  Some people say, ``We really do not have the right in Congress to 
assess what regulators do.'' To them I would say, ``If we do not have 
the right, who in the world does?''
  Why are the regulators out there? They are out there implementing 
congressional legislation. If Congress does not rein them in and say, 
``You are not doing what we intended for you to do in implementing our 
laws,'' who will? The answer is, no one will.
  It is our responsibility to rein in regulators to whom we have 
authorized implementation of the laws that we pass. The buck stops 
here.
  With this bill today, we are taking the responsibility that we have 
to the people of America, to the small business people of America. We 
are saying ``We are going to look at everything the people we have 
delegated our authority are doing, and hopefully we are going to bring 
common sense into the process.''
  I hope our colleagues will vote for this today. It will give Members 
that first measure to say the regulators have gone beyond where we 
wanted them to go, and we are going to have a say.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair advise the Senator from 
Nevada and the Senator from Oklahoma how much time we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). There are 3 minutes on each side 
remaining.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Business Week on the 23d day of January of 
this year, wrote, among other things:

       Lately there has been a wave of creative regulatory reform 
     at both State and Federal levels, relying on such devices as 
     free competition under price caps and mandated cost sharing 
     by competitors. Such reforms are designed to reconcile the 
     contradictory goals of universal service and increased 
     competition.

  Mr. President, the reason I mention this is that we have a magazine 
such as Business Week, we have entities such as the chemical 
manufacturers saying regulations are good if they are handled properly. 
And that is what this substitute deals with. If we handle regulations 
properly, as we will do after this, this is a giant step forward for 
the American business communities and the American people, in general.
  I believe, as I have stated on this floor the last 2 days, that there 
will be by the Federal bureaucracy, a more stringent review of 
regulations than we intend to promulgate. Why? Because we legally have 
the right to veto those regulations.
  This, Mr. President, is good. It is an indication that bipartisan 
work in this Chamber can produce good legislation. This final product 
is the result of not only the work of the Senator from Oklahoma and 
this Senator, but also the good work done by the Senator from Michigan, 
the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and a 
number of individuals on both sides of the aisle who have worked toward 
making this more meaningful legislation.
  I indicated yesterday I appreciate the work of the Senator from 
Oklahoma. I want to reiterate that. The work that he has done has been 
exemplary in being able to listen to both sides and then make 
decisions. We have been able to work together on this.
  This legislation, Mr. President, will go a long way to meeting what 
the American public said they want. That is, they want product without 
people taking credit for it. There is no party that can take credit for 
this legislation. It is a product of the Senate of the United States. 
We will work very hard to make sure that this bill that will pass out 
of here by a very large margin is the final product that comes 
[[Page S4754]] out of this Congress and be sent to the President.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague 
from Nevada, Senator Reid, for his leadership not only on this 
amendment but on several other issues that we have had the pleasure of 
working on in the past.
  Also, Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Bond and Senator 
Hutchison for their cooperation and leadership, as well as Senator 
Levin and Senator Glenn for their contributions in making this bill a 
reality. Hopefully, this bill will become law.
  Mr. President, during this process I have heard a several comments 
regarding this legislation. Some people are still debating the 
regulatory moratorium passed by the House. I have heard that it is bad 
and reckless and if it passed we will have E. coli in meats, and we 
will have cryptosporidium in our water, and people are going to die.
  I disagree with that assertion. The original regulatory moratorium 
did have problems, but frankly it was not that it was too strong but 
that it had numerous exceptions that could have left the bill 
inadequate.
  I want to get the attention of my friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, 
because I think this is a better bill than the original regulatory 
moratorium.
  One of the reasons is because the strength of original moratorium has 
mischaracterized by saying such things as saying E. coli regulations 
would be stopped. That is false, because there are broad exceptions to 
exempt regulations such as the E. coli regulations. The bill that 
passed the House and the bill that passed the Governmental Affairs 
Committee had lots of exceptions--enough exceptions to drive trucks 
through.
  We started out with 8 exceptions, and it ended up 10 or 12, and 
frankly these exceptions gave the President complete discretion to 
determine any exception that he would want.
  Also, I might mention and tell my friend from Texas that the House 
bill was temporary, it would only last until we passed permanent 
regulatory reform. That is probably going to happen in 60 days. It is a 
temporary moratorium.
  The bill the Senate is about to adopt is a permanent moratorium on 
new significant regulations. If this bill becomes law, it will still be 
in effect 3 years from now, 5 years from now. And so Congress will have 
a chance to review significant regulations. It is a moratorium on 
significant regulations of 45 days. During this 45-day moratorium, 
Congress would have the opportunity to repeal those regulations and 
reject them if we felt it was necessary.
  I think this is a vital improvement to regulatory process. It is not 
a panacea. It is not a cure-all, but this gives Congress a chance to 
carry out its oversight responsibility in making sure that excessive 
regulations can be stopped.
  We also have the opportunity, I might tell my colleagues, to review 
the regulations that are not classified as significant but yet we find 
are troublesome or confusing or do not make sense. We would have a 
chance to review those, to reject those, to repeal those.
  So I would just urge my colleagues to take a close look. I will urge 
my colleagues in the House to look at this legislation and to realize 
that their temporary moratorium would have no effect probably in 60 
days because we will pass comprehensive regulatory reform legislation.
  The bill before us today has a chance to become law and have a 
significant impact for the for years into the future, and therefore, in 
my opinion, is a far superior piece of legislation than the original 
regulatory moratorium legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I think it is a big step in the 
right direction. I also want to say that we have had good support from 
Democrats and Republicans.
  This idea, I might mention, came from a State representative in the 
State of Oklahoma, Danny George, who contacted my staff. I think it is 
an excellent idea. I am hopeful it will be agreed upon by a very large 
margin, that the House would concur, the President would sign it, and 
we would take a giant step toward real regulation reform this year. I 
thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to make two points regarding 
the efforts made in the Senate to craft meaningful regulatory reform.
  First, let me say I support the efforts we are making in the Senate 
to reform Government regulations and I look forward to participating in 
this bipartisan effort to make Government more effective and 
meaningful. Everyone has examples of Government regulations that have 
gone too far, become too onerous, or have otherwise disrupted peoples' 
lives. This is not the goal of the House-passed regulatory moratorium 
proposal, however, which brings me to my second point.
  I have serious objections to any measure that would jeopardize public 
health and safety by suspending Federal rules on health, safety, or the 
environment. As a legislative body, our job is not to police the rest 
of Government; but it is to enable legislation that sets in motion 
solutions. It would be irresponsible to paralyze the Government process 
with a regulatory freeze, or by imposing costly, inflexible, and 
bureaucratic procedures.
  In yesterday's debate, my colleagues brought to the floor reams of 
paper representing regulations recently approved by Federal agencies. I 
was reminded of the piles of paper that Vice President Gore saved 
through the streamlining of the National Performance Review. It seems 
we are all working for the same thing--to make Government work better 
for people. We need to reduce paperwork, and repetitive, unnecessary 
regulations are a good place to do it, but only so long as we do not 
compromise public health or safety.
  Some regulations are necessary and beneficial for the public. In my 
State of Washington, we saw first hand how dangerous ineffective 
regulations can be during a deadly outbreak of E. coli contamination in 
1993. Tragically, four children died and many more children and adults 
got sick from eating hamburger contaminated with this virulent 
pathogen. In the absence of a single clear Federal standard ensuring 
the safety of the food supply, a host of insufficient regulations 
offered poor protection at best. Subsequent to this epidemic, USDA 
proposed reforms of its meat and poultry inspection system to bring 
these inspections into the 21st century. USDA's proposal would require 
the Nation's 9,000 slaughter and inspection plants to adopt 
preventative, science-based inspection systems. A regulatory freeze 
such as that imposed by the House or by S. 219 as passed out of 
committee would have prevented USDA from responding to this public 
health emergency.
  Moreover, I have concerns that the proposal passed by the House would 
tie the hands of the fisheries management councils around the country. 
I commend the amendment approved in committee by my colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens. Without such a provision, the recently enacted 
halibut and sablefish ITQ Program would be negated. Furthermore, the 
National marine Fisheries Service would not be able to manage the 
opening or closing of fishing seasons, thereby gutting the oversight 
authority of a very credible agency.
  Our deliberation about this moratorium proposal is just the beginning 
of the broader debate about regulatory reform. In fact, the alternative 
proposal offered by Senator Reid and Senator Nickles, allowing Congress 
to veto new regulations, has generated support, having passed the 
Senate Government Affairs Committee unanimously. I am confident that 
this body can address the need for regulatory reform without resorting 
to a heavy-handed moratorium, which could threaten the public good.
  I support the Nickles-Reid amendment and hope that we can reach a 
compromise with the House in conference.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to announce my support for 
the substitute amendment offered by Senator Nickles and Senator Reid 
and offer my name as a cosponsor of this amendment. This amendment 
starts the Senate down the road toward regulatory reform. While I view 
our action today as an important step, I look forward to a more 
comprehensive regulatory reform bill which is working its way through 
the Senate.
  I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that the 
Federal 
[[Page S4755]] Government places burdensome regulations on State and 
local governments as well. Often times these regulations tie the hands 
of these governments in their attempt to address the needs of their 
citizens. That is why I introduced S. 88, the Local Empowerment and 
Flexibility Act of 1995, on the first day of this Congress. The need to 
provide flexibility to local and State governments is enormous. While I 
intended to offer S. 88 as an amendment to the legislation on the 
floor, I did not want to delay passage of this bipartisan bill. 
However, I will continue to offer the Local Empowerment and Flexibility 
Act as an amendment to legislation which comes before the Senate. I 
will also work with other Members to push this legislation forward as I 
believe it addresses regulations which are often overlooked and are as 
burdensome as those that this amendment addresses.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to 
pass legislation establishing an expedited procedure for congressional 
consideration and, where necessary, disapproval of regulations. I 
believe this is the right choice. The original legislation, which 
provided for a moratorium on regulations, was fraught with difficulty. 
It was legislation which could not pass this body and which, if it did, 
would probably have been vetoed. The approach we take today holds far 
greater promise for responsible review of regulations. And I applaud 
the efforts made by Senator Nickles, Senator Reid, and Senator Glenn 
who floor managed and perfected this legislation.
  However, there was one provision inserted in the legislation 
yesterday that deserves further scrutiny. That provision would require 
the General Accounting Office to provide a report to Congress on each 
and every significant regulation promulgated by an agency informing 
Congress whether the agency has performed its job. Among other things, 
GAO's functions would include checking out whether the agency consulted 
with State, local, and tribal governments under the unfunded mandates 
legislation recently signed into law as well as checking on the 
agency's compliance with cost-benefit and risk analyses requirements 
under Executive Order 12866 and under legislation the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs last week ordered reported.
  We are now in conference on the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In 
neither body was a single vote cast against that legislation. We all 
agree the Government generates too much paperwork. While the central 
complaint concerns burdens on the public, there is also the recognition 
that Government imposes needless paperwork requirements on itself. In 
fact, Senators McCain and Levin added important provisions to the 
paperwork legislation that would reduce unnecessary reports to 
Congress.
  Now before those provisions even have a chance to get enacted, the 
Senate contradicts itself, mandating the creation of about four GAO 
reports every working day of the year, the vast majority of which will 
be unnecessary and unread. These reports will cover functions already 
assigned to OIRA and in some cases duplicate the mission of independent 
peer review provisions in legislation ordered reported by the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
  Moreover, we all need to be reminded that serious discussions are 
underway to cut the budget of GAO by 25 percent. By its own admission, 
GAO lacks expertise in the area of regulatory review. This would be a 
new mission for that agency coming at a time when we need to see how 
the present core mission of GAO can be preserved on a smaller budget.

                          ____________________