Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                             Rept. 104-39
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


               February 16, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 450]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 450) to ensure economy and 
efficiency of Federal Government operations by establishing a 
moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

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) 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).

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.
          (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, 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 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 
        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.

                            I. SHORT SUMMARY

    The Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 (``the Act'') 
establishes a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions by 
most agencies of the Federal Government, covering rulemakings 
between on November 20, 1994 and December 31, 1995. The 
moratorium can be lifted earlier, but only if substantive 
regulatory reforms (cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment) 
are enacted. On the date of enactment, agencies are prohibited 
from taking most regulatory rulemaking actions until the end of 
the moratorium period. In addition, thirty days after 
enactment, the effectiveness of any regulatory rulemaking 
action taken during the moratorium period, but before the date 
of enactment, is suspended until the end of the moratorium 
period.
    ``Regulatory rulemaking action'' is defined in the Act so 
that most agency actions that lead to a final regulation are 
covered by the moratorium. The bill does not prohibit agencies 
from conducting cost/benefit analysis or risk assessment on 
regulations; nor does it prevent the public from providing 
comments to agencies on pending regulations.
    There are common sense exceptions to the moratorium. 
Regulations that are necessary because of an imminent threat to 
health or safety or other emergency, or for the enforcement of 
criminal laws are not stopped by the moratorium.
    In addition, there are a few exclusions based on the 
subject matter of the regulation. Most importantly, regulations 
that repeal, narrow, or streamline pre-existing regulatory 
burdens are not covered. Also excluded are regulations that 
interpret, implement or administer the internal revenue laws of 
the United States, as well as regulations issued by agencies 
that supervise and regulate the banking industry. Regulations 
relating to military or foreign affairs functions, statutes 
implementing international trade agreements, and agency 
management, personnel, or public property, loans, grants, 
benefits, or contracts are all excluded from the moratorium. 
Finally, regulations that are limited to the routine 
administrative function of an agency are not covered.
    Before a regulation qualifies for an exception or 
exclusion, however, a senior official within the executive 
branch must certify that the regulation meets the standards for 
exception or exclusion, and must publish the certification in 
the Federal Register. In the case of most regulations, the head 
of the agency seeking to promulgate the regulation must submit 
a written request that the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) certify in writing that the 
regulation is not covered by the moratorium. In the case of 
regulations relating to the internal revenue laws and 
regulations that are promulgated by agencies that supervise the 
banking industry, the head of the agency must certify that the 
regulation falls into one of the exceptions above.
    Because many agencies face statutorily or judicially 
imposed deadlines for the promulgation of regulations, the Act 
extends all such deadlines for five months or to the end of the 
moratorium period, whichever is later. The Act also requires 
the President to publish a list of all such deadlines in the 
Federal Register.
    The Act provides that no private right of action may be 
brought against any Federal agency for a violation of the Act. 
However, the Act also provides that this prohibition shall not 
affect any private right of action or remedy otherwise 
available under any other law. Thus, the Act does not alter 
current law regarding judicial review of agency actions.

                 II. BACKGROUND ON FEDERAL REGULATIONS

    On November 8, 1994, the American people sent a clear 
message to Washington: ``GET GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS.'' 
Included in this message was a deep and growing resentment of 
the extent to which federal regulations have intruded upon the 
everyday lives of most Americans. Although often expressed 
anecdotally, the peoples' concern with regulation is a 
fundamental one that is basic to any republican form of 
government. More than 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville 
expressed concerns about the dangers of over-regulation:

        [Regulation] covers the surface of society with a 
        network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, 
        through which the most original minds and the most 
        energetic characters cannot penetrate. . . . 
        [Regulation] does not destroy, but it prevents 
        existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, 
        enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till 
        each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a 
        flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the 
        government is the shepherd.\1\
    \1\ A. Tocqueville, ``Democracy in America'' (1840).

    Mindful of these concerns, this Committee passed this Act 
on February 13, 1995, by a vote of 28 ayes to 13 nays, to 
provide a ``time-out'' from new regulations in order to give 
the public, the Congress, and the regulators themselves the 
breathing room needed to consider and pass substantive 
regulatory reforms.
    The history of regulation in America and Congressional and 
Presidential efforts to control it is well documented and does 
not need to be repeated here in full detail.2 What is 
important to recount is the recent history of Executive Branch 
efforts to reform the regulatory process. Because these efforts 
have failed to produce significant lasting regulatory reform, 
this Committee believes it is now time for Congress to act.
    \2\ The last significant attempt by Congress to reform the 
regulatory process was in 1981, with the Senate's consideration of 
Senate Bill 1080. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Report on the bill 
is an excellent source of information. Report No. 97-284. In addition, 
a bibliography of additional sources is appended to this Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President Richard Nixon established the first modern 
regulatory review program, entitled the Quality of Life review 
(QOL). Under QOL, agencies were required to consider various 
regulatory alternatives and their costs when developing 
``significant'' regulations. The proposed and final regulations 
were submitted to OMB, which circulated them to other agencies 
for comment.
    President Gerald Ford continued the QOL review when he 
assumed office in 1974. Concerned about inflation, he also 
issued Executive Order 11821 (``E.O. 11821''), requiring 
agencies to prepare inflationary impact statements for all 
major regulations. E.O. 11821 directed OMB to develop criteria 
for identifying major regulations and to prescribe procedures 
for their evaluation.
    President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12044 extended 
President Ford's efforts to reduce the costs of regulations by 
revising rulemaking procedures. E.O. 12044 directed agencies to 
identify ``significant'' regulations imposing costs on the 
economy of $100 million or more per year or causing a major 
increase in costs or prices to various groups or regions, and 
to prepare a cost/benefit analysis for such regulations. 
Despite these efforts, the number of new federal regulations 
spiralled higher than ever, reaching an all-time record high of 
73,258 pages in the Federal Register during the last year of 
the Carter Administration.
    To stem the tide of regulations, President Ronald Reagan 
issued Executive Order 12291 shortly after taking office. This 
Order incorporated and expanded upon the key provisions of E.O. 
12044, including a review of existing regulations, selecting 
the least costly regulatory alternative when developing new 
regulations and requiring agencies to prepare regulatory cost/
benefit analyses (termed regulatory impact statements) for 
major regulations. President Reagan directed agencies to 
develop regulations only if there was a clear need, the 
benefits outweighed the costs, and the least costly alternative 
was chosen. Most importantly, E.O. 12291 centralized review and 
clearance of regulatory actions in OIRA within OMB. Agencies 
had to respond to OMB comments and incorporate those comments 
and the agencies' responses in the rulemaking file before 
issuing a final regulation. For the first time, no regulations 
could be promulgated unless they were first approved by one 
central clearinghouse. President Reagan also issued Executive 
Order 12498 in March 1985, directing agencies to prepare a 
yearly agenda containing all contemplated regulatory actions 
for the coming year. Except for emergency situations, agencies 
were prohibited from taking any significant regulatory actions 
that had not been included in the agenda, unless those actions 
were cleared through by OMB. President Reagan's efforts proved 
successful, at least temporarily. By 1986, the number of new 
regulations being published in the Federal Register had been 
reduced to 44,812 pages.
    President George Bush continued President Reagan's 
Executive Orders when he took office in 1989. Concerned about 
the continuing increase in the cost of regulations, however, he 
established the President's Council on Competitiveness in March 
1989 to oversee regulatory issues. Chaired by Vice President 
Dan Quayle, the Council focused on reducing the cost of new and 
existing regulations. In January 1992, President Bush issued a 
90 day moratorium on new regulations. During the moratorium, 
agencies were directed to identify existing regulations 
imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens and to develop programs 
to reduce or eliminate those burdens. The moratorium was later 
extended through the rest of President Bush's term in office.
    On October 4, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive 
Order 12866, revoking prior Executive Orders, but incorporating 
or restating some of the key provisions from those prior 
orders. Among other differences, E.O. 12866 permitted 
regulations if the benefits ``justify'' the costs, where prior 
Executive Orders required the benefits to ``outweigh'' the 
costs. President Clinton has continued President Bush's efforts 
to make the Vice President a central figure in the regulatory 
process.
    The case for a broad regulatory moratorium is not difficult 
to make. Regulations have dramatically increased in complexity 
over the recent past, and there are strong signs they will 
continue to grow.
    The crudest but most common way of measuring regulations is 
in terms of the number of pages they consume in the Federal 
Register--a daily government publication of all new Federal 
agency rulemaking. The Federal Register peaked in size in 1980, 
at the end of the Carter Administration, totalling 73,258 
pages. By 1986, President Reagan had pared the size of the 
Federal Register down to a still-hefty 44,812 pages. 
Thereafter, it remained around 50,000 pages per year until it 
exceeded 60,000 during the first year of the Clinton 
Administration. In 1994, the Federal Register totalled 64,914 
pages--a 45% increase over President Reagan's 1986 low. The bar 
graph below provides additional details.\3\
    \3\ The figure and the information in this paragraph was obtained 
through the Office of the Federal Register by the U.S. Senate 
Republican Policy Committee.


    Regulations can also be measured by the costs they impose 
on the American people. The Clinton Administration has 
estimated that federal regulations cost the private sector 
alone ``at least $430 billion per year--9 percent of our gross 
domestic product.'' \4\ Other conservative estimates put the 
private sector cost of regulation at over $500 billion 
annually.\5\ Regulations are costly to the federal government 
as well. Simply stated, regulations are a hidden tax on the 
American people that cost at least $5,000 per household per 
year.\6\
    \4\ Vice President Al Gore, ``From Red Tape to Results: Creating a 
Government that Works Better & Costs Less,'' Report of the National 
Performance Review, September 7, 1993, p. 32.
    \5\ See, e.g., A Citizen's Guide to Regulation, The Heritage 
Foundation, at 1 (edited by S. Eckerly, September 1994).
    \6\ See, e.g., A Citizen's Guide to Regulation, The Heritage 
Foundation, at 1 (edited by S. Eckerly, September 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As taxpayers, the American people have a right to ask 
whether they are getting their money's worth. Currently, too 
few regulations are subjected to stringent cost/benefit 
analysis or risk assessment based on sound science. Without 
such protections, regulations can have unintended results. The 
following examples are illustrative:
    After five years of study and a 101-page report on the 
subject, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 
suggested that manufacturers build water buckets that 
deliberately leaked, so that infants falling in the buckets 
would face less risk of drowning.\7\
    \7\ Chet Lunner, ``Government Spends Five Years to Study Five-
Gallon Buckets,'' Gannett News Service, May 11, 1994; Associated Press, 
``Design Changes Urged for Plastic Buckets,'' The Los Angeles Times, 
May 20, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One construction firm in South Dakota wanted to bid on a 
post-office remodeling project. The owner received 34 pages of 
plans, 400 pages of building specs and a 100-page book of 
bidding instructions--and simply gave up.\8\
    \8\ ``Shutting Down the Regulatory Machine,'' U.S. News & World 
Report, February 13, 1995, p. 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CPSC is also now considering issuing a regulation to 
require child-resistant packaging to also be ``senior-citizen 
friendly.'' Noting that this new dual standard is impossible to 
meet without compromising child safety, industry 
representatives have appealed to Congress for relief.
    Without significant new controls, the number of regulations 
will only grow higher. In a recent Presidential publication, 
the Administration listed 4,300 additional rulemakings 
scheduled for fiscal year 1995 and beyond, with 872 final rules 
set to be released in the six months between October 1994 and 
April 1995.\9\
    \9\ Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, 
November 14, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the significant but largely unsuccessful 
efforts of the Executive branch to control the regulatory 
process, major substantive reform is now high on the agenda of 
the 104th Congress. In order to implement needed reform, 
however, it is important to temporarily put a ``hold'' on the 
promulgation of new regulations by passing The Regulatory 
Transition Act of 1995. There are at least two clear benefits 
to this Act. Most importantly, a moratorium will provide both 
the executive and the legislative branches (as well as the 
regulated public) with more time to focus on ways to fix 
current regulations and the regulatory system. Everyone 
involved in the regulatory process will be largely freed from 
the daily burden of having to review, consider and correct 
newly promulgated regulations (which currently average over 200 
pages every working day). Second, regulations like the ones 
illustrated above will be temporarily suspended and re-
evaluated to ensure they can pass the new standards that will 
emerge with substantive regulatory reform.

          III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY and COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    As the 104th Congress came together, the idea for a 
moratorium on new regulations was first proposed as a 
Presidential Executive Order. On December 12, 1994, Republican 
leaders of the House and Senate asked President Clinton to 
voluntarily impose a moratorium on all federal rulemaking for 
the first 100 days of Congress (see letter in appendix). They 
asked the President to direct agencies to: (1) identify 
regulations in which the costs exceed the benefits; (2) 
recommend actions to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens; 
(3) recommend ways to give state, local and tribal governments 
more flexibility to meet federal mandates; and (4) share their 
information and analysis with Congress.
    Two days later, the President responded (see letter in 
appendix). The Administration disputed Congress' belief that a 
moratorium was the best way to proceed with regulatory reform.
    After being rebuffed by the President, Congressmen Thomas 
DeLay (R-TX) and David McIntosh (R-IN), along with 32 other co-
sponsors, introduced the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 on 
January 9, 1995.

Subcommittee consideration

    On Thursday, January 19, 1995 at 9:40 a.m., the 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and 
Regulatory Affairs, of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, met pursuant to notice. The purpose of the hearing 
was to hear testimony on H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition 
Act of 1995.
    The Honorable Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Chairman of the House 
Commerce Committee, testified in support of H.R. 450. He stated 
that within the next few weeks, the Commerce Committee would 
begin work on H.R. 9, the ``Wage Enhancement and Job Creation 
Act,'' which contains a number of regulatory reforms. He stated 
that while work was being performed on that bill, and because 
the Clinton Administration had not moved to eliminate 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations, he believed a 
moratorium--or a timeout--on regulations was necessary. 
However, he stated that a Congressionally-mandated moratorium, 
despite its shortcomings, could temporarily stop the flow of 
new regulations pending enactment of a broad range of 
regulatory reforms. He said the moratorium would give the 
authorizing committees an opportunity to review the regulatory 
agendas of agencies within their jurisdictions, and would 
ensure that as many regulations as possible were subject to 
reforms.
    The Honorable Tom DeLay (R-TX), co-sponsor of the bill, 
stated that the bill was necessary because, in response to a 
request from the majority leadership of both houses in November 
1994, the President had decided not to fashion a moratorium on 
regulations of his own. Congressman DeLay also cited several 
examples of regulations that were in the process of being 
promulgated but that he believed could be put off for several 
months while Congress acted on its regulatory reform bills.
    The Honorable George W. Gekas (R-PA) testified in support 
of H.R. 450. He stated that he had introduced H.R. 46 which 
called for a two-year rather than a six-month moratorium on the 
enforcement of the Clear Air Act insofar as it deals with auto 
emissions. He said that a number of deadlines were to occur in 
the near future, and that it was apparent the deadlines could 
not be met without undue harm on the public itself. Therefore, 
a moratorium was appropriate. He stated that the EPA now was 
reviewing the auto emissions issue but that the existing 
deadlines made a longer moratorium necessary.
    The Honorable Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management 
and Budget, testified in opposition to the bill. She said she 
believed regulations were not inherently good or bad, but 
rather had the potential to be either. She testified that 
excessive or poorly designed regulations can cause confusion 
and delay and generate unreasonably burdensome compliance 
costs. She also stated, however, that they can assure equal 
access to markets, limit pollution, and provide other benefits 
to society. She said she opposed H.R. 450 because it would stop 
good regulations as well as bad ones, and substitute an 
arbitrary administrative process for substantive improvements. 
She also raised a number of questions about the definitions and 
exemptions in the bill.
    Mr. William Sandfer, a hemopump patient from Webster, 
Kentucky, testified that in January 1990, he had a pump 
implanted due to a heart attack. He said he had completely 
recovered and that without the pump he would not be alive 
today. He hoped the government would do something to make the 
pump more available and said that he believed other people 
could make use of it.
    Dr. Ronald Barbie, Cardiovascular Surgeon, Advance 
Cardiovascular Institute, Louisville, Kentucky, testified that 
the hemopump that had been implanted in Mr. Sandfer serves as 
an assist device for his heart. Dr. Barbie stated that Mr. 
Sandfer had had the device installed in Phase I of the hemopump 
clinical trials, which lasted from 1988 to 1991. Currently, a 
Phase II clinical trial is ongoing. He stated that a 
significant number of heart attack victims could benefit from 
this device if it were widely available.
    The Honorable James M. Strock, Secretary, California 
Environmental Protection Agency, testified that California 
Governor Pete Wilson's Administration supports the regulatory 
moratorium. He stated that H.R. 450 was particularly well 
drafted because it avoided two major pitfalls: It provided for 
an emergency exemption, and it would not limit efforts by 
agencies to reform their own regulations. He stated that the 
Wilson Administration had worked hard on regulatory reform and 
that it had recently proposed a state constitutional amendment 
that would, among other things, treat new regulatory costs in 
California like taxes (which require a two-thirds majority for 
passage), would allow for an emergency exemption, and would 
lead to regulatory budgeting and accountability at the 
legislative level, not merely at the regulatory level. Mr. 
Strock stated that, in the future, he hoped the Committee would 
consider the overall delegation of environmental programs to 
the States.
    Mr. Thomas J. Donohue, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, American Trucking Associations, Inc., testified in 
support of H.R. 450. He believes that a moratorium on federal 
rules is necessary while setting up a system that would allow 
for cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment of regulations. 
He stated that, as an example, rules for pre-employment and 
random alcohol testing of truck drivers would cost the trucking 
industry $250,000,000 in one year, even though in a random test 
only .2% of truck drivers failed a .02% alcohol standard. In 
addition, he cited as another example of undue and burdensome 
regulations to which the moratorium is properly directed as the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) 
upcoming ergonomics proposal. He said this rule might well 
require that trucks be steered in a different way or might 
prevent workers from lifting more than 25 pounds. He said that 
the rules appeared not to be cost effective.
    Mr. Vernon Garner, President of Garner Trucking, Inc., 
Findlay, Ohio, testified in support of a moratorium on federal 
regulations so that Congress could take a look at what existing 
laws and regulations have done to businesses like himself. He 
cited numerous examples of federal regulations that cost his 
business thousands of dollars, especially those imposed under 
authority of the Clean Air Act. Under another regulatory 
program he was forced to spend $126,000 to destroy nine tanks 
that were not leaking.
    Mr. John Motley, Vice President of Federal Governmental 
Relations for the National Federation of Independent Business 
(NFIB), testified that the estimated cost of government 
regulation to the American economy was over one trillion 
dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) a year. He stated that small 
business owners bore a much heavier burden in society in 
complying with government regulations because regulation is a 
``thick'' cost of doing business. He said that NFIB strongly 
supports H.R. 450 and in fact would like to see the moratorium 
period in effect for an even longer time. He compared the 
moratorium to a tourniquet which would stop the bleeding of 
increased costs imposed on the business community. He said the 
bill also would send a strong signal to business owners that 
Congress was serious about dealing with the problems of 
overregulation. He said NFIB supported regulatory reform in 
three tiers: (1) a moratorium on new regulations, (2) systemic 
reform such as risk assessment, judicial review and sunsetting 
rules, and (3) a review of current laws and regulations that 
may be causing problems.
    Mr. Sal Risalvato, owner of Riverdale Texaco, Riverdale, 
New Jersey, testified that government regulation had cost him 
and his business thousands of dollars. He said he had spent 
$95,000 making adjustments to new tanks in order to comply with 
environmental regulations. He also said federal regulators were 
trying to force New Jersey to perform new emissions inspections 
that would cause him to purchase equipment costing from $35,000 
to $100,000. He said he believed the six month moratorium 
period would allow the Committee to look at regulatory reforms, 
and that he believed a longer moratorium was needed.
    Mr. Hershel Wright, Vice President, Inventive Products, 
Inc., Decatur, Illinois, testified that he was being forced to 
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing studies, some of 
which federal regulators had requested and then ignored. Mr. 
Grant A. Wright, President, Inventive Products, Inc., Decatur, 
Illinois, testified about that the burdensome requirements 
applicable to new medical products and devices. He stated that 
although he believed some regulation is needed, businesses have 
become overburdened. He said that the regulations stifle 
innovation, raise costs for consumers, and force technology to 
be taken overseas.
    Mr. Jim Miller, Counsellor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, 
testified in favor of H.R. 450. He said Americans face an 
estimated regulatory burden of $500 billion annually just for 
federal regulations, and that excessive paperwork in burdensome 
regulations can stunt economic growth and hamper the global 
competitiveness of the U.S. economy. He stated that President 
Clinton's Executive Order 12886 was too inexact and allowed 
regulators too much discretion to promulgate new regulations 
that were ill-conceived. He said a regulatory moratorium would 
provide Congress the time necessary to enact new tools for 
regulatory review while giving agencies time to review existing 
regulatory burdens and identify excessively burdensome 
regulations. He said that the Administration's ``regulatory 
plan and unified agenda of federal regulations,'' issued 
November 14, 1994, identifies more than 4,300 rulemakings 
within federal agencies. During a moratorium it would be 
possible to identify specific regulations that entail 
substantial costs and provide minimal benefits. He also agreed 
that there should be provisions for the legal review of the 
process.
    Mr. C. Boyden Gray, Partner, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, and 
Chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, testified in support 
of H.R. 450 and of a timeout on regulations. He stated that in 
1981 and again in 1992, a timeout on issuing regulations had 
permitted the White House to tell the agencies to review the 
regulations being promulgated. He also stated that a regulatory 
moratorium did not cause increased costs and he was not aware 
of any great public health or safety difficulties arising out 
of either of those freezes. He stated that, in particular, the 
EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for California cars was 
particularly burdensome.
    Ms. Margaret Seminario, Director, Department of 
Occupational Safety and Health, AFL-CIO, testified in 
opposition to H.R. 450. She stated that the bill was far-
reaching and would impose an unnecessary strain on the federal 
regulatory process. She said that it would end up delaying all 
rulemaking activity in many important areas, such as the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ongoing efforts 
to issue ergonomics standards. She stated that the regulatory 
process did not work well for anyone, either for workers or for 
business, in terms of a process, but that it was important to 
look at how H.R. 450 would potentially impede the protection of 
working people.
    Mr. Bill Mattos, President of California Poultry Industry 
Federation, testified about recent U.S. Department of 
Agriculture proposed regulations to address precisely which 
poultry products may be labelled ``fresh'' and which must be 
labelled as ``frozen.'' He stated that H.R. 450 would have a 
negative impact on his members because it might delay 
effectiveness of that regulation. He indicated that poultry 
producers outside the state of California would benefit from a 
delay, because they would not have to comply with the 
regulation.
    Mr. David G. Hawkins, Senior Attorney with The Natural 
Resources Defense Council, testified in opposition to H.R. 450. 
He stated that a moratorium on regulations is incompatible with 
reasoned analysis of decisions. He said it would catch both 
good rules and bad ones, and potentially would impose costs on 
business because of increased uncertainty. He stated that 
litigation might well result from the moratorium. He said that 
the California FIP, which was a product of litigation, was a 
good example of why litigation should be avoided. He noted that 
the bill would stop not only the issuance of final rules and 
advance notices of proposed rulemaking but also any other 
action taken in the process of rulemaking, except a cost/
benefit analysis or risk assessment. He said he believed the 
case had not been made that the scheduled rules proposed such a 
risk to society that they justified a moratorium bill. He cited 
several examples of regulatory programs that would be delayed 
by H.R. 450.
    On Thursday, February 2, 1995, at 8:30 a.m., and pursuant 
to notice, the Subcommittee met at the Fairfax County, 
Virginia, Government Center to hear additional testimony on 
H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
    Mr. Bill McGillicuddy, a small businessman with AutoCare, 
Inc. in Northern Virginia, testified in favor of the moratorium 
in H.R. 450. He stated that he was in the automobile repair 
business and a licensed emissions inspection operator affected 
by the rules of EPA. He said that, pursuant to the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments, the EPA had failed to issue guidance on 
motor vehicle emissions inspection programs, which the 
Amendments required EPA to issue by November 1991.
    Instead, the Agency was more than one year late and then 
issued a set of binding rules mandating an emissions inspection 
system known as I/M 240. It requires equipment solely 
manufactured in Japan and costing $150,000 to $300,000 per test 
lane. He said EPA has refused to consider alternative tests 
which could be used at 1/10th the cost and also employ 
American-made equipment. He also said that he believed the 
EPA's action were contrary to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments 
which required states to be given maximum flexibility in 
designing their own clean air programs. He said that the EPA-
mandated program was very inconvenient to consumers, although 
that factor had not been considered when EPA made its decision. 
Finally, he said he did not trust recent pronouncements by the 
EPA that it now would allow flexibility in the program; 
instead, he believed EPA merely was trying to wait out actions 
by this Committee and by others so that it could implement its 
own program.
    Mr. Ron Harrell, a Mobil Oil Co. dealer in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, stated that he had been in the emissions inspection 
program since its inception in 1981. He said that the 
decentralized emissions test and repair program in Virginia was 
a good one and worked well. He stated that, in working with 
Congressman Moran, he had helped propose alternatives to the 
EPA's centralized testing requirements, but that the EPA had 
rejected them out of hand. He said that all he and others 
wanted was some flexibility from the EPA to put in a plan that 
made sense, but that in three years, they had had virtually no 
cooperation from EPA.
    Mr. Dennis Dwyer, of Potomac Mills Exxon in Virginia, also 
testified in opposition to the EPA's proposed I/M 240 
centralized emissions test for Northern Virginia, which he 
termed a ``quintessential U.S. EPA boondoggle.'' He stated that 
EPA never had trusted Virginia's decentralized program, 
believing that it did not fail enough cars. He said that the 
EPA never offered to work with Virginia or its emissions 
testers to determine the truth of their beliefs. In fact, he 
said that affluent Northern Virginia has newer cars, better 
mechanics, and better tools than is typical throughout the 
country, and that accounted for the different failure rate. At 
every turn, he testified, EPA rejected evidence that did not 
lead to the conclusion about decentralized testing that it 
already had adopted.
    Mr. Dwyer said that he did not trust the EPA studies. He 
said that, before the Virginia General Assembly, EPA had 
accused people in the emissions testing industry of being 
dishonest on 85% of their testing, which was incorrect. He also 
said that EPA's I/M 240 program was a bad idea in that it was 
too expensive, took up too much space, and was not reliable. 
Finally, he stated that the EPA's program clearly would cost 
the region jobs.
    The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, Secretary of Natural 
Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia, testified in 
support of H.R. 450. She stated that the bill was the first 
step towards addressing regulatory regimes that were devised 
for the benefit of those who govern rather than to encourage 
and promote sound environmental stewardship among the citizens. 
She said that an example of the regulatory programs that needed 
to be reviewed were those promulgated by EPA under the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments. She cited particular examples within 
the regulations where costs and benefits are not well balanced 
and where congressional intervention was the only method of 
solving the problems created by EPA. These areas included ozone 
standards, automobile emissions, permits under Title V, and 
enforcement under Title VII.
    Ms. Dunlop also cited numerous ways in which the EPA had 
overreached its authority in attempting to force States to do 
as the EPA had directed. She said that Virginia has filed suit 
against the EPA, arguing that EPA's actions under the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 violate the Tenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution. She further stated that EPA had not 
followed up on its previous offer of being more flexible with 
respect to its requirement for a centralized testing program. 
Finally, she spoke in favor of remote-sensing as a method of 
testing vehicle emissions, and argued that this method and 
technology was both promising and consumer-friendly.
    The Honorable Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of 
Transportation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, testified in 
particular about the regulations promulgated under the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990. He said that the law had introduced 
a new area of federal control and coercion, and that the EPA 
had been delinquent in publishing implementing regulations 
which, when they finally were published, allowed no flexibility 
or opportunity for innovation by the States. He said that the 
lack of flexibility and EPA's unwillingness to consider new 
concepts was imposing economic hardships on the Commonwealth. 
In particular, the conformity provisions and EPA's 
implementation of them might cost the State its federal 
transportation funds in various areas, and were severely 
disrupting Virginia's ability to plan and proceed with 
infrastructure improvements.
    The Honorable Robert Dix, Acting Chairman of the Fairfax 
County Virginia Board of Supervisors, and vice chairman of the 
air quality committee for the National Association of Counties 
testified that the air quality data used for the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments was skewed because it was based on 1988. In that 
year, the Washington area had a very hot summer, which thus 
influenced the number of days in which the air quality exceeded 
standards. He also noted that only 36% of the total emissions 
inventory in the region is related to mobile sources, and that 
much of that amount is not commute-related.
    Mr. Dix said that he particularly supported measures 
utilizing advances in technology and incentive-based programs 
as solutions to clean air problems. He said such programs do 
not result in unnecessary costs and cause the least confusion 
or inconvenience for those who must comply with them. Instead 
of promoting those programs, he said the EPA had been ``rigid, 
inflexible, and dictatorial'' in taking its positions and 
refusing to cooperate with those affected by its rules. He 
particularly recommended that, in addition to a moratorium, 
cost/benefit analysis be required for any regulatory program 
that seeks to impose requirements on state and local 
governments.
    Ms. Lorraine Lavet, representing the Fairfax County Chamber 
of Commerce, testified in support of H.R. 450. She said that a 
timeout on federal regulatory activity was important so that 
the need for additional federal regulations could be examined. 
She said that federal regulations were particularly burdensome 
on small businesses, and that the cost of regulatory compliance 
for small businesses is almost three times that for a large 
business. She said that although many regulations have 
desirable societal goals, they cumulatively were having a 
detrimental impact on business. In addition, the regulations 
are simply too difficult for small businesses to understand.
    In addition to H.R. 450, Ms. Lavet said that action on 
unfunded mandates legislation, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and 
enhancements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act were necessary. 
She also said that requiring risk assessment and truth in 
regulation were important parts of regulatory reform.
    Ms. Sheryll Crosby, of the Shortness of Breath Club of the 
American Lung Association, testified in opposition to H.R. 450. 
She said that Virginia needed a stronger inspection and 
maintenance plan for vehicles, not a weaker one. She stated 
that efforts to stimulate economic growth or save the State and 
federal governments money by relaxing or placing a moratorium 
on regulation should not take precedence over efforts to obtain 
clean air.
    Mr. Stanley L. Laskowski, Deputy Regional Administrator, 
Region III, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, submitted as 
his testimony on H.R. 450 the same statement delivered by Sally 
Katzen, Administrator of OIRA, at the January 19, 1995 hearing, 
which opposed enactment of H.R. 450. He stated that H.R. 450 
would raise legal issues and numerous questions about what 
actions are covered, and would divert officials who otherwise 
could spend their time working on substantive solutions in the 
regulatory system.
    With regard to the Clear Air Act, Mr. Laskowski said that 
EPA recognized the need to work in partnership with the States 
and that its recent decision to allow flexibility in developing 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs worked 
toward that end. He said that, in its actions, the EPA was 
attempting to meet the public health goals stated in the Clean 
Air Act, while also meeting the deadlines in that Act and 
trying to be flexible when it could in reaching those goals. He 
said that EPA still believes an enhanced inspection and 
maintenance program for vehicles was one of the most cost-
effective and efficient ways for states to improve their air 
quality. Mr. Laskowski also agreed to supply Virginia with 
specific guidance needed to develop their proposal.
    The Honorable Ellen M. Bozman, Chair, Metropolitan 
Washington Air Quality Committee, and a member of Arlington 
County Virginia Board, testified in opposition to H.R. 450. She 
said that the H.R. 450 moratorium was not appropriate for all 
possible situations, and that regulatory relief already was 
coming from EPA. She stated that the Air Quality Committee and 
the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board had 
approved air quality and transportation plans that would reduce 
emissions of ozone forming compounds. She also stated that the 
EPA recently released a draft interim final rule concerning 
conformity regulations that would grant a two-year extension of 
the conformity sanctions. Therefore, if the moratorium applied 
to those rules, H.R. 450 might take away the two-year extension 
and give back only a six-month extension of the conformity 
regulations.
    On February 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on National Economic 
Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs marked up and 
reported the bill, as amended, on a roll call vote of 10 Ayes 
and 4 Nays. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
reported. Section 4 and 7 of H.R. 450 were determined by the 
Parliamentarian not be within the Committee's jurisdiction. In 
addition, a number of amendments were offered, debated and 
voted upon, including: an amendment offered by Chairman 
McIntosh to exempt streamlining internal revenue laws from the 
moratorium (which passed by a voice vote), an amendment offered 
by Chairman McIntosh to exempt from the moratorium those 
regulations that increase consumer choice by permitting the 
introduction of new substances and products (which passed by a 
voice vote), an amendment offered by Chairman McIntosh to move 
the authority to certify exclusions and exceptions from the 
agency head to the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and 
Budget (which passed by a voice vote), and an amendment by Mr. 
Ehrlich to advance the ending date of the moratorium if 
substantive regulatory reforms were enacted (which passed on a 
roll call vote).

Committee consideration

    On February 10 and 13, 1995, the full Committee marked up 
and reported the bill, as amended, on a roll call vote of 28 
Ayes and 13 Nays. In full Committee mark up, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was reported.
    Following the Committee mark up, additional materials were 
submitted by Messrs. Mica and Condit, and have been appended to 
the transcript of the mark up, which is available for review in 
the offices of the full Committee during normal business hours.

                    IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1--Short title

    The name of the Act is the ``Regulatory Transition Act of 
1995.''

Section 2--Finding

    The purpose of the legislation is to promote effective 
measures for greater efficiency and proper management in 
government operations. These efforts include the steps being 
taken by Congress to enact (A) requirements for cost/benefit 
analysis, including analysis of costs resulting from a loss of 
property rights, and (B) requirements for standardized risk 
analysis and risk assessment that use the best scientific and 
economic procedures, in the case of those federal regulations 
which are subject to risk analysis and risk assessment.

Section 3--Moratorium on regulations

    Section 3(a) establishes a moratorium on federal agency 
rulemaking actions that are not otherwise excepted or excluded 
under other provisions of the Act. Because the moratorium 
begins November 20, 1994 and ends December 31, 1995, the 
operative provisions of this subsection first direct that any 
federal agency may not take any regulatory rulemaking action 
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Act.
    Because some time will have elapsed from November 20, 1994 
until the enactment of the legislation, the Act also provides 
that, beginning on the thirtieth day following enactment, any 
regulatory rulemaking action that was taken or made effective 
between November 20, 1994 and the date of enactment shall be 
suspended until the end of the moratorium period. Both the 
moratorium on future federal rulemaking actions and the 
suspension of rulemaking actions already taken apply only to 
rulemaking actions that have not been excluded or excepted 
under other provisions of the Act.
    The thirty-day delay for the suspension of recent 
rulemaking actions is intended to permit federal agencies and 
the OIRA Administrator time to identify those rulemaking 
actions that qualify for an exception or exclusion.
    The moratorium is intended to cover those regulatory 
rulemaking actions that are within the constitutional purview 
of this Congress. The Committee is aware that many rulemaking 
actions are appropriate and necessary for carrying out 
regulatory reform, are streamlining efforts already underway, 
are in response to imminent threats to health or safety or 
other form of emergency, or are otherwise appropriate to 
exclude from the moratorium, given the goals and objectives of 
this legislation in the context of larger regulatory reform 
efforts of which it is a part. Thus, this subsection refers to 
section 5 of the Act, which sets forth certain exceptions to 
the moratorium.
    Section 3(b) requires the President to provide an 
inventory, which shall be published in the Federal Register, of 
the regulatory rulemaking actions that are covered by the 
moratorium and that were taken or made effective from the first 
day of the moratorium period, November 20, 1994, through the 
date of enactment. This requirement is intended to ensure that 
the public, the Congress, and agency officials have notice of 
those regulatory rulemaking actions that are suspended by the 
moratorium.

Section 4--Special rules regarding certain deadlines

    Section 4(a) extends certain statutory deadlines, as well 
as certain deadlines established by courts and regulation. Any 
deadline that is covered by the Act would be extended for 
either five months or until the end of the moratorium period, 
whichever is longer. In the case of deadlines that would expire 
during the moratorium period, even with a five-month extension, 
or which have already expired and with which agencies or others 
have not complied, those deadlines would be extended until the 
end of the moratorium period. This section covers any deadline 
for, relating to, or involving any action dependent upon a 
regulatory rulemaking action authorized or required by statute 
or court-order and that is authorized or required to be taken 
before the end of the moratorium period.
    Section 4(b) defines the term ``deadline'' to mean any date 
certain for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any 
authority established by or under any statute or regulation, or 
by or under any court order implementing any federal statute or 
regulation. A date would be a date certain if it were specified 
in or could be readily calculated on the basis of a statute, 
regulation, or court order. A deadline would be covered if it 
is within the constitutional purview of this Congress. The 
court order directing EPA to issue a Federal Implementation 
Plan for California would be an example of a court order 
deadline extended by this Act.
    The committee is responding to both legal and practical 
concerns in this section. First, this section extends by power 
of law those deadlines that cannot be met because of the 
moratorium. Second, there are situations, such as under the 
Clean Air Act, in which statutory deadlines are prescribed for 
compliance and certain rulemaking actions are necessary 
preconditions for compliance with those deadlines. The failure 
to provide for an extension of those deadlines would, without 
this section, subject agencies, state officials, businesses, 
and the public to a severely compressed period in which to 
comply with the law. This section is intended to relieve that 
time compression. Thus, it is clear that not all deadlines are 
extended, only those deadlines that are directly or indirectly 
related to a rulemaking action affected by the moratorium 
within these categories.
    Section 4(c) contains a provision under which the President 
will identify the list of covered deadlines and will publish 
that list in the Federal Register within 30 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

Section 5--Emergency exceptions; exclusions

    Section 5(a) provides for certain exceptions to the 
moratorium imposed by section 3, and the deadline extension 
under section 4. In particular, section 5 allows an exception 
for regulations that are necessary because of an imminent 
threat to health or safety or other emergency, or for the 
enforcement of criminal laws. The moratorium on rulemaking 
actions and the postponement of related deadlines are waived 
under the provisions of this section.
    The OIRA Administrator could except any specific regulatory 
rulemaking action upon a written request by an agency head. The 
administrator would need only to find 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. The finding and waiver must 
then be published in the Federal Register by the agency head.
    The primary purpose of this exception is to ensure that the 
Act does not impede the promulgation of regulations that are 
necessary to address imminent threats to health or safety. This 
Committee intends the OIRA Administrator to exercise reasoned 
discretion in making this certification, guided by this 
Committee's concern for the protection of the health and safety 
of the public.
    In addition to the emergency exception authority, Section 
5(b) requires that rulemaking actions excluded from the 
moratorium under section 6(3)(B) must be published in the 
Federal Register by the agency head.

Section 6--Definitions

    Section 6 contains the definitions of certain terms used in 
the Act.
    Section 6(1) defines ``Federal agency'' in the same manner 
as that term is defined in the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 551(1).
    Section 6(2) defines ``moratorium period'' as the period of 
time beginning November 20, 1994, and ending on December 31, 
1995, or the date on which certain regulatory reform proposals 
are enacted, whichever occurs first.
    Section 6(3) defines ``regulatory rulemaking action'' by 
stating the general rule in subsection (A) and exclusions to 
the rule in subsection (B).
    Subsection 6(3)(A) defines ``regulatory rulemaking action'' 
as any rulemaking action normally published in the Federal 
Register, including any action taken in the process of 
developing such rules. Cost/benefit analysis and risk 
assessment actions are excluded from the definition. This would 
also include activity necessary for conducting a cost/benefit 
analysis or risk assessment on regulations already proposed (or 
already promulgated). Obviously, such an analysis or assessment 
would not be conducted where a regulation has not yet been 
issued or proposed, nor could the allowance of such activity be 
considered as a means to permit new proposed rulemaking to be 
issued.
    Section 6(3)(B) identifies the various rulemakings that 
would be excluded. These exclusions cover the following 
rulemaking actions:
          (1) those repealing, narrowing or streamlining a rule 
        regulation or administrative process or otherwise 
        reducing regulatory burdens;
          (2) those regarding military or foreign affairs 
        function;
          (3) those relating to any statute implementing an 
        international trade agreement;
          (4) those relating to agency management, personnel or 
        public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts;
          (5) those limited to a routine administrative 
        function of the agency;
          (6) those taken by an agency that supervises and 
        regulates financial institutions; and,
          (7) those taken to interpret, implement, or 
        administer the internal revenue laws of the United 
        States.
    In each case above, a specified executive official is 
responsible for certifying in writing that the action qualifies 
for the exclusion. The head of the agency is also responsible 
for publishing the certification in the Federal Register. In 
the case of items 1 through 5 above, the exclusion applies only 
if both the head of the agency seeking to take the action and 
the OIRA Administrator certify in writing that the regulation 
is limited to the described exclusion. In the case of item 6 
above, the exclusion applies only if the head of the agency 
certifies that the action qualifies for one of the other 
exclusions or for an exception under section 5 of the Act. In 
the case of item 7 above, the exclusion applies only if the 
head of the agency certifies that the action is limited to 
interpreting, implementing, or administering the internal 
revenue laws of the United States.
    In creating the streamlining exclusion under section 
6(3)(B)(i) (item (1) above), the Committee notes that there are 
a number of ways a rule can be determined to be streamlining. 
Some rules, such as a pending decision to lower bank deposit 
insurance premium rates by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, can be deemed less burdensome on their face. Other 
rules can be excluded from the moratorium if they reduce 
regulatory burdens by providing more cost-effective methods for 
achieving the requirements of a law. Rules that implement 
market-based solutions or that provide alternate systems for 
compliance would also be among those that should qualify for 
this exclusion. Such an example would be regulatory changes 
currently being considered by the Environmental Protection 
Agency to its final reformulated gasoline rules. In addition, 
regulations promulgated under the authority of statutes that 
serve to streamline an agency function should also fall within 
this exclusion. An example of a rule which meets these latter 
criteria is the rule establishing procedures for the Opt-In 
program for Combustion Sources under section 410 of the Clean 
Air Act. The opt-in program allows the sale of excess sulfur 
dioxide emission allowances resulting from voluntary emission 
reductions to sources which have sulfur dioxide compliance 
obligations under Title IV of the Act. Another example of a 
rulemaking covered by this exclusion would be those regulations 
promulgated pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-355).
    Section 6(3)(B)(i)'s exclusion for streamlining regulations 
should be broadly interpreted to include those agency actions 
required to determine whether a regulation is, in fact, 
streamlining in nature. For example, the Department of 
Transportation is currently considering whether alternative 
standards to the existing HM-181 standards are appropriate for 
open-head fibre drums used for the transportation of liquids. 
If the Department of Transportation determines that such 
alternative standards are appropriate, that decision could 
result in eliminating an unnecessary regulatory burden on the 
fibre-drum industry. Obviously, the Department should be 
permitted to not only promulgate such regulations (if 
appropriate), but also to take preliminary actions necessary to 
determine whether the alternative standards are appropriate. 
Similarly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is about 
to issue final regulations governing trade practices under the 
Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 (27 U.S.C. Sec. 201 
et seq.) that could simplify alcohol promotional practices. If 
so, these regulations could be excluded from the moratorium 
under this provision. The Committee is also aware that the EPA 
is scheduled to promulgate a final rule in August 1995 
clarifying the liability of secured creditors under the EPA's 
underground storage tank regulations. Such a rule is likely to 
reduce regulatory burdens in this area and could be excluded 
from the moratorium on this basis.
    The Committee intends the exclusion under section 
6(3)(B)(ii) for regulations relating to international trade 
agreements to be a narrow one. The purpose of this exclusion is 
to provide the Executive branch the flexibility needed to 
promulgate appropriate regulations in order to carry out 
international trade agreements such as the North American Free 
Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round Agreements of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Merely because a provision was 
physically included in legislation implementing a trade 
agreement does not necessarily mean that the provision itself 
implements that trade agreement or that the Administration 
would have the authority under this Act to take a rulemaking 
action relating to that provision during the moratorium period. 
The test this Committee intends the Administration to use is 
one that focuses on whether the regulation is specifically 
required to implement a trade agreement. Indeed, this Committee 
shares the concerns expressed by the Ways and Means Committee 
in a February 13, 1995 letter from Chairman Archer to Chairman 
Clinger, in which Chairman Archer explained, ``it is my 
understanding that this exception is intended to permit the 
Administration to conduct only those limited rulemaking actions 
that are directly related to implementing trade agreements. * * 
* I expect that the Administration will strictly construe 
whether a proposed rulemaking action is required to implement 
international trade agreements.''
    Section 6(3)(B)(iii)'s exclusion for routine administrative 
functions is intended by the Committee to be a narrow exception 
for regulations that are purely routine administrative in 
nature. This category of exclusion was initially created out of 
bipartisan concern that such obvious regulatory necessities as 
the authorization of daylight savings time (which is contained 
in 49 C.F.R. Part 71.2) should not be included in the 
moratorium.
    Section 6(4) defines ``rule'' as the whole or part of an 
agency statement of general or particular applicability and 
future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe 
law or policy. Having affirmatively stated the meaning of 
``rule,'' this subsection clarifies the meaning by listing a 
variety of agency actions that do not constitute a ``rule.'' 
Because such actions (or non-rules) are outside of the 
definition of ``rule,'' they are likewise outside the scope of 
the moratorium and do not need to be certified as an exclusion 
or exception in order for the action to occur.
    One of the general principles underlying this list of non-
rules is a concern that the free market be allowed to operate 
without additional interference from government. Thus, agency 
actions that must be taken in order for new technology, 
products, or services to be made available to the public are 
not intended to be stopped by the moratorium. For example, the 
Act does not prohibit the Federal Communications Commission 
from issuing rules to establish and govern the introduction of 
a new communications service, including those that involve 
changes in the use of the radio spectrum. Nor does the Act 
prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from issuing pre-
market approvals for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and food 
additives.
    The Committee also intends the list of non-rules to include 
the expansion, contraction, or limitation of authority to 
harvest Federal fishery resources as recommended by a Regional 
Fishery Management Council or the Atlantic States Marine 
Fishery Commission. Moreover, amendments to existing 
regulations promulgated by the USDA Agricultural Marketing 
Service relating to self-help or industry marketing initiatives 
designed to improve the agricultural marketing sector's ability 
to distribute agricultural commodities were not intended to be 
included in the meaning of the term ``rule.''
    The Committee understands that there could well be 
overlapping bases for exclusions from the moratorium. In 
particular, section 6(4) removes from the definition of 
``rule'' agency actions that tend to ease regulatory burdens. 
Such regulations could also be excluded from the moratorium by 
section 6(3)(B)(i)'s exclusion for streamlining regulations. 
Such an example are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
regulations that have been proposed that relieve burdens 
currently in place on landowners and timber producers in 
connection with section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act.
    Section 6(4) contains a narrowly drawn exception to the 
moratorium to provide for actions taken in connection with the 
implementation of monetary policy or actions taken to ensure 
the safety and soundness of federally insured depository 
institutions, affiliates of such institutions, credit unions, 
or government sponsored housing enterprises or to protect the 
deposit insurance funds. Safety and soundness regulations are 
designed to supervise conduct contrary to accepted standards of 
banking operations which might result in abnormal risk or loss 
to banking institutions or shareholders. The moratorium will in 
no way affect such safety or soundness regulations. Moreover, 
as explained above, the moratorium does not prevent the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation from proposing and subsequently 
adopting a revised rule to reduce the deposit insurance 
premiums paid by banks. In providing this exception, the 
Committee also wants to make clear that any regulations 
relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, the Truth in 
Lending Act or any other consumer law are not to be considered 
matters of safety or soundness and are not covered by this 
limited exclusion in any manner.
    For purposes of section 6(4) and section 6(3)(B)(iv), the 
term ``government sponsored housing enterprise'' has the same 
meaning as the word ``enterprise'' as that word is defined in 
section 1303(6) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992. It is the Committee's understanding and intent that the 
following agencies, and no others, would be covered by section 
6(4) and section 6(3)(B)(iv): the Federal Reserve Board, the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, 
the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
    Section 6(5) defines ``rulemaking'' as an agency process 
for formulating, amending or repealing a rule.
    Section 6(6) defines ``license'' as an agency permit, 
certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, 
statutory exemption, or other form of permission.
    Section 6(7) defines ``imminent threat to health or 
safety'' to mean the existence of a 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. In setting 
forward this definition, the Committee has not elevated 
protections of private property above human health or safety, 
or even attempted to equate endangerment to private property 
with death, illness or injury to humans. Rather, it seeks to 
protect both human health and safety and private property 
according to appropriately separate and distinct standards. It 
is the Committee's understanding that the moratorium should not 
prevent the promulgation of rules and regulations that are 
necessary to make food safe from E. coli bacteria, so long as 
there are no accompanying extraneous requirements or arbitrary 
rules (i.e., the Committee reserves judgment on regulations 
that allow radiation of meat without requiring labelling to 
disclose that fact to the consumer).
    The inclusion of the word ``imminent'' is not intended to 
pose an insurmountable obstacle to the certification of health 
or safety regulations. Rather it is intended to guard against 
the undisciplined use of this exception as a means to evade 
Congress' intent. For example, this Committee does not intend 
this exception to include OSHA's regulations prescribing 
ergonomic protection standards which require employers to build 
new work environments to prevent disorders associated with 
repetitive motions. Such regulations would not be excepted from 
the moratorium under section 5(a) because they do not address a 
threat that is imminent.

Section 7--Limitation on civil actions

    This section makes it clear that the Act does not grant any 
new private right of action. However, this section does not 
affect any private right of action (for a violation of this Act 
or any other law) if that right of action is otherwise 
available under any other law (such as the Administrative 
Procedure Act provisions of title 5, United States Code).

Section 8--Relationship to other law

    Section 8(a) states that the Act supersedes other law, and 
is effective notwithstanding any other provision of law.
    Section 8(b) makes each provision of the Act severable from 
each other provision. If a court holds any provision of the Act 
to be invalid, or holds invalid the application of any 
particular provision of the Act in any particular or general 
circumstance, only the specific provision at issue shall be 
affected. The remainder of the Act, and its application in all 
other circumstances, shall remain in full force and effect.

                     V. COMMITTEE IMPACT STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

             VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATES

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 16, 1995.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight on February 13, 1995. We estimate that enacting 
the bill would result in changes in discretionary 
administrative and other costs to the Federal Government, but 
that the net changes would not be significant. In addition, 
enacting H.R. 450 could affect direct spending; but the 
consequences of the bill are not sufficiently clear for CBO to 
be able to determine whether there would be such effects or how 
much they would be. Because the bill could affect direct 
spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
    Bill purpose: H.R. 450 would prevent Federal agencies from 
taking most regulatory rulemaking actions from the date of 
enactment of the bill until December 31, 1995. In addition, 
beginning 30 days after enactment, most rules issued during the 
period from November 20, 1994, to the date of enactment would 
be suspended until December 31, 1995. Deadlines relating to 
such suspended rules would be extended for five months or until 
December 31, 1995, whichever is later. These provisions could 
be waived if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
within the Office of Management and Budget finds that the 
regulatory action involves an imminent emergency or the 
enforcement of criminal laws. Certain regulatory rules would be 
exempt from H.R. 450, including those relating to the internal 
revenue laws of the United States.
    Impact on discretionary spending: Agencies would incur some 
additional costs to determine which of their existing rules 
should be suspended and to resolve issues that result from 
extending the deadlines. Agencies also would have to determine 
which proposed new rules would meet the exemptions of the bill 
and could therefore be implemented. These tasks, and others 
relating to H.R. 450, are not done under current law; however, 
agencies would save resources that would otherwise be used to 
write new regulations. CBO estimates that any net 
administrative costs from enacting the bill would not be 
significant.
    Impact on direct spending: The impact of the rulemaking 
moratorium on direct spending and receipts is uncertain both in 
magnitude and direction. It could affect the issuance of 
regulations governing the payment rates for some Federal 
benefit programs, like Medicare or Medicaid. Alternatively, the 
exclusion in section 6(3)(B)(ii) could be interpreted to mean 
that regulations specifying changes in such benefit programs 
would not be affected by the moratorium. Moreover, because H.R. 
450 does not change the laws underlying entitlement benefits, 
the rights of individuals to benefits specified in law should 
not be affected. However, implementation of the law often 
depends on Federal Register notices and regulations that 
indicate how the law is to be implemented. A delay in 
publishing regulations might well lead to litigation because of 
differing interpretations of the law.
    The assessment of direct spending is further complicated by 
the fact that many agencies have alternatives to the Federal 
Register for communicating instructions or procedures. The 
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), for example, can 
issue instructions on reimbursement rates and procedures 
directly to carriers and intermediates, the entities that 
process bills from health care providers. The Department of 
Education frequently indicates changes in procedures through 
letters to schools, lenders, and guaranty agencies. The 
rulemaking moratorium under H.R. 450 could induce agencies to 
rely more heavily on these forms of issuing guidance.
    CBO does not have sufficient information at this time to 
estimate the direct spending effects, if any, of the bill.
    Impact on State and local governments: Enacting H.R. 450 
would not affect any routine, ongoing payments to State and 
local governments, but the bill could affect Federal payments 
that are subject to rulemaking during the period covered by the 
bill. It is possible that some regulatory actions that would 
otherwise provide relief to State and local governments could 
be delayed or precluded, thereby increasing their costs for 
various activities. CBO has no basis for predicting the 
direction, magnitude, or timing of such impacts.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz and Paul Cullinan.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                              (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).

                   VII. INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 450 will have no 
significant inflationary impact on prices and costs in the 
national economy. (This section of the report is included 
pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of the House of Representatives Rule 
XI.)

                        VIII. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight are incorporated into the descriptive 
portions of this report. (This section of the report is 
included pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of the House of 
Representatives Rule XI.)

                          IX. ROLL CALL VOTES

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of the House of 
Representatives Rule XI, the record of roll call votes with 
respect to H.R. 450 is appended in this report.

                         AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 450

    McIntosh, Peterson, Condit Substitute: Considered under 
unanimous consent request as the original test.
    Slaughter/Collins: Section 5; failed by roll call.
    Maloney: Section 5; failed by roll call.
    Wise: Section 5; failed by roll call.
    Waxman: Section 6; failed by roll call.
    McIntosh, Peterson, Ehrlich, Thurman: Section 6(2)(B); 
passed by voice vote.
    Spratt Amendment to Amendment: Section 6; failed by roll 
call.
    Peterson: Section 6(3)(B); withdrawn.
    Sanders: Section 6, pg. 8; withdrawn.
    Barrett: Section 6(7); failed by roll call.
    Spratt: Section 6(2)(A); failed by roll call.
    Peterson: Section 6(3)(B); passed by voice vote.
    Final Passage of Substitute: Passed by voice vote.
    Final Passage, H.R. 450 as amended by Substitute: Passed by 
roll call.

                    amendment number: 1 of h.r. 450

    Description: At the end of Section 5, add the following new 
subsection: (c) Specific Rulemaking--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or 
both shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action begun by 
the Secretary of Agriculture before the date of the enactment 
of this Act and relating to pathogen reduction in meat and 
poultry products with respect to which a notice was published 
at 60 Fed. Reg. 6774 (February 3, 1995).
    Offered by: Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Collins--IL.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X                 
Mr. Shays.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Owens.......................                       
Mr. Schiff......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................     X                 
Mr. Mica........................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................  .....     X          
Mr. Blute.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X                 
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................                       
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X                 
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....  .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................                       
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................                       
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X                 
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................                       
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--14 ayes; 24 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    amendment number: 2 of h.r. 450

    Description: At the end of Section 5, add the following new 
subsection: (c) Specific Rulemaking--Section 3(a) or 4(a), or 
both shall not apply to a regulatory rulemaking action begun by 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency before 
the date of the enactment of this Act and relates to control of 
microbial and disinfection by-products risks in drinking water 
supplies.
    Offered by: Mrs. Maloney.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X                 
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................                       
Mr. Schiff......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................  .....     X          
Mr. Mica........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Peterson....................  .....     X          
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................                       
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X                 
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X                 
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................                       
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................     X                 
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X                 
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................     X                 
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................                                                                                
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--15 ayes; 26 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Amendment Number: 3 of H.R. 450

    Description: At the end of Section 5, add the following new 
subsection: (c) Mine Safety Rulemaking--Section 3(a) or 4(a).
    Offered by: Mr. Wise.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....  .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X                 
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................                       
Mr. Schiff......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................                       
Mr. Mica........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Peterson....................  .....     X          
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X                 
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X                 
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X                 
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................                       
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................     X                 
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................                       
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................     X                 
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................                                                                                
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--15 ayes; 24 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Amendment Number: 4 of H.R. 450

    Description: In Section 6(7): (1) strike ``death, serious 
illness, or severe injury'', and insert ``substanial 
endangerment''; (2) in the heading and the text strike 
``imminent threat'' each place it appears and insert 
``substantial endangerment''; (3) strike ``during the 
moratorium period''; and (4) at the end add the following: In 
section 5, the term imminent threat of health or safety' shall 
be considered to read `substantial endangerment to health or 
safety.' ''
    Offered by: Mr. Waxman.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Wise........................     X                 
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................                       
Mr. Schiff......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................     X                 
Mr. Mica........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X                 
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X                 
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X                 
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................  .....     X          
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................                       
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................     X                 
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X                 
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................     X                 
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--19 ayes; 24 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    amendment number: 5 of H.R. 450

    Description: Amend section 6(2)(B) to read as follows: (B) 
ending on the earlier of--(i) the first date on which there.
    Offered by: Mr. McIntosh, Peterson, Condit, and Ehrlich.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

                    amendment number: 6 of H.R. 450

    Description: Strike section 6(2)(B) and insert the 
following: ``(B) ending on the expiration of the 180-day period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.''
    Offered by: Mr. Spratt.
    Voice vote: Nays.

                    amendment number: 7 of H.R. 450

    Description: In Section 6(3)(B): In clause (i) after the 
words ``the head of the agency certifies is limited to'', 
insert ``interpreting, implementing, or administering.
    Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
    Withdrawn.

                    amendment number: 8 of H.R. 450

    Description: At the end of Section 6(3)(B), add the 
following new clause: (iv) any action which the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue certifies is a substantive rule, interpretive 
rule, statement of agency policy, or notice of proposed rule 
making to interpret, implement or administer the revenue laws 
of the United States.
    Offered by: Mr. Spratt.
    Withdrawn.

                    amendment number: 9 of H.R. 450

    Description: Page 8, line 7 and 8 delete the words ``or 
substantial endangerment to private property during the 
moratorium period.''
    Offered by: Mr. Sanders.
    Withdrawn.

                    Amendment Number: 10 of H.R. 450

    Description: In Section 6(7), strike ``during the 
moratorium period.''
    Offered by: Mr. Barrett.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Wise........................                       
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................     X                 
Mr. Schiff......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................  .....     X          
Mr. Mica........................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................  .....     X          
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X                 
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X                 
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................  .....     X          
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................     X                 
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................                       
Mr. Martini.....................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Green.......................     X                 
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....  .....  .......  Mrs. Meek.......................                       
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--15 ayes; 24 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    amendment number: 11 of h.r. 450

    Description: Strike Section 6(2)(A) and insert the 
following: ``(A) beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act; and''.
    Offered by: Mr. Spratt.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X                 
Mr. Gilman......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X                 
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Wise........................                       
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................     X                 
Mr. Schiff......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X                 
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X                 
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X                 
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X                 
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................                       
Mr. Mica........................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X                 
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X                 
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X                 
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X                 
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................  .....     X          
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................     X                 
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................                       
Mr. Martini.....................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Green.......................     X                 
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................                       
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X                 
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X                                                                   
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X                                                                   
      Totals--17 ayes; 22 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    amendment number: 12 of h.r. 450

    Description: In Section 6(3)(B): In clause (i) strike the 
comma after regulatory burdens ``through the words ``United 
States.'' Following clause (iv), add a new clause (v) that 
reads'' (v) any agency action that the head of the agency 
certifies is limited to interpreting.
    Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

                      final passage of substitute

    Offered by: Mr. McIntosh, Peterson, Condit.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

           Final Passage of H.R. 450 as amended by Substitute

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present           Representatives           Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................  .....     X          
Mr. Gilman......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Waxman......................  .....     X          
Mr. Burton......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Lantos......................                       
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................  .....     X          
Mr. Shays.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................                       
Mr. Schiff......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................  .....     X          
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............     X   .....  .......  Mr. Spratt......................  .....     X          
Mr. Zeliff......................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................                       
Mr. McHugh......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................                       
Mr. Horn........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Condit......................     X                 
Mr. Mica........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X                 
Mr. Blute.......................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Sanders.....................  .....     X          
Mr. Davis.......................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X                 
Mr. McIntosh....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Maloney....................  .....     X          
Mr. Fox.........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Barrett.....................  .....     X          
Mr. Tate........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X                 
Mr. Chrysler....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................                       
Mr. Gutknecht...................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Norton.....................  .....     X          
Mr. Souder......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Moran.......................  .....     X          
Mr. Martini.....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Green.......................  .....     X          
Mr. Scarborough.................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Meek.......................                       
Mr. Shadegg.....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Mascara.....................  .....     X          
Mr. Flanagan....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Fattah......................                       
Mr. Bass........................     X                                                                          
Mr. LaTourette..................     X                                                                          
Mr. Sanford.....................     X                                                                          
Mr. Ehrlich.....................     X                                                                          
      Totals--28 ayes; 13 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        X. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    In compliance with clause 3 of the House of Representatives 
Rule XIII, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 
roman): No changes.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                                summary

    The regulatory moratorium in H.R. 450 is not part of the 
Contract with America. It is an ill-conceived bill with unknown 
consequences. Proponents of the bill are unable to provide a 
list of regulations that would be covered by the moratorium, 
and when confronted with specific regulations are unable to 
provide any definitive decision on whether rules are covered or 
not.
    The bill ignores the interests of the average American. 
There is no effort in this bill to sort out the good from the 
bad. It is a ``one size fits all'' solution. H.R. 450 will 
threaten key health and safety regulations, such as improved 
meat and poultry inspection procedures, while also halting 
regulations favored by business, such as rules at the FCC to 
allocate portions of the spectrum for new telephone systems.
    By making the moratorium retroactive to November, the bill 
will penalize companies that made investments to comply with 
regulations, while rewarding those that did not. H.R. 450 
places the protection of private property above the protection 
of human health and safety. It allows regulations which relax 
standards for health and safety to proceed, while halting rules 
that are neutral or strengthen protections for citizens.
    H.R. 450 will have consequences that are unintended. It 
could, for example, halt trade sanctions against China. Failure 
to adopt EPA standards for nuclear materials could halt the 
movement of transuranic nuclear waste from Idaho, Colorado and 
other states to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New 
Mexico.
    The remaining portion of these views detail some specific 
problems with the bill. However, the debate in the Committee 
highlighted one aspect of H.R. 450 that our colleagues should 
recognize. The effects of this bill are highly uncertain. For 
example, three amendments to exempt specific rules were 
offered. One dealt with improved meat and poultry inspection 
procedures to detect organisms that cause salmonella. A second 
dealt with test standards for cryptosporidium in drinking 
water. A third dealt with new mine safety regulations. In each 
case, the proponents of the legislation opposed the amendments. 
They contended that the rules might be exempt under the 
imminent threat to health and safety provision of the bill. 
However, they could not state that with certainty.
    When other rules were discussed, proponents again discussed 
possible exemptions. One sponsor of the bill contended that FAA 
Airworthiness Directives could be exempt under the substantial 
endangerment to private property exclusion. Rules to provide 
comparability pay to Federal workers could be exempt under 
agency administration exclusions. Trade sanctions against China 
might be covered under a foreign policy exclusion.
    There were no guarantees on any particular rule. If every 
rule is covered by an exemption, as the bill's proponents at 
times seemed to contend, the bill is a meaningless fraud. If 
the bill does halt important actions, many of which we all 
might support, we will regret the bill's passage.

                        major flaws in h.r. 450

Definition of imminent threat to public health and safety
    The bill would allow the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB to exempt a 
rulemaking from the moratorium if there is ``an imminent threat 
to health or safety or other emergency.''
    ``Imminent threat to health or safety'' is defined as ``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.''
    The definition raised significant issues, which were 
discussed at length during the committee markup. The definition 
appears to use a lower threshold for private property than for 
human health and safety. In the case of private property, the 
standard is ``substantial endangerment''. In the case of 
humans, the standard is ``death, serious illness, or severe 
injury''.
    The limitation that the injury must occur ``during the 
moratorium period'' also raises the standard for an exclusion 
to an unnecessarily high level. It will be extremely difficult 
to prove that there will be a death or severe injury during any 
particular period. Also, since all regulatory actions would be 
halted during the moratorium, this delay could contribute to 
injuries subsequent to the moratorium, but such effects would 
not be considered in the granting of an exemption.
    The uncertainties surrounding this definition could bring 
uncertainties to the regulatory process, when decisions to 
exempt rules are litigated in the courts.
Judicial review
    Section 7 of the bill was amended to provide a limitation 
on civil actions, but may allow a loophole that could tie up 
agency actions in the courts throughout the moratorium period. 
The second sentence of section 7 states that the prohibition on 
private rights of action ``shall not affect any private right 
of action or remedy otherwise available under any other law.''
    The language could be interpreted to permit a challenge to 
a decision to exempt a law under the Administrative Procedure 
Act. If that was permissible, it would totally negate the 
prohibition on private rights of action in the preceding 
sentence.
Retroactivity
    The bill would begin the moratorium period of November 20, 
1994. Retroactivity is extremely unfair to businesses and 
individuals who have spent money to comply with regulations, or 
made investments based upon regulations that have been issued.
    There is no reason to give a competitive advantage to 
businesses that chose to ignore regulations issued since 
November 20. Similarly, it is unfair to companies that made 
investments in reliance of the regulation to be penalized.
Scope of moratorium
    The moratorium in this bill is extremely broad, covering 
all agencies and all rulemakings. The definition of rulemaking 
is also extremely broad, covering any action taken as part of a 
rulemaking, other than a cost benefit analysis or risk 
assessment. Specifically included are ``any substantive rule, 
interpretative rule, statement of agency policy, notice of 
inquiry, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or notice of 
proposed rulemaking.''
    Using such a broad definition will preclude agencies from 
taking normal steps that may be preliminary to making a rule. 
It would preclude agencies from reading public comments or 
reviewing suggestions for improving rules. As a result, useful 
actions or investigations would be precluded.
Important rules covered by moratorium
    The length of the moratorium was extended by amendment to 
December 31, 1995, and there was no opportunity at the 
Committee to receive a comprehensive list of rules and 
regulations covered by the moratorium. Nevertheless, we have 
identified numerous rules that could be affected by the 
moratorium.
    Some of the rules have been sought by business so that they 
may proceed in their business ventures. Some of the rules 
protect public health and safety of citizens. Some protect 
worker safety. Some are just common sense regulations that 
everyone would agree upon.
    Not all of us may necessarily approve of each rule. 
However, many important agency actions would be delayed by the 
moratorium.

                                   Cardiss Collins.
                                   Chaka Fattah.
                                   Louise Slaughter.
                                   Bob Wise.
                                   Frank Mascara.
                                   Gene Green.
                                   Jim Moran.
                                   Tom Barrett.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Carrie P. Meek.

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

                             Congress of the United States,
                                 Washington, DC, December 12, 1994.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: On November 8th, the American people 
sent a message to Washington. They voted for a smaller, less 
intrusive government. We urge you to respond to that message by 
issuing an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all federal 
rulemaking. This moratorium should go into affect immediately 
and remain in effect for the first 100 days of the next 
Congress. During the moratorium, agencies should be directed to 
(1) identify both current and proposed regulations with costs 
to society that outweigh any expected benefits; (2) recommend 
actions to eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden; (3) 
recommend actions to give state, local, or tribal governments 
more flexibility to meet federally-imposed responsibilities; 
and (4) make this information and the analysis supporting it 
available to Congress.
    The moratorium we are proposing should not apply to all 
regulations. For example, the proposed moratorium should 
specifically exempt regulations that would relax a current 
regulatory burden. Previous moratoriums have exempted several 
types of regulations including those that (1) are subject to a 
statutory or judicial deadline; (2) respond to emergencies such 
as those that pose an imminent danger to human health or 
safety; or (3) are essential to the enforcement of criminal 
laws. It is our hope that you will review past exemption 
categories and use them to guide you in establishing similar 
standards for purposes of administering this moratorium.
    Excessive regulation and red tape have imposed an enormous 
burden on our economy. Private estimates have projected the 
combined direct cost of compliance with all existing federal 
regulations to the private sector and to state and local 
governments at well over $500 billion per year. Your own 
National Performance Review observed that the compliance costs 
imposed by federal regulations on the private sector alone were 
``at least $430 billion per year--9 percent of our gross 
domestic product.'' This hidden tax has pushed up prices for 
goods and services for American families, and limited the 
ability of small businessmen and women to create jobs. The 
Small Business Administration estimates that small businesses 
in this country spend at least a billion hours a year filling 
out government forms.
    The annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, released 
on November 10, 1994, indicates that the Administration 
completed 767 regulations during the past six months and is 
pursuing over 4,300 rulemakings during the next fiscal year. We 
believe this moratorium on new federal regulations would send a 
clear signal that, working together, we intend to ease the 
burden of federal overregulation on consumers and businesses 
that has slowed economic growth and stifled job creation.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look 
forward to working with you to ensure that regulatory policy 
works for the American people, not against them.
            Respectfully,

                                   Trent Lott.
                                   Thad Cochran.
                                   Don Nickles.
                                   Newt Gingrich.
                                   Dick Armey.
                                   Tom DeLay.
                                   John Boehner.
                                ------                                

                 Executive Office of the President,
                           Office of Management and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, December 14, 1994.
Hon. Tom DeLay,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Congressman DeLay: President Clinton has asked me to 
reply to your letter requesting that he issue an Executive 
order imposing a moratorium on all federal rulemaking.
    As you know, the overwhelming majority of federal 
regulations are mandated by Congress so that federal agencies 
can put into practice your policy decisions. For example, much 
regulatory activity of the Clinton Administration involves 
protecting disabled Americans against discrimination and 
protecting all Americans against the health effects of 
pollution. These regulations are mandated by the Americans With 
Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act, measures supported by 
Republicans in Congress and signed into law by President Bush.
    President Clinton is concerned about the cost of 
regulations to businesses, individuals, and other governmental 
entities, whether or not those costs are mandated by Congress. 
The President has therefore directed Executive Branch agencies 
to regulate only when necessary, and only in the most cost-
effective manner. The President has also ordered agencies to 
review existing regulations to eliminate rules that are 
duplicative, unnecessary, or not cost-effective.
    Among the changes initiated by the Administration as a 
result of this directive are reforms that will free U.S. 
companies to export their goods overseas without drowning in 
paperwork, and provide the first upgrading in a generation of 
school nutrition standards for student meals. We have also 
opened the regulatory process so that individuals, businesses, 
and governmental entities can know in advance what regulations 
are being proposed and can participate more effectively in 
their development.
    The ``regulatory moratorium'' you have proposed would stop 
rules from being issued regardless of their merit. For example, 
our information about upcoming regulations indicates that this 
``moratorium'' would prevent the Department of Agriculture from 
dealing with tainted meat in the food supply; the Department of 
Veterans Affairs from providing veterans with additional 
assistance for undiagnosed illnesses that may be the result of 
their service in the Persian Gulf War; and the Department of 
Labor from protecting children ages 14-17 from harmful 
conditions in the workplace.
    A moratorium is a blunderbuss that could work in unintended 
ways. When President Bush tried such an approach in his 
Administration, it did not achieve its stated objective of 
reducing the number of federal regulations. In fact, in the 
months immediately after that moratorium, the number of 
regulations actually increased.
    In sum, while we share the view that burdensome regulations 
need to be cut back, we disagree that a blanket moratorium is 
the best way to proceed. We believe that we can work together 
on this issue to achieve a thoughtful solution to this problem.
            Sincerely yours,
                                                      Sally Katzen.

    Identical letters sent to Hon. Robert Dole, Hon. Trent 
Lott, Hon. Thad Cochran, Hon. Don Nickles, Hon. Newt Gingrich, 
Hon. Dick Armey, and Hon. John Boehner.