John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, quoting from the letter: Dear Colleague: I want to draw your attention to the enclosed GAO report on federal radiation protection standards and regulations (Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (RCED-94- 190). The GAO finds that: ``Historically, interagency coordination of radiation protection policy, . . . has been ineffective. Time-consuming and potentially costly dual regulation of nuclear licensees has been an issue between EPA and the NRC, and standards for major sources of radiation have been lacking for years because interagency disagreements have delayed the completion of regulations. At present, it is apparent that agencies' radiation standards and protective approaches ultimately reflect a general lack of interagency consensus on acceptable radiation risk to the public.'' My letter continues by describing past executive and legislative efforts, including several pieces of legislation which I introduced, the purpose of which was to coordinate Federal radiation policy. The GAO report describes some 26 radiation protection standards, rules and regulations, which, when taken together, still result in gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies. In my view, and that of the GAO, the radiation protection framework is broken and needs to be fixed. circulated the ``Dear Colleague'' letter mentioned earlier, I wrote to Administrator Browner of the EPA, Chairman, Selin of the NRC, and Dr. Gibbons of OSTP requesting that they develop a plan for a ``path forward'' to address the inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in current radiation protection standards. In my letters to these officials, which I ask to be made part of the record, along with their subsequent responses, I stated that this plan should clearly identify and prioritize the standards and issues which need to be resolved. I asked also that the plan identify feasible milestones on which there is consensus agreement for progress to move forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I hate to take exception with my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, but he said that we are not debating the moratorium bill. exactly what we are debating today. That is what is before us. The proposed Nickles-Reid substitute is one that we will address tomorrow. I know that the debate today has gotten off on that subject a number of times. The bill that was voted out of committee, S. 219, the moratorium bill, as proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma, with a few changes that were made in the committee, was, as I understand it, almost exactly the same as H.R. 450, the House bill that has already passed. And that is the bill that we are addressing a lot of our concerns toward today, as well as S. 219. When the Nickles-Reid substitute comes up tomorrow, I may well vote for that. I am not against the legislative veto. What I am concerned about is the moratorium bill. The House passed a devastating bill that is basically the same as S. 219, and that is what we are debating today. I want to run through some of the regulations that would be stopped under a moratorium. I have about 40 minutes remaining, and I would like to go through some of these particular regulations that would be knocked out if we pass the House bill or if we passed a version that would then go to conference and be changed according to the House bill. So we are debating the moratorium today and not what may occur tomorrow or what may be addressed tomorrow. Now what would be affected? Well, we would have a lot of regulations. I will not go through all of them here. We have about 120 of them we could bring up. Some of them have already been mentioned today. Shrimp harvesting that the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas want would be cut back. The final rule was published on that December 28, 1994, so that would be affected. Another one is on fisheries management under the Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. The moratorium would affect all States with fisheries. The rules that would be affected restrict the number of fish that commercial fishermen can catch in certain fisheries each year. They are based on scientific data and designed to allow for the maximum take of fish, while at the same time preventing depletion of fish stocks. Depletion has been a serious problem in many fisheries around the country. Beneficiary of the rule include all fishermen and the consuming public. So the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450 would be that many of these management specifications were published after November 20, 1994, and a moratorium could suspend these specifications, potentially allowing unlimited fishing in these fisheries, which could lead to long-term decline in the number of fish available for future fishing. How about seafood safety administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration? What States will be affected? All. The rule: FDA is proposing regulations to utilize hazardous analysis critical control point [HACCP] principles as a most effective way to ensure the safe processing and importing of fish and fishery products. HACCP procedures can be used by food processors and importers. Beneficiaries of the rule include consumers and the seafood industry. Consumers will benefit from safer products and will gain additional health benefits by substituting seafood products in place of other meats higher in fats and cholesterol. The seafood industry will benefit from increased consumer confidence in safer seafood products and more uniform inspection procedures. What would be the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450? Unless this rule is included in a health and safety exception, passage of a moratorium bill will prevent the implementation of a final rule, consumption of seafood may continue to decrease, and consumers' lack of confidence in the safety of seafood products would persist. That proposed rule was published January 28 of this year, and the final rule is slated for publication in the summer of 1995. That would be knocked out if H.R. 450 and S. 219 prevail. Another issue: Noncitizen housing requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. All States would be affected. This rule would restrict HUD housing assistance to U.S. citizens, nationals, and certain categories of legal immigrants. The beneficiaries of the rule would be citizens and legal immigrants who would be deprived of limited available housing assistance. What would be the impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450? U.S. citizens and legal immigrants would be deprived of the limited housing assistance offered by HUD and, instead, this housing could be available to illegal immigrants. That final rule was submitted to OMB on December 30, 1994. Another issue: Continuation of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association housing goals administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I believe in the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma asked that that be addressed and it was, but it is not in H.R. 450. All States would be affected. The rule: By statute, HUD is required to establish housing goals to direct the purchase of mortgages by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on housing for low- and moderate-income families, housing located in central cities, housing located in rural and underserved areas, and housing meeting the needs of low-income families and very low-income families. In October 1993, HUD established these goals for 1993 and 1994. This rule extended into 1995 the 1994 housing goals pending the issuance of a more comprehensive final rule. Beneficiaries of the rule? Very low- to moderate-income families in central cities and rural areas and other underserved areas. The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219: A moratorium could put a halt to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meeting housing goals set by HUD in accordance with the law and in recognition of the responsibilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under their charters. The needs of moderate- , low-, and very low-income families would not be served, and the opportunities for such families to purchase homes would be greatly reduced. The final rule was published November 30, 1994, after the election. Community development block grants is another issue also administered by HUD. All States are affected by this. The rule establishes guidelines to assist the community development block grant recipients to evaluate and select economic development opportunities for CDBG funds. The rule also makes changes for the use of CDBG funds for economic development. Who benefits from this rule? State and local communities who receive these CDBG funds. The rule reduces administrative burdens on the recipients and focuses on assisting residents of low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219: State and local governments will have limited use of CDBG funds for economic development which will adversely affect the communities served by these State and local governments. The final rule on this was published January 5, 1995. We can see just from these few I read so far that if we agree to H.R. 450 from the House or if we pass S. 219 here, which is what is before us at the moment, then, indeed, as the minority leader said a few moments ago, we can assume, I think, that the moratorium is dead; the moratorium is dead. This is only a beginning. I have probably another 75 or so, and I will not be able to go through all of them today, but I plan to go through a few more to show that I, too, believe that the moratorium is dead and that the more the American people know about what the moratorium, H.R. 450 in the House, proposes and what S. 219, its companion bill here, which is before us today, proposes, the more they will agree that these are ill-considered pieces of legislation and should not have been proposed. I think whatever changes we may make in this tomorrow and whatever bill we may wind up sending over to the House, I want the record to be full and complete in the Senate that what would happen under that bill in the House, if we accepted it or if we accepted S. 219 here, would be devastating to the lives of all individuals in many of few on the floor today. Another one out of the Park Service: Cruise ship access to Glacier Bay. Only Alaska is affected. The rule: The Department of the Interior recently decided to allow increased vessel traffic in Glacier Bay. New vessel management plan regulations are planned to implement this policy decision. The beneficiaries of the rule include travelers to Glacier Bay, area businesses, cruise ship industry, and businesses in Alaska. The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: A moratorium could delay the implementation of this new policy, which could reduce the number of potential cruise ship passengers and diminish trade to businesses in the area. The rule is planned for publication during 1995. Another one, administered by the Department of Labor, is the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations. All States will be affected. The regulation would implement the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for the birth of a child, adoption of a child, or to care for a seriously ill relative. The beneficiaries of the rule include both employers and employees, who will benefit from the clarification and guidance provided in the final rules, including, for example, clarification of what a serious health condition really is. The impact of H.R. 450 and S. 219, without the final rules: Uncertainties raised by the law and the interim regulations would remain. The final rules were published on January 6, 1995, and they will become effective on April 6, 1995. Another one is under OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, on logging safety. All States are affected. This rule addresses the major causes of logger deaths and serious injuries by providing safety provisions for chain saws, logging machinery, tree harvesting procedures, training, and personal protective equipment. Logging companies are expected to benefit from over 4,000 fewer lost workday injuries and a standardization of industry safety requirements. This rule is expected to prevent an average of 111 logger deaths, 4,759 lost workday injuries, and 2,639 other serious injuries each year. The impact of H.R. 450 or S. 219: The logging occupation has the highest death rate of all occupations--14,000 per 100,000 workers-- almost three times the private sector rate. If S. 219 would pass, or H.R. 450 were to be accepted, it would allow continuation of the carnage that now takes place in the logging industry. Most of the final rule went into effect on February 9, 1995, with 12 provisions of the final rule having been stayed until August 1995. Another one is administered by the Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. All the coal mining States would be affected. The rule relates to the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, which has mushroomed in the past 18 years, without special safety and health regulations or equipment approval regulations necessary to control fire hazards and health concerns of acute and long-term exposure to diesel exhaust gases. This rule will provide basic common sense standards for use of this potentially dangerous machinery. The beneficiaries of the rule are mine workers and mine operators. State regulatory officials have strongly supported finalizing diesel regulations. Many mine operators have already begun implementing some improvements in anticipation of the standard rule. The impact of H.R. 450 or S. 219, a moratorium, would allow diesel equipment to continue to be used without specific regulation or safety controls. In a 13-year period, there were 10 diesel-related fires investigated. Suspension of this rule would stall or halt the good-faith efforts that many mine operators have begun to work toward in improving the use of diesel equipment in underground coal mines. The final rule is to be issued in March 1995--this year. I do not know whether it has been issued yet or not. Another one from OSHA is a rule to reduce exposure to tuberculosis in the workplace. All States are affected. Based on the Centers for Disease Control recommendation, this proposed rule will protect employees from occupationally acquired tuberculosis, for engineering controls, administrative controls, work practice controls, respiratory protection, medical surveillance, and training. In order to reduce the regulatory burden on facilities with low incidence of TB, this rule will be especially tiered on the basis of the location and type of facility. The beneficiaries of the rule will be the 4\1/2\ million workers covered under this rule, and the employers who will have fewer lost workdays to this disease. The impact of H.R. 450 or S. 219: Unless workplace transmission of TB presented an imminent threat to health and safety, a moratorium could prevent effective control of this virulent disease, especially in high-risk workplaces and locations. Another area that is covered by the Department of Transportation is standardizing regulations for domestic shipments of hazardous materials. All States are affected. The rule standardizes regulations for shipments of domestic hazardous materials, making them more consistent with similar international regulations. The beneficiaries of the rule are shippers and carriers of hazardous materials that are engaged in both domestic and international shipments. Without revisions to the final rule, carriers would have to comply with differing rules for domestic and international shipments of hazardous materials. The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: They would increase the cost of doing business for international and domestic shippers and carriers of hazardous materials, placing an unfair burden on U.S. businesses. Moreover, requiring different regulations for domestic and international shipments may stifle exports of hazardous materials, which had a positive balance of trade of approximately $17 billion in 1994. The rule was in effect as of January of this year. Mr. President, we can go on with others. I would like to state a couple more here in this area, and then I want to get over into some of the nuclear matters. Airworthiness directives were mentioned by Senator Dorgan a few moments ago on the floor. These are administered by the FAA. All States are affected. Periodically, the FAA issues airworthiness directives--AD's, as they are known as in the industry. They are designed to rectify potential safety problems in aircraft--potential, not imminent. Several examples of airworthiness directives that could be suspended are: Restrictions on the operation of the ATR-42 and ATR-72 aircraft in icing conditions following the October crash in Indiana that we remember from last year. Another revision to the airplane flight manual to prohibit takeoff in certain icing conditions unless either an inspection is performed or specific take off procedures are followed. That is applicable to the Fokker F-28 model aircraft; inspection modification of the tail cone release assembly of certain McDonnell Douglas aircraft to ensure that passengers can escape during an emergency evacuation; inspection and repair of landing gear brakes for certain Airbus aircraft. This was prompted by an accident in which an aircraft was unable to stop on a wet runway. Another one: Replacement of bolts, nuts, and washers that hold together parts of the wing flap; the new attachments prevent failures that could cause the aircraft to roll over upon liftoff, and that is applicable to Boeing 757 aircraft. Another requires measures to prevent the sliding cockpit side windows from rupturing in certain Airbus models. Failure to prevent that can potentially result in rapid decompression of the aircraft. The impact of S. 219 and H.R. 450: The moratorium could prevent these types of directives from being issued. The safety concerns they address, though significant, may not be sufficiently imminent--repeat, imminent--to qualify for an exception under S. 219. I know we had discussions this morning about the President making his own judgments on these things, because Congress is apparently not willing to define what it means by imminent. These airworthiness directives were published after November 20, 1994. They committee, or H.R. 450, was accepted, those airworthiness directives would not be in effect. Standardization of aviation rules is another one that is put out by the FAA or followed by the FAA. They standardize regulations between the U.S. and European joint aviation authorities regarding flight operations, aircraft safety considerations. Commuter airlines safety standards are another one where all States are affected. The proposed rule is supposed to be issued in March of this year, with final rules planned for December 1995. The rule would upgrade the standards for commuter airlines to those of major airlines--something I am sure we all would like to see happen and not be held up by any legislation such as this. So once again, I say, when the minority leader came out a little while ago and made his statement that the moratorium is dead, I agree with that. These are just a few of the things I have been running through here today. But the moratorium had better be dead, or we are going to have a great deal of discussion on this when it comes back from conference with the House, if the House moratorium legislation would prevail, as was proposed in S. 219, which is before us today here on the Senate floor. This is not all on airplanes and on health and safety matters. We also have Government securities, large position reporting required by the Treasury. The proposed rule for public comment was put out on January 24 of this year. Another is an agreement to establish water quality standards in the San Francisco Bay delta area. The final rule was published January 24 of this year. We go on and on. Reducing toxic air emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency rule allows industries--this is one industry wants-- to obtain pollution credits for voluntarily reducing air pollution before they are required to by law. Thus, this rule allows interested companies--those who now want to invest in clean air--to take credit now for early compliance. So we get the benefits of cleaner air sooner. Everybody gets a benefit of that. Industry wants that. Twenty-one companies have applied for the program and 17 more have indicated an interest. This is the proposal that came out November 21, 1994. The final is supposed to come out later this year. That would be held up by any moratorium. For lead poisoning prevention, most regulations and guidelines have been proposed, and are to be finalized in summer or fall. Lead is a threat to children, regardless of family income, and adversely affects the nervous system, kidney, the hematopoietic system, causing decreased intelligence, impaired neurobehavioral patterns, coma, convulsions, hypertensions, and even death in children. Regulations on these matters would be held up if H.R. 450 or S. 219 would happen to prevail. Mr. President, I would like to focus for a few minutes on the effects a regulatory moratorium would have on an area which I have long been concerned--health and safety as it pertains to nuclear facilities, nuclear cleanup, and radiation protection. As we shall see, the proposed moratorium will delay a number of important regulatory actions that have been crafted to provide for the public's health and safety-- in a cost-effective manner. Let me start by making a basic observation. Radiation protection, nuclear safety, and radioactive cleanup are complex, technical issues. It follows that the regulations governing these issues are also complex. To wield indiscriminately the meat ax of a regulatory moratorium at the existing nuclear regulatory framework is precisely the wrong way to go about improving this situation. As currently proposed, the regulatory moratorium would delay the implementation of many important nuclear-related regulations--from standards for nuclear waste disposal to standards for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites to rules for improving the safe operation of Government nuclear facilities to rules governing health studies of contaminated or potentially contaminated populations. Now, Mr. President, I do not deny that the existing regulatory framework for radiation protection standards can be improved. But a moratorium is not the way to do it. In fact, I have been working for some time to improve the Federal radiation regulatory framework. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an October 27, 1994, ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I sent to all Senators on this issue. I would like to quote from the letter, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield whatever time is needed.

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, giving the President broad authority is one thing and giving him broad interpretive authority over what is imminent and what is not is another matter entirely. When the committees of Congress and when we on the floor refuse to define ``imminent,'' and we say that is up to the President and his people and we give him broad authority in that area, when the President depends on his people to give him advice on what is imminent or what is not, they go back to what was intended in the legislation in the Congress. What they have to go on right now is a vote in the Governmental Affairs Committee that said that standards to protect the public from E. coli or cryptosporidium should not be exempted. It is not clear to me whether they would be exempted under the ``imminent threat'' exemption or not. I voted to exclude them from the moratorium just to make sure. I do not think we have a good definition of ``imminent.'' I know my friend from Michigan wants to make some remarks, and I will not belabor this any further. If we do not adequately define imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, we leave it up to the President and then we will criticize him in specific cases if his judgment is not what we agree with. We should have a better definition of this term. We were unable to get it in committee. We were unable to get it on the floor, too, as far as I see it. The legislative history right now would show that standards to protect against E. coli and cryptosporidium are not clearly and explicitly exempted from the moratorium. I reserve the remainder of time. I ask how much time we have left on our side.

Mr. GLENN. Absolutely. I think that would be exactly the case. I come back to my previous point, and I did not get an answer to that. I would like to, here on the Senate floor, finally and at last hear a definition of imminent threat to health and safety or other emergency. Now, I know Webster's definition. But the definition of imminent threat did not explicitly include in committee E. coli or cryptosporidium. I would like, here on the Senate floor, before I have to decide how I am going to vote on this bill, to have a firm definition of imminent threat to health and safety or other emergencies. In committee, they said, ``Well, we leave this up to the President.'' That is not good enough; we are critical around here all the time of what the President interprets or does not interpret out of legislation. What is a clear-cut definition of imminent threat to health and safety?

Mr. GLENN. Go ahead.

Mr. GLENN. Let me just ask one question, then I will yield, because I have held the floor long enough already and I know the Senator wants to speak.

Mr. GLENN. Yes.

Mr. GLENN. The House is going to have to take action one way or the other. Why not take action on this? You are saying you hope to convince the House to come to your persuasion on the substitute to the moratorium. Why not pass the legislative veto separately and send it over to the House? They would take action on it, and it would get to the President's desk in the same length of time. The way you are talking about it, there is going to have to be a conference with the House on this bill, with the chance that we may wind up with most of what is in the House bill now. We do not know how strongly they may feel about this. I would feel much better about this if we had this as a freestanding bill. And if the intent of the sponsors is as they say it is, then I do not see why you would object to this procedure.

Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, we are talking about not having action in the House. The House would have to consider this, too, and so they would have to go back and reconsider this substitute to the moratorium. Why not consider this as a freestanding bill, rather than as something to be conferenced between the House moratorium bill that was passed and this bill? Why not consider this separately, if this is a good idea on its own?

Mr. GLENN. The reason I asked is because the Senator says he wants to go to conference with the House and does not plan, of course, to give in to the moratorium in the House, even though he proposed the same thing originally. Then, if the intent is just to get the legislative veto, which we have already voted out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in the regulatory reform bills, why not set S. 219 aside? We would let this amendment proceed as a freestanding bill, if it is intended just for the 45-day legislative veto, and not take this to conference with the House.

Mr. GLENN. Let me say on the issue of what rules might be covered by the moratorium: The reported Senate bill covers significant rules and related statements or actions, as well as any wetlands determinations, and any actions--not just rules--that affect the use of public land. The list of rules that I am submitting for the Record only covers the category of ``significant'' rules--those having an annual impact on the economy of over $100 million, or are otherwise determined to be of major importance. This is list has 58 entries. I have no idea how many wetlands determinations there might be during the moratorium. I also doubt that anyone could come up with a reliable list of all the actions that might be taken by any Federal agency relating to public lands--no trail closing, maybe no closing picnic areas at night, or restricting the number of people who can climb up the Statue of Liberty. I do not know. But this is not all. In addition to the Senate bill, we must remember that the House-passed bill covers all rules, significant or insignificant. This could total over 4,000 a year, if you include every little rule. I saw one list, just of important agency rules that might be covered by the House bill, and it had over 147 entries. The thought of simply stopping government decisions, to show that we are serious about regulatory reform, if just about the dumbest thing Congress could do. Let us reform the regulatory process, not freeze it. Let us show the American people that we are doing our job, not that we are out to lunch. 3. Real Regulatory Reform In addition to understanding the moratorium, it is also very important to understand the status of regulatory reform. Again, according to the Governmental Affairs Committee's majority report, the supporters of the moratorium have said that ``the purpose of the temporary moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process.'' In addition to our committee's hearing on the moratorium, Chairman Roth held regulatory reform hearings on February 8, 15, and March 8. The result was the committee's markup last Thursday, March 23, 1995, in which we considered, amended, and voted favorably on a bill--15 to 0. Every member of the committee, Democrat and Republican, voted to report out a real tough, regulatory reform bill. We should be back working on the committee report right now, but here we are--debating the moratorium--wasting time on damage control, when we could be working on real reform. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee are, of course, not alone in the regulatory reform effort. The majority leader's bill--S. 343--will probably be marked up this week by the Judiciary Committee. They, too, have had several hearings. The Energy Committee is also ready to mark up a bill that will, I believe, provide Government-wide reform. When one consider the ongoing agency review of current rules, with a report due to the President by June 1, and these regulatory reform bills that should all be ready to come to the floor within a matter of a few weeks, there simply is no need for the moratorium--even if one could ever explain how and why it was needed in the first place. Let us get on with the business of governing and of real reform. Let us leave the ill-conceived moratorium where it belongs--in the museum of stupid ideas. Mr. President, I do not know if anyone could disagree with the Senator from Nevada when he talks about the intrusion of rules and regulations on our society. I agree with him on that. We have all had many people come up to us at public events back in our States and talk about how they are being impacted by rules and regulations, that they think are nonsensical and really defy any rationality. I have agreed with them. But that is not the issue here. We all favor regulatory reform. We passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, by unanimous vote of that committee--Democrat and Republican--last week, a regulatory reform bill, which has within it a legislative veto provision. There are some differences between that and this proposal today. But as I have already said, my basic problem goes even more deeply than just the differences between these two bills. The House-passed moratorium bill throws out the baby with bath water. It throws out the good rules with the bad, and needlessly. The Senator from Nevada was talking of the alternative, about how many of these rules should come back to us, instead. Do you know why we have so many regulations that are nonsensical now? We had testimony that 80 percent of the rules and regulations--80 percent of the rules and regulations--are written because we specifically required them to be written in legislation. We required them to write them. If there are excesses, should they come back for review? Yes, and I do not quarrel with that. I support a legislative veto. There is no problem with that. But I do not think a moratorium that just throws out the good with the bad makes any sense at all. And I can tell you again what things will be affected by this. We had testimony in committee by Rainer Mueller, and we had a press conference this morning with Nancy Donley, both of whom had lost children to E. coli bacteria. The USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, has new rules that have been proposed that make new inspections for meat that would prevent that happening. Here are people who have actually lost children, and we are talking about putting in a moratorium that would stop a rule that might save other families from having to go through that same kind of tragedy. We are talking about final rules on airline safety. There is probably not a person in this Chamber who has not flown on an airline. We have new rules that are being promulgated to take care of things such as airline crew assignments; standardization of aircraft rules; we have air worthiness of aircraft engines. These are things that involve the safety of the American public. We are talking about saying we can put a moratorium on things like that just because we want to throw a broad net, but we are going to catch all these things. We have had some bad rules and regulations--I am the first one to say that here--and we ought to correct those. But to say at the same time that we are going to throw out these things that are safety and health matters for the people of this country to get the few bad regulations, I just do not think makes any sense. Why do I bring it up when the Senator from Nevada is discussing a 45- day hold over? Because I know the original sponsors of this legislation want the same bill the House passed, which is far more draconian and throws out most everything. That is what they passed over in the House. We debated this bill in committee and had many amendments, some were accepted, many were rejected. The bill was then reported out of committee. Now we have see the fallback position, that rather than bringing up that straight moratorium here on the floor, we will have a 45-day review, almost a 45-day moratorium. But this 45-day idea is what would go to conference with the House on the far more draconian bill that they already have passed over there. What happens when you get to conference with the House? I do not know. But I know the tendency will be, since the original intent of the sponsors here in the Senate was to do what the House has already done, probably to want to compromise in the direction of the House. That is what concerns me very, very much. The bill as proposed here is one that would affect all rules, as I understand it. It is retroactive to November 9. As I also understand it, any Member can call up a rule for review. Now, the Governmental Affairs Committee has passed out a regulatory reform bill, a comprehensive regulatory reform bill that covers this idea of a legislative veto in that legislation. But what we do with that legislative veto is we make it apply to major rules and make it prospective so it does not go back and undo things that business, industry, and communities already are planning for. In that legislation we provided that it would take a petition Now, I thought that was probably a little high. I thought we did not need 30. I am sure we could debate that on the Senate floor when that legislation comes out. Whether we need 10 Members on a petition or some other number, we do need a number of Senators that say, ``Yes, this is bad, so we should reconsider that rule or that regulation, and bring that back up here on the floor.'' We cannot have it where just one Member can call something up and say, ``This affects my State and I disagree,'' although it might be something that is agreeable for all the rest of the whole United States. I do not think we want to waste our time on things like that. Much has been made out of the fact that the President could exempt imminent health and safety matters. In committee, I challenged this time after time after time to please have the sponsors define ``imminent.'' They could not do that. ``Imminent" means something, according to Webster's dictionary, that will happen right away--now. It is impending, right now. That would not cover such things as aircraft safety or airworthiness of airline engines. These are design things. They are new criteria. Nothing is imminent--even though it improves safety of the aircraft involved or the crew training involved. We do not expect the airplane to go down within hours or not complete the flight. But the overall safety of airlines is of major significance. Why should things like that ever be held up for a moratorium? Why should we have to debate about what is or is not ``imminent?" This is just one problem with the moratorium. And now our attention is turned to the 45-day legislative veto. But what we really should be doing, instead of piecemealing this effort, is to deal with the whole regulatory reform problem. Again, that is the legislation that we voted out of the Governmental Affairs Committee just last week. Final reports on that will be written and then we would be able to bring that up on the floor and debate the whole regulatory reform process, including a legislative veto. The danger of this one being brought up separately is that it will go over and be conferenced with the House, as I understand what is being proposed here. That means we are up against the House with their complete moratorium, going clear back to shortly after the election last fall. That is far more draconian. And it lasts a year. It lasts until the ends of this year. If our conferees on the bill would give in to some of the House provisions, it means we really are placing Americans, a far greater number of Americans, at risk for this year. That is, if that is what was agreed to. I repeat, I do not disagree with the legislative veto. We are the ones that caused much of the problem. Why should we not go back on major rules and reconsider those where we believe people over in the agencies really have gone too far, where they have not sufficiently reflected the will of the Congress. I do not see why we cannot bring up the Regulatory Reform Act of which a legislative veto is a part, not just pick this out separately so that it can now go to conference with the House. That is the danger in this, as I see it. Mr. President, so far there have been only about 127 examples that have come out of the different agencies, 127 examples that we were able to get on the short basis of items that would be held up, that I felt, and many other Members on our committee and the administration felt, were things that should not have a moratorium applied to them. But is that a complete list? No. We do not even know at this point what other E. coli situations or cryptosporidium situations may exist out there across this country, because we have not yet had a complete review of all the rules and regulations. That is ongoing right now. President Clinton issued a directive to all the departments and agencies and said, ``Scan all the rules and regulations, go through them all, see which ones are overbearing and too intrusive, which ones should be taken out, which ones should be modified, and give me a complete list of all those, a complete review of all rules and regulations across Government.'' Now that is in the process. It is in the process now. It is not a 2- or 3-year study. It is not something that goes on into the future. We get it by June 1. June 1, it turns out, is only 30 working days from now. If you look at the calendar and count out the Easter break and what we planned there, June 1 is just 30 working days from right now. I counted it up this morning on the calendar myself, just to see what time we would have on this. The administration has guaranteed us repeatedly, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sally Katzen, has guaranteed us we are going to have that list by the 1st of June. Why go ahead and do a partial job of looking into rules and regulations when we have a complete list that is going to be available for us on the 1st of June? Do you know how many significant rules, those that have a $100 million impact or above, are made every year in this country? Between 800 and 900; that was the testimony we had in committee. So when we have come up just with 127 rules that would be particularly affected by moratorium legislation, we are just nibbling around the edges. They are going through, not only those 800 to 900 over the last year or so, but the 800 to 900 per year that passed back for a long time. There are going to be several thousands of these rules that will be reviewed. We will get recommendations. Then we can take action on these things. We can take action on some we separate out, some we may not agree with the administration about. I may disagree with them on a lot of them and be willing to go back and repass those things, or if necessary send them back to committee here to be reconsidered, if that is what is necessary. I am that dedicated to getting to real, honest-to-goodness regulatory reform. We need that. I support it. I worked on it the last 3 years in the Governmental Affairs Committee when I was still chairman, and I am still working on it now. Our new committee chairman, Senator Roth, has picked this up and he is pushing regulatory reform, to his everlasting credit. I complimented him the other day in public and will do so here on the floor again today. He really has been a champion in pushing regulatory reform. And what we voted out last week is an excellent bill. It is a tough regulatory bill. It is not draconian; it is very realistic. That is what we should be doing, considering regulatory reform on that basis, and not just picking out a little moratorium portion of this or a legislative veto portion of that for consideration separately. We have at hand a bill through which we can really make major regulatory reform, which is what we are all after. As I started my comments, we have all heard over and over again the unhappiness of our people back home, of business and industry and farms and just individuals, impacted in their daily lives by rules and regulations that should never be out there. I heard somebody berating the Clinton administration on this a couple of days ago. That is not the problem. The rules and regulations have been building up for the last 10 years or more. You can see a huge increase in regulations--really a bipartisan increase--thinking about the laws that led to those rules. So I look forward to having bipartisan solutions to this problem, also. I think we do it by taking a broad approach to regulatory reform, of which legislative review is one part of that legislation, and if the 45-day legislative veto would apply prospectively, I would support that. I know my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, who has worked very hard on regulatory reform on the Governmental Affairs Committee, probably is as expert in this area as anyone we have in the Senate--I know he favors that, and I do, too. I see nothing wrong with that. I do not like it going back. I do not like it retroactive. I hope, Mr. President, we could get together, perhaps, and work this out so we get leadership to bring up the regulatory reform package, the total bill of which something like this is a part, and bring it up at a very early date. If we can do that, then we will have done a great service for this country. We will have gone a long ways toward telling people that, yes, we know the regulatory impact has been too heavy. We are doing something about it. are going to throw out important health and safety rules. And why would even think of doing that? Not even because we disagree with all those rules and regulations, but because we are just saying everything should go out, even the good--this makes no sense. That is what I disagree with on a moratorium, and what I disagree with strongly on the approach the House took. If we want to see who is at fault with regulations into the future, then, as I said earlier, we look in the mirror. Let's stop this. Let's be a part of fixing the process. Let's not make it worse. Mr. President, I think we are on limited time--parliamentary inquiry; are we on limited time this morning?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that during the consideration of S. 219, Jenny Craig of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. GLENN. These articles show how the moratorium sprung from the minds of people intent not on a better or smarter Government, but a dumber Government--slow, inefficient, less likely to act on behalf the public interest. A review of the progress of the House bill confirms my view of this bill. House sponsors moved the starting date around several times so that some rules could go forward and others would be caught. And despite the broad sweep of the moratorium, special exemptions were soon added. The exemptions ranged from a promise in committee by the chief sponsor to protect watermelon marketing orders--according to the National Journal's Congress Daily, February 2, 1995, page 5--to floor amendments exempting a variety of FCC matters, China sanctions, customs modernization, airline safety, and other issues. In the Senate, the record is quite similar to that of the House. On February 7, 1995, the Governmental Affairs Committee held the first of five regulatory reform hearings. On the seventh, we heard testimony from the majority leader and a number of other Senators, including the primary sponsor of the moratorium, Senator Nickles. As our committee's majority report says: Senator Nickles stated that the purpose of the temporary moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process. With due respect to my colleague from Oklahoma, since that hearing we have devoted several weeks to the moratorium and now are on the floor to debate it--this is all time that has taken away from regulatory reform, I am sorry to say, not added to it. On February 22, 1995, the committee devoted an entire hearing to the moratorium. This hearing reinforced my conviction that the moratorium is a bad idea. Mr. Rainer Mueller, a businessman from California, described his personal tragedy of the death of his 13-year-old son to E. coli infection and the impact of the moratorium on USDA regulations. Witnesses from the Department of Transportation and the Food and Drug Administration described specific health and safety rules that would be stopped by the moratorium. Examples of such rules from other agencies provided a clear picture of the potential destructive impact of the moratorium on important government actions on behalf of public health and safety. While other witnesses told of regulations that certainly should be reviewed, if not rescinded, the thought of stopping all rules, including the meat inspection rules, in an effort to get at those bad rules, was simply not convincing. And ironically, one witness pointed out that the revised moratorium proposal before the committee would only stop significant rules, the very rules that already undergo the most rigorous regulatory analysis under Presidential Executive order. Finally, Sally Katzen, Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] told of the President's current order to agencies to review existing rules and eliminate or revise outdated or conflicting rules. This review will be completed in about ten weeks. it seems to me that we should get this information before even thinking about stopping regulations. When asked about requirements for regulations, Ms. Katzen also confirmed something that the former Republican EPA general counsel, Donald Elliot, told the committee on February 15, 1995. As much as 80 percent of all rules are mandated by Congress. This is a very important fact. It shows that if anything, we in Congress are the problem, not the agencies. We pass strict laws that agencies must implement section by section, letter by letter. It is simply the worst kind of legislative schizophrenia for Congress to pass laws and require agencies to implement them, and then turn around and tell them to stop doing what we just asked them to do in the first place--and with a few exceptions, without even regard to human health and safety. Again, I can only say that an effort targeted at bad rules makes sense, but to shoot down all rules, good and bad alike, just makes no sense at all. On March 7 and 9, 1995, the committee met to mark up the moratorium bill. Debate among the committee members about the scope of the bill and its exemptions and exceptions highlighted one of the biggest problems with the moratorium; that is, the way in which it would stop important regulations, such as those that protect the American people from serious health and safety risks. While purporting to be a moratorium on all significant regulations, the bill's sponsors recognized that this broad sweep is not a good idea and accepted several amendments to exempt specific rules. But, they also rejected others. To look at what was accepted and what was rejected shows the arbitrary nature of the bill. The committee accepted the following exemptions: First, an exemption for rules to ``ensure the safety and soundness of a Farm Credit System institution or to protect the Farm Credit Insurance Fund.'' Second, an exemption for rules on ``commercial, recreational, or subsistence * * * hunting, fishing, or camping.'' Among other things, this would allow the annual revision of duck hunting regulations to go forward. These rules are very important to the economic health of many regions in our country. Just ask Senator Pryor from Arkansas, or Senator Wellstone from Minnesota--their States would be significantly hurt by even a delay in the hunting season. Third, an exemption for rules on overflights on national parks. Fourth, an exemption for any rule to enforce ``statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or handicapped or disability status.'' Fifth, an exemption for aircraft safety, including rules ``to improve airworthiness of aircraft engines.'' Sixth, an exemption for ``safety and training standards for commuter airlines.'' Seventh, an exemption for EPA rules to ``protect the public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or drinking water.'' Eighth, an exemption for rules on ``highway safety warning devices'' at railroad crossings. Ninth, an exemption for negotiated rulemakings under the Indian Self- Determination Act Amendments of 1994. Tenth, an exemption for rules to ``provide compensation to Persian Gulf War Veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as provided by the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act.'' Even with that wide range of exemptions, the committee's majority rejected the following exemptions: First, an exemption for USDA rules to ``reduce pathogens in meat and poultry.'' Second, an exemption for EPA rules to ``control of microbial and disinfection byproduct risks in drinking water supplies.'' Third, an exemption for rules to ensure safe and proper disposal of radioactive waste, as well as any action regarding decontamination and decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites. Fourth, an exemption for health and safety rules, where the agency ``has concluded to the extent permitted by law that the benefits justify the costs.'' Fifth, an exemption for any rule that ``enforces constitutional rights of individuals.'' Sixth, an exemption for rules required by statutory or judicial deadlines. Seventh, an exemption for rules that are the ``consensual product of regulatory negotiation pursuant to the Regulatory Negotiation Act.'' These amendments were rejected, and they were rejected on a straight party-line vote. To show how arbitrary these votes were, let me just compare one or two of the amendments that were accepted with amendments that were rejected. The committee accepted an amendment to exempt from the moratorium EPA rules to ``protect the public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or drinking water,'' but rejected an amendment to exempt EPA rules to ``control of microbial and disinfection supplies.'' Why lead and not water--don't my Republican friends recall that Cryptosporidium in drinking water killed over 100 people in Milwaukee, WI, and made 400,000 people sick? The committee accepted an amendment to exempt rules that would clarify responsibilities among railroad highway safety warning devices'' at railroad crossings, but rejected an amendment to permit the reform of USDA meat inspection rules that will help reduce the 500 annual deaths and 20,000 annual instances of disease, not to mention the millions of dollars in costs, caused by food-borne illness. Or perhaps, we should compare railroad crossing safety with radioactive waste cleanup. Again, the majority of the committee accepted the railroad crossing exemption--offered by a Republican member of the committee--but rejected on a party-line vote my amendment to exempt rules to ensure rules on safe disposal of radioactive waste. I hope to come back to this issue later, but I cannot understand how my colleagues could so easily dismiss standards for disposing of plutonium-contaminated waste--radioactive waste that must be kept safely from humans for at least 10,000 years. The majority of the committee also rejected several important amendments offered by Senator Levin that would actually have helped the proposal make more sense. Retroactivity, an extra moratorium for deadlines, onerous reporting requirements, ill-defined definitions-- these were provisions that just made no sense, as Senator Levin correctly pointed out. But these were rejected, as well. As usual, my good friend from Michigan saw through the rhetoric, could appreciate the details, not to mention the broad policy issues, and accurately pointed out the internal flaws of the moratorium process--but to no avail. The marching orders were given, and the votes made. I am simply at a loss to understand how my esteemed colleagues across the aisle can explain these votes. What in the world will you tell the American people? Here you are, saying that you want to reform the regulatory process, that you want to stop bad regulations, that you want rules to pass cost/benefit tests, and that you want agencies to be governed by scientific risk assessments. But when it comes time to vote, then the special interests come to call, and you listen. And who pays the price? Rainer Mueller and Nancy Donley can tell you the price they paid. Which of your constituents do you want to share in Mr. Mueller's or Ms. Donley's pain? I am sorry, but with all due respect, I do not want to have that pain, that injury, that sickness, that suffering, that death on my conscience. The sorrow for me, however, is that as a Member of this body, if we pass a moratorium bill, we will all share in the blame. We will bring the Senate down yet again in the eyes of our people. No wonder they have lost respect for Washington. As I asked at the markup, ``Are we saying that we'll protect the rights of duck hunters, but not the right our children to eat safe food?'' This makes no sense. Do my Republican colleagues really understand what burden they are taking on when they support the moratorium. I only hope they can admit to having second thoughts, and think better of their too-hasty endorsement of a bill that would make government more arbitrary, more senseless, more unwielding, more blind, more insensitive, more of what Americans do not want from their Government. Finally, with regard to committee action on the moratorium, let me point out that the majority in the committee voted to expand the moratorium to cover: first, wetlands, determinations; and second, any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land. I have a lot of sympathy with those who are fed up with the way the wetlands program is run. I think it should be closely scrutinized and reformed in a number of ways. I do not think, however, that a regulatory moratorium is the way to accomplish that reform. Regarding the second expansion, that is, the inclusion in the moratorium of any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land, I am, again, at a loss. Do the supporters of the moratorium really mean to stop virtually all government action in our national parks, forest, refuges, and monuments? This provision would mean, as we wrote in our minority views on the committee report: That National Park Service employees would not be able to carry out basic management responsibilities in our national parks. The Park Service would not be able to prevent hot rods from racing in national parks, restrict access to fragile archaeological sites, or close dangerous passes on snow- covered peaks. As the National Parks and Conservation Association has said, ``This prohibition against rulemaking effectively eliminates the abilities of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service to manage federal lands for resource protection.'' While the moratorium's supporters reject these questions and criticisms with the statement that the bill permits the President to exempt rules he thinks are really important, I take our legislative responsibility seriously. I am confronted by a bill that makes no sense on its own and makes no sense in the context of regulatory reform. So, I cannot support it. It is as simple as that. So that my colleagues can truly appreciate the damage that would be done by this legislation, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a summary of the amendments considered by the committee in its markup on March 7 and 9; letters regarding the moratorium's impact on the American people; a copy of our minority views to the committee report on the moratorium bill; and a list of rules that would be stopped by the moratorium.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time on this legislation. 1. overview We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium. The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is, however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for as much as 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial deadlines for agency action. This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless, stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death, injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing. Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs. Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of other parents like her, have suffered. The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong. Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand what is going on here. First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they want to hide behind something new, something different, something that will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the House-passed moratorium would be negotiated. Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be subject to sunshine and amendment. As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules. Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills. In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve, just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill that we should be discussing, not the moratorium. Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is, I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin. Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of the Levin proposal of 1979. I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an important role in providing review and accountability. At the same time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform proposals. So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in, and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a substitute for S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a moratorium proposal. If we pass S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with the House-passed moratorium bill. We for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the underlying moratorium proposal. To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that might contain any moratorium. 2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposal originated in the House as H.R. 450. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March 12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19, 1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5, 1995.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post editorial dated March 26, 1995, entitled ``Good Move on Regulation,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. How is time divided?

Mr. GLENN. Yes.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. The Senator from Oklahoma brings up the key phrase that we debated long and hard in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Let me read from our minority report of that bill: The bill's exemption of rules that addresses any ``imminent threat to health and safety'' is unclear and the majority report's interpretation leaves unanswered many questions about what would and would not be covered. The bill would permit the President, upon written request by an agency head, to exempt a significant regulatory action from the moratorium upon a finding that the regulatory action ``is necessary because of an imminent threat to human health or safety or other emergency.'' That is the same language that is in the proposal by my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma that we are considering here. For certain amendments in the markup, the majority argued that specific exemptions were unnecessary because of the broad exemption authority given to the President under section 5 of the legislation. The majority could not, however, provide a consistent interpretation of ``imminent'' or how it would be applied. Now, let me tell you what we did. In committee, I repeatedly asked for a definition of ``imminent.'' I even got the definition out of Webster's, which said ``impending, immediate,'' and so on. It would not cover such things as airline safety, even though we know those rules and regulations should not be held up; there are no reasons why they should be held up. But of more immediate importance this morning is this. I would ask my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma to listen to what I proposed in committee. I proposed in committee the E. coli prevention standards that he referred to, that we make an exemption for them; E. coli is a threat. We know that. We have had deaths from it. The amendment was voted down. I brought up an amendment on cryptosporidium. It killed 100 people up in Wisconsin, and 400,000 fell ill. Once again, it was voted down as not being something that should be exempted. They were against it. Now, with that being the situation, I do not know what can be classified as imminent health and safety threats. While people have died, I'm not sure it would qualify as an ``imminent threat'' and therefore covered under that exemption. So that is the reason I do not understand quite what we are doing. I appreciate the statement by my colleague from Oklahoma that he wants to convince the House that their bill is bad and that this one would be better. I certainly take him at his word on that. Why not consider this then? Consider the proposal today out from under the umbrella of what the House has done so that we will not have the moratorium as a conferenceable item. Why not have the legislative veto as a separate bill? Why not go to the underlying bill here, S. 219, and not have an amendment? Instead, we could strike the moratorium and consider just the legislative veto amendment by itself, not as something that will go to conference with the House. I do not know whether my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would be willing to do that or not, but I have pointed out that the Nickles- Reid substitute, I felt, was perhaps an attempt to avoid Senate debate of the amendment on the underlying regulatory moratorium. If the objective is to go to conference with the House, which has passed a draconian--and I would repeat that word, which my distinguished colleague repeated himself a moment ago quoting me--regulatory moratorium bill, the result of the conference, when it comes back to us, would be unamendable. Now, maybe I am wrong about this as being their strategy. Perhaps I am too suspicious. Maybe that is not the purpose of the substitute. Maybe the sponsors really just intended to use S. 219 as a convenient vehicle for the content of their amendment. If that is the purpose, they need only to wait until a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, such as S. 343 or S. 291, comes to the floor, as they will, since both bills have been reported out by the Governmental Affairs Committee and both contain provisions for legislative veto of major regulations. I do not know why we cannot wait until S. 343 or S. 291 comes to the floor. Maybe they just want their amendment to be considered now for other reasons. I think there would be an easy way to test whether the purpose of this amendment is to get it to a moratorium on regulations in a conference with the House or whether they just want their amendment considered as a stand-alone proposal. The test is whether there will be an objection to consider the substitute as a stand-alone bill. If I made a unanimous consent request to consider the amendment as a stand-alone bill, I do not know what the response would be on the other side. But that would take away any opportunity as to what the intent of this legislation is. I will not proceed with it at this point, but if I asked for unanimous consent--I am not asking for it formally now--but if I ask unanimous consent that the Nickles-Reid substitute amendment to S. 219 be sent to the desk as a stand-alone bill and that it be given immediate consideration, and that S. 219 be put aside indefinitely or until the Senate takes up and disposes of either S. 343 or S. 291, or other similar bills on comprehensive regulatory reform, would the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma object to that? If he would, I ask why.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. Did we reserve the remainder of our time on this side so we do not have it charged against us?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.