Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me. I would just like to respond on some of the issues that have been raised. It is very easy to raise the specter of a big problem that will occur if we do not have a very broad emergency language, but the examples given just do not fit it. First of all, it says that serious illnesses that were considered would come under the jurisdiction of the Centers for Disease Control, which is not covered by this legislation; the same situation, at least to the contaminated blood issue; the nuclear reactor situation that was raised. I would like to take each of these, whether we are talking about a threat to contamination of the blood supply, whether we are talking about a serious illness that is threatening the public, reactor. What does this provision provide? It says that if you can find that there is a problem that is immediately pending, that is what we are talking about with those examples. It says it is extraordinary in nature; that is exactly what we are talking about, and that it presents a threat to the environment or is reasonably expected to cause death or serious illness, or severe injury to humans, substantial endangerment to private property or the environment. Any of those examples will trigger this. As the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has said, we have plenty of opportunity in here for an emergency to be declared in a real emergency. What we are trying to do is tighten that loophole so it is not so big that the exclusion eats the rule; so that this legislation, which is carefully crafted to address meaningful problems in our society, is not simply swept aside each time the agency head feels that there is a difficulty in facing the problem, and that they have to declare an emergency. We have to put parameters on what constitutes an emergency. We have to make this bill mean it when we say we want to have real cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, we have just had a significant debate about the importance of cost-benefit analysis. But there is one concern with this legislation that I think needs to be addressed. The legislation provides that the requirements of this act do not apply if the director of any agency subject to the act or the head of any such agency declares an emergency to exist. The problem is that there is no definition in the act of what constitutes an emergency. Those of us who have had experience, whether it be in the legislative arena or in a regulatory arena, with a declaration of an emergency, know that it is very easy to declare an emergency. This leaves a loophole in the act that is probably big enough to drive a truck through. The purpose of this amendment, which is very short and straightforward, is to provide a very carefully crafted, tight definition of what an emergency is. It requires the head of an agency to determine that there is some situation that is immediately impending, extraordinary in nature, and that it demands attention due to a condition, circumstance, or practice reasonably expected to cause death, serious illness, or severe injury to humans, or substantial endangerment to private property or the environment if no action is taken. The purpose of this is to make it clear that agencies are not entitled under this legislation and under the emergency provisions of this legislation to simply declare an emergency without good, substantial justification. In the committee report, on page 28, it says that ``The mere existence of the usual kind and level of risk which any statute subject to this title is designed to regulate does not constitute an emergency.'' Again, the purpose of this is to make it so that the requirements of this act in all cases except a true emergency, where there is an immediately impending danger, extraordinary in nature, demanding immediate attention, under the circumstances designated in this amendment. In only those circumstances can the head of an agency declare an emergency and avoid the application of this statute. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we impose this kind of control over the statute, and require that the agencies not use this provision as a loophole.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the whole point of the purpose behind this statute is, and I am willing to work with everybody in this body, is to find the most effective and best way to conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. If we need to refine this over the years and make sure it works the best, that is fine. But the problem we face now is that many of the regulators say to us, let us go back to the Delaney clause, the Delaney clause standards make us do this, regardless of what our risk assessment says. Regardless of whether this is cost beneficial, the previous statutory standards make us do this. When they say they will make us do this, they say we under our own risk analysis or own cost-benefit analysis, we believe there is a better way we can spend our resources. But the regulations and the statutes that we are dealing with have a requirement in them that we cannot ignore because of our own approach to the statute. The point here is that the sole time that this statute would supersede something that has been developed previously by this Congress is when the agency determines that the increase in benefit that it provides to society is not justified by the cost of society. I do not see how you can object to having that kind of common sense put into our law.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, we have heard a lot about the important need for the Paperwork Reduction Act in the legislation we are considering today. This amendment will give that legislation and that law some teeth to truly protect the private citizens in the United States. Currently section 3512 of the act requires that before a regulation involving the collection of information can be effective that it must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and receive an OMB control number. When Congress enacted this legislation in 1981, it specifically included this public protection provision to prevent the unauthorized regulatory requirements from being imposed on the public. It was bipartisan legislation. I would like to quote to you what its lead sponsors at that time said about it. Senator Danforth said if an information request goes out of Washington without being approved by the paperwork watchdog, the person who gets it does not have to answer it. Senator Chiles said a properly cleared form will have an Office of Management and Budget number in the right corner and if it is not there, it is going to be a bootleg form and everybody should be on notice that they can throw out that form, that they would not have to fill it out. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that when an agency does not comply with the provisions of this act that its failure to comply is a complete defense to the enforcement of the regulations that violate the act. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has been strongly in support of this approach. We would like to have inserted a private cause of action, but since that was not relevant to the germaneness of this bill, we have created a defense or a bar to action by the agency.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, then it will make it clear to the agencies, the regulators and the courts in this country, that we must start taking this act seriously.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the record be set straight. Twice today we have heard it alleged that yesterday the Republicans took 57 minutes and gave the Democrats 3 in debate. The fact is that the debate took 8 minutes. The Republicans happened to use 5 minutes, and the Democrats used 3 minutes. Now, when we counted them up afterwards, it was not exactly balanced, and maybe it should have been. It certainly was not 57 to 3, and those kinds of facts need to be set straight.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we truly did get off to a good start. We began fulfilling many of the promises to reform this Congress and to do what the American people have asked us to do, and we did it in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there are a few detractors who are trying to point to what could have been done in addition yesterday, but there are very few that we will hear who will criticize the reforms that were put into place yesterday, and it was a good start. And what those few detractors do not point out is that the gift ban has been committed to as an issue that will come forward and will be addressed in this Congress. Yet the way the vote was structured yesterday, had we voted to support the motions that were made, they would have stalled the critical reforms that we did put into place. They would have stalled the term limits that were put into place on our committee chairmen, and our Speaker and other leadership. They would have stalled the effort to require rollcall votes on spending and taxing measures every time. They would have stalled the effort to reduce the ability of this Congress to continue to raise taxes on the American people. They would have stalled the effort to eliminate the budget gimmicks. We had a good start yesterday. Let us continue in the bipartisan fashion we made.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the toughest and most comprehensive internal reforms in over 50 years in this House. An open Congress is the only way to restore a sense of public confidence in our legislative process. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this Contract for a People's House. When our constituents recently sent us to Washington as Members of the 104th Congress, they demanded that we change the way business is done. The past 2 years, however, have allowed little room for a more open and accountable process for Members of either party in Congress. What a remarkable opportunity it is then, to bring a breath of fresh air to the current business of the House through reforms of the committee system, House rules, and budget process. We are now making substantial progress in achieving the goal of comprehensive congressional reform that we promised to the American people. Gone are the days of ghost voting by proxy in committee, closed committee meetings that shut out the American people as well as other Members of Congress, and budget numbers that do not honestly reflect increases from year to year. And I am proud to say that the Speaker will institute a program to make the House electronically accessible to everyone. These reforms are just the beginning of a new House. To supplement the already substantial list of reforms that are being proposed and debated today, I am reintroducing the Truth In Voting Act. Reintroduction of this legislation comes at a critical time now that we have more opportunity to end the manipulative procedures, sham votes, and secret meetings of the old process. This legislation would codify and clarify many of the fine reforms being debated today, and it keeps alive the perennial process of self-examination and reform that brings vitality to representative government. I urge my colleagues to support the Truth In Voting Act, and reforms that will lead this House into the 21st century.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, let us understand what this debate is about. We have before us title II of a proposal that has over 25 major and important reforms and a motion to commit that will be coming that will say, Let's not consider these reforms tonight, reforms that will eliminate committees, reforms that will eliminate rolling quorums, make accountable votes in committees, and require automatic rollcall votes for spending money and raising taxes, and one which is especially important to our class--the freshman class of last year--and that is the discharge petition. What is the reason for saying, Let's not enact these reforms tonight? Because we have the gift ban proposal put forward that our Speaker today said we will address in this Congress. You cannot use the issue of saying we want to do it tonight, to dodge these important reforms. We will get to the gift ban, but tonight let us focus on the reforms that this House needs, that the people of this country want, and let us get on with the business of reforming this House.