[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S1889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 942

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, 
March 14, at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 342, S. 942, the small business regulatory reform bill, to 
be considered under the following limitation: 90 minutes of total 
debate equally divided between the two managers; that the only 
amendments in order to the bill be the following: the managers' 
amendment to be offered by Senators Bond and Bumpers, an amendment to 
be offered by Senator Nickles regarding congressional review, one 
additional amendment, if agreed to by both leaders after consultation 
with the two managers; further, that following the disposition of all 
amendments, the bill be read a third time, the Senate then proceed to 
vote on final passage of the bill, all without any intervening debate 
or action.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I have two things I wish to correct. One would be the 
Nickles-Reid amendment in the body of the text, and if the Senator from 
Montana wishes an explanation, I would be happy to give one, but I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I helped craft this legislation, and if 
there is one thing that we hear going down the road every day from the 
people who live in my State of Montana it is the way we write our rules 
and regulations here in Washington. This regulatory reform bill 
addresses those fears. This bill was reported out of the Small Business 
Committee with strong bipartisan support for the work that was done by 
Senator Bumpers, who was chairman of that committee and has worked on 
this issue for so long, and I am sorry that it will not be allowed to 
come to the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. BURNS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I personally feel as if the unanimous-
consent request is excellent. I think the content of the unanimous-
consent request would allow us to go forward with regulatory reform 
which is badly needed. It especially directs attention to the small 
business community which has been hammered with regulations with which 
they have difficulty complying.

  I say to my friend from Montana that we have a Member on this side of 
the aisle who has worked very long and hard, in his own words, not 
hours or days but weeks with Members on the Senator's side, and his 
objection relates to a much bigger piece of regulatory reform that I 
think frankly will kill all regulatory reform, but that is what he 
wants. And so in the next few hours, maybe days, we are going to work 
with him to see if we can get him to agree to our unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. BURNS. I think my friend from Nevada understands the problems 
small business is going through right now and the margin they have to 
worry about. This gives them a great deal of flexibility. But it also 
allows Congress to take a look to see how the rules are really written 
with regard to legislation that we pass. It is fairly simple for us to 
pass legislation. We beat ourselves on the chest, and we say what a 
good thing we have done, but then when the law goes down and the 
administrative rules are written, sometimes those rules do not even 
look like the legislation, let alone the intent of the legislation. So 
I think this addresses that, and I hope we can work out something. 
Knowing my friend from Nevada, I understand the possibility is very 
good.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield again?
  The Senator is absolutely correct. This unanimous-consent request 
contains a provision that was passed in this body by a vote of 100 to 
nothing, the Nickles-Reid amendment, which would allow the Congress to 
look at regulations promulgated by Federal agencies. If it has a 
financial impact of $100 million, it would not go into effect until a 
reasonable period of time. This calls for 60 days, which I think is 
appropriate. It was originally 45 days. If it has a financial impact of 
less than $100 million, it goes into effect immediately but we can 
rescind it within 60 days. That is really I think farsighted 
legislation, something that is long overdue. And so I agree with my 
friend from Montana. I hope we can work it out so that we can debate it 
for a period of time as indicated in the unanimous consent request and 
in effect claim victory for the American people. We would be doing 
something that is bipartisan in nature. Heaven knows, we need to do 
some things on a bipartisan basis in this body.
  Mr. BURNS. No question about it. The Senator from Nevada is exactly 
correct.

                          ____________________