May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5097

which the Senate is not in session) is not in

order.

(f) POINTS OF ORDER.—

(1) It shall not be in order in the Senate to

consider any rescission/receipts disapproval

bill that relates to any matter other than

the rescission of budget authority or veto of

the provision of law transmitted by the

President under this Act.

(2) It shall not be in order in the Senate to

consider any amendment to a rescission/receipts disapproval bill.

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived or

suspended in the Senate only by a vote of

three-fifths of the members duly chosen and

sworn.

SEC. 6. REPORTS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE.

Beginning on January 6, 1996, and at oneyear intervals thereafter, the Comptroller

General shall submit a report to each House

of Congress which provides the following information:

(1) A list of each proposed Presidential rescission of discretionary budget authority

and veto of a targeted tax benefit submitted

through special messages for the fiscal year

ending during the preceding calendar year,

together with their dollar value, and an indication of whether each rescission of discretionary budget authority or veto of a targeted tax benefit was accepted or rejected by

Congress.

(2) The total number of proposed Presidential rescissions of discretionary budget

authority and vetoes of a targeted tax benefit submitted through special messages for

the fiscal year ending during the preceding

calendar year, together with their total dollar value.

(3) The total number of Presidential rescissions of discretionary budget authority or

vetoes of a targeted tax benefit submitted

through special messages for the fiscal year

ending during the preceding calendar year

and approved by Congress, together with

their total dollar value.

(4) A list of rescissions of discretionary

budget authority initiated by Congress for

the fiscal year ending during the preceding

calendar year, together with their dollar

value, and an indication of whether each

such rescission was accepted or rejected by

Congress.

(5) The total number of rescissions of discretionary budget authority initiated and

accepted by Congress for the fiscal year ending during the preceding calendar year, together with their total dollar value.

(6) A summary of the information provided

by paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) for each of the

ten fiscal years ending before the fiscal year

during this calendar year.

SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) EXPEDITED REVIEW.—

(1) Any Member of Congress may bring an

action, in the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia, for declaratory

judgment and injunctive relief on the ground

that any provision of this Act violates the

Constitution.

(2) A copy of any complaint in an action

brought under paragraph (1) shall be promptly delivered to the Secretary of the Senate

and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and each House of Congress shall have

the right to intervene in such action.

(3) Any action brought under paragraph (1)

shall be heard and determined by a threejudge court in accordance with section 2284

of title 28, United States Code.

Nothing in this section or in any other law

shall infringe upon the right of the House of

Representatives to intervene in an action

brought under paragraph (1) without the necessity of adopting a resolution to authorize

such intervention.

(b) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any

order of the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant to an action brought under paragraph

(1) of subsection (a) shall be reviewable by

appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the

United States. Any such appeal shall be

taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10

days after such order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed within

30 days after such order is entered. No stay

of an order issued pursuant to an action

brought under paragraph (1) of subsection (a)

shall be issued by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

(c) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—It shall be

the duty of the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of

the United States to advance on the docket

and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought

under subsection (a).

The Senate bill was ordered to be

read a third time, was read the third

time, and passed.

The title of the Senate bill was

amended so as to read: ‘‘An Act to give

the President item veto authority over

appropriation Acts and targeted tax

benefits in revenue Acts.’’

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

House Resolution 147 was laid on the

table.

REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF

f1995

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.

b 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
H 5098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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 shortterm 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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5099

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.

b 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 costbenefit 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].
H 5100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5101

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.

b 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.
H 5102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5103

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 ll relating to ll, 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
H 5104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

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)
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5105

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):
H 5106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

(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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. PursuTHE JOURNAL

fant to clause 5 of rule I, the pending

business is the question of the Speaker’s approval of the Journal.

The question is on agreeing to the

Speaker’s approval of the Journal.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that

I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 372, nays 41,

answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting 20, as

follows:

[Roll No. 338]

YEAS—372

Ackerman

Allard

Andrews

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Baldacci

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Barrett (WI)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bonior

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (OH)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bryant (TX)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Cardin

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clayton

Clement

Clinger

Clyburn

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Collins (MI)

Combest

Condit

Conyers

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Coyne

Cramer

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

DeFazio

DeLauro

DeLay

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doolittle

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Ensign

Eshoo

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Ford

Fowler

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Furse

Gallegly

Ganske

Gejdenson

Gekas

Geren

Gilchrest

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Green

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Lantos

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lucas

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McDermott

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nadler

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Peterson (FL)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Salmon

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Watt (NC)

Watts (OK)

Waxman

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—41

Abercrombie

Brown (CA)

Clay

Crane

Durbin

Fazio

Filner

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gillmor

Gutknecht

Hastings (FL)

Hefley

Hilliard

Hinchey

Jacobs

Kennedy (MA)

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lowey

McNulty

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Pickett

Pombo

Rahall

Rush

Sabo

Schroeder

Scott

Shays

Stark

Stockman

Stokes

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Volkmer

Waters

Yates

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—1

Harman