[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5097-H5106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that: First, it be 
in order to consider in the House a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the Senate bill (S. 219) to ensure economy and efficiency of 
Federal Government operations by establishing a moratorium on 
regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other purposes, to strike all 
after the enacting clause of S. 219 and to insert in lieu the text of 
H.R. 450 as passed by the House;
  Second, that the motion be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
equally divided and controlled among chairmen and ranking minority 
members of the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
Judiciary; and
  Third, that the previous question be ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion except one motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I do so in order that the gentleman may explain his unanimous 
consent request.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk at this point, 
if we may proceed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked unanimous consent, 
the gentleman from Minnesota has reserved the right to object and has 
yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would just like a further 
explanation.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, as part of the Contract With America, the 
House passed overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan fashion, H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, which imposes a temporary moratorium 
on the issuance of regulations. It provides a very necessary timeout on 
promulgation and implementation of regulations while Congress is in the 
process of deliberating long-overdue regulatory reforms.
  So I think it would be helpful to review the bidding for just a 
moment. After 2 full days of debate on the House floor and numerous 
amendments, the final vote was 276 to 146. The House passed this bill 
February 24, 1995, and sent it to the Senate 2 days later. One month 
later, the Senate passed their version of the moratorium, which is, 
frankly, hard to characterize as a regulatory moratorium.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to figure 
it out, but apparently this is the normal procedure in the House, to 
link these two bills together.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. CLINGER. The objective is the same as what we just did in the 
last bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection and support the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request from the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                     motion offered by mr. clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Clinger moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
     (S. 219) to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
     authority, and for other purposes, strike all after the 
     enacting clause of the Senate bill, and insert the text of 
     H.R. 450 as passed by the House.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson]. Pursuant to order of the 
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be recognized 
for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since I have already delivered part of my remarks on the 
motion, I would just reiterate, the version that we are sending back to 
the Senate is a very different version than was enacted in the Senate. 
It is our position [[Page H5098]] that the House bill is a very good 
piece of legislation that was crafted to ensure that the health and 
safety of our citizens is protected, while at the same time providing a 
necessary timeout from the burdens of regulation.
  I think every Member of this body over time has heard from their 
constituents, small businessmen, individuals, communities, of the 
incredibly intolerable burden that is being imposed upon them by 
regulation. So there is a need for time for review and reflection while 
we pass and enact major regulatory reform which is in the process of 
moving its way forward.
  Both the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay, the distinguished majority 
whip, and the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman McIntosh, the chairman 
of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, authored H.R. 450 to provide this 
short-term moratorium to allow Congress and the administration to 
review regulations on the books and to determine whether they meet 
cost-benefit criteria, and, more importantly, whether they just plain 
make sense.
  During hearings and debate on this bill we've heard story after story 
about regulatory overkill. Many regulations are unnecessary, 
duplicative, or conflicting. How many small businesses do we want to 
put out of business before pass reforms?
  Just yesterday, we heard from a group of small businessmen that again 
underscored this point. Regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act 
require that this industry obtain a permit from the EPA or State EPA 
for each piece of new equipment that they buy or install for their 
plant, rather than being allowed to have a single permit for that 
plant. This is like inspecting a car and rather than requiring a single 
inspection you have to get a separate inspection for the doors, the 
windshield, the brakes, the trunk, and the list goes on and on. These 
businessmen want to protect the environment, but find themselves using 
enough paper to plant a new forest--with little or not environmental 
benefits gained. For each facility, 300 to 400 pages of paper have to 
be generated to meet both the EPA and State requirements--which are 
often duplicative and conflicting. I am told that it took a 150-page 
manual just to explain the regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 450 is a good bill. We cannot afford as a society 
to continue down the road we are marching. This bill provides us an 
opportunity for a timeout to review regulations. It is my sincere hope 
that after all this effort we would be able to craft a reasonable 
compromise with the Senate. Some assumed that we would pass the Senate 
version of the bill. That simply is not going to happen.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion and hope that the Senate 
will see fit to move this bill forward to conference in an expedited 
fashion. It is a bill that does not belong in Congress--it belongs on 
the President's desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the gentleman's motion. Earlier this 
year the House passed a bill to provide for a moratorium on new 
regulations pending the enactment of other regulatory reform bills that 
provide for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. I worked closely 
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the chairman of our subcommittee, and I 
supported this bill. I became convinced that we needed a time out on 
regulations and we needed a change in the way we deal with the 
regulatory process in this Government.
  Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed its version of the 
moratorium legislation providing for a different approach, which is not 
all bad, which asks for a congressional review period for new 
regulations. In passing the bill, the Senate did not take its version 
and attach it to the House bill. Therefore, today's action is required 
as a first step towards trying to reach a compromise between the two 
versions.
  As I reviewed regulations during the committee consideration of the 
bill, I found that in fact there are many regulations which Congress 
should look at more closely, and I think the moratorium bill would, in 
my opinion, force agencies to think twice before writing new 
regulations and to begin to do the cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment that the House has already passed and is pending in the 
Senate.
  I do not think there is really a whole lot of need to repeat the 
debate in the House over this bill, since the motion of the gentleman 
today merely takes the House position and attaches it to the Senate 
bill. This is a standard procedure in the House for linking these two 
bills after the final passage in the House.
  I support the gentleman's motion and hope that we are successful in 
bringing some sense to the other body and getting some consideration of 
our position.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the motion either. I 
do have a couple of questions, if I might address them to the 
distinguished chairman.
  Am I correct that the piece of legislation that we are talking about 
here is the one that puts a total moratorium on any kind of Federal 
regulation, from any Federal agency, except for some of those key 
areas, like duck hunting, that were exempted here on the floor of the 
House by amendment?
  Mr. CLINGER. There are a number of exceptions, as the gentleman 
knows, that are exempted from the provisions of the moratorium.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Well, all of us are certainly opposed to unnecessary 
Federal regulations, and there are some silly ones out there. This 
particular proposal as it passed the House went so far, so extreme, so 
fast, that it was essentially rejected 100 to zip by the U.S. Senate, 
was it not, for an alternative approach?
  Mr. CLINGER. I believe the gentleman is incorrect on that. This 
version was not considered by the other body.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The Senate did not even bother to consider this 
approach. They took an alternative approach to trying to weed out 
regulations. Really the whole idea of a total moratorium is deader than 
a doornail in the Senate. You might as well put an RIP sign over it. It 
is gone. It is not going to happen.
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentleman would further yield, I would reject 
that concept. What we are trying to do, obviously, the Senate took a 
different approach from us. That is the whole purpose of a conference, 
is to sit down and negotiate those out. We think that our version is 
better, and we would hope to see the Senate version improved as a 
result of our conference.
  Mr. DOGGETT. But 100 Members of the Senate, including all the 
Republicans, disagreed with the gentleman.
  Mr. CLINGER. The matter has never come to a vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman, that I do not 
think the Senate took a position on this.
  I just want to say, some of us on this side of the aisle worked with 
the gentleman. I think as the bill was originally put together, these 
claims may have been valid. But I do not think it is valid with the 
bill as it passed the House.
  We clearly gave the President the opportunity to deal with 
regulations that he felt were important to the imminent threat to the 
health and safety that might happen. We exempted routine administrative 
regulations. The claim cannot be made about this bill that it is going 
to stop all regulations for this moratorium period. That is not true. 
This does provide a mechanism that we think is reasonable to allow for 
regulations to go ahead that are necessary.
  What we are trying to do with this moratorium is put a time out on 
regulations until we can get the other things in place so we can start 
bringing some commonsense, some cost-benefits and risk assessment to 
the regulatory process. We think that it is a reasonable approach.
  As I say, I support what the chairman is doing, and I hope that we 
can get some of the elements of the moratorium bill into the final 
version when we finally do get to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people, through the election process, made 
[[Page H5099]] sure in 1994 that this Congress would take a hard look 
at the impact of regulations on itself, the American people. We have 
known for a long time, and so have the American people, that the 
Congress passes a statute with good intentions, and then all of a 
sudden it is put into the hands of the agencies to implement that 
statute. And what happens? They issue regulations that seem absolutely 
foreign and almost contrary many times to the intent of the Congress.
  So for decade after decade, these regulations impacted against the 
American people, and they had no recourse, not did the Members of 
Congress, except to repeal or try to do something on the floor to deal 
with that problem by itself. That did not work. So now with the 
Contract With America, where we promised regulatory reform, we brought 
about a House vehicle which declared a moratorium which said let us 
stop, look and listen and see what has happened over the years with 
this regulatory process. Let us put a moratorium on it and now 
determine which way we should approach the new dawn, the new era, of 
how the Congress will make statutes and the regulators will react to 
that.
  Well, that is a pretty good idea, we felt. But the Senate now goes 
the other way. The Senate in its proposal, the one which we hope to 
reject here today, says once we pass a statute we ought to be involved 
on every single regulation that the bureaucrats promulgate, which is 
almost an impossible task, because they build into their proposal a 
kind of legislative veto which requires the Congress to look at every 
single regulation as if it were a separate statute.
  That is going to the extreme from the original position where the 
Congress had no control at all. Now it has to micromanage every single 
regulation. What we offer here in rejecting the Senate proposal and 
adopting our own language is an overview of the regulatory process, 
with the ability to some day be able to command the bureaus to look at 
it very closely, give us an analysis, try to determine the cost 
effectiveness, see what impact it will have on the American people, and 
then promulgate that regulation. That is what we are trying to do.
  The Senate bill puts us all as micromanagers. The House bill is a 
reasonable approach to give the American people some safety valve from 
the oppressive hand of the regulators by allowing this stop, look and 
listen gap that we are proposing, and then a cost and effectiveness 
type of analysis oversight on regulations, which is sure to make life 
more comfortable for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], a principal author of the House 
version of the moratorium.
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Gekas and Mr. Clinger, have pointed out, there are some fundamental 
differences between the House and the Senate version of this bill, and 
there are meritorious arguments in terms of actually putting a 45-day 
delay on regulations. But I think, unfortunately, the original text of 
S. 219 neglects some very serious problems that have come up in our 
regulatory process. When I go home to my district in Muncie and 
Anderson, IN, people talk to me and say, David, we need to make sure 
that what you all have done in the House of Representatives continues 
to go forward and do not cave in to the forces back in Washington who 
are trying to derail your efforts to cut back on unnecessary 
regulations.
  Our subcommittee held a field hearing in which we had dozens of 
people talk to us about regulatory problems that were crippling their 
businesses, causing the loss of jobs, and forcing our economy to be 
less competitive.
  Specifically, since last November the Clinton administration has 
issued several hundred regulations, and there are 30 of them that our 
subcommittee has identified that create serious problems for our 
economy. I think it is important that we move from the abstract and 
look at what these real problems are and why we need to put a 
moratorium so that these regulations can be reviewed under the new 
cost-benefit and risk assessment standards.

                              {time}  1130

  One of them is the OSHA ergonomics rule, which has not been 
promulgated, but the Department of Labor has indicated that in spite of 
what this House may do, they intend to move forward with it. This could 
cost us $3.1 billion each year in unnecessary regulatory costs. There 
is the California Federal implementation plan, which would shut down 
many sectors of the California economy, would affect everything from 
flights going into Los Angeles Airport to lawnmowers, to people's jobs, 
will cost between $4 and $6 billion, with a possible job loss of 
165,000 jobs in the State of California alone.
  There is the Great Lakes clean water quality guidelines. I want to 
say, as somebody from a Great Lakes State, we all want to see clean 
water and we want to see the Great Lakes cleaned up. But this 
regulation will cost us jobs once again, approximately 33,000 jobs in 
the Midwest alone and another 2 billion in economic cost to the 
economy. There is the clean air permitting rule, which will cost 
billions of dollars in unnecessary red tape and get you exactly zero 
benefits in terms of additional clean air.
  This regulation we do not need in the economy. It has been 
promulgated by the administration. It needs to be subject to the 
moratorium so it can go through the review process and be changed so 
that we do not tie our own hands behind our backs.
  The list goes on and on. There are the endangered species listing 
where the Interior Department indicates that they have 4,000 new 
species they want to add to the list of endangered species, including 
the eastern wood rat, the Lake Huron locust and the pee clam. The 
problem with this is that it will cost us, once again, jobs. It will 
cause us to be impeded in our economy, and we need to have some common 
sense applied to these regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I have an entire list here that I would like to put into 
the Record of important serious rule makings that need to be put into 
the moratorium. Just yesterday Governor Larry Lindsey of the Federal 
Reserve Board conducted a seminar with people who are working in the 
inner city to try to rebuild dilapidated housing so that poor people 
and middle income families can have a hope to own their own home. We 
asked them, what is your major problem with going forward in these 
efforts in the inner city? They said, Federal regulations.
  They pointed to dozens of rules that make it harder, more costly for 
them to actually make these differences for people. And they asked us 
in Congress to move forward in cutting back on that unnecessary red 
tape.
  Let us step back and look at the larger picture. I think what we have 
accomplished in the House of Representatives was a bipartisan vote, 
strong support on both sides of the aisle, definitely sent a message to 
the bureaucracies, it is not business as usual. We have to end the 
endless red tape and regulation that have been strangling our economy. 
And when I go home people tell me, we want to see this Congress go 
forward. We are worried that the other body is going to drag its feet 
and that you are not going to get these reforms through.
  What we are doing today is sending a message. We cannot accept the 
status quo. We have to move these reforms forward. It is imperative 
that we implement them for the American people.
  They are counting on this House of Representatives to change the way 
Washington operates, cut back on unnecessary red tape, and move forward 
with this moratorium, with the cost-benefit and risk assessment 
legislation, with protection for property rights, that fundamentally do 
change the way we do business here, making the Government, once again, 
responsive to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman's efforts in leading this 
forward and look forward to the efforts in moving it toward a 
conference so that we can go back home and report to the American 
people we have done what you sent us here to do.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
[[Page H5100]]

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, my grandfather used to say 
common sense is not all that common. I think the previous speaker has 
shown why common sense is not always that common.
  As I look at the regulatory reform issue, there are really three 
different camps in Congress. There is the camp that does not want to 
see any regulatory reform at all. That is a minority. I do not think 
there are many people here who believe that.
  Then there is the camp that is basically along with the Senate and 
says, let us have true regulatory reform and let us allow Congress to 
look at those regulations that are too burdensome, that go too far, 
that contradict the intent of Congress.
  The gentleman who spoke before went through a litany of regulations 
that he thinks go too far. I think we in Congress should address those 
issues. We should look at them right now and decide whether they have 
gone too far and, if they have, we should reverse the agency action.
  Then there is the third camp. The third camp is interested in playing 
politics, and that is the version that has gone from the House of 
Representatives.
  Picture yourself as the President of the United States. You are 
handed a bill that says for the next 11 months, your agencies, your 
executive agencies, the people that you have hired can no longer issue 
any regulations. I do not care if you are a Democrat, I do not care if 
you are Republican, I do not care if you are Ross Perot, you are going 
to say no. I am not going to tie the hands of my agencies. I am going 
to veto that bill.
  And you would be crazy if you did not. If you are Republican or 
Democrat or Ross Perot, you would be crazy if you did not veto that 
bill. So let us just assume in the fantasy world, the Alice in 
Wonderland world that this bill got to President Clinton. He would veto 
it tomorrow.
  So the previous speaker who talked about all these burdensome 
regulations that he is concerned about is not going to get anywhere. He 
will be able to play politics by saying all bureaucrats are bad, but he 
is not going to move forward with the goal of getting rid of 
regulations that are too burdensome to the American people.
  I want to get rid of regulations that are too burdensome to the 
American people. The Senate has come up with a perfect vehicle for us 
to do that.
  I come from the State of Wisconsin where we have legislative review 
of administrative rules. It works very, very well. If an agency goes 
too far, the legislature then will review those regulations, not all 
regulations, just the ones that it thinks are too burdensome and it 
will reverse the agency action. If we want to deal with this problem, 
that is how we deal with the problem. We do not take an absurd bill 
that is being passed only for political purposes, that every single 
person in this Chamber knows that the President would veto and try to 
move it forward. That does not accomplish anything. All it does is it 
scores political points.
  What can we do? We can do what the Senate did. We can say that 
agencies pass rules, they come back here. That way the different 
concerns that were raised by burdensome regulation we can look at. At 
the same time, very good regulations, like the ones dealing 
Cryptosporidium from my area, if we did it that way, at the same time 
we would be able to have agencies move forward with Cryptosporidium 
research, E. coli bacteria research, rules on those and save people's 
lives, help American people and still stop the regulations that need to 
be stopped. Let us do the right thing and go along with the Senate.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the deputy majority leader, alias the 
whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me 
and elevating me and promoting me. I appreciate bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 450 has developed a very long history. In December 
1994, the Republican leadership sent a letter to the President asking 
him to issue a moratorium on Federal regulations in order for the new 
Congress to institute these long-needed regulatory reforms. The 
President refused.
  In January, I introduced H.R. 450, instituting that moratorium that 
the President refused to issue on his own. And in February, the House 
passed H.R. 450 with a very strong majority vote and sent it to the 
Senate for its consideration.
  The Senate has chosen to take a different approach, passing a bill 
which allows Congress to review and disapprove regulations under an 
expedited procedure.
  In light of the differences between those two bills, we are now 
sending H.R. 450 back to the Senate and encourage the Senate to work 
with us to come to an acceptable compromise.
  H.R. 450 had very broad support from both Members and from the public 
at large. It responds to the serious cry from the American people to 
reduce the burden of government. This bill puts a hold on the 
incredible flow of regulation since November 20 so that the regulatory 
reforms passed by the Congress will apply to those regulations.
  I might say to the previous speaker, most of the horror stories that 
he spoke about, Mr. Speaker, are taken care of with the health and 
safety exemption in our bill. Anything that has to do with health and 
safety, the President himself can exempt from the moratorium.
  Actually, the bill itself puts the President in charge, even though 
he does not choose to be in charge. We give it all to the President, 
and there is a procedure set up whereby the President on his own 
initiative under certain conditions can exempt these, any regulations 
he deems necessary that affects the health and safety of the American 
people from the moratorium called for in this bill.
  All the scare tactics, all the fear mongering that is going on about 
regulations and how we are going to kill children and throw the senior 
citizens out in the street are totally false, particularly if you have 
any confidence at all in this President, in his ability to use the bill 
to exempt certain regulations from the moratorium.
  So I ask the Members to support striking the language of S. 219 and 
sending H.R. 450 to the Senate today so that we can get a bill to the 
President's desk soon.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], a very valued member of the committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in support of this motion this morning on H.R. 450. I think 
that I should respond just briefly to some of the comments made a few 
moments ago by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  I would remind him and other Members that this bill passed out of the 
House by almost a two-to-one margin, after 10 hours of open debate. 
There were lots of amendments offered. Some of those amendments were 
accepted. And I think to say that this is purely a political ploy, I 
think is a disservice to this entire House, because I think the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the other members who 
worked so hard on this, particularly the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs did an excellent job under open 
rules, allowing everyone to participate. and I think to say that this 
was not fair is really a disservice to all of us.
  I think the message that should be going out from this Congress is 
that the status quo does not live here anymore. In fact, I am happy to 
be a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
McIntosh subcommittee because one of the most troubling things that I 
heard coming to the Congress this year was that in the past this 
Congress has not lived up to its oversight responsibilities. I think 
this is one way of saying that we are not going to permit the agencies 
out there to just go off on their own and pass these rules ad 
infinitum.
  We have had a number of field hearings. We have had a number of town 
meetings, I have. And at virtually every one of the town meetings I 
have had I have heard about the needless regulation that is coming out 
of Washington.
  We had a hearing and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] 
joined [[Page H5101]] us in Indianapolis about a month ago. And it was 
interesting because at that meeting we heard from the publisher of the 
largest newspaper in the State of Indiana and we heard from the 
president of the University of Indiana. And they were both saying, 
please do something about this regulatory burden that we have to live 
under.
  I made the comment then and I would share it today that I think we 
finally have reached the critical mass because we have both the media 
and academia saying uncle. At all of our town meetings we hear from 
small business people and particularly farmers who are saying, we need 
a time out. And that is what really this bill is all about.
  Let me just finally say that I think the message we are trying to 
send from this House today to our colleagues at the other end of the 
building, that you have dropped the ball and we are going to give you a 
chance to recovery your fumble.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As I said, I did not think we needed to debate this bill, but I think 
we need to clear up a couple of things.
  The coalition and many other Democrats were proud to support this 
piece of legislation. I think that some of the claims that were made by 
some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle may have been valid as 
we looked at the original bill. But in our judgment it is not valid, 
and I really want to associate myself with the remarks of the previous 
two speakers, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], in the final bill.
                              {time}  1145

  We have taken care of the concerns that people had about this bill. 
The President has the ability to exempt regulations that he feels need 
to go ahead. This claim that the agencies are going to be stopped dead 
from doing any regulatory process is not true. I think the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said it very clearly. Unless we do not believe 
that the President of the United States is going to do the right thing, 
this bill is not the kind of extreme bill that some people have laid 
out.
  I just want to make the point that many of us on this side of the 
aisle support this piece of legislation, and we ask people to look at 
the final product, because it is very different than the bill that was 
originally introduced.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], a very valuable and hardworking 
member of the committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
substitute the language of H.R. 50 for S. 219.
  H.R. 450, the Regulatory Reform Transition Act, passed this body 
overwhelmingly. It is not an extreme measure.
  In the debate in the other body on this measure, one of our 
colleagues said, and I quote, ``Our system of government is working.'' 
With respect to the regulatory system in America, my colleague's claim 
could not be further from the truth. He is simply wrong. The regulatory 
burden we are imposing willy-nilly on American businesses and American 
citizens is in excess. It is doing severe damage to our economy, and it 
is time to stop it. We need to subject, Mr. Speaker, all regulations to 
a risk assessment and to a cost-benefit analysis. That is the 
substantive review we are seeking. That is what this legislation will 
do.
  The time to begin subjecting new regulations to that type of 
analysis, cost-benefit and risk assessment, is now. That is what H.R. 
450 will do. The moratorium simply says there will be a time out, and 
that we will have that time period during which to pass substantive 
regulatory review, reform, and then to subject those regulations now 
going through that process to that substantive review.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to several remarks on the other 
side. Some of my colleagues have risen to say that this is an extreme 
measure, and that the Senate measure is a good alternative. That is 
simply incorrect, because the Senate measure is different. It does not 
achieve the same goal. I myself support the notion of legislative 
review of regulatory matters. If, indeed, a regulatory proceeding is 
extreme and the regulation should be suspended, that is fine. However, 
that is not what this legislation accomplishes. This legislation says 
it is known and indisputable in America that the regulatory system is 
out of control. That is not necessarily true only 90 or 100 or 120 days 
from now. The regulatory system is out of control now.
  When we enact substantive review, which requires cost-benefit and 
risk assessment analysis, we ought to apply that to all of the 
regulations that are currently going through.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], recognized 
there are thousands of regulations going through at this time. They 
should be subjected to this review. I urge support of the motion.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], a very thoughtful freshman 
member of our committee.
  (Mr. EHRLICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the chairman of 
the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], for his great leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, a new generation arrived in Congress this year. That 
generation promised to deliver with respect to the Contract With 
America. A critical part of that contract is regulatory reform. Mr. 
Speaker, we hear so much out there during election years that people 
are for the family and they are against crime and for the small 
business person in this country, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, this is 
where the rubber meets the road on the floor of the House. Reg reform 
and H.R. 450 are truly where the rubber emets the road.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was campaigning I would actually stop into strip 
shopping malls to talk to small business owners. I thought I would hear 
problems and concerns about the legal environment in the State of 
Maryland, or the unavailability of capital, or employee problems, but 
time and time again, by far the predominant concern I heard from the 
small business community was the burden of Federal regulation on small 
business.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not radical in this day and age to say stop, which 
is what this bill does. It is not radical to look at what we have done, 
to inventory what we have done, to stop promulgating Federal 
regulations before we use good science, before we use cost-benefit 
analysis, and before we use risk assessment.
  Mr. Speaker, it has already been said time and time again on this 
floor that exceptions apply within the context of this bill for 
emergency, health, and safety regulations. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line 
of H.R. 450, the bottom line to regulatory reform in this Congress, is 
returning a sense of common sense to the way we promulgate regulations 
in this country today. That is what H.R. 450 is all about. That is what 
the Contract With America is all about.
  To my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who characterized this 
bill as politics, to the extent that this majority, this majority, this 
nonpartisan majority is responding to consumers and the small business 
community in this country, that truly is politics in the best tradition 
of this House.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the point needs to be made very strongly that this is a 
bipartisan bill. This is not a partisan measure. This measure passed 
the House on February 24 by a vote of 276 to 146. There was a strong 
bipartisan support for that measure, as there has been for all of the 
measures dealing with regulatory reform.
  It is very clear, I think, that the American people want regulatory 
reform. This is part of an overall piece, an overall package we are 
putting together to accomplish what the American people want. We need 
to go to conference. We need to get this bill enacted into law, and we 
need to send it to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  [[Page H5102]]
  
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
simply to echo the sentiments of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. What we are talking about here is dealing with 
regulations, not allowing regulations to deal with us. The House 
version allows us to deal with those regulations. The Senate version 
permits the regulatory process to overwhelm us, which it now does, and 
which we are trying to rectify.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Tate].
  (Mr. TATE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to lend my support to this 
proposal as it passed the House, and I commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Recently a survey from the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses went out and surveyed their membership as to what was their 
concern. Taxes and health care were a concern, but the No. 1 concern 
and threat to small business in this country is regulations.
  I had my local Chamber of Commerce from Takoma here recently. They 
were talking about the issues that concern them, but the one that came 
up the most, whether they were in banking or they had a local grocery 
store or whatever, was regulations. One aspect of this particular bill 
that was added on in the amendatory process when we were on the floor, 
was the Tate amendment, which extended the moratorium for businesses 
that have 100 or less employees an additional 6 months, because those 
are the people that are the most affected when new regulations are 
passed. Those are the people that are on the margin, that may be in 
business or may not be in business based on a new regulation.
  This is a sound bill, Mr. Speaker. It is really common sense. It is 
time that we pass some real regulatory relief. Once again, I commend 
this to the House, and look forward to a strong bipartisan support for 
this when it passes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the gentlemen for their good 
work, and hope that we can get this to conference, and talk some sense 
into the other body. Unfortunately, they appear to be somewhat in the 
capture of the bureaucracy and the status quo. Hopefully, if we cannot 
get the entire moratorium through, maybe we can get some specific items 
in the moratorium through on the Senate side. Again, I commend everyone 
and urge support of this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members wishing to speak, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). No one from the minority of 
the House Committee on the Judiciary having presented themselves to 
claim the time of that committee, the Chair assumes that time is also 
yielded back. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House, the previous question is ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The motion was agreed to.
  The text of the Senate bill, S. 219, is as follows:
                                 S. 219

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
                     TITLE I--REGULATORY TRANSITION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. FINDING.

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

     SEC. 103. MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS; CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       (a) Reporting and Review of Regulations.--
       (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 Public Law 
     96-354;
       (iii) the agency's actions relevant to title II, section 
     202, section 203, section 204, and section 205 of Public Law 
     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 
     104(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall 
     include an assessment of the agency's compliance with 
     procedural steps required by subparagraph (B) (i) through 
     (iv).
       (B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller 
     General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller 
     General's report under paragraph (2)(A) of this section.
       (3) Effective date of significant rules.--A significant 
     rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     take effect as a final rule, the latest of--
       (A) the later of the date occurring 45 days after the date 
     on which--
       (i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1); or
       (ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register;
       (B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described under section 104 relating to the rule, 
     and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the 
     earlier date--
       (i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to 
     override the veto of the President; or
       (ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which the 
     Congress received the veto and objections of the President; 
     or
       (C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, if 
     not for this section (unless a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 104 is enacted).
       (4) Effective date for other rules.--Except for a 
     significant rule, a rule shall take effect as otherwise 
     provided by law after submission to Congress under paragraph 
     (1).
       (5) Failure of joint resolution of disapproval.--
     Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3), the 
     effective date of a rule shall not be delayed by operation of 
     this title beyond the date on which either House of Congress 
     votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     section 104.
       (b) Termination of Disapproved Rulemaking.--A rule shall 
     not take effect (or continue) as a final rule, if the 
     Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described 
     under section 104.
       (c) Presidential Waiver Authority.--
       (1) Presidential determinations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), 
     a rule that would not take effect by reason of this title may 
     take effect, if the President makes a determination under 
     paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such 
     determination to the Congress.
       (2) Grounds for determinations.--Paragraph (1) applies to a 
     determination made by the President by Executive order that 
     the rule should take effect because such rule is--
       (A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       (B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; or
       (C) necessary for national security.
       (3) Waiver not to affect congressional disapprovals.--An 
     exercise by the President of the authority under this 
     subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under 
     section 104 or the effect of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under this section.
       (d) Treatment of Rules Issued at End of Congress.--
       (1) Additional opportunity for review.--In addition to the 
     opportunity for review otherwise provided under this title, 
     in the case of any rule that is published in the Federal 
     Register (as a rule that shall take effect as a final rule) 
     during the period beginning on the date occurring 60 days 
     before the date the Congress adjourns sine die through the 
     date on which the succeeding Congress first convenes, section 
     104 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding Congress.
       (2) Treatment under section 104.--
       (A) In applying section 104 for purposes of such additional 
     review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated 
     as though--
       (i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a 
     rule that shall take effect as [[Page H5103]] a final rule) 
     on the 15th session day after the succeeding Congress first 
     convenes; and
       (ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       (B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect 
     the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report must be 
     submitted to Congress before a final rule can take effect.
       (3) Actual effective date not affected.--A rule described 
     under paragraph (1) shall take effect as a final rule as 
     otherwise provided by law (including other subsections of 
     this section).
       (e) Treatment of Rules Issued Before This Act.--
       (1) Opportunity for congressional review.--The provisions 
     of section 104 shall apply to any significant rule that is 
     published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take 
     effect as a final rule) during the period beginning on 
     November 20, 1994, through the date on which this Act takes 
     effect.
       (2) Treatment under section 104.--In applying section 104 
     for purposes of Congressional review, a rule described under 
     paragraph (1) shall be treated as though--
       (A) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a 
     rule that shall take effect as a final rule) on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress under 
     subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       (3) Actual effective date not affected.--The effectiveness 
     of a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be as otherwise 
     provided by law, unless the rule is made of no force or 
     effect under section 104.
       (f) Nullification of Rules Disapproved by Congress.--Any 
     rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or 
     effect by the enactment of a joint resolution under section 
     104 shall be treated as though such rule had never taken 
     effect.
       (g) No Inference to be Drawn Where Rules Not Disapproved.--
     If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 104, no court or agency may infer 
     any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the 
     Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint 
     resolution of disapproval.

     SEC. 104. CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL PROCEDURE.

       (a) Joint Resolution Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint 
     resolution introduced during the period beginning on the date 
     on which the report referred to in section 103(a) is received 
     by Congress and ending 45 days thereafter, the matter after 
     the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the ____ relating to ____, 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.''. (The blank 
     spaces being appropriately filled in.)
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) In general.--A resolution described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress 
     with jurisdiction. Such a resolution may not be reported 
     before the eighth day after its submission or publication 
     date.
       (2) Submission date.--For purposes of this subsection the 
     term ``submission or publication date'' means the later of 
     the date on which--
       (A) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     section 103(a)(1); or
       (B) the rule is published in the Federal Register.
       (c) Discharge.--If the committee to which is referred a 
     resolution described in subsection (a) has not reported such 
     resolution (or an identical resolution) at the end of 20 
     calendar days after the submission or publication date 
     defined under subsection (b)(2), such committee may be 
     discharged 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.
       (d) Floor Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--When the committee to which a resolution 
     is referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 
     (under subsection (c)) from further consideration of, a 
     resolution described in subsection (a), it is at any time 
     thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the resolution, and all points of order 
     against the resolution (and against consideration of 
     resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to 
     amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, the 
     resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the 
     respective House until disposed of.
       (2) Debate.--Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 
     to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally 
     between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A 
     motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. 
     An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion 
     to recommit the resolution is not in order.
       (3) Final passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of 
     the debate on a resolution described in subsection (a), and a 
     single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if 
     requested in accordance with the rules of the appropriate 
     House, the vote on final passage of the resolution shall 
     occur.
       (4) Appeals.--Appeals from the decisions of the Chair 
     relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the 
     procedure relating to a resolution described in subsection 
     (a) shall be decided without debate.
       (e) Treatment if Other House Has Acted.--If, before the 
     passage by one House of a resolution of that House described 
     in subsection (a), that House receives from the other House a 
     resolution described in subsection (a), then the following 
     procedures shall apply:
       (1) Nonreferral.--The resolution of the other House shall 
     not be referred to a committee.
       (2) Final passage.--With respect to a resolution described 
     in subsection (a) of the House receiving the resolution--
       (A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (B) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of 
     the other House.
       (f) Constitutional Authority.--This section is enacted by 
     Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a resolution described in 
     subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     SEC. 105. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL 
                   DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--In the case of any deadline for, relating 
     to, or involving any rule which does not take effect (or the 
     effectiveness of which is terminated) because of the 
     enactment of a joint resolution under section 104, that 
     deadline is extended until the date 12 months after the date 
     of the joint resolution. Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to affect a deadline merely by reason of the 
     postponement of a rule's effective date under section 103(a).
       (b) Deadline Defined.--The term ``deadline'' means any date 
     certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
     authority established by or under any Federal statute or 
     regulation, or by or under any court order implementing any 
     Federal statute or regulation.

     SEC. 106. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     ``agency'' as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 
     5, United States Code (relating to administrative procedure).
       (2) Significant rule.--The term ``significant rule''--
       (A) means any final rule 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;
       (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.
       (3) Final rule.--The term ``final rule'' means any final 
     rule or interim final rule. As used in this paragraph, 
     ``rule'' has the meaning given such term by section 551 of 
     title 5, United States Code, except that such term does not 
     include any rule of particular applicability including a rule 
     that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages, 
     prices, services, or allowances therefor, corporate or 
     financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or 
     acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures 
     bearing on any of the foregoing or any rule of agency 
     organization, personnel, procedure, practice or any routine 
     matter.

     SEC. 107. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       No determination, finding, action, or omission under this 
     title shall be subject to judicial review.

     SEC. 108. APPLICABILITY; SEVERABILITY.

       (a) Applicability.--This title shall apply notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.
       (b) Severability.--If any provision of this title, or the 
     application of any provision of this title to any person or 
     circumstance, is [[Page H5104]] held invalid, the application 
     of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and the 
     remainder of this title, shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 109. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

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

     SEC. 110. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act and shall apply to any rule that takes effect as 
     a final rule on or after such effective date.
                     TITLE II--TERM GRAZING PERMITS

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this title 
     as the ``Secretary'') administers the 191,000,000-acre 
     National Forest System for multiple uses in accordance with 
     Federal law;
       (2) where suitable, one of the recognized multiple uses for 
     National Forest System land is grazing by livestock;
       (3) the Secretary authorizes grazing through the issuance 
     of term grazing permits that have terms of not to exceed 10 
     years and that include terms and conditions necessary for the 
     proper administration of National Forest System land and 
     resources;
       (4) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     has issued approximately 9,000 term grazing permits 
     authorizing grazing on approximately 90,000,000 acres of 
     National Forest System land;
       (5) of the approximately 9,000 term grazing permits issued 
     by the Secretary, approximately one-half have expired or will 
     expire by the end of 1996;
       (6) if the holder of an expiring term grazing permit has 
     complied with the terms and conditions of the permit and 
     remains eligible and qualified, that individual is considered 
     to be a preferred applicant for a new term grazing permit in 
     the event that the Secretary determines that grazing remains 
     an appropriate use of the affected National Forest System 
     land;
       (7) in addition to the approximately 9,000 term grazing 
     permits issued by the Secretary, it is estimated that as many 
     as 1,600 term grazing permits may be waived by permit holders 
     to the Secretary in favor of a purchaser of the permit 
     holder's permitted livestock or base property by the end of 
     1996;
       (8) to issue new term grazing permits, the Secretary must 
     comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other laws;
       (9) for a large percentage of the grazing permits that will 
     expire or be waived to the Secretary by the end of 1996, the 
     Secretary has devised a strategy that will result in 
     compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     and other applicable laws (including regulations) in a timely 
     and efficient manner and enable the Secretary to issue new 
     term grazing permits, where appropriate;
       (10) for a small percentage of the grazing permits that 
     will expire or be waived to the Secretary by the end of 1996, 
     the strategy will not provide for the timely issuance of new 
     term grazing permits; and
       (11) in cases in which ranching operations involve the use 
     of a term grazing permit issued by the Secretary, it is 
     essential for new term grazing permits to be issued in a 
     timely manner for financial and other reasons.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to ensure that 
     grazing continues without interruption on National Forest 
     System land in a manner that provides long-term protection of 
     the environment and improvement of National Forest System 
     rangeland resources while also providing short-term certainty 
     to holders of expiring term grazing permits and purchasers of 
     a permit holder's permitted livestock or base property.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Expiring term grazing permit.--The term ``expiring term 
     grazing permit'' means a term grazing permit--
       (A) that expires in 1995 or 1996; or
       (B) that expired in 1994 and was not replaced with a new 
     term grazing permit solely because the analysis required by 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) and other applicable laws has not been completed.
       (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. 203. 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
       (2) to the purchaser of a term grazing permit holder's 
     permitted livestock or base property if--
       (A) between January 1, 1995, and December 1, 1996, the 
     holder has waived the term grazing permit to the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 222.3(c)(1)(iv) of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations; and
       (B) the purchaser of the term grazing permit holder's 
     permitted livestock or base property is eligible and 
     qualified to hold a term grazing permit.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)--
       (1) a new term grazing permit under subsection (a)(1) shall 
     contain the same terms and conditions as the expired term 
     grazing permit; and
       (2) a new term grazing permit under subsection (a)(2) shall 
     contain the same terms and conditions as the waived permit.
       (c) Duration.--
       (1) In general.--A new term grazing permit under subsection 
     (a) shall expire on the earlier of--
       (A) the date that is 3 years after the date on which it is 
     issued; or
       (B) the date on which final agency action is taken with 
     respect to the analysis required by the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
     other applicable laws.
       (2) Final action in less than 3 years.--If final agency 
     action is taken with respect to the analysis required by the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and other applicable laws before the date that is 3 
     years after the date on which a new term grazing permit is 
     issued under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (A) cancel the new term grazing permit; and
       (B) if appropriate, issue a term grazing permit for a term 
     not to exceed 10 years under terms and conditions as are 
     necessary for the proper administration of National Forest 
     System rangeland resources.
       (d) Date of Issuance.--
       (1) Expiration on or before date of enactment.--In the case 
     of an expiring term grazing permit that has expired on or 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     issue a new term grazing permit under subsection (a)(1) not 
     later than 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Expiration after date of enactment.--In the case of an 
     expiring term grazing permit that expires after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a new term 
     grazing permit under subsection (a)(1) on expiration of the 
     expiring term grazing permit.
       (3) Waived permits.--In the case of a term grazing permit 
     waived to the Secretary pursuant to section 222.3(c)(1)(iv) 
     of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, between January 1, 
     1995, and December 31, 1996, the Secretary shall issue a new 
     term grazing permit under subsection (a)(2) not later than 60 
     days after the date on which the holder waives a term grazing 
     permit to the Secretary.

     SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       The issuance of a new term grazing permit under section 
     203(a) shall not be subject to administrative appeal or 
     judicial review.

     SEC. 205. REPEAL.

       This title is repealed effective as of January 1, 2001.
                      TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISION

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING AMERICAN CITIZENS HELD IN 
                   IRAQ.

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

  The text of the bill, H.R. 450, which is inserted in lieu of S. 219, 
pursuant to the foregoing motion, is as follows:
                                H.R. 450
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that effective steps for improving the 
     efficiency and proper management of Government operations, 
     including enactment of a new law or laws to require (1) 
     [[Page H5105]] that the Federal rulemaking process include 
     cost/benefit analysis, including analysis of costs resulting 
     from the loss of property rights, and (2) for those Federal 
     regulations that are subject to risk analysis and risk 
     assessment that those regulations undergo standardized risk 
     analysis and risk assessment using the best scientific and 
     economic procedures, will be promoted if a moratorium on new 
     rulemaking actions is imposed and an inventory of such action 
     is conducted.

     SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS.

       (a) Moratorium.--Until the end of the moratorium period, a 
     Federal agency may not take any regulatory rulemaking action, 
     unless an exception is provided under section 5. Beginning 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     effectiveness of any regulatory rulemaking action taken or 
     made effective during the moratorium period but before the 
     date of the enactment shall be suspended until the end of the 
     moratorium period, unless an exception is provided under 
     section 5.
       (b) Inventory of Rulemakings.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     conduct an inventory and publish in the Federal Register a 
     list of all regulatory rulemaking actions covered by 
     subsection (a) taken or made effective during the moratorium 
     period but before the date of the enactment.

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

       (a) In General.--Any deadline for, relating to, or 
     involving any action dependent upon, any regulatory 
     rulemaking actions authorized or required to be taken before 
     the end of the moratorium period is extended for 5 months
      or until the end of the moratorium period, whichever is 
     later.
       (b) Deadline Defined.--The term ``deadline'' means any date 
     certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
     authority established by or under any Federal statute or 
     regulation, or by or under any court order implementing any 
     Federal statute or regulation.
       (c) Identification of Postponed Deadlines.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall identify and publish in the Federal Register 
     a list of deadlines covered by subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS; EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) Emergency Exception.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action if--
       (1) the head of a Federal agency otherwise authorized to 
     take the action submits a written request to the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget and 
     submits a copy thereof to the appropriate committees of each 
     House of the Congress;
       (2) the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget 
     finds in writing that a waiver for the action is (A) 
     necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety 
     or other emergency, or (B) necessary for the enforcement of 
     criminal laws; and
       (3) the Federal agency head publishes the finding and 
     waiver in the Federal Register.
       (b) Exclusions.--The head of an agency shall publish in the 
     Federal Register any action excluded because of a 
     certification under section 6(3)(B).
       (c) Civil Rights Exception.--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, 
     shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action to 
     establish or enforce any statutory rights against 
     discrimination on the basis of age, race, religion, gender, 
     national origin, or handicapped or disability status except 
     such rulemaking actions that establish, lead to, or otherwise 
     rely on the use of a quota or preference based on age, race, 
     religion, gender, national origin, or handicapped or 
     disability status''.
     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     agency as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code (relating to administrative procedure).
       (2) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period'' 
     means the period of time--
       (A) beginning November 20, 1994; and
       (B) ending on the earlier of--
       (i) the first date on which there have been enacted one or 
     more laws that--

       (I) require that the Federal rulemaking process include 
     cost/benefit analysis, including analysis of costs resulting 
     from the loss of property rights; and
       (II) for those Federal regulations that are subject to risk 
     analysis and risk assessment, require that those regulations 
     undergo standardized risk analysis and risk assessment using 
     the best scientific and economic procedures; or

       (ii) December 31, 1995.

     except that in the case of a regulatory rulemaking action 
     with respect to determining that a species is an endangered 
     species or a threatened species under section 4(a)(1) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) or 
     designating critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of that 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)), the term means the period of time 
     beginning on the date described in subparagraph (A) and 
     ending on the earlier of the first date on which there has 
     been enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act a 
     law authorizing appropriations to carry out the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973, or December 31, 1996.
       (3) Regulatory rulemaking action.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
     means any rulemaking on any rule normally published in the 
     Federal Register, including--
       (i) the issuance of any substantive rule, interpretative 
     rule, statement of agency policy, notice of inquiry, advance 
     notice of proposed rulemaking, or notice of proposed 
     rulemaking, and
       (ii) any other action taken in the course of the process of 
     rulemaking (except a cost benefit analysis or risk 
     assessment, or both).
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
     does not include--
       (i) any agency action that the head of the agency and the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certify in 
     writing is limited to repealing, narrowing, or streamlining a 
     rule, regulation, or administrative process or otherwise 
     reducing regulatory burdens;
       (ii) any agency action that the head of the agency and the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certify in 
     writing is limited to matters relating to military or foreign 
     affairs functions, statutes implementing international trade 
     agreements, including all agency actions required by the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act, or agency management, 
     personnel, or public property, loans, grants, benefits, or 
     contracts;
       (iii) any agency action that the head of the agency and the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certify in 
     writing is limited to a routine administrative function of 
     the agency;
       (iv) any agency action that--

       (I) is taken by an agency that supervises and regulates 
     insured depository institutions, affiliates of such 
     institutions, credit unions, or government sponsored housing 
     enterprises; and
       (II) the head of the agency certifies would meet the 
     standards for an exception or exclusion described in this 
     Act; or

       (v) any agency action that the head of the agency certifies 
     is limited to interpreting, implementing, or administering 
     the internal revenue laws of the United States.
       (4) Rule.--The term ``rule'' means the whole or a part of 
     an agency statement of general or particular applicability 
     and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or 
     prescribe law or policy. Such term does not include the 
     approval or prescription, on a case-by-case or consolidated 
     case basis, for the future of rates, wages, corporation, or 
     financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, 
     facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefor, or 
     of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on 
     any of the foregoing, nor does it include any action taken in 
     connection with the safety of aviation or any action taken in 
     connection with the implementation of monetary policy or to 
     ensure the safety and soundness of federally insured 
     depository institutions, any affiliate of such an 
     institution, credit unions, or government sponsored housing 
     enterprises or to protect the Federal deposit insurance 
     funds. Such term also does not include the granting an 
     application for a license, registration, or similar 
     authority, granting or recognizing an exemption, granting a 
     variance or petition for relief from a regulatory 
     requirement, or other action relieving a restriction 
     (including any agency which establishes, modifies, or 
     conducts a regulatory program for a recreational or 
     subsistence activity, including but not limited to hunting, 
     fishing, and camping, if a Federal law prohibits the 
     recreational or subsistence activity in the absence of the 
     agency action) or taking any action necessary to permit new 
     or improved applications of technology or allow the 
     manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of a substance or 
     product.
       (5) Rulemaking.--The term ``rulemaking'' means agency 
     process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.
       (6) License.--The term ``license'' means the whole or part 
     of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, 
     charter, membership, statutory exemption, or other form of 
     permission.
       (7) Imminent threat to health or safety.--The term 
     ``imminent threat to health or safety'' means the existence 
     of any condition, circumstance, or practice reasonably 
     expected to cause death, serious illness, or severe injury to 
     humans, or substantial endangerment to private property 
     during the moratorium period.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTIONS.

       No private right of action may be brought against any 
     Federal agency for a violation of this Act. This prohibition 
     shall not affect any private right of action or remedy 
     otherwise available under any other law.

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW; SEVERABILITY.

       (a) Applicability.--This Act shall apply notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.
       (b) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or the 
     application of any provision of this Act to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such 
     provision to other persons or circumstances, and the 
     remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
     SEC. 9. REGULATIONS TO AID BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS.

       Section 3(a) or 4(a), or both, shall not apply to any of 
     the following regulatory rulemaking actions (or any such 
     action relating thereto): [[Page H5106]] 
       (1) Conditional release of textile imports.--A final rule 
     published on December 2, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 61798), to 
     provide for the conditional release by the Customs Service of 
     textile imports suspected of being imported in violation of 
     United States quotas.
       (2) Textile imports.--Any action which the head of the 
     relevant agency and the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs certify in writing is a 
     substantive rule, interpretive rule, statement of agency 
     policy, or notice of proposed rulemaking to interpret, 
     implement, or administer laws pertaining to the import of 
     textiles and apparel including section 334 of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465), relating to textile 
     rules of origin.
       (3) Customs modernization.--Any action which the head of 
     the relevant agency and the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs certify in writing is a 
     substantive rule, interpretive rule, statement of agency 
     policy, or notice of proposed rulemaking to interpret, 
     implement, or administer laws pertaining to the customs 
     modernization provisions contained in title VI of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-
     182).
       (4) Actions with respect to china regarding intellectual 
     property protection and market access.--A regulatory 
     rulemaking action providing notice of a determination that 
     the People's Republic of China's failure to enforce 
     intellectual property rights and to provide market access is 
     unreasonable and constitutes a burden or restriction on 
     United States commerce, and a determination that trade action 
     is appropriate and that sanctions are appropriate, taken 
     under section 304(a)(1)(A)(ii), section 304(a)(1)(B), and 
     section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 and with respect to 
     which a notice of determination was published on February 7, 
     1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 7230).
       (5) Transfer of spectrum.--A regulatory rulemaking action 
     by the Federal Communications Commission to transfer 50 
     megahertz of spectrum below 5 GHz from government use to 
     private use, taken under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993 and with respect to which notice of proposed 
     rulemaking was published at 59 Federal Register 59393.
       (6) Personal communications services licenses.--A 
     regulatory rulemaking action by the Federal Communications 
     Commission to establish criteria and procedures for issuing 
     licenses utilizing competitive bidding procedures to provide 
     personal communications services--
       (A) taken under section 309(j) of the Communications Act 
     and with respect to which a final rule was published on 
     December 7, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 63210); or
       (B) taken under sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications 
     Act and with respect to which a final rule was published on 
     December 2, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 61828).
       (7) Wide-area specialized mobile radio licenses.--A 
     regulatory rulemaking action by the Federal Communications 
     Commission to provide for competitive bidding for wide-area 
     specialized mobile radio licenses, taken under section 309(j) 
     of the Communications Act and with respect to which a 
     proposed rule was published on February 14, 1995 (60 Fed. 
     Reg. 8341).
       (8) Improved trading opportunities for regional 
     exchanges.--A regulatory rulemaking action by the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission to provide for increased competition 
     among the stock exchanges, taken under the Unlisted Trading 
     Privileges Act of 1994 and with respect to which proposed 
     rulemaking was published on February 9, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 
     7718).

     SEC. 10. DELAYING EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULES WITH RESPECT TO 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) Delay Effectiveness.--For any rule resulting from a 
     regulatory rulemaking action that is suspended or prohibited 
     by this Act, the effective date of the rule with respect to 
     small businesses may not occur before six months after the 
     end of the moratorium period.
       (b) Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``small business'' means any business with 100 or fewer 
     employees.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  House Resolution 148 was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________