4

Oversight is a principal responsibility of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Reform and Oversight and one which I take very seri-
ously. That is why I am concerned about proposals that bypass the
normal protections of the legislative process. Hearings, debate, de-
liberation, and amendments cannot be dispensed with simply for
public relations.

I have similar concerns about Corrections Day. Once again the
Republican leadership seems to have a press release in search of
a policy. I sincerely hope that the Speaker and other Republican
Members here today can reassure us that this is not in fact the
case.

There is much about the concept of Corrections Day that I can
support. Reevaluating legislation and correcting errors is some-
thing that Congress should do more often. For example, I sup-
ported an excellent example of a correction on the House floor just
a short time ago to repeal the tax break enjoyed by billionaires who
renounce their American citizenship.

I think we can all agree that Congress and government should
do a better job and that wasteful and foolish practices should be
changed. Congress bears a responsibility for some of these prob-
lems, and Federal departments in issuing regulations or ‘admin.
istering laws can create or exacerbate others.

However, some of the Speaker’s public comments about Correc-
tions Day have given me serious cause for concern. In a press re-
lease dated March 23 of this year he announced the appointment
of a partisan task force, the Corrections Day Steering Group, of Re-
publicans, to review suggestions for bills to take up on Corrections

jay. Now this panel is not bound by any rules or laws to operate
in public, and so we don’t know where the ideas for corrections are
coming from.

As a matter of fact, I have a list here of a “Corrections Inven-
tory.” I don’t know where this list came from. Among items on the
list are “Department of Education, 1992 Higher Education Act,
State postsecondary review entities;” “private pension law reform,
IRS code revisions to provide design-based safe harbors;” “EPA,
rainfall overflow of sanitary sewer systems,” et cetera. But I can
guess where the list came from. This is a paper prepared for Re-
publican Members, and it contains a wish list of special interest
candidates for Corrections Day, some of which may go far beyond
the idea of undoing obvious errors.

{The information referred to follows:}

CorRECTIONS INVENTORY

1. FAA Landfills & Airports
2. Fish & Wildlife, Back Bay Wildlife Access
3. Defense istics Surplus DOD Property, Humanitarian Assist. Program, For-
eign Military Sales
4. Federal Trade Commission, Nestle Purchase of Alpo Pet Food
5. Federal Highway Admin, P.L. 100-418, Metric Measurements
6. Dept. of Education 1992 Higher Educ. Act State Postsecondary Review Entities
7. Private Pension Law Reform, IRS Code Revisions To Provide Designed Based
Safeharbors
8. EPA, Rainfall Overflow of Sanitary Sewer Systems
9. State Covert Auditing of Emission Test Vendors, 40 CFR 51.363(aX4)
10, Individuals With Disabilities Act Revisions:
1. Apply Federal Administrative Procedures Act
2, State Option To Combine IDEA Fund With Other Fed. Funds



35

spinning our wheels if we don’t have some sort of arrangement on
the Senate side. .

So that is basically, out of consideration for time, Mr. Chairman,
I just wanted to make those comments for the record. It doesn’t re-
quire a response unless Mr. DeLay wants to respond.

Mr. McINTOoSH. Any response from Mr. DeLay?

Mr. DeLay. Only that I agree with Mr. Condit, and we will con-
sider those suggestions. We are in the process of consulting with
the Senate, and you are right, we can’t do this without the Senate.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much and thank you, particu-
larly Mr. DeLay, for missing your meeting.

‘ould the other members of the panel mind waiting a few min-
utes? Mr. Waxman had said he had some questions.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I’m perfectly willing to stay. I
also have a leadership meeting, the same leadership meeting, but
that’s fine, I would be happy to answer Mr. Waxman’s questions,
just be late.

Mr. McInTosn. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be very brief because we have gone over some of these is-
sues, but I do want to, on the point that Mr. Bilbray raised with
regard to the San Diego sewer issue, put into the record a letter
from our colleague, Congressman Norman Mineta, to the Honor-
able David Dreier and the Honorable David M. McIntosh dated
May 1, today—I guess it was yesterday, May 1, 1995, and it is a
letter pointing out that this is a more complicated issue than one
would think at first glance.

Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous con-
sent to put that letter in the record.

Mr. McINTosH. Any objection? Seeing none, the request is grant-

ed.
[The letter referred to follows:]

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
U.S. House OF REPRESENTATIVES,
May 1, 1995
The Honorable David Dreier,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable David M. McIntosh,
‘hairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs,
Committee on’ Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC 20515

_ DEAR CHAIRMEN: I understand that tomorrow your Subcommittees will hold a
joint hearing on the concept of a Corrections Day and on the suitability of H.R. 794,
‘exempting San Diego from major portions of the Clean Water Act, for consideration
under possible future Corrections Day procedures. Unfortunately, due to previously
scheduled commitments, I am unable to testify in person. However, this letter is to
make my views known, and I request that it be made a part of the hearing record.

H.R. 794 should not be enacted under Corrections Day procedures or under any
other procedures.

The issue here is not whether San Diego should have to achieve secondary treat-
ment of its sewage, as most communities are required to do under the Clean Water
Act. That question has already been decided by Congress, in P.L, 103-431 (copy at-
tached). And it was Congress’ decision that San Diego should nat have to do second-
ary treatment. P.L. 103-431 provides highly preferential status to San Diego by re-


31

tion deserves much of the blame. The regulatory burden relaxed through most of
the 1980's, and private-sector employment grew by 19 million jobs. Since 1989, how-
ever, the regulatory burden has grown substantially. It is no surprise that job
growth as anemic over the same period. :

Government red tape is a costly frustration to Utah business and few business
owners would be surprised to learn that unnecessary and inefficient regulation costs
the American economy an estimated $600 billion each year, or more than $5,900 per

I strony ly support a “Corrections Day” to free Americans from bureaucratic red
tape and lp to remake our economy into the greatest job-making machine in the
world.

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. DeLay, I know you need to leave, but I
wanted to raise an issue that I know you have been working on.
One of the people who has called me, without me being on the
steering committee for Corrections Day or anything else, are people
who are dealing with auto emissions testing, and Salt Lake County
is currently being faced with draconian penalties by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency if they don’t fall into compliance with the
I&M 240 centralized emission testing program, and the regulation
involved completely ignores a program in California that is one-
fifth as expensive and over 98 percent as effective. So I’m getting
calls about this.

I get calls about lots of other things. People stop me in the gro-
cery store to tell me about problems that they have had, and I
think part of the problem that we have had in Congress is that we
have not had a mechanism to respond quickly to things that are
clearly a problem when they are actually implemented in the pub-
lic, and so I applaud your efforts to do this.

My question for you, Mr. DeLay, and perhaps the other Members
can address this after you have left, so the other Members have an
opportunity also to ask you some questions, but where do we find
the line between what committees need to handle through the reg-
ular legislative process and what kinds of things can we handfe
through a Corrections Day process? Ill just ask you, for example,
would this kind of EPA testing program be something we could ad-
dress through a Corrections Day?

Mr. DeLay. I’m glad you brought that up, Mrs. Waldholtz, be-
cause it shows the problem.

When I raised the problem about emissions testing in the Clean
Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency wasn't really inter-
ested in listening to me. Additionally, and this was last year, some
of the committee chairmen stated that we cannot reopen the Clean
Air Act to address this one particular problem. Subsequently, the
EPA more or less—I don’t know if it officially did this—realized
that the centralized emissions testing that was proposed, for in-
stance, in Houston, TX, my home town, didn’t make a lot of sense.
However, they say, well, we can’t do a whole lot about that, as we
will be sued if we change certain things to accommodate more con-
venient and more common sense approaches to emissions testing.

This would be a great candidate for Corrections Day if the EPA
is being straight about its assessment of going too far, as it might
be supportive of an expedited process to correct that problem that
they see in the Clean Air Act without having to “opening up the
Clean Air Act” to a total review.

Mr. McINTOsH. Thank you, Mr. DeLay.

Mr. Beilenson.


40

some misunderstandings here where not only are we proposing to
continue extensive monitoring—the monitoring system for the
outfall has become so extensive that the EPA is now contracted
with the city of San Diego to not only monitor for that outfall but
to monitor for the entire northern half of the Baja Peninsula, and,
Mr. Waxman, I would say this, if the institute of science—the
Academy of Sciences came forward to this body in 1972——

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Bilbray, could I just—because I really don’t
want to get into the issue.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. No, no, but what I’m saying is, this is a bigger
issue. The fact is, if you have got data and science, if we were told
in 1972 there isn’t a problem with sewage—with secondary sewage,
there isn’t a need for it, we have got the data that says that there
is no environmental damage going, I don’t think, and I think you
agree, if the scientists stood before you and said, “Congress, it isn’t
needed,” there would not have been any problem here.

What I’m concerned about is a million-and-a-half-dollar process
that is diverting attentions and resources away from something
that everyone in the Environmental Health Department in the
State of California, the CAL EPA, and the local academy—I mean
the Academy of Sciences, national, says isn’t a problem, but it is
diverting away from true environmental problems and the question
is, is the process serving the environment, and if the process is not
serving the environment then we have an obligation to change it.

Mr. WAXMAN. The only thing I would just want to say is that
when a Federal judge who was appointed by the Reagan adminis-
tration fined San Diego $3 million for sewage overflows that vio-
lated the Clean Water Act, the judge held, “the sewage treatment
program in the city has been victimized by a failure of political
leadership dating back at least three decades; the city has main-
tained a policy of inaction except when action was literally forced
upon it by the Federal orders, directives, sanctions, and threats of
more severe economic measures; the result is an outrageous record
of spills, closures, and distress to residents over sewer backups in
their homes, churches, and businesses,” and Mr. Mineta has writ-
ten a letter that provides additional detail and expresses strong op-
position to this particular corrections legislation.

Mr. BiLBRAy. Mr. Waxman—

Mr. WAXMAN. No. It is my time, and I do want to ask——

Mr. McINTOosH. Wait. You can’t ask him a question and then not
let him have a chance to answer it.

Mr. WaxMaN. I did not ask—Mr. Chairman, I didn’t ask a ques-
tion, I simply wanted to point out that Mr. Bilbray, who testified
on this subject and said this ought to be a topic for Corrections
Day—I did want to point out there are some complications in this
issue, some contrary views. It may not be so obvious that this
ought to be a correction.

T think that in part you are right, that San Diego should be able
to get a waiver, but the conditions of the waiver, under what cir-
cumstances they ought to get it, is still something that ought to be
of concern.

Mr. BiLBray. Mr. Waxman, can I clarify that last statement?


8

things to the floor and to be part of a genuine effort to educate and
apply common sense to the bureaucracy. .

Mr. McINTosH. Terrific, and we will ask a few questions, and
when you need to leave let us know.

Mrs. Collins had wanted to make a statement, I believe, and I
thought I might start with her if she has any questions and then
open it up for anybody else.

Mrs. Collins, did you have any questions for the Speaker?

Mrs. CoLLIns. I have an opening statement that I’m going to give
at the end of the Speaker’s remarks. I think that will Be better be-
cause there is a flow that is going on here that I don’t want to in-
terrupt.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mrs. Collins.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are in agreement on where we are head-
ing, you and I, and I think others. My concern is how we are going
to get there. The little bit of research that I have done on this tells
me that you are right. We are in a situation where either we have
to. get rid of the whole statute or we don’t get anything accom-
plished.

My question is, how do we change this without changing the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act? However, if we are going to be that
fair and that bipartisan, I’m afraid that we are going to get into
a situation where it is all or nothing, which is where we have been
for the last 20 or 30 years. I think you are being too fair maybe
to make this work.

The SPEAKER. Well, we don’t have to be unanimous. I would, for
example, argue that bills will break into two groups, and, again,
I'm not a lawyer so some of this I think has to be worked by staff
experts to make sure that it is technically done right.

Let’s take the example of the IRS proposal to have life-style au-
dits. There should be a way, frankly, to write a directive to the IRS
that says you are not authorized to do this, period, and it has got
to be written technically correctly. If it turns out as Ways and
Means, I would assume, would want to have a hearing on it, and
sometimes you might want to have a hearing on seven corrections
in the same day, or another correction may be so big and so com-
plicated you want to spend—have only a hearing on that topic, let’s
take this example. If it turned out when we checked with Members
on both sides of the aisle that this was a relatively popular idea—
and I think, frankly, blocking the IRS from having this kind of
audit will turn out to be overwhelmingly popular—I would rec-
ommend that you design a procedure where, for those items, it
comes up under suspension on a bipartisan basis, we send it to the
Senate, and, frankly—I mean I think Senator Daschle and Senator
Dole have a much harder problem than we do because of the un-
protected nature of Senate legislation, but maybe we could even get,
an agreement over there that there are things so commonsensical
that they could actually just pass as opposed to becoming subject
to filibuster amendment and the usual game playing.

So I would want to start with the idea that any time we had a
bill where we had a bipartisan broad agreement we do exactly as
I think Mr. Waxman is saying, we bring it up under suspension.


68

those bills in a “calendar” and the establishment of specific days of the month for
their consideration.

The basic methods of consideration of measures on the Floor of the House of Rep-
resentatives are as follows:

1) By unanimous consent;

2) Under suspension of the Rules;

3) Pursuant to a House Resolution reported by Committee on Rules;

4) Under a special privilege established by law and/or under the Rules;

These basic methods of Floor consideration of measures have endured since the
early days of the House of Representatives. They have lasted because of a bipartisan
consensus that these core procedures and their precedents have allowed the House
the opportunity to work its will in a timely manner while attempting to preserve
minority party Tights and participation and the opportunity for every representative
to participate to the maximum extent possible.

ese methods have certain key assumptions at their core. They assume that it
is important that the procedures of the House continue to provide adequate protec-
tions and safeguards to ensure a thorough and complete consideration of all aspects
of any issue. They assume that all measures will be generally accompanied by re-
ports, reflecting the views of committees of jurisdiction, as well as any minority, ad-
ditional, or dissenting views. They assume that the Members should also under-
stand any possible applicability of the Budget Act and the proposed changes in rela-
tion to current law. They recognize that it is important to solicit and understand
the views of the executive branch or relevant agency with respect to most legislative
proposals. And finally, they assume that members should always have sufficient and
relevant information on which to make their judgement as to how to vote.

Aside from attempting to obtain unanimous consent, consideration under suspen-
sion of the rules may prove to be a good method of acting on a designated class of
legislation. This procedure must be used with caution, as it allows limited debate
or opportunity for changes to be made. All protections and reporting requirements
are waived. No amendments are in order and the time for debate is Fimited to forty
minutes. When a measure is considered under suspension, all rules and safeguards
are suspended, such as those embodied in the Budget Act. This would not allow the
membership to determine easily if a proposal amounted to an entitlement or would
add to the deficit. The limitations during the consideration of a proposal under sus-
pension must be weighed against the requirement that it takes a two-thirds vote
of the House, a quorum being present, for passage.

There are also privileged matters such as appropriation bills that may be consid-
ered in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union without the need
for the adoption of a separate resolution providing for their consideration. There
have been times when the Appropriations Committee has determined that it needs
waivers of the rules because of such matters in a bill as unauthorized appropria-
tions or legislation and has asked the Rules Committee to provide the necessary
waivers.

The House has in the past used appropriation bills to address actions of the Exec-
utive or regulatory agencies. In many cases, report language accompanying a bill
was all that was necessary to clarify or “correct” executive activity. Until the early
1980’s, the general membership of the House had the ability to offer amendments
on appropriation bills in the form of limitations on the use of funds in the bill. The
amendments were designed to stop or restrain activity, although only for the time
period covered by the bill. Limitations on appropriations is a relatively crude mecha-
nism for restraint and must be by its very nature tied directly to the funds in the
bill. An example of a limitation from 1960:

“None of the funds appropriated in the bill shall be used to pay an amount due
under a contract which was awarded to the higher of two bidders because of certain
Defense Department policy.”

Limitations on the use of funds in appropriations bills have been rare since the
House adopted a rule in 1983 requiring that they must survive a vote that the com-
mittee rise and report the bill back to the House. This motion allowed the managers
of the bills to avoid a vote on most limitations.

A measure may also be considered by the House under a “rule” or resolution pro-
viding for its consideration reported from the House Committee on Rules. In essence
the Rules Committee sets the parameters for debate and consideration of a measure.
It can determine how much cbate and what amendments, if any, would be in order.
The Rules Committee has to guarantee the Minority party the right to offer a mo-
tion to recommit to any bill or joint resolution considered under a “rule.”

‘That was a brief overview of the existing procedures for the consideration of meas-
ures on the Floor of the House of Representatives. Based on the limited information



50

Thank you, Mr. Chairmen and members of thc Committees for inviting me here
to discuss the need for correcting our country’s most burdensome regulations.

For an understanding of our problems, you need a brief history of my company.
I started Herr Foods Company in 1946 with an investment of $1,750 and employed
one woman part time. I borrowed the $1,750 from my girlfriend's employer, an at-
torney from Lancaster. My girlfriend and I got married a year later and worked to-

ther from 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. everyday to grow the business. We have five
children and involved them in the business as much as possible while they were
prowing up. They are all married and four of the five are actively involved in the

usiness. The one daughter has her own business of editing and proofreading in
Peachtree City, Georgia. Today our independent business employs 1,000+ people
and we think of each of them as our extended family.

A lot of this growth came before the regulations got so burdensome. For exampl
A fire completely destroyed our building and contents in September of 1951. We de-
cided to start over so we bought a 37-acre farm, demolished the barn and built a
40-by-90 factory, bought some used automatic equipment and started up operations
in 6 months from the time of the fire.

By contrast, in 1989 we decided to build a 15,000 square foot warehouse in
Elkridge, Maryland. It took 2 years to get all the permits and cost us additional
funds because of wasted time and regulations. If the 1989 regulations had been in
place in 1951, we never would have been able to hold our customers and start up
again. I might add, in 1952 we started our business in a depressed area in Notting-
ham, Pennsylvania, which is now enjoying an additional infusion of $14,000,000 in
wages per year—total company wages ‘re $29,000,000.

le have a great need for the regulation writers to have a common sense under-
standing of the business people who are carrying out the regulation. The regulations
are too cumbersome, and communications break down, It takes too long these days
to get permits necessary to grow and expand a business.

‘ake environmental regal lations as an example. I agree that we need to protect
our environment and I think most all businessmen will agree. What, then, is the
common sense solution to improving the environment? If the regulators would state
the problem they see and work together with the businessperson for a solution, we
could solve the problem and do it in a much shorter time frame. This would be much
more productive than trying to catch the businessperson in a moment of trouble and
socking them with fines.

However, for the most egregious and burdensome regulations, J believe the con-
cept of Correction’s Day seems to be a step in the right direction. The time has come
to focus not on instituting new regulations; instead, Congress should take this op-

tunity to correct the regulations that everyone can agree are outdated, are overly

urdensome or are too complex. From where I’m sitting, the mood is already shifting
out there. Government agencies seem to understand that many rules they make do
not work. I hope this mood continues to grow, and I hope that Congress and the
agencies can work together to eliminate archaic and oppressive regulations for the
betterment of our society,

REGULATIONS THAT ADVERSELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS

1. The Family Leave Act causes a lot of extra paperwork because of the mandates
that are imposed. Most employers are fair in the trying to give help where needed
to keep happy employees. This should not be mandated.

2. We should repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted dur-
ing the depression to require federal contractors to pay locally prevailing wages on
construction projects. The law is a way to keep union and non-union wages at
roughly the same level. Congress is currently pushing to repeal this law and is re-
ceiving opposition from the President.

3. ‘OSHA Ergonomics Standard. OSHA is currently launching a major initiative
into the ergonomic design of the workplaces to help eliminate repetitive trauma dis-
orders. This has been criticized as having dubious merit and will be an extremely
expensive proposition for most businesses and would add a lot more paperwork.

4. Clean Water Act Reauthorization.

Issue 1—Regulatory Bureaucracy and Delay

‘One of the principal concerns of business today is the time and effort consumed
in merely attempting to conform to the regulation. As regulatory agencies mature,
the methods of obtaining approval become increasingly Byzantine, with more an

ore individual a provals required for each succeeding application. Time frames for

roval become distorted and extended as each person required to review and sign
off on a given application seeks to leave his or her mark on it.
Issue 2—Cost/Benefit Ratio



48

munity. Our city employees are usually the ones who suffer, with
inadequate compensation for their work and inadequate equipment
to perform their duties safely. We are a working class community
and just not wealthy enough to satisfy Federal requirements and
still be fair to all our employees.

There is no question that we could manage our affairs more ef-
fectively with less cost if we had the freedom to act in a manner
that is more appropriate for our city and its citizens.

I am pleased that Congress is planning to institute a Corrections
Day to address regulations that everyone would agree need to be
changed. I hope you will consider these regulatory problems facing
us in Richmond on Corrections Day in the future.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mayor Cornett. I appre-
ciate your coming and testifying today. That was one of the issues
on the paratransit that came up at our field hearings and im-
pressed me greatly. That was an example where money was being
needlessly spent.

Mr. Herr.

Mr. HERR.

Mr. Herr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee, for inviting me to discuss the needs for correction of the
most burdensome regulations.

My name is James S. Herr, and I am chairman and CEO of Herr
Foods, Inc., in Nottingham, PA, and I would ask that my written
statement be submitted for the record.

For an understanding of our problem, you need a brief history of
my company. I started Herr Foods Co. in 1946 with an investment
of $1,750 and employed one woman half time. I borrowed $1,700
from my girlfriend’s employer who was an attorney in Lancaster.
My girlfriend and I got married a year later and worked together
from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m. most every day to grow the business. We
have five children and involved them in the business as much as
possible while they were growing up. They are all married, and
four of the five are actively involved in the business. The one
daughter has her own business, a small business, of editing and
proofreading in Peachtree City, GA. Today our independent busi-
ness, Herr Independent Business, employs 1,000-plus people, and
we think of each of them as our extended family.

A lot of this growth came before the regulations got so burden-
some, and I would like to give you an example of that. We had a
fire in 1951 which completely destroyed our buildings and our con-
tents. We decided to start over, so we bought a 37-acre farm in
Nottingham, PA, demolished the farm and built a 40-by-90 factory
and bought some used equipment and started up operations in 6
months from the time of the fire. By contrast, in 1989 we decided
to build a 15,000 square foot warehouse in Elkridge, MD. It took
2 years to get all the permits and cost us additional funds because
of wasted time and regulations. If the 1989 regulations had been
in place in 1951 we never would have been able to hold our cus-
tomers and startup again.

I might add, in 1952, we started our business in a depressed area
in Nottingham, PA, which is now enjoying an additional infusion


54

Mr. Herr. I do not have the exact answer to that, but we can
get it for you.

Mr. Fox. That would be helpful because as we move forward in
trying to have Corrections Day become a reality and to make the
kinds of fundamental changes in Congress and how our agencies
impact. I only have to look to a local business in my district, close
to where your plant’s headquarters was established, who won a
$25,000 contract with the Government, only to have to hire an at-
torney, an accountant, and engineer to respond to 187 pages of doc-
uments.

So perhaps we need, Mr. Herr, for you and Mr. Cornett to de-
velop some kind of liaison with bureaucrats so we can make the
Government more user friendly and not just work through Con-
gress. However, if you are the people that have the regulations put
upon you, at least make sure that we are doing so with ones that
are common sense, as you have stated, ones that are less expensive
and less onerous, so we don’t have people that have good products
that could sell to the Government, good services the Government
needs, only to walk away, not have a company grow, not have em-
ployees be paying taxes and stabilizing the economy just because
the regulations are so severe. So I didn’t know what your thought
was on how to make the Government more user friendly and there-
fore more pro-business.

Mr. HERR. Well, the one thing that I alluded to was the fact that
if they would come to us with the problem—and I think it has al-
ready been brought out here that in various parts of the count
you have different situations as far as the environment, how muc
water the land will take, and some things like that.

The thing that I was speaking to was the fact that if they came
to us and said that you have a problem here and how are you going
to solve it, and if we would tell them, OK, the best way to solve
that problem—we would get our engineers, and there are a lot of
engineers out there that we can get for nothing that would be glad
to come in because they supply us with some various supplies, and
we can get a lot of expertise that the offices do not have, but it is
different than what the regulation says.

I think the problem is, they try to write the regulation to meet
every circumstance, and I don’t think you can do that. I think that
we need to have regulation that says OK, we are going to clean up
the environment and we want you to tell us how would you do that,
and then have a meeting, a joint meeting, and work on it together,
and we could get to the bottom of the problem.

But when you have to go from this person to this person to this
person, I mean we are waiting now about 2 months just to figure
out if we can—they want a couple of extra monitoring wells. Well,
we are glad to put the monitoring wells in, but we can't get the OK
to even do that, and the only basic problem, as I said, when we
have a monitoring well, that is fine, I’m all for that, because that
tells you what the water is like, the ground water, and the only
thing is, when your man comes out to check that monitoring well,
I want my man to be right there and take a sample too, and we
have found out it was a good thing we did that, because the agenc
came back and said that certain things were wrong, and we said,
“Wait a minute, what are you talking about?” And we got our sam-


58

at all apparent in the text of the bill. A simple revision or correc-
tion may have an unknown effect on how other related laws should
be administered or how courts will construe legislative history or
the general obligations of the agencies.

Finally, there should be some bipartisan input such as through
an informal clearing committee with members with some of the ex-
pertise and background to judge the qualifications of a proposal
and to put-it into the context of the whole body of law. There might
also be some responsibility on this committee to actually assess the
likelihood of Senate action. I would not recommend that these
guidelines be written in the House rules, and as a matter of fact
T probably would not recommend that a formal corrections calendar
process itself be written into the rules. The rules of the Republican
Conference on suspension are quite explicit, and something along
this line might suffice.

What other options are there for dealing with agencies which
seem to lack guidance or have too much authority or seem to be
making inflexible and erroneous decisions? The appropriations
process is one clear option and one of the best congressional ave-
nues of oversight on a year-to-year basis to keep agencies on a
short leash. Limitations on the use of the funds are available, with-
in certain guidelines, within the House rules, not to change the law
but to deny the use of funds for certain purposes, rules, or regula-
tions. As a matter of fact, it is through the appropriations process,
through limitations and even legislation, that you force the Senate
to ‘address something since appropriation bills are must pass legis-

ation.

Despite the hue and cry about legislating in appropriations bills,
T have often found that the authorizers who were unable to process
authorization bills rely on the appropriations process to make their
own points. The State, Commerce, Justice appropriations bill is a
perfect case in point where most of the programs are unauthorized
and year to year the appropriations bill is what keeps the agencies
on a leash and gives them direction.

Another thing you might think about is simply reinstituting the
authorization process. Far too often important agencies and depart-
ments have no authorization year after year, and this is clearly a
venue to have some direction to the agencies and to make policy.

Another targeted approach to congressional review, of course, is
the regulatory reform that is moving through Congress. Whether a
moratorium or a congressional veto approach, while not specifically
a correcting approach, it certainly could effectuate that result.

As far as regular calendars of the House are concerned, I'm
aware of only two calendars which are subject matter specific, and
that is the Private Calendar and the DC Calendar. Now neither
one of them are used very much. As a matter of fact, there might
be a correcting resolution which is suitable for the Private Cal-
endar, and it is probably not a very usable avenue, however, be-
cause only a couple of Members objecting can kill a bill.

Motions to suspend the rules are clearly available under the
guidelines under the Republican Conference rules. I would point
out that while motions to suspend the rules can pass anything, the
vast majority of bills under suspension have been reported from
committee and have had review.


46

where we have minors smoking on the premises, and nobody talk-
ing about that, but we'll talk about something else. Maybe we need
to start looking at our own process to develop our own credibility,
and I think that is probably even a bigger issue than sewage or air
pollution or all this other stuff.

Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, if I may, to follow up, do you think that
by reason of your own investigation on the issue prior to your being
part of the Congress that we have delegated too much authority to
the Federal agencies?

Mr. BILBRAY. I think you have. I think that what is happening
is that in a Jeffersonian democracy, where citizens’ rights are pre-
mier or at least are very high, that government now places individ-
uals in a position that they do not have rights unless they can
prove that it will not impact the Federal agenda or the State agen-
da. I think we have a major problem, in that the bureaucracy is
dictating to the citizen, that government is dictating to the individ-
ual rather than the way our Founding Fathers meant it to be, and
that is, the individual should dictate in a group to government and
government should be responding to the individuals, cumulatively
speaking, not asking individuals to respond to a monolithic govern-
ment.

Mr. Fox. The challenge I think we have, finally, is whether or
not we need to look at agencies one by one as far as corrections,
whether we talk about a sunset review process whereby an agenc’
or bureau or department is no longer effectuating the original goals
for which it was intended or duplicating State procedures, and
whether or not those regulations should be sunsetted.

Mr. BiLBRAY. Mr. Fox, I think you need to say one thing: Is the
private citizen innocent until proven guilty or is he or she guilty
until a Federal agency finds them innocent, and I think the issue
here, much like with the San Diego sewage issue, is that there is
no court in law—in fact, Federal Judge Brewster said that the ver-
dict of the Congress of the United States was not appropriate, was
immoral, and should be changed, and so the jury has already said
that government is wrong on some of these issues. What we need
to do is to get back to the fact that it should never get to that
point, people should have the right to individual behavior until
such time as they are found guilty of violating some kind of general
code.

Mr. Fox. I think both of these committees, the Rules and Gov-
ernment Reform, are going to move ahead and try to make those
changes for reform.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you, Mr. Fox.

Are there any other questions? If not, we will move on to the
next panel.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McInTosu. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. McINTosH. Let me call forward our next panel of witnesses.
On it is Mayor Roger Cornett of Richmond, IN, who is a good friend
of mine from my district, and I’m delighted he is here. As we were
going through several of our town meetings, he brought forward
various examples where regulations just didn’t make sense from
his perspective as a mayor of a city in Indiana. Also Mr. James


18

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DeLAY, MAJORITY WHIP OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the other chairman,
Mr. Dreier, and the full committee chairmen, Mr. Clinger and Mr.
Solomon, and ranking members for beginning the process of Cor-
rections Day and putting all this together.

I was really excited when this idea was first raised in a leader-
ship meeting with the Speaker as I immediately thought it would
be the perfect way to deal with the myriad of rules and regulations
that are unduly costly or simply make no sense.

The size of government has reached unbelievable proportions,
and it is an unfortunate fact that the average American had to
work full time last year until July 10 just to pay for the cost of gov-
ernment: Taxation, mandates, and regulations. What this means is
that 52 cents out of every family’s hard earned dollar went to the
government either directly or indirectly. The governments of this
country got to spend the majority of American families’ hard
earned dollars.

On November 8 the American people sent a message to Washing-
ton. I feel very strongly that they voted for a smaller, less intrusive
government. The House began to address this mandate to reduce
the burden of government by passing a number of regulatory re-
form bills earlier this year, and the Senate is prepared to follow
suit. However, while we are making significant changes to the
process by which regulations are promulgated, there is still the ar-

ably even bigger problem of regulations that are currently on the
Books but shouldn’t be and are encroaching on people’s lives every
day. Many of these are just hard to believe.

inder the Clean Air Act one can end up in jail for filling out a
form incorrectly. You can be forced to pay $600,000 for failing to
fill out a Federal form even if you have complied with an identical
State law. OSHA requires employers to provide detailed safety in-
formation and training regarding the use of such hazardous sub-
stances as diet soda, Joy fish washing liquid, and chalk. You can
face a grand jury if you harm a protected falcon even if you do so
to save a chicken that the falcon is in the process of killing in your
front yard. One can be criminally convicted of contaminating wet-
lands for moving two truckloads of dirt. OSHA can fine a roofer for
chewing gum while on the job. The Federal Government can hold
up progress on a residential project in order to protect a wetland
that is six ten-thousandths of an acre or about the size of a ping-
pong table.

Some of these examples come from the Heritage Foundation’s
book that all of you have received in your packet of information
and to which the Speaker referred, called “Red Tape in America:
Stories from the front line.” I highly recommend it, as it documents
regulatory horror stories from numerous Federal agencies and de-
partments, demonstrating clearly how the Federal regulatory sys-
tem has gone way too far.

Giving the Federal Government the benefit of the doubt, I as-
sume it is not intentionally trying to wreak havoc on people’s lives.
Nonetheless, the American people shouldn’t have to continue to
suffer the consequences of poorly written or poorly implemented
rules and regulations.


36

opening only for San Diego the Section 301(h) waiver window, which for all other
communities was open only from 1977 through 1982. As a result, San Diego is al-
lowed to apply for a waiver from the secondary treatment requirement in the Clean
Water Act, and it has recently done so. EPA has already indicated that it expects
to grant the waiver in the very near future.

with no further legislative action, San Diego will not have to do secondary
treatment,

What, then, is the purpose of H.R. 794?

Simply put, San Diego wishes to renege on the commitments it made last year
as part of its justification for getting the special waiver from secondary treatment.

me background is useful here. In passing the Clean Water in 1972, Congress
faced the question of whether to require all cities to do the same level of sewage
treatment, or to base treatment requirements on the local conditions of the water
body into which the treatment works discharged. Congress decided that the most
reasonable approach was to require all cities to do a basic level of treatment—re-
ferred to as secondary treatment—and then subsequently and only where clearly
necessary to protect receiving waters, standards could be raised to higher levels of
treatment. Under the Act, all communities were required to achieve secondary treat-
ment by July 1, 1988, The majority of communities have not been required to do
more, although some, including my own City of San Jose have gone considerably be-
yond secondary treatment to tertiary trentment.

The secondary treatment requirement, and the corresponding basic level of treat-
ment for industrial dischargers, has accounted for most of the success under the
Clean Water Act, which is widely acknowledged to be the most successful of the en-
vironmental statutes. Key to that success is that a basic level of treatment was
quired up front, so that cleanup could begin before the endless litigation which has
plagued most environmental programs. More difficult questions of how much treat-
ment was enough were postponed until later, and in most instances have not needed
to be raised at all.

In the 1977 Amendments to the Act, Congress created the Section 301(h) waiver
window, under which communities with deep ocean outfalls could apply, for and re-
ceive a waiver from the secondary treatment requirement if they could show that
there would be no harm to health and the environment as a result. Communities
could only submit waivers from 1977 through 1982, although waiver applications
submitted within the window could be acted on after 1982.

‘Approximately 40 cities, many of them small communities adjacent to close-in
deep waters along the Alaska and Maine coasts, have received the waivers. Unfortu-
nately a few larger coastal cities, with more dubious claims of having deep ocean
outfalls, wasted years in failed attempts to qualify for the waiver, ‘and as 4 result
are now far behind where most communities are and are having to play a very ex-
pensive game of catch-up. San Diego is one of those cities.

‘San Diego applied for the secondary waiver during the original 301(h) window,
at a time when its ocean outfall was approximately 2 miles out and 200 feet deep.
It was originally not EPA, but the State of California under Governor Deukmejian,
which rejected San Diego’s application as inconsistent with the State Ocean Plan.
California based that decision on the fact that the outfall was in a major kelp bed
wi was actively used for recreation, and on the fact that it did not consider the
existing outfall pipe to be reliable. Several years later, California’s concerns were
borne out when the outfall pipe burst, spewing sewage which washed ashore forcing
the closure of 4.5 miles of beaches.

Based on the negative findings of the State of California, President Reagan's Ad-
ministration gave San Diego's waiver application a tentative denial in 1986.

At this point, San Diego had the option of revising its waiver application and con-
tinuing to pursue it. It could have, for example, done what it has done in the 1990's,
which is rebuild its outfall pipe to a deeper point farther out (it is now approxi-
mately 4.5 miles out and 310-320 feet deep) and meet the waiver requirements in
that way, San Diego considered that option, but in 1987 rejected it in favor of kee,
ing its existing outfall and investing instead in secondary treatment. As a result,
in'1987, San Diego voluntarily withdrew its waiver application, knowing that under
law it would as a result be committed to achieving secondary treatment and could
not go back to seeking a waiver.

If San Diego had not withdrawn its application, no waiver legislation would ever
have been necessary for San Diego. Only because it first decided to seek a waiver,
then in 1987 reversed itself and decided it did not want a waiver, then in the early
1990's reversed itself again and decided it did want a waiver, did Congress have
to face the question of providing special legislation for San Diego.

Thus, if the purpose of Corrections Day is to “correct” ill-advised federal regu-
latory or legislative requirements, San Diego’s secondary treatment is hardly an ap-



67

thorizing committees to sort of meet their deadlines, and we really
found it was difficult to come up with any one solution. Instead, it
might be a combination of many of the things that have been sug-
gested here today.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. Prrts, JR., Vice PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, CAPITAL CiTIES/ABC, INc.

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee for asking
me to assist you regarding what procedures might be utilized for a “Corrections
Day” or, in other words, a designated class of measures to be aasigned a particular

lace in the legislative schedule for the Floor of the House of resentatives. I
fave certainly had some experienos with the legislative Floor schedule, having spent
twenty-five years working for the House, much of it as a Floor Assistant to the Mi-
nority Leadership. I hope that my input proves to be of some value.

I would also like to remind you that 1 am no longer an employee of this great
institution and am now Vice Bresident for Government Affairs of Capital Cities/
ABC, Inc. Thus, while I hope that my testimony today will prove helpful and impar-
tial, I would urge you to keep in mind my allegiance to Capital Cities, and weigh
my testimony accordingly.

Let_me also emphasize that my testimony reflects solely my own views and
thoughts about the procedural or parliamentary issues that might be considered.

The purpose of “Corrections Day,” as I understand it, is to set aside some specific
time and effort to address activity that Congress feels is unwarranted, unnecessary,
or a waste of tax dollars. I am not sure exactly what the definition of a “correction”
is, or in what form the legislative measure will be, nor will. I comment on the desir-
ability of such a set aside. As to the idea, there are some obvious procedural ques-
tions. Are we talking about making minor corrections that are merely technical or
editorial, or is the purpose to address regulatory rulemaking, or is it both and more?
Are statutory enactments necessary to achieve the purpose or should procedures be
explored that would allow the House to merely express that certain activity must
be addressed? Is there a need for immediate remedies, or should longer-term struc-
tural changes be pursued in the current oversight and review process?

For any attempt to force multiple statutory changes, it is obviously important to
acknowledge the role of the other half of this bicameral legislature, the Senate, as
well as that other important branch of our government, the Executive. I am not now
going to address the implications of requiring Senate action or Presidential ap-
proval. I need not remin you of the old maxim—the best way to ensure enactment
is to be part of legislation that must be enacted by some scheduled deadline.

The hearing today is to assist the Committee in its attempt to determine what
is the best procedure, the best means to consider these “corrections.” From my per-
spective today, the question is how the House should consider such a designated
“class” of legislative measures. I will address some of the existing options that are
available within the existing rules and procedures of the House of Representatives.

Historically, the basic rules and procedures for the House of Representatives have
had a general acceptance by a substantial bipartisan majority as each party in con-
trol of the House has continued those same core procedures. There are currently
procedures in the rules of the House for specific classes of measures. They are:

1) The Private Calendar;

2) The Consent Calendar; and

3) District Day.

Private Calendar bills generally involve immigration cases and claims against the
fovernment. District Day bills involve matters touching on, the operations of our

‘ederal City—the District of Columbia. The Consent Calendar is intended for the
consideration of bills of little or no controversy that both sides of the aisle have
cleared for passage by unanimous consent. Over the last decade all three of these
special procedures have fallen from favor and have been used very little.

I have attached from the “Congressional Record” the last notification of official ob-
jectors and announcement of the bipartisan guidelines for the consideration of bills
‘on the consent calendar, That was during the 99th Congress— 1985-1986.

I think that the Committee should review the procedures of these special cal-
endars and designated days such as the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar
involves bipartisan cooperation and requires the establishment of guidelines and the
Appointment of Official Objectors to review and discuss the measures on their be-
half. A feature of the Consent Calendar worth considering is the actual listing of


CONTENTS

Hearing held on May 2, 1995 ....
Statement of:
Bilbray, Hon, Brian P., a Representative in Congress from the State
of California ....
Cornett, Roger, mayor of Richmond, I
and CEO, Herr Foods, Inc ..
DeLay, Hon. Tom, Majority Whip of the House of Representatives
Gingrich, Hon. Newt, the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Robinson, Peter, attorney, Bailey & Robinson; David Mason, director,
U.S. Congress Assessment Project, the Heritage Foundation; William
Pitts, vice president, government relations, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.;
and dim Thurber, professor of government, the American University .....
Vucanovich, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada, and chairman, Corrections Day Steering Committee .
Zeliff, Hon. William dr., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Hampshire
Letters, statements, etc., ted for the record by:
Collins, Hon. Cardiss, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, list concerning corrections inventory
Herr, James S., chairman and CEO, Herr Foo:
o!
Mason, , U.S, Congre:
age Foundation, prepared statement of ..
Pitts, William R., a vice president, Governmen
ABC, Inc., prepared statement of ..
Robinson, Peter D., attorney, Bailey

Teri James A., professor of government, director, Center for Congres-
sional and Presidential Studies, the American University...

Waldholtz, Hon. Enid G., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, ) prepared statement of

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, letter dated May 1, 1995 ..

and James S. Herr, chairman

vy)

56
19
20

14
49
62
67
59
71
30
35.


70

I would like to thank you for inviting me. This is a unique and
seemingly popular idea, the Corrections Day, and I have a few
questions about it.

I’m a conservative when it comes to changing existing rules of
the House with respect to this particular idea. I find that I agree
to a great extent with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Pitts, but I have a
few other comments to make. I will make them in summary and
ask that my entire testimony be put into the record.

First, I have several questions associated with the relatively

vague definition of corrections so far. So far people have been usin;
examples, anecdotes, to define what a correction should be. I di
the basic thing, I went to Webster’s Dictionary and found that the
verb to correct is defined as to make or to set right. Correction
means to amend, an amendment, which is a common action
through which the regular law making practice exists in the legis-
lative ody.
The definitions of corrections so far that have appeared in the
press and in other documents include, but are not restricted to cor-
recting drafting errors or unintentional ambiguities in the legisla-
tion. Now we all remember the OBRA a few year years ago that
had a woman’s name and her telephone number on it. That is a
type of noncontroversial correction we are referring to there.

Also, changing regulations that have become outdated due to
changing conditions or rectifying agency errors or reversing court
decisions—which has not been discussed at all this morning—that
impose arbitrary and unreasonable costs or burdens on private en-
tities or State and local governments. Still other definitions from
those proposing a Corrections Day include changes in government
actions that Congress considers unwise and improper and wiping
out laws, regulations, and rules deemed ludicrous. Within these
definitions there is a great deal of substance that is not always ob-
vious. Corrections, in my opinion, should be limited on Corrections
Day to the obvious, noncontroversial, and bipartisan problems that
are identified. Even these changes should have substantial biparti-
san support, a two-thirds vote required for passage such as a mo-
tion under the suspension of the rules or rule 27 of the standing
tules of the House.

According to one proposal, Corrections Day would be created to,
“do away with rules, regulations, or laws which are over-burden-
some and proven to be a financial black hole.” It is unclear how to
define that without having due process through the committees of
the House of Representatives. I think that there is probably con-
sensus among almost everyone that the committees should be as-
signed to review a corrections bill or amendment before it goes to
the floor, and probably it should go through the Rules Committee
also.

I would also add that we have processes existing now for making
corrections. It is the authorization process, the appropriations proc-
ess, the budget process. No one has mentioned Title X of the Budg-
et and Empowerment Control Act which are recisions and deferrals
that make corrections. You can make these corrections now quickly
if you have consensus through these regular processes.

‘An expedited procedure is currently available, 1 have mentioned
it, the suspension of the rules, but that procedure assumes such


69

Ihave regarding the intentions of “Correction’s Day” I would like to initially suggest
the following:

1) A clear definition of “corrections” should be established;

2) A determination should be made as to whether statutory changes are uniformly
the best means to “correct” the activity in question;

3) They should be narrow in scope and deficit neutral if they are to be consistent
with the Budget Act;

4) “Corrections” should be considered by a committee prior to Floor action;

5) Bipartisan guidelines and procedures should be developed for their consider-
ation utilizing existing procedures as much as possible;

6) A more thorough examination of the existing oversight mechanisms should be
undertaken.

T would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN OBJECTORS FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR
FOR THE 99th CONGRESS—CONGRESSIONAL RECORD MARCH 28, 1985

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to announce the official objectors for
the Republican side for the 99th Congress.

For the Consent Calendar, our official objectors will be the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. WALKER], the gentleman from California (Mr. LUNGREN], and the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. WorTLEY].

« Mr. FLippo, Mr. Speaker, the members of the Consent Calendar Committee
have agreed, for the 99th Congress, upon the following policies and procedures:
First, generally, no legislation should pass by unamanimous consent which involves
an aggregate expenditure of more than $1 million; second, no bill which changes na-
tional licy or international policy should be permitted to pass on the Consent Cal-
endar but rather should be afforded the opportunity of open and extended debate;
and third, any bill which appears on the Consent Calendar, even though it does not
change national or international policy, or does not call for an expenditure or more
than $1 million, should not be approved without the membership being fully in-
formed of its contents if it is a measure that would apply to a majority of the Mem-
bers of the House, in which case the minimum amount of consideration that should
be given such a blll would be clearance by the leadership of both parties before
being brought before the House on the Consent Calendar. Such a bill would be put
over without prejudice one or more times to give an opportunity to the Members
to become fully informed as to the contents of the bill.

It must be pointed out to the membership that it is not the objective of the objec-
tors to obstruct legislation or to object to bills or pass them over without prejudice
because of any personal objection to said bill or bills by any one member or all of
the members of the Consent Calendar Objectors Committee, but rather that their
real purpose, in addition to expediting legislation, is to protect the membership from
having bills passed by unanlmous consent, which in the opinion of the objectors, and
Members of the House might have objection to.

Mr. Fox. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts.

Chairman Dreier, do you have some questions?

Mr. DREER. No, no.

Mr. Fox. I'll start if I may then. Or we can hear Dr. Thurber
first. We will do that.

I will ask then if Dr. Jim Thurber, professor of government from
the American University, would speak next, and then we will hold
our questions until after his testimony.

Mr. THURBER. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to appear
before you, and I would like to thank Mr. Dreier in particular for
inviting me and also for being a champion of reform.

I have a book that is coming out from Congressional Quarterly
Press that documents your work over the last 2 years and what
you did during the first few days of this Congress.

Mr. DREIER. It has a brilliant preface.

Mr. THURBER. There is a brilliant foreword to it, and I’m hoping
that it sells many copies. I did not get an advance on it.



72

drafting errors or unintentional ambiguities in legislation; changing regulations that
have become outdated due to changing conditions; rectifying agency errors; revers-
ing court decisions that impose arbitrary and unreasonable costs or burdens on pri-
vate entities or state and local governments. Other definitions of correction meas-
ures include changes in government actions Congress considers unwise or improper;
curing drafting errors or unintentional ambiguities; and wiping out laws, regula~
tions, or rules deemed ludicrous. Within these definitions there is a great deal of
“substance.”

Corrections should be limited to non-controversial changes such as drafting errors.
Even these changes should have substantial bi-partisan support (two-thirds vote re-
quired for passage) such as motions under the suspension of the rules (Rule XXVII
of the standing rules of the House).

According to one proposal, Corrections Day would be “created to do away with
rules, regulations, or laws which are overburdensome and have proven to be a finan-
cial black hole.” It is unclear what process would determine the definition of what
is overburdensome and a financial black hole before the issue is considered on the
floor of the House. What is “dumb and expensive” to one person or organization may
have been established and revised (“corrected”) after years of careful consideration
and evaluation.

The authorization, appropriations, and budget processes in Congress currently de-
termine what needs to be corrected or changed in existing law. ‘the regular legisla-
tive process and careful annual oversight of government programs currently Geter.
mines what needs to be corrected or amended. The annual appropriations’ process
is a proper vehicle for rectifying problems and making corrections after appropriate
committee hearings and consideration on the floor of the House.

An expedited procedure is currently available to consider these corrections
through the suspension of the rules, but that procedure assumes that such measures
will go through the committee process, are scheduled for consideration with the mi-
nority, and are reported formally to the House with a two-thirds vote required for
passage. If “technical corrections” are necessary rather than “policy corrections,” I
think this existing procedural framework is the best vehicle for making corrections.
If “policy corrections” are to be made then the regular amending process with delib-
eration by committees is the best procedure.

T have several concerns about using a special Corrections Calendar or the Suspen-
sion of the Rules for corrections without safeguards that the committees, agencies,
interested parties, and Congressional Budget Office have appropriate time to delib-
erate and consider the proposed correction. Generally, I favor the Regular Order as
the appropriate procedure for considering corrections or amendments in the House.
Here are some of my concerns:

Would a Corrections Calendar give privilege to corrections bills on the House floor
without a rule from the Rules Committee and utilize a simple majority for passage?
If so, what would be an appropriate period of deliberation, adequate input of exper-
tise from a variety of perspectives, and how would minorities be protected? Another
approach could be to obtain a rule from the Rules Committee for consideration of
individual corrections bills. Again, without hearings by the committee or committces
of jurisdiction, this shortcuts the deliberative process that is necessary when consid-
ering legislation. A monthly corrections bill made up of many proposals under a re-
strictive rule from the Rules Committee is also being considered. I am concerned
this proposal would give even less time for Members to consider the corrections
under consideration. Efficiency at the cost of deliberation, expertise and representa-
tion is a major flaw of these proposals.

‘A Corrections Day may have serious problems with the influence of special inter-
ests. Without regular hearings and filing committee reports so that all members un-
derstand the implications of a correction, narrow interests may have access to make
changes. that are not in the public interest. The unintended consequences of changes
by one special interest ma’ Mave a negative impact on many interests without care-
ful deliberation by the workshops of Congress, the committees. .

One potentially severe unintended consequence of a “Corrections Day” is its effect
on the legislative process. Let me explain. Making a law requires research and care-
ful deliberation and most importantly compromise. It is our democratic way. It
seems to me there would be a great reluctance to make the sort of decisions and
compromises needed to make good and effective laws, if a carefully constructed com-

romise can be undone in a day. In addition, the public can be adversely affected

y this instant legislation. What would be the point in complying with a law one
did not like if one thought it would be killed in a day through a “correction”. More-
over, if one did comply by expending resources or changing behavior and then the
law was quickly “corrected,” is there not likely to be a great deal of resentment and
confusion?



29

nois, but I want to know where these people are who are asking
that all of these things be reviewed. They haven't been calling me.

Mr. McInTosu. Mrs. Collins. Would you yield for 1 second?

Mrs. COLLINS, Yes.

Mr. McINntosH. Am I to understand—what Mr. DeLay and Mr.
Zeliff were saying, is there was——

Mrs. CoL.ins. I think they can talk for themselves. I mean I
asked them a question. Now are you going to ask them a question,
or what are you going to do?

Mr. McINTosH. I want a clarification on your question. Are you
asking, is there an official list?

Mrs. COLLINS. I have already asked that question. What I’m con-
cerned about is where these lists are coming from.

Mr. McINTOosH. And are they official?

Mrs. Couns. And are they official. The answer has already
been given that there is no list and therefore they are not official,
so what I want to know now, is where are these requests coming
from?

Mr. ZELIFF. Well, you know, the requests can come from any-
where in the world.

Mrs. COLLINS. But the world hasn’t called me either.

Mr. ZELIFF. Well, you will be connected.

Mr. DeLay. We will be glad to connect your phone, Mrs. Collins,
if it is not connected, but I have file cabinets full of requests from
constituents as well as people around the country.

Mrs. Cottins. Well, I would like to know who some of those peo-
ple are.

Mrs. VucaNovicu. If the gentlelady would yield, I would like to
just emphasize what our Speaker did say in his opening statement
was that after he spoke to the Governors Association, that he re-
ceived many, many requests, and I think the first 40 requests came
from the Governors Association, including Governor Edgar.

Mrs. COLLINS. That makes more sense to me than the world at
large. Thank you very much.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Sure.

Mr. ZELIFF. Could I just add one comment? I don’t think there
is anybody intending here to exclude anybody. I think what was
said before, and I think we may need to reemphasize it, is that we
want to open this up into a bipartisan process. I think that we are
talking about doing that and adding Democrats to the process, and
certainly anybody that has—I mean there is no limit to where the
ideas come from. Democrats can create good ideas, as Republicans
can, and I’m sure everybody’s input is going to be welcome.

Mrs. CoLLINs. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. McIntosu. Thank you.

Mrs, Collins, you might also want to know, over the break Mr.
Peterson and I held a field hearing and heard from several dozen
citizens in Indiana, and the staff will be compiling a list from that
record of ideas as well, which will be publicly available to everyone.

Mrs. COLLINS, So there will be an official list.

Mr. McINTosH. I don’t know that it will be official. These are just
testimony, and it will provide ideas that can be considered as the
advisory committee goes forward.


15

3. Authority for States To Use 10% of IDEA Funds for Non-Categorical Sup-
poris and Services for Children With Disabilities
4. State Ability To Use Simplified Application for Local Education Agencies
11. Clean Air Act, Employee Commute Options State Compliance
12. ISTEA Requirement of Recycled Rubber for Paving
13. EPA Penalties for Standards Not Yet Announced
14. Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA Requirement for State Monitoring of 25 Con-
taminants
15. Title V Permit Fees Under Clean Air Act Not Counted as Match for Federal
Grants
16. IRS and SSA Requirement That States Verify Asset/Income Information
17. Home and Community-Based Services Eligibility for Employment Services
18. State Supplementary Payments for SSI Recipients
19. Federal Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Planning Require-
ments
20. Justice Dept. Substance Abuse RFP’s Require Notice of Funds Available

21. Title IV-E Client Eligibility Requirements for AFDC

22. Religious Freedom Restoration Act Required Religious Services for Any and
All Religions in State Prisons

23. CDBG irements Too Burdensome for Small Communities

24. Federal Management Improvement Act Requirements That States Pay Inter-
est on Federal Fun:

25. Dept. of Labor Should Not Prohibit Coverage of Bank Costs Related to Unem-
ployment Ins. Taxes

26. FUTA and SSA Require State To Withhold Tax From Unemployment

27. Take Federal Unemployment Trust Fund Off Budget

28. Amend Fair Employment Standards Act To Prevent Absurd Rulings for Law
Enforcement Agencies

29. Streamline Data Collection for Federal Education Programs

30. Amend Single Audit Act To Require Audits for Grants in Greater Amounts

31. 50 CFR 930, Requires Agencies To Review Competence & Physical Qualifica-
tions of All Employees Who Operate Vehicles

32. OSHA Requirement of 4 Member Firefighting Crews

Mrs. CoLLins. It seems obvious to me that lobbyists for special
interests will converge on the Republican task force en masse with
so-called corrections which have little or nothing to do with errors
or problems in laws and regulations, while the average American
will be absolutely frozen out. How can we be assured that members
of the public will be heard and that the panel will not be domi-
nated by special interests?

We don’t need any more hastily drafted, sloppily written legisla-
tion secretly prepared by special pleaders coming to the floor of the
House, and so, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge
the Republican leadership not to create any new type of legislation
which circumvents the safeguards and protections we have in the
tules, protections designed to give us time to think and analyze
and to do a good job ourselves. If we have made mistakes, we may
do worse by trying to rush in to correct them.

Corrections Day should be a bipartisan process. We should utilize
the existing legislative procedures, not short-circuit them. These
matters should be handled through our normal process in commit-
tee and under the open procedures endorsed in the original version
of the Contract With America.

The Democratic members of the relevant committees should ap-
prove any legislation to be brought to the floor. Selection of bills
should be out in the open. The bills should involve matters which
are truly noncontroversial and should not involve serious disagree-
ments over legislative policy. If we can make changes to improve
the performance and responsiveness of Congress, we should, but we
should only do so in ways which enhance the quality of the work


21

tisan approach as we tried to do before, and I think it will help us
get to where we want to go.

As a small businessman, just to put that perspective to work, we
had an incentive program. We gave people rewards and money for
coming up with ideas changing our culture, changing the stupid
way we have been doing business, making it more efficient. Obvi-
ously the savings that we made we were willing to share with our
employees.

So I think it is about time that we look for opportunities on how
to be more efficient. The Corrections Day concept is great idea.
Hopefully both sides of the aisle can come up with a way, the pro-
cedures to make it fair, bipartisan, and very effective, because I
think it is a way for all of us to somehow be able to do our work
much more efficiently.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Zeliff.

Let me now turn to one of my fellow freshman, the Representa-
tive from San Diego, Mr. Bilbray.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you and the other chairman and the chairwoman from the proud
State of Nevada for leading the charge, just reviewing where we
want to go with this, I have to say that I speak today on this issue,
what we call the San Diego situation or the fiasco; I like to say the
tragedy.

T need to point out, I speak for the entire delegation of the House
of Representatives who come from the county of San Diego, a coun-
ty that has a population twice that of Nevada, a size of about Kan-
sas, and both Democrats and Republicans totally support the con-
cept that we need correction of a well-intentioned but misguided
Federal regulation.

It is a bipartisan issue not only from the Federal point of view,
but even from Democrats like Senator Steve Peace who strongly
support it, and, Mr. Chairman, I need to point out that I speak not
as somebody who operated a sewer system in San Diego but as
somebody who operated the Public Health Department, the Envi-
ronmental Health Department.

For 20 years I have been working on the pollution and the regu-
latory problems in San Diego, and I come from the position of try-
ing to protect the public health and the frustration of running into
Federal regulations that not only do not encourage public health
but can at times stop you, or divert you from addressing major pub-
lic health problems.

Mr. Chairman, as of today there are over 30 million gallons of
raw sewage pouring across the Mexican border and closing the
beaches of south San Diego County. My children were not allowed
to surf on our beaches that we live only six blocks from. I have to
drive them an hour north to be able to find a place that I felt com-
fortable with having my children surf. The Federal bureaucracy
has failed the environment in San Diego County, and at the same
time that a foreign government and the Federal bureaucracy has
ignored this problem, one that has been allowed to occur through


17

This may involve establishing an oversight review board consisting
of congressional Members, perhaps using some of the chairmen of
Government Reform and Oversight and Rules Committees, who
would then serve to consult with oversight, appropriations, and au-
thorizing committee members on issues within their jurisdiction.
The committees of jurisdiction should be involved in the review
process so that their expertise can be applied to whatever the issue
is under consideration. We do not want to find ourselves taking
proposals to the floor that have serious unintended consequences,
which can happen if we do not give them thorough venting in the
committee.

Second, what are the views of the stakeholders? What is the jus-
tification for the needed change? Does the proposed legislative fix
address the problem? Each proposal should have to meet specific
criteria prior to being considered for floor action.

And third, Mr. Chairman, I believe that there should be some
mechanism for prioritization of proposals: For example, whether we
want to go after the most costly and ridiculous regulations and
policies first or whether we might want to consider having various
themes for each so-called Correction Day, for example, a small
business day. By having themes, this would allow for identification
of many different policies or regulations that impact a specific con-
stituency and provide a unified effort to get those issues resolved
in one context.

Corrections Day I think is an exciting opportunity for us to call
attention to Washington policies, regulations, or procedures that
make no sense and in some cases, as the Speaker has said, are just
plain dumb, and put an end to them. At the same time, I would
urge that we move cautiously and establish careful review proce-

lures.

So I appreciate consideration of these suggestions and I certainly
look forward to hearing suggestions from our other witnesses who
have given this a great deal of thought and particularly the task
force which we will be hearing from.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McIntosu. Thank you very much, Chairman Clinger.

We do want to get to the next panel, but let me just check to see
if any other members of the two subcommittees have a statement.
they would like to make. We can also put them in the record if they
have any written statements.

Let me now move to the next panel: The Whip of the Congress,
Mr. DeLay; Mrs. Vucanovich, who is the chairman of the task force
for the Speaker to develop this procedure; Mr. Zeliff, who has
served on that task force; and Mr. Bilbray, who has some experi-
ence with the San Diego issue which prompted many of the first
discussions of how to establish a Corrections Day process.

Welcome to all of you, and thank you very much for your effort
and time in working on developing this new process.

Mr. DeLay, would you please share with us your views? You
have got enormous experience in the problems with the regulatory
area and how this process might aid us in trying to eliminate those
problems.


30

Mr. DeLay. And, Mr. Chairman, I could also say that I will be
glad to urge anybody that contacts me, to contact Mrs. Collins.
{Laughter.]

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. You will be overwhelmed.

Mr. McINTosu. Mrs. Waldholtz.

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Enid G. Waldholtz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Hon. ENID G. WALDHOLTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Speaker's idea for a “Corrections Day” in Congress
to eliminate irresponsible, nonsensical federal regulations.

Regulations impose a heavy cost on our economy and are killing small business
which create the majority of jobs in our country and particularly in my state of
Utah. Each new mandate means higher costs, increased litigation, more failed busi-
nesses, and fewer jobs for Utahns.

Government administrators currently face no explicit requirement to consider the
effects of the rules that they develop. Nor have lawmakers done so in the past. Even
when agencies or congressional committees have considered the effects of proposed
regulation, policy makers often did so in ways that were simplistic or relied on
faulty assumptions and models. Moreover, nowhere in the entire federal regulatory
process does anyone consider the accumulative effects of proposed and existing regu-

lations.

These common-sense approaches will assist bureaucrats in prioritizing regulatory
decisions, ensuring that limited public resources are targeted to the greatest needs.
Billion of dollars will no longer be wasted battling problems that are no longer con-
sidered especially dangerous, freeing up money for other problems that pose greater
threats to public safety.

But, as good as these reforms are, they still don’t address the problem that we
have with current federal regulations, That is why I support a “Corrections Day”.
It’s not enough for us to ensure that future regulations are controlled, we need to
reform the current. regulatory maze,

For example, Salt Lake County, in my district, is being forced to comply with the
Environmental Protection Agency's centralized automobile emissions program—the
I&M 240 program. The I&M 240 program will force Salt Lake County to implement
centralized testing facilities for auto emissions. The cost of the equipment$159,000
per lane for equipment alone—means that a community the size of Salt Lake Coun-
ty can afford to have only a few testing centers.

This means that people will have to travel long distances, to have their cars test-
ed rather than dropping them off at the local garage near work or home. Most peo-
ple will be forced to perform this chore on their day off, creating long lines at the
testing centers. In addition, the thousand of dollars that the current testing facili-
ties have invested in emissions equipment will be lost.

Salt Lake County would be forced to spend almost $25 million to comply with
EPA's Program despite the fact than other inexpensive alternatives are available.
For example, the ASM program proposed in California is 98.4 percent as efficient
as the I&! Ryesram and would cost only $30,000 per lane compared to $150,000
under the I&M program. The 1&M program represents only a 1.6 percent efficiency
improvement at five times the cost. Yet EPA is still forcing Salt Lake County to
comply with the 1&M program.

Another example of the effect regulatory burdens place on business and our abil-
ity to efficiently put products on the market place is illustrated by a situation that
has occurred at a medical lab in my district

Over the Easter district work period, I visited a medical laboratory located in my
district, Abbott Labs. During our tour, I observed the manufacture of plastic sy-
ringes that had been originally manufactured by a lab in Florida. Abbott Labs had
porchased the equipment and the right to manufacture these syringes. It took Ab-

ott Labs less than 16 weeks to move the entire production line and start producin;
the syringes within established manufacturing tolerance levels. But, it took the Fed-
eral Drug Administration 16 months to approve the product despite the fact the
source material came from the exact same suppliers. The only difference between
the Abbott Lab product and the previous product was that the manufacturer’s name
stamped on the side was different.

During the 1980's, America’s ability to create jobs was the envy of the world. No
longer. ‘fhe American job-generating machine has slowed dramatically, and regula-


12

They should also require, in my opinion, a_ three-fifths
supermajority vote for passage rather than the two-thirds vote re-
quired for suspensions, because we can always go to the suspension
and two-thirds if we want to. They should not be subject to a mo-
tion to recommit and should remain eligible for consideration by
special rule if they do not achieve the three-fifths vote for passage.
That is what happens with suspensions now. If they happen to be
defeated they can always go to the Rules Committee under normal
rules and procedures of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should avoid overloading the correc-
tions calendar to the point where Members do not have an idea of
what they are voting on, and we should avoid unreported correc-
tions bills, again, something that some of the Democrat minority
was concerned about, that would force us to base our votes only on
anecdotal evidence or heat of the moment impulses or passions,
and we all have those from time to time.

If we establish a process along these lines that I have outlined,
I really do think we can have a truncated process without sacrific-
ing informed and deliberative decisionmaking.

I certainly remain open to other suggestions and ideas that will
be made by our witnesses and others for putting together a Correc-
tions Day process, but hopefully we will be united and guided by
the overriding goal as laid out by the Speaker of this House of de-
veloping a process that is truly workable and that is deliberative
and effective in addressing the problems of burdensome, duplica-
tive, and obsolete agency regulations or actions.

Now I just have to take a minute to talk about the problem itself.
Let me speak to the various problems I have encountered in my
Congressional District and even my own home town of Glens Falls
in upstate New York, a little community of 16,000 people. As you
might expect, nestled in the middle of the Adirondack Mountains
on the shores of Lake George, tourism, forestry, and dairy are the
major industries in my home town. Both of these industries—the
three of them are threatened by extreme environmental regula-
tions. Another industry in the region, a major industry, three major
medical device companies are now moving offshore because of re-
strictive and senseless Food and Drug Administration regulations,
and most recently a 100-year-old cement company may be forced to
close their doors because of a new interpretation of the clean air
regulations by the EPA. It has been there for 134 years.

Mr. Chairman, Glens Falls, NY, is small town U.S.A. It was
voted that back in 1944, just a beautiful little town, and just look
at what Federal Government regulations are doing to it today. It
is so pathetic. Let me give you specific examples of the devastation
that misguided Government regulations have caused in my home
town.

The cluster rule was but one reason why Scott Paper Co. laid off
400 people and shut down two paper mills. The cluster rule may
force Finch Pruyn Paper Co. to lay off 1,000 people, in an area
where the unemployment is as high as it is in the entire United
States already, and go out of business. The Safe Drinking Water
Act requires hotel and motel owners to put up unsafe drinking
water warning signs, killing tourism and costing hundreds of jobs,


71

measures will go through the committee process, are scheduled for
consideration with the minority, and are reported formally to the
House with a two-thirds vote required if technical corrections are
necessary rather than policy corrections. I think this existing proce-
dural framework is the best vehicle for making corrections.

If policy corrections are to be made, then I think the regular
amending process with deliberation by the committees is the best
procedure, and you can call it a corrections process and identi
these particular bills coming out of the committee as being bills
that are on the corrections calendar, but I would not see a need to
a change in existing rules to do so.

I have several concerns about using a special corrections cal-
endar without the safeguards of the input of agencies, interested
parties, and costing by the Congressional Budget Office at the ap-
propriate time. I favor the regular order as the appropriate proce-
dure for considering corrections and amendments in the House.

IT have other questions which are in my testimony. Let me sum-
marize them by saying that I also am concerned about the unin-
tended consequences of the actions on a Corrections Day. Let me
explain. Making a law requires research and careful deliberation
and, most importantly, compromise. It is our democratic way. The
majority has changed up here. The democratic way is to, in my
opinion, go through the regular legislative process again to change
these laws.

It seems to me that there would be a great reluctance to make
the sort of decisions and compromises needed to make good and ef-
fective laws if a carefully constructed compromise can be undone in
a single day on the floor of the House. In addition, the public can
be adversely affected by this instant legislation. What would be the
point in complying with a law one did not like if one thought it
would be killed in a day through a correction? Moreover, if one did
not comply by expending resources or changing behavior and then
the law was quickly corrected, is there not likely to be a great deal
of resentment and confusion by those affected?

In conclusion, I think that the corrections idea is interesting.
However, I think that you can pursue it using existing rules and
you can call amendments, “corrections.” However, one does not say
“corrections” to the Clean Air Act one says “amendments” to the
Clean Air Act. Otherwise it is disingenuous. There is ample proce-
dure and policy available to Congress to change legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurber follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. THURBER, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, DIREC-
TOR CENTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES, THE AMERICAN
INIVERSITY

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the policy and procedural options
to facilitate a Corrections Day process in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ihave a few short remarks regarding several issues associated with the proposal
and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. My comments focus
on the conceptual nature of Corrections Day and on various procedural options that
have been proposed for structuring a Corrections Day.

First, I have several questions associated with the relatively vague definition of
“corrections” as it has been proposed. Webster's Dictionary defines the verb to cor-
rect as: “to make or set right”. A correction also defined as a “rectification” or
“amendment”, a common action by a legislative assembly. The definition of correc-
tions under the current proposal has included, but is not restricted to: correcting


56

ter for Congressional and Presidential Studies and the Campaign
Management and Lobbying Institutes of the American University
in Washington. Dr. Thurber has served in government as a legisla-
tive assistant to the late U.S. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and
U.S. Representative John G. O’Hara of Michigan. He was also a
consultant to the very famous and powerful Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress in 1993 and 1994. It took a new ma-
jority to implement much of its work, I should note. And last but
not least, our very good friend and now very important executive
from Cap Cities ABE, Mr. Pitts. Mr. Pitts, as we all know, served
as the chief of staff to former House Republican Leader Bob Michel.
He served for a quarter of a century as floor assistant to our Re-
publican leadership.

I welcome all of you and look forward to some great rec-
ommendations as to how we can take this concept, which virtually
everyone has acknowledged can in one form of another be helpful
to deal with some of the concerns of the American people, and we
will start out with you, Mr. Robinson. .

STATEMENTS OF PETER ROBINSON, ATTORNEY, BAILEY &
ROBINSON; DAVID MASON, DIRECTOR, U.S. CONGRESS AS-
SESSMENT PROJECT, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; WIL-
LIAM PITTS, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC; AND JIM THURBER, PROFESSOR
OF GOVERNMENT, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

Mr. RosBinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to ap-
pear before the distinguished members and chairmen of the two
subcommittees today to discuss a corrections process or calendar in
the House of Representatives. As you have indicated, I believe the
specific purpose of this panel is to explore the procedural options,
ramifications, about legislation to address particularly burdensome
rules, regulations, and the like.

Tll turn to the procedural aspect in a moment, but I really am
wearing two hats, I think. One is based on my experience here in
the House of Representatives first in the Parliamentarian’s Office,
then as a strategic aide to the former Democratic leadership. But
since I left Capito] Hill I have been engaged in government rela-
tions practice with Bailey & Robinson, a unit of Ketchum Commu-
nications. I would like to immediately note that my firm is com-
pletely bipartisan and that my partner, Mr. Bailey, is an inveterate
Republican, so we are actively involved on both sides of the aisle.
In our business we represent a variety of highly regulated indus-
tries including manufacturing, pharmaceutical, health, energy, fi-
nancial services, and transportation, just to name a few.

I have witnessed a variety of instances where Federal regula-
tions or their enforcement lacked flexibility, predictability, and
common sense to the point of goofiness or worse. Working these
problems out has involved intensive work with concerned Members
and committees of Congress as well as with the agencies. We have
often found that a serious problem or dispute, particularly where
a specific industry has become a target, may require coordinated
campaigns involving all types of communications.

Now I can testify that real jobs and the survival of real busi-
nesses are often at issue, and there is no doubt that the efforts


4

Tf the goal of Corrections Day is to achieve fast action on chang-
ing a law or regulation that presumably everyone thinks is exces-
sive, burdensome, or ridiculous, it could be done simply by having
the appropriate committee report a bill and then bringing it to the
floor under an existing procedure, whether that be unanimous con-
sent, suspension of the rules, or regular order.

This leadership, as we all know—and I say this with sincere ad-
miration—has demonstrated a remarkable talent for getting com-
mittees to report bills at record speed. But whatever purpose the
Speaker hopes to serve by establishing a Corrections Day, it is our
hope that the regular legislative process will be used, the process
that entails committee hearings, questioning, consultation with ex-
perts, and adequate deliberation in an open and bipartisan man-
ner.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to hear from the Speaker
and other witnesses on this matter, and I thank you, Mr. Chair-
man, for allowing me to make these brief opening remarks.

Mr. McINTosH. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Beilenson.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good idea and I
think that in the past we have actually in a way abdicated our re-
sponsibility by giving more power to the bureaucrats than we give
to ourselves. Somehow or another we have got to take this back,
and I guess I’m hoping that we can figure out some way to do that.

It is puzzling to me why we would have a situation where we
can’t get rid of regulations that bureaucrats have promulgated. As
a Congress, we have to go back to a process where we can do that.

Mr. McINTOSH. Now I think we should hear from the Speaker
who has proposed this new process, and every time I described it
to anyone in Indiana they were extremely excited about it. So with-
out further ado, let me present the Speaker of the House, Mr.
Gingrich.

STATEMENT OF HON. NEWT GINGRICH, THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The SPEAKER. Well, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very
much the chance to be here, and I actually think it was helpful to
have the prior comments because I think it legitimately frames the
real concerns and how we should approach this.

I start from the premise that we have been trapped in a system
in which we either have very large policy changes—the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act, to take two examples that Mr. Waxman
is very familiar with—or we do nothing. And, you end up with Sen-
ator Proxmire, who was a very senior Member of the other body,
issuing a Golden Fleece Award, which is great public relations, ex-
cept if these things were that dumb why wasn’t a senior Senator
able to do more than issue a press release? So you end up in a situ-
ation where the difference is not policy, the difference is implemen-
tation. In effect we say, well, we'll do sort of generic oversight and
if we find in a general pattern that has been dumb enough, consist-
ently enough, in enough places, we will eventually pass a rule to
change being quite that dumb, I was like everybody else, you go
back home and you say, well, people complained about something
that was just so evidently stupid, and you say, “Boy, I sure agree


27

hearing process and a normal process that this legislative body

es through. But I would also like to respond to something you
Brought it up in your opening remarks. We have all used the term
“special interests,” but it usually means people that disagree with
us.

Mr. Waxman. I’m willing to confine it to campaign contributors,
and I don’t think that the powerful special interest groups that

ive lots of money to office holders for their campaigns or their po-
Fitieal efforts ought to have a greater say over legislation than ordi-
nary Americans who can’t afford lobbyists and can’t afford to give
big contributions.

Mr. DELAay. Neither do I, but if I can finish my statement, Mr.
Waxman, | consider people that come and avail themselves and tell
me some of the problems that they are experiencing in their day-
to-day lives, I consider them constituents, I consider them Ameri-
cans, and they have interests that are very special to their con-
cerns. Surely you are not suggesting that you have never met with
or received advice from or were assisted in writing legislation by
such groups that have interests that are special concerns to them,
groups such as Greenpeace or the Environmental Defense Fund or
the ACLU or labor unions or Nader’s Public Citizen group or trial
lawyers or any other liberal organizations that have special con-
cerns about what is going on in this Congress.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. DeLay, I have never had them in the room
drafting the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have questions of some of the other panelists.
Are we going to have a chance to go over that?

Mr. DREIER. Would you yield?

Mr WAXMAN. Yes, but I want to see if I’m going to have time
to ask——

Mr. McINTosH. Yes, there will be time for additional questions.

Mr. WaxMAN. Then I want to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DreEIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would simply
respond to the question that has been raised about special interest
involvement here by saying that the Speaker addressed that in his
testimony by making it clear that we want to publicize to the
American people that this Corrections Day process is one which is
going to allow them to come forward not simply with a gripe about
the operations of the Federal Government but with a vehicle that
we are going to put forward that will allow them to address the
concerns that exist there. So I think the Speaker has very ade-
quately pointed to the fact that the design for this is for the aver-
age American to feel as if he or she has an opportunity to step for-
ward and deal with a concern that they have, and I thank my
friend for yielding.

Mr. Waxman, I thank you, Mr. Dreier.

I just hope that we can deal with the problems of actions that
people complain about, but inactions as well that they complain
about by the Federal Government, because those too are also ques-
tions that affect the public interest.

T look forward to a chance to question the other members of the
panel, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. McINTos#. Thank you.


63

change. At a minimum, however, the task force that develops substantive guidelines
for what constitutes corrections legislation should consider new procedures at the
same time, and the leadership and the Rules Committee should be willing to utilize
the full range of existing procedures and powers in advancing corrections measures.

OUTLINE OF A NEW CORRECTIONS PROCEDURE

In outline, the new corrections process should:
provide for a streamlined route to the floor through a new calendar or motion;
demand some consultation in scheduling with the minority party;
relieve committee reporting requirements, provided a minimum seven day's
notice;
establish a method for challenging the expedited process (as opposed to the
bill itself);
grant limited and pre-defined opportunities for amendment; and
allow passage with a simple majority vote.
This combination of standards would balance the requirements for adequate infor-
mation and opportunity for discussion with the need for a new process to provide
reasonably swi and sure disposition of corrections measures.

TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE?

In considering whether to add yet another rules change or changes to those al-
ready adopted this year, I would point out to the new majority party that after 64
years of barely interrupted control of the House by one party, any number of addi-
tional rules changes are likely to be necessary and appropriate to suit the new ma-
jority and its purposes. While whatever rules you adopt should be fair, the principal
‘concern should be the adequacy of procedures to your goals and purposes. While
common sense and tradition demand respect for established forms, House proce-
dures should not be allowed to congeal into a straight jacket for the body politic.

Pundits have debated whether this change in majorities is more like that of 1946
or of 1930. In this regard, | would point out that among the rules changes adopted
by the House in 1931 were changes in the Consent Calendar, the Discharge Cal-
endar, Calendar Wednesday, and provisions for District of Columbia business. I can
find no reference to similar changes in 1947, though, of course, committees were re-
organized the previous year. While it is obvious that a few rules changes alone could
not preserve a political majority, the contrast suggests that the seriousness of pur-
pose evidenced by a willingness to adapt procedures to new goals may be linked to
the durability of party majorities.

NEED FOR A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE.

It is clear that the forms and procedures used over the last sixty years to accom-
plish a hyperextension of the national government’s reach and role in the federal
system will not be the same as those best suited to halt and reverse those mistakes
or to move the government in new directions, Just as the House has already taken
significant steps in reforming its committee structure and procedures, additional re-
forms in floor procedures and rules may be necessary and appropriate to suit the
new majority and its purposes.

On those rare occasions, for instance, when the executive branch repeals regula-
tions, it does so in different ways, usually under presidential or congressional direc-
tive, than the routine process of issuing or updating regulations. In the same fash-
ion, the House needs a different process for repealing or otherwise remedying spe-
cific legislative and regulatory problems than it does for considering and approving
broader legislation.

[also believe that it is entirely appropriate that there be a lesser burden on meas-
ures to repeal, remove or relieve requirements than on those that would add to or
create new laws.

WHY A CORRECTIONS PROCEDURE WOULD BE DIFFERENT

As the Speaker and the Majority Whip so ably described, citizens are demanding
not merely change in Washington, but a different type of action altogether. Citizens
share national goals and purposes, but want the national government to allow, and
occasionally hel , communities and groups in meeting those goals and needs. Too
often today the federal government is an impediment rather than an aid in this re-
gard.

New procedures such as those for unfunded mandates, and a regulatory morato-
rium and veto, should stop or limit the degree to which new burdens to local initia-
tive and activity are piled up. They do not, however, do anything about the mass



65

Unless we have a question from Chairman Dreier, we will move on
to the next witness.

Mr. DREIER. I thought your wife just had her baby.

Mr. Mason. She just had the baby and now she needs to go back.

Mr. DretEer. Oh, my gosh. OK. Brilliant testimony. I enjoyed it

eatly.
eeMr. MASON. Thank you, sir. And I certainly would remain avail-
able. Your fine staff and Mr. McIntosh’s staff have already con-
sulted with me some, and I would be happy to answer questions
or provide any follow-up if I can later on.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Dave.

Mr. Mason. Thank you.

Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Mason.

We will move on then to Mr, Pitts.

Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, like Dave before me, will probably truncate my statement and
ask that the entire statement be included as part of the record.

Mr. Fox. So ordered.

Mr. Pitts. First I want to thank you and the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today as to what procedures
might be utilized regarding “Corrections Day” or, in other words,
a designated class of measures to be assigned a particular place in
the legislative schedule for the floor of the House of Representa-
tives.

I have had some experience with the legislative floor schedule,
having spent 25 years working for the House, much of it as a floor
assistant to the minority leadership, and I hope that my input
proves to be of some value. I would also like to remind you that.
I am no longer an employee of the House and am now am vice
president for government affairs at Capital Cities/ABC. Thus, while
I hope my testimony today will prove helpful and impartial I would
urge you to keep in mind my allegiance to Capital Cities and weigh
my testimony accordingly.

Some of the questions that came to mind when I was first consid-
ering this procedure:

Are we talking about making minor corrections that are merely
technical or editorial, or is the purpose to address regulatory rule-
making, or is it both or more?

Are statutory enactments necessary to achieve the purpose, or
should procedures be explored that would allow the House to mere-
ly express that certain activity must be addressed?

Is there a need for immediate remedies, or should longer-term
structural changes be pursued in the current oversight and review
process?

I want to focus a little bit on this aspect of using a statutory
change to apply to rulemaking. There may be some instances that
you might find that freezing in law statutorily a regulatory rule-
making procedure might in the end not be the best way to proceed.

The hearing today obviously is to assist the committee in its at-
tempt to determine what is the best procedure, the best means to
consider these “corrections.” From my perspective today, the ques-
tion is how the House should consider such a designated class of
legislative procedures.


66

I would like to focus on one aspect that has been touched upon
in Pete’s testimony earlier, and that is the use of appropriation
bills to address actions of executive or regulatory agencies. In many
cases report language alone accompanying a bill was all that was
necessary to clarify or correct executive activities. Until the early
1980's the general membership of the House had the ability to offer
amendments on appropriation bills in the form of limitations on the
use of funds. The amendments were designed to stop or restrain ac-
tivity, although only for the time period covered by the bill. Limita-
tions on appropriations is a relatively crude mechanism for re-
straint and must be, by its very nature, tied directly to the funds
in the bill.

T included in my statement an example that I thought might be
the kind of corrections that you are talking about. This came from
March 1960:

None of the funds appropriated in the bill shall be used to pay an amount due

under a contract which was awarded to the higher of two bidders because of a cer-
tain Defense Department policy.

It sounds on its face like it is something that should be corrected
obviously, because why are we paying for the highest price contract
rather than the lowest price contract?

But limitations on the use of funds in appropriations bills have
been rare of late since the House adopted a rule in 1983 requirin;
that they survive a vote that the committee rise and report the bil
back to the House. This motion allowed the managers of bills to
avoid a vote on most limitations.

Now I am not advocating that we encumber appropriation bills
with lots of limitations as the Appropriations Committee has got a
deadline to meet and has got to get their bills signed into law prior
to the fiscal year, but the committee may want to consider some
kind of “ex parte” action apart from the appropriations process
where they consider limitation-like amendments separately that
would have the effect of essentially freezing for a year, for a limited
time period, that proposed rulemaking, and then maybe if they de-
sire to, the House could fold it in with the regular appropriation
bill when the House considers it at a later date.

My recommendations at least at this initial stage, which I found
were very similar to those recommended by both Chairman Solo-
mon and Chairman Clinger, are: A clear definition of corrections
should be established. determination should be made as to
whether statutory changes are uniformly the best means to correct
the activity in question. They should be narrow in scope and deficit
neutral if they are to be consistent with the Budget Act. Correc-
tions should be considered by a committee prior to floor action. Bi-
partisan guidelines and procedures should be developed for the con-
sideration utilizing existing procedures as much as possible, and I
think as an ongoing thing that a more thorough examination of the
existing oversight mechanism should be undertaken.

Now I say that knowing full well that I was part of the Bolling-
Martin reform in 1974, the Patterson-Frenzel reform of the late
seventies, as well as the Hamilton-Dreier reform just of last Con-
gress, and in every one of those attempts we discussed oversight,
we examined what we could do to try to correct the failings of hav-
ing lots of unauthorized appropriations and the failings of the au-


24

on this kind of bill, particularly as we go through the procedure of
working out some sort of process with the Senate.

You know, I have been here 10 years, and I have received time
and time again the excuse by chairmen of subcommittees or full
committees that we just can’t address this particular environ-
mental problem because it would open up the entire Clean Air Act
or we can’t address a certain OSHA problem because it would open
up the entire big policy decisions made by Congress. This is a way
to rifle shot a particular problem, and it is also a way to empower
committees to do the things that their constituents are calling
them to do.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. DeLay.

Any other comments from the other panel members on that?

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeLay, first of all there are
a number of us on this side that are interested in helping you. If
you want to expand your task force, we would be happy to work
with you on that.

Mr. DeLay. If I could respond, this is a task force that was ap-
pointed by the Speaker, but that is an excellent suggestion, and I
will take it to the Speaker.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I might tell you, Mr. Peterson, that is one of
the things that we have recommended, a bipartisan advisory com-
mittee, and we think that there are just as many Democrat Mem-
bers who are as disturbed as we are about some of the silly legisla-
tion or regulations.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

The second thing, just to follow up a little bit on the chairman’s
observations, from what I have heard I’m a little skeptical that
much is going to change. I'm going to say something here that
might irritate some folks, but I think to some extent this problem
is caused because the committees don’t legislate in as much detail
as I think they should and they turn too much over to the agencies.
That is what gets us in this trouble.

I'm a little skeptical that the committees are going to change the
process if we just give them some other title. Has there been any
consideration given to having some other committee have some-
what of a hammer? Maybe this committee or subcommittee could
set up some kind of process where we could force the committee to
deal with some of these things.

I think unless we have some kind of a hammer or some other
way to go at this, we are going to get stalemated within the com-
mittee process. Have you looked at that at all?

Mr. DELay. I’m sure that Chairman Vucanovich can speak to
this, but yes, we have considered that. That is why we set up this
task force to conduct a screening process. It would act not as a
committee, but rather as the Speaker’s tool to call to the attention
of a committee a particular idea that it may or may not be reluc-
tant to consider and sort of encourage committees to take up a par-
ticular issue.

I think, frankly, that when the committees find this expedited
procedure to be helpful, taking care of a lot of problems that they
don’t particularly want to take care of in a huge reauthorization


76

it over to me, and I’m not going to let him because I have got to
go downstairs.

Thank you all very much.

Mr. Fox. Actually I think we owe you a debt of gratitude for all
the work you have done prior to this date in working with Chair-
man McIntosh and Chairman Solomon.

I did have a couple of questions for the panel.

Mr. DREIER. Turn on your microphone, John.

Mr. Fox. I did want to thank Chairman Dreier for his efforts and
what he has done——

Mr. DREIER. You didn’t have to say that again.

Mr. Fox. That is fine.

I think long before today’s hearing Mr. Dreier has shown his
leadership on this issue along with Chairman Solomon, Chairman
Clinger, Chairman McIntosh, and Mr. Peterson.

I did want to ask a couple of questions and follow up, if I may,
to Mr. Robinson first.

In your testimony on page 3 you relate to discussions on the cal-
endars, and in speaking of having a Corrections Day I wondered,
based on your testimony at the bottom of the page, whether you be-
lieve that this should be on a Private Calendar, or should it be on
corrections through suspension of the rules, or perhaps another
procedure?

Mr. Ropinson. I think perhaps it is a mix and a match, frankly.
Ym not sure that the Private Calendar works, let’s put it that way,
because the Private Calendar, for one thing it has to be drafted
very specifically to indicate that it is just an individual or an indi-
vidual business that is being relieved. I’m not sure you want to
draft something that way.

The other problem with the Private Calendar is that, although
bills have to be reported from the committees, it is rather a cum-
bersome process because only a few Members objecting can kill a
bill, and I don’t think you want to be in that situation. It has to
be something which is totally noncontroversial, so it is probably not
suitable.

I think the Suspension Calendar is certainly a way to address
corrections with the understanding that it takes a two-thirds vote.

Mr. Fox. How often would you see it coming up? Every day?
Once a week? Once a month?

Mr. ROBINSON. Periodic. I'd say maybe twice a month or some-
thing like that, clearly designated.

Mr. Fox. I also wanted to follow up with Mr. Pitts, if I could, and
Dr. Thurber could jump in at any time on these kinds of questions.

Mr. THURBER. Actually, could I make a point?

Mr. Fox. Please do, Doctor.

Mr. THURBER. I think it is important to have these correction
bills if you have a procedure to come up individually rather than
having them packaged. There was one recommendation by someone
T had read that there would be a package of many bills together
as a corrections package that would go to the floor. I think that
would be a mistake. I would recommend taking them up singly.

Mr. Fox. For deliberation?

Mr. THURBER. Yes.


CORRECTIONS DAY POLICY AND
PROCEDURES

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1995

House OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Na-
TIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE, COMMITTEE

ON RULES,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David M. McIntosh
(chairman of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs) presiding.

Present: Representatives McIntosh, Clinger (ex officio), Dreier,
Solomon [ex officio], Pryce, Gutknecht, Shadegg, Ehrlich, McHugh,
Fox, Goss, Scarborough, Waldholtz, Linder, Tate, Peterson, Beilen-
son, Waxman, Collins, Spratt, Kanjorski, Condit, and Slaughter.

Staff present: Subcommittee on National Economic Growth: Mil-
dred Webber, staff director; Jon Praed, general counsel; and David
White, clerk; Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the
House: Vince Randazzo, counsel; Committee on Government Re-
form and Oversight, minority staff: Bruce Gwinn, senior policy ana-
lyst; Matthew Pinkus, professional staff member; and Elisabeth

ampbell, staff assistant.

Mr. McINTOoSH. This joint subcommittee hearing of the Govern-
ment Reform and Oversight Committee and the House Rules Com-
mittee will come to order.

I am pleased to have Speaker Gingrich before us. I would com-
mend him on his leadership in advancing Corrections Day. I be-
lieve Corrections Day will be a powerful new tool to eliminate rules
and regulations that are expensive, destroy jobs, and in many cases
are just plain stupid. It is a pleasure to have the Speaker here with
us today. I am also particularly honored to be able to chair this
with my colleagues who have a vast amount of greater experience
than I do in running this institution, and it is an honor and a privi-
lege for me to be here today.

Now it is my pleasure also—

Mr. DREIER. I should say that none of us have chaired any more
hearings than you have though, Mr. McIntosh.

Mr. MCINTOSH. We definitely are going to be keeping busy.

It is also my pleasure to introduce the ranking member of my
subcommittee, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, and Mr. Dreier, who is
the chairman of the subcommittee of the Rules Committee.

(oo)




13

just because they aren’t on a municipal water supply, and they
meet all the other health regulations, all of them.

New EPA kiln emission standards could put the Glens Falls Ce-
ment Co. out of business, another 130 people unemployed who can-
not find jobs, ever, if that goes out of business, up in the mountains
where I live.

In 1994 Melancroft Medical announced plans to relocate its man-
ufacturing operations to Ireland and Mexico where they can market
their products directly to the EEC without waiting 5 to 10 years
for the FDA approval. That costs the United States 450 jobs; the
are gone. A similar medical device, Angiodynamics, is also consid-
ering closing its doors and moving to Ireland for the very same rea-
son.

Let me just outline a traumatic effect of the cluster rule on the
paper industry. Mr. Chairman, the cluster rule is the biggest and
most costly rule ever proposed by the EPA for a single industry in
America. Because of the inflexibility of tremendous costs involved,
33 U.S. paper mills could be forced to close, eliminating 21,000

S.

For Finch Pruyn, I mentioned before in my home town, the effect
is even more damaging. That is because the most stringent aspect
of the EPA’s cluster rule applies solely to the small category of
paper grade sulfite mills that they belong to. This aspect requires
totally chlorine free bleaching.

Now EPA intended to eliminate the discharge of chlorinated com-
pounds into waterways, and they determined that technology did
not exist to permit the larger category of craft mills to adopt totall
chlorine free paper bleaching. Thus, only paper grade sulfite mills
would have to comply. In other words, all the craft mills can stay
open but the sulfite mills have to close down, close their doors. This
regulation undermines the economy of upstate New York. It is not
based on good science, it upsets the competitive balance in the mar-
ketplace, and, Members, this is a prime example of the type of
damage we need to remedy through the Corrections Day.

I just pray to God that we are going to be able to enact this and
we are going to be able to come back and revisit some of these ab-
solutely absurd regulations that discriminate against certain seg-
ments and certain industries in America.

So Mr. Chairman, I thank both of you for holding this hearing
today. We are going to do something with this, and it is going to
change the economy of this country, and we are going to be com-
petitive with other industrialized nations around this world once
again.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appre-
ciate your coming and your input into this will be invaluable in
moving forward in understanding how the rules should operate.

Let me turn now to Mrs. Collins for her statement. Thank you
for deferring earlier.

Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Federal Government has enormous responsibilities in admin-
istering the laws we pass in Congress. We in the Congress have
similar responsibilities in turn to oversee the operations and activi-
ties of the executive branch and Federal agencies.


3

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to see you and welcome
you to our subcommittees’ hearing.

I think it is a wise idea for us to want to correct problems that
need to be corrected whether it is from bad regulations or bad leg-
islation, and we ought to do that on a regular basis during legisla-
tive reauthorizations or through some process on the House floor.
We now have a Suspension Calendar which can serve for that pur-

pose.

But I do want to point out two pitfalls. One, I think we ought
to be sure that we follow an open, bipartisan process that ensures
that special interests are not being provided special access to cor-
rection legislation; and, second, we should provide ample opportu-
nities for careful consideration of the substance of the corrections
legislation so that we can be sure we are not legislating by anec-
dote. I just want to say that we have noticed both problems so far
this year.

During the first 100 days special interests had unprecedented ac-
cess to the legislative process, and I refer to articles that indicated
that corporate polluters and other special interests were given a
room in the Capitol to write talking points and draft amendments
for proponents of H.R. 450 and H.R. 9. And likewise we have heard
a lot of anecdotal evidence that turned out to be incorrect. We
ought not to be rushing forward with legislation in the process of
something called Corrections Day or any other process without it
being based on sound backing, clear rationale, and bipartisan sup-
port. Otherwise I certainly support the idea of trying to correct
problems. That is our job, through oversight and through legisla-
tive changes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Beilenson also wanted to make a few comments.

Mr. BEILENSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
shall be brief. Basically I want to reinforce a couple of the points
that my friend, Mr. Waxman, has just made.

I appreciate, along with the others, having this opportunity to
join with our friends on the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee to learn more about what having a Corrections Day in
the House of Representatives might entail. We are looking forward
to hearing what the Speaker is proposing along these lines, and
what our other witnesses have to say about the idea.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I’m skeptical of
the need to define a new class of legislation and to establish a new
process for considering bills that meet that definition. A key ques-
tion that I hope the proponents of a Corrections Day will answer
is, what makes corrections bills different from other Jepislation? It
seems to me that virtually any bill which changes an existing law
could be considered a correction to that law. How does one narrow
the scope, and why is it necessary to do so?

There is some suspicion among some Members that the process
for Corrections Day will entail shorteutting the legislative process
in some way, that it will enable parties which have a grievance
with the Government to obtain something they seek without a full
airing of the issue. We very much hope that is not the case.


78

Go ahead, Doctor.

Mr. THURBER. I am a coauthor of a book on that topic, and it was
supposed to be on micromanagement from Congress. What we
found out was that micromanagement, which is a negative thing in
some people’s minds in the bureaucracy, was actually
comanagement and that there was a great deal of communication
going on, as you well know, between the agencies and the commit-
tees on Capitol Hill, and informal directions to change the rules
that they are intending to promulgate or maybe to interpret them
differently on existing rules that they have promulgated, and to
put moratoriums on rules also, and this is done not only through
the appropriations process but it is done through the intent associ-
ated with the committee report, it is also done through messages
from various individuals that hold positions of authority here,
chairs and subcommittee chairs, as you well know.

Mr. Fox. I thank you for your comment.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, could I just throw out one kind of
off-the-wall suggestion. There is something short of a law which
certainly sends a message to the administration. That is a resolu-
tion of inquiry which can be drafted on just about any subject. It
can only call for facts and statements by the administration and
records, but these are privileged in nature. They need committee
consideration, but once they are reported they are privileged, and
it can send a very strong message to the administration that there
is a problem in a certain area.

Mr. Fox. Talking about sense of Congress resolutions as well.

Mr. RoBINsON. Correct.

Mr. Pirts. That would be an extreme measure, to use a resolu-
tion of inquiry, but I think it is important for you to develop a
mechanism, if not at the committee level, certainly at the leader-
ship level, where the administration is notified of the concerns that
you have of what is going on.

The administration, through OMB, may not necessarily be fully
aware of all the implications of any proposed rulemakings and
would want and readily accept the Congress’s input as to any par-
ticular item that you have concerns about.

Mr. THURBER. Mr. Fox, one final point. No one this morning has
mentioned court decisions, although the Speaker in a speech ap-
proximately a month ago included in his phrase for corrections
“dumb court decisions.” I think it is appropriate at this point to
leave court decisions out of a corrections process and rely upon the
amending process or statutory process on the Hill to deal with
court decisions that people think are dumb. I would leave that out.
I think that would cause a great deal of controversy if you included
that in the definition of things that need to be corrected at this

joint.
p Mr. Fox. I would say, speaking for the joint committees, that we
are very impressed with the testimony that you gentlemen have
given, eluding Mr. Mason, who had to leave early.

The fact is that there is a sense of urgency about Congress in a
bipartisan way to accomplish the goals we intend on reform, and
of course without doing injustice to the Constitution or violating
the coequal branches, there is sometimes a frustration that the
courts sometimes legislate when in fact they are to adjudicate.


19

My colleagues, Corrections Day is not a gimmick, it is a real op-
portunity to right wrongs. All across the country Americans are fed
up with a system that is overly intrusive, unreasonable, and exces-
sively costly. It is wonderful to see that in a general sense both
Democrats and Republicans alike have reached a consensus that
the Federal Government has grown far bigger than was ever in-
tended to and needs to be cut back. So I beg you to take this oppor-
tunity to address one aspect of the problem and create a process
by which we can repeal these most egregious, oppressive, and ridic-
ulous regulations that the government has promulgated. I thank
you for your consideration, and I urge your support for creating a
Corrections Day.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. DeLay. I appreciate
your efforts in that regard enormously.

Mrs. Vucanovich, you have thought about this a great deal and
studied the issue of how we can proceed. Would you please share
with us your vision for how Corrections Day would work?

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA VUCANOVICH, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA, AND
CHAIRMAN, CORRECTIONS DAY STEERING COMMITTEE

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you very much, Chairman McIntosh,
and I want to add my thanks to Chairman Dreier and the other
members of both the subcommittees and full committees and thank
you for holding this hearing today.

This is an idea whose time has come, and I can attest to that
fact, that there is a great deal of public support for the Corrections
Day concept. We have been flooded with requests for legislation,
and every meeting that I attend I am told what a great idea Cor-
rections Day is, and I think it is more important than ever that we
in Congress show that government really does work and that we
are relevant to the day-to-day lives of Americans. Corrections Day
offers this body a chance to show that we can react to real needs
in a timely manner.

After reviewing the options and talking with many constituents
and fellow Members of Congress, I am more convinced than ever
of the need for a rapid response system for misguided government.
It is important that we develop a means to address obviously silly,
redundant government regulations in a rapid fashion. The Con-
gress does not currently have a procedure designed to fix the little
annoyances of government that drive the average American crazy.
Our only option is to await a technical corrections bill or reauthor-
ization of the program. In many cases this is an unacceptable
delay. Our constituents simply don’t understand why they must
wait 5 years for a bill to correct what seems to them a minor item,
and frankly I don’t really understand it myself.

As chairman of the steering committee appointed by the Speaker
to establish Corrections Day, I would like to share with you some
of the committee’s conclusions. Our recommendation to this com-
mittee is to provide a procedure that streamlines the process of cor-
recting obvious problems with a minimum of delay in a bipartisan
manner. Corrections Day should avoid far-reaching and highly con-
troversial items.


CORRECTIONS DAY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH,
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

MAY 2, 1995

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Es

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-982 CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.
Superintendent of Documents, Congr
ISBN 0:

Wvemment Printing Ottice
jonal Sules Office, Washington, DC 20402
-047706-9



42

er it has to be hearings or however we have to do it. Yes, certainly
tax provisions could be if you are talking about how the IRS sets
up their criteria of when they audit people, but in any event we
are hoping that what we will do is have provisions that everyone
agrees are dumb.

Mr. WAXMAN. I appreciate that.

And then the last question I have of you or Mr. Zeliff or Mr.
Bilbray, whichever one wants to respond: One of our later wit-
nesses is going to point out that a lot of businesses are trying to
make decisions based on what the law appears to be, so would Cor-
rections Days run the risk of creating substantial disruptions for
some sectors of the economy or for enforcement of the laws if we
tush to make changes in a piecemeal manner?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Well, I think you are talking about would it
be retroactive. Is that what you are talking about?

Mr. WAXMAN. No. I think people make decisions as to what the
law is going to be for the next couple of years, and if you suddenly
change it——

Mr. Bixpray. I think there is an issue here where you have cer-
tain agencies or in a geographical location there will be an appro-
priate interpretation of the law, and then in another location there
will be an outrageous interpretation of the law, and the business
community in the private sector is out there saying “which one is
the legislative intent.” So this one works the other way too, Mr.
Waxman, the fact that sometimes it is site specific, and you will
have business people going, “Wait a minute, I know over here
where I have got another State they do it totally different,” and so
they are confused. There could be a possibility, and I appreciate
you don’t want to change the rules on the community, but there are
places where you should clarify the rules because they are getting
conflicting reports.

Mr. ZELIFF. Just as a businessman, I would say to you that the
risk is the other way around. Most of the stuff that will be cor-
rected will be beneficial for small businesses and large businesses
alike, and the fact is that they can’t plan under current law. They
will be happy to have our corrections rather than a lack of consist-
ency.

Mr. Waxman. A lot of dumb things are written into law because
one business wants to have a competitive advantage over another,
and that is really what I was thinking about, and once we start
changing that it can have consequences.

Mr. Bilbray, I hope you had a chance to see Mr. Mineta’s letter.
I put it in the record. I want to give you a chance to say a few
words about it, but the only reason I raised it is, I didn’t want it
to go uncontroverted that this isn’t an issue that is without con-
troversy.

Mr. BIvpray. OK. I think to clarify the fact——

Mr. McINTOSH. Excuse me 1 second. Mrs. Vucanovich needs to
leave. Are there any other questions for her? Any other questions
for Mrs. Vucanovich or Mr. Zeliff?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


6

reaucracy to do a life-style audit, and yet I’m certain that within
the current broad explanation of IRS powers they are technically
within their rights.

I would just suggest to you that the country would be very happ’
to have the Congress intervene quite decisively and say to the TRS
we think that is a step too far, we don’t think you ought to go and
harass innocent taxpayers because you have decided you want to
challenge their life-style. Now I’m just raising that as an example
of what could be a very useful, very narrowly drawn bill.

Obviously, going back to the earlier point, that should come out
of Ways and Means, it ought to be reported to Rules, this is my
guess, although I frankly hope that the two committees, meeting
together. will, of themselves, make the recommendation for the pro-
cedure, that there should be some orderly procedure.

But there is a step beyond this. I believe if citizens, whether they
are private citizens, they are corporations, they are trade associa-
tions, or, you know, we tend to forget special interest groups can
be a Weyerhaueszer or it can be the Sierra Club, they are both spe-
cial interests, so whatever special interest might be in a negotia-
tion, or it could be the city government or the State government.
Their first step in negotiating with the bureaucrat is not to be pow-
erless but to say you are doing something so dumb I’m going to
take it to my Congressman or Congresswoman and ask them to
consider it for Corrections Day, I think you automatically rebalance
a little bit of the power between bureaucrats and citizens.

Second, if through a review process we have a pattern once a
week or once a month of bringing up the dumbest things and re-
pealing them, we begin to set a standard of common sense that I
think foes have an impact.

Third, if a particular agency shows up month after month or
week after week, I think that sends a signal to the particular over-
sight committee, you ought to review this agency from top to bot-

tom.

And then last, let me be very direct. I think if we were to run
into an agency which, despite our best efforts over a 2 or 3-year
period didn’t get it, that the correct answer is to zero it out and
start over and hire an entire new agency. I mean I think that the
elected officials of this country, if we are going to reestablish belief
in a free society, have an obligation to be responsive to the tax-
payers and that the bureaucracy is subordinate.

No single action is subordinate. Let me make this very clear. No
single elected official should be able to reach into a bureaucracy to,
in fact, change something. That would be replacing the rule of law
with the rule of individuals, and that would be dictatorship, but we
as a collective legislative body, with the signature of the President,
should be superior to the specific concern of any specific agency
which we create, pay for, and empower.

Now to give you an example of how far this idea has gone, it
started as the idea of, let’s correct the San Diego situation. I ex-
plained it to a breakfast of Republican Governors, and Governor
John Engler suggested that we make it a regular experience. Just
talking about it casually, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin,
Governor George Allen of Virginia, Governor Terry Branstead of
lowa, the Community College Association, the Association of Pri-


5

with you, but those are the bureaucrats, we are only the elected of-
ficials.” I finally began to figure out that this was exactly back-
wards. The way the Founding Fathers had designed the system,
they had not set out to replace King George’s tyranny with a bu-
reaucratic tyranny of Americans but they actually thought that
elected officials were supposed to be powerful. Part of the frustra-
tion in the country and part of the term limit movement and part
of the turmoil that leads to Ross Perot as a third party candidate
is this general sense that you keep hiring people, and you keep
sending them up there, and they don’t get the system under con-
trol, so what would it be like to get the system under control?

Now Corrections Day, frankly, was an accident. Mayor Susan
Golding of San Diego came to see us along with Mayor Dick
Reardon of Los Angeles. She got to talking about an Environmental
Protection Agency requirement that San Diego build a secondary
waste treatment plant, the requirement which EPA had lost in dis-
trict court to the city of San Diego. She said here is a $10 billion
requirement which makes perfect sense on the Great Lakes except,
as most of you know from geography, San Diego is not on the Great
Lakes, it is on the Pacific Ocean. They had Scripps Oceanographic
Institute testifying that if you took enhanced primary waste as 350
feet below sea level on the Outer Continental Shelf of the largest
body of water in the world that was fine, but instead EPA, sitting
in Washington, was saying no, it is not fine, we don’t care what
oceanographers think, we want you to spend $10 billion of your
local money, and I said, you know—I sat back for a minute because
this is what I had heard all my life except this time we were in
charge and we had claimed we would be different, and I said, well,
why don’t we correct it?

The difference, 1 would say to Mr. Waxman, is between policy
and implementation. You may have a policy which in general is
correct, but in implementing it an agency may be doing something
profoundly dumb. I’m not—I don’t particularly debate the San
Diego example, I'll give you a second one from the IRS in a second,
but an implementation which is not illegal, it is just stupid.

I mean to be told what we are going to do is be stupidly legal
but pay your taxes and be proud of us I think is an inadequate
model, and I began to think about State legislatures where it is not
at all uncommon to pass a fairly narrowly drawn bill designed to
cure one specific problem because at the State legislative level you
can afford to do that.

So let me give you the second example which I think is an abso-
lute prime candidate for a Corrections Day procedure. Let me say
I agree entirely that it should be reviewed in the open, it should
be done on a bipartisan basis, there should be staff involvement of.
both parties, everything should be out in the open, and we
shouldn’t take anecdotes because all of us can come up, you know,
with our particular version. But let me give you a second anecdote,
if you will, that has been in the public press.

The Internal Revenue Service is now talking about doing a life-
style audit where they decide that they are going to come and re-
view everything about your life to see whether or not they approve
of the amount of taxes you have been paying. I have yet to find
anybody who thinks it is rational in a free society to hire a bu-


55

ples out and our records and found out that they didn’t have a
record on that particular well, they had lost it somewhere along the
line. So those are the things that go on that are very frustrating
for the business people.

Mr. Fox. That is why I think it would be good to have a reality
check here so that the regulations have some semblance of common
sense. We need to have the business sector, through NFIB and
other related groups, have contact with the bureaucracy that we
fund to make sure that what we are doing is not more burdensome
but less burdensome. So if you can get back to us through NFIB
and, Mr. Cornett, about other problems that aren’t in the testimony
that Chairman McIntosh and Chairman Dreier and Chairman Solo-
mon have, we certainly would appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. Fox.

Are there any other questions for this panel of witnesses?

Well, let me thank both of you for coming and testifying today.
I appreciate particularly individuals who are willing to travel to
bring their views forward to this committee, and it will be enor-
mously helpful to have real examples of what some of the problems
are. As we move forward with this process, we will keep you in-
formed as to how it goes forward, and hopefully all of America will
see that Congress is moving to correct many of these problems.

So thank you.

Let me now turn the gavel over to my colleague, Mr. Dreier, for
the remaining panel. In so doing, let me commend him for his help
in this effort. His expertise in the rules of the House and how we
can make this new process work is invaluable, and I know his com-
mitment to reform is long: standing, and so it is a pleasure to be
able to serve with him. Let me turn the gavel over to him.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say at the outset that I appreciate the very, very helpful
testimony that has been provided to this point, and in his opening
statement the Speaker made it very clear that when it comes to ac-
tually implementing his concept of a Corrections Day we will need
to re yon staff, first rate staff, to provide us with the detailed anal-
ysis that will be necessary, and at this point we are going to deal
with some former staff members of the House of Representatives,
some experts who worked very closely with me when I had the
privilege in 1993 of co-chairing the Joint Committee on the Organi-
zation of Congress.

First we are going to hear from Mr. Peter Robinson, who is a
founder of Bailey and Robinson, a government affairs unit of
Ketchum Public Relations. Prior to his current position, he was
senior aide to Speakers Tom Foley and Jim Wright. He also served
as Assistant Parliamentarian for the House of Representatives for
a 12-year period.

We will also hear from Mr. David Mason, who is the director of
the U.S. Congress Assessment Project for the Heritage Foundation.
Mr. Mason previously served as deputy assistant secretary of de-
fense for House affairs. He served for almost 10 years on Capitol
Hill as a staff member for Senator John Warner, Representative
Tom Bliley, and then House Republican Whip Trent Lott. And Dr.
James Thurber is professor of government and director of the Cen-


38

three decades. The City has maintained a policy of inaction, except when action was
literally foreed upon it by state and federal orders, directives, sanctions and threats
of more severe enforcement measures. While the City grew, minimal capital was in-
vested to replace and upgrade antiquated and obsolete collection lines and pump
stations. The result is the outrageous record of spills, closures, and distress to resi-
dents over sewer backups in their homes, churches and businesses.” What has need-
ed correcting here has been local, not federal.

Second, San Diego is already getting its secondary waiver pursuant to legislation
enacted last year. No further legislation is necessary or advisable; it’s only pu
js to even further weaken the limited protections in the waiver San Diego is about
to get under last year’s bill. Last year San Diego wanted and got a waiver. This
year it wants carte blanche to pollute as it sees fit, and it shouldn't get it.

Third, it is not as though Corrections Day is necessary for there to be Congres-
sional consideration of this bill. Provisions similar to H.R. 794 have already Seen
included in Section 309 of H.R. 961, which was recently reported to the House by
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is now expected to be on the
floor of the House next week. This situation hardly stands for the proposition that
without Corrections Day issues like San Diego’s sewage treatment cannot get expe-
ditious legislative action. This issue will be on the floor faster as part of fir 961
under normal procedures than it would as H.R. 794 under Corrections Day proce-

lures,

And finally, the concept of Corrections Day is that there should be an opportunity
to repeal federal requirements which are so clearly ill-advised that their repeal
would be non-controversial and approved by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote.
Similarly, as Corrections Day bills would be brought up under Suspension Calendar
procedures, they would, under the Suspension guidelines instituted at the beginning
of this Congress, be subject to prior clearance by the Ranking Democrat of the Com-
mittee jurisdiction—in this case me. I think it should be clear from the above that
this bill is not non-controversial and that I oppose it.

Sincerely yours,
Norman Y. MINETA,
Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

March 2, 1994
Congressman Norman Y. Mineta,
2251 Bayburn Houss Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Mineta: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to continue
our dialogue on my proposed amendment to the Clean Water Act.

I truly appreciate your leadership on environmental issues and your reluctance
to weaken the Act. But my proposal does not weaken the Clean Water Act. In fact,
it stengthens the Act by requiring a reduction in the total volume of pollutants dis-
charged into the ocean. Furthermore, it accomplishes this by providing an incentive
for another worthwhile environmental goal—water reclamation and reuse.

‘The only standard of the current Clean Water Act that we are secking relief from
is Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), which all scientists agree—including those
from Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the Environmental Protection Agency—
is absolutly irrelevant for ocean dischargers.

To reiterate, my proposal would require the City of San Diego to remove a mini-
mum of 85% of all suspended solids, reduce the total volume of solids discharged
into the ocean, as well as initiate an aggressive water reclamation and reuse pro-
gram.

If my proposal is not approved, the City of San Diego will be forced to upgrade
its wastewater treatment plants to secondary standards. Ironically, the total amount
of pollutants discharged into the ocean will increase as sewage flows increase. And
the opportunity for a model reclamation and reuse program will be lost!

In either case, San Diego ratepayers will have to pay billions of dollars to upgrade
our sewage treatment system. I would hope that you would help us to use these re-
sources wisely—to invest in our future, water reclamation, rather than to meet arbi-
trary guidelines that will not have any measurable impact on our ocean environ-
ment.

Sincerely,
¥ Bos FILNER,
Member of Congress.


79

But there is an immediacy factor overall that I think we feel
from our constituents, and I think that is part of what you are
hearing in the frustration level of some of the witnesses who are
Members of Congress; for instance, Congressman Bilbray, who felt
a particular problem in his district and his region. I would say at
this time that your testimony has certainly left me with the im-
pression that we need to proceed in a way that does justice to the
Constitution, is bipartisan, will change in some respects the bur-
densome regulations and procedures which are helping us not to do
our job as well, and make sure we do so in a deficit-neutral fashion
in the least controversial matters. I think we also need to have
greater involvement of those individuals, such as the business peo-
ple, like Mr. Herr, who were here today because they in fact will
be the ones receiving the regulations. If we have an understanding
from bureaucrats regarding what the ultimate outcome is of the
regulations we place those upon, it certainly deals more with re-
ality.
if there is no other testimony before this joint committee, I will
call it adjourned and thank you very much for coming.

{Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]}

ie)


26

questions without having to go into the whole Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act or whatever. So I do—I did want to make that point to
you.

But the question I have of you is, why should we restrict this
only to foolish actions by government agencies? Why not areas
where the public needs to be protected ‘and we will all agree about
it? For example, if some of these broad sweeping laws that are
being proposed and, in fact, passed the House are passed in their
present form, I believe we are going to find a situation where—that
the consumers are going to be faced with toxic substances that
none of us would ever want to see them exposed to, that can do
a great deal of harm, where we would be able to put on the correc-
tions calendar to correct the fact that there is not regulation that
is going to be necessary.

x for example, I have been very involved in the smoking issue.
I don’t see why there is any reason why cigarette smoking, which
is the leading cause of disease and death in this country, isn’t regu-
lated. Will we be able to come in and say there ought to be a clear
regulation to prevent the pushing of cigarettes on kids in violation
of the law? Will it just be one way, to stop government action, or
will it be to encourage government action as well when it is nec-
essary to protect the public?

Mr. DELAY. Well, first off, I agree with you that, as everyone has
alluded to, this should be an open process, hearings should be held,
and you should get to the bottom of any sort of complaint that
comes from American citizens and our constituents.

I would say, and, Mr. Waxman, you have been here long enough
to understand this when you have got the votes, you should run
with it. If you have got the votes, run with it under the procedure.

But I would just say to you this is a hearing to work all those
kinds of issues out, and if you are so inclined to have it the other
way and you have the votes in committee and on the floor to allow
that sort of procedure, then that might be good.

But this whole idea is to react to agencies that legislate through
regulation and in some cases step beyond the bounds of the intent
of the legislation and are preying on the American people, not to
put into place proactive types of regulation.

Mr. WaXMaN. If something is really foolish, if a government
agency is doing something improper, there should be no question
that all of us ought to stand behind trying to stop that from hap-
pening. On the other hand, if some harm is going to occur to the
American people and we need government to step in, I would hope
there would be no disagreement over that as well and that we have
an opportunity to deal with it.

I just hope we don’t get in the situation, Mr. DeLay—and I'll say
it quite openly and frankly—where we have special interest groups,
lobbyists, campaign contributors, Screaming loudly and getting
their issue taken care of sometimes even at the expense of the pub-
lic because they have been able to try to get their supporters to ad-
vance their cause in a way where they wouldn’t otherwise stand
the scrutiny of hearings and legitimate process and so they are on
an accelerated timetable. I assume you wouldn’t want that either.

Mr. DELAY. I would not want that either, and I share the gentle-
man’s concern. That is why I do support an open process and a


43

Mr. Waxman, the letter clarifies why there shouldn’t be a con-
troversy, because if you read it, it was the Brewster case, and just
to point out, I was one of the lead witnesses for the Sierra Club
lawsuit against EPA and the city of San Diego, and I got the Coun-
ty of San Diego Public Health Department to join with the Sierra
Club on this ruling.

When Judge Brewster made that ruling—read it again, and if
Congressman Mineta would read this he would understand it—it
supports the correction, because what the judge said, Judge Brew-
ster, he said that the city had failed—where the city had failed was
in upgrading the collection lines and the pumping facilities that
were causing the backups, that there was more environmental
damage done because they were not taking care of infrastructure
that was real; rather, they were responding to Federal mandates
on the outfall, and if you read that letter again you will notice the
outfall is not even mentioned in that.

That supports the concept that I’m saying, that someone who,
you know, really is tired of having to see that my beach is polluted,
that the interpretation of the Federal law by the EPA is perpetuat-
ing and helping to encourage this problem. That was Brewster’s
statement, and it was against not just the city of San Diego, it was
against the EPA’s secondary mandate at the same time.

So what I’m saying is, when I meet with Congressman Mineta,
that is what I can point out, that what is being—you know, what
they think is being said is actually supporting the fact that we
need a corrections here, and Judge Brewster more than anyone
else, in this statement, supports the correction on this problem.

Mr. WAXMAN. I guess one of the essential points that you will be
discussing with Mr. Mineta and others is, if you give a permanent
waiver to San Diego you remove the ability of EPA not just to mon-
itor, but with the kind of history that San Diego has, which is not
admirable, to make sure that they do take action with sewage dis-
posal that is going to protect the public.

Mr. BILBRAY. What we are planning to do is this, and I think
that we may disagree about the relationship of government and the
citizens at large. What we are saying is that people are not guilty
until proven innocent and that every 5 years you should not be
dragged before a court and forced, with 26 pounds of documenta-
tion, to prove what scientists say will not happen in the foreseeable
future, but it will include the monitoring, as you said, constant
monitoring.

So all we are proposing to do is changing it so that the process
follows function, that we protect the environment and that the re-
sources be used to protect the environment, not the millions of dol-
lars and the 26 pounds of what used to be a forest every 5 years
just because of the procedure. That is all we are saying, the same
monitoring. In fact, the monitoring agency will be the EPA. The
EPA is paying the city of San Diego to do it because they do it bet-
ter than the EPA. This has all been included in our strategy, and
this will be discussed as we come up.

All we are saying is that if science and the Academy of Sciences
says there isn’t a problem and there is no foreseeable problem,
then we should monitor the problem and only bring it up for trial,


25

bill or a huge policymaking bill, they will be eager to take part, I
might finish by saying that the leadership of this majority is very
interested, as exhibited by the Speaker by coming here to testify,
in correcting a lot of these dumb regulations and will be urging
committees to be doing a lot of work in this regard.

Mr. PETERSON. But this is the Government Reform Committee
that we serve on. We have jurisdiction in every area. You haven't
considered giving this committee additional authorization to actu-
ally have a kind of discharge petition process? In other words, if
some other committee won’t move and we hold hearings and decide
that that committee is entrenched or protecting turf or whatever,
that we could actually bring that to the floor.

Mr. DeLay. I think that is something that this joint committee
should suggest when it designs the procedure, and it is something
that should be considered by both leaderships, the minority and the
majority. It is part of designing the procedure.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. And that is why we think that a formal struc-
ture enhances the visibility of actually this process in a very power-
ful way, and we certainly don’t want to take any of the jurisdiction
away from the committees, but we think that with the guidelines
that we will propose, that it will—it certainly will be a way to take
care of these small things without upsetting, for instance, the
Clean Air and Clean Water and so forth.

But we don’t want to take away any of the committee structure,
but at the same time we think if we actually have a structure that
is set up and its corrections calendar—you know, we do have sus-
pensions; we think that this will be an opportunity to keep the
committee going.

Mr. PETERSON. I think you are being too nice. Frankly, I think
that we ought to have a hammer over some of these committees.
I think they have caused some of this problem, and frankly I don’t
care if we stir them up a little bit. I think it needs to be done.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Maybe you can help us with those details.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson.

Does anyone have additional questions for Mr. DeLay?

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. DeLay, I appreciated your testimony, and I
know you have to leave, but you went through a litany of examples
that sound on the surface to be matters of concern to all of us, but
we have heard lots of anecdotes this session of Congress that turn
out not to be accurate. We heard that baby teeth weren’t going to
be returned from one agency and that buckets were going to have
to have holes in them under Government regulations. We have
heard about some guy in Florida that was required to do some-
thing. When we have looked below the surface, it turns out some
of these claims that sound so ridiculous just weren’t accurate, it
wasn’t full information. That is why I’m pleased that the Speaker
told us this morning that the committees of jurisdiction will have
a chance to hold hearings, because we wouldn’t want to make laws
based on misinformation or anecdotes that turn out to be inac-
curate.

I think it is important that the committees that have expertise
deal with the issues, and I have no problem, and I don’t think
there is anything that prohibits us now to deal with specific, finite


62

of the Members’ comments that, gee, San Diego hadn’t done such
a good job, and so even though the merits of this case might sup-
Port, a correction we don’t want to let San Diego off the hook too
easily.

So for all those kinds of reasons I think you are going to need
a new process, though I would say it is one that you ought to try
and develop in an evolutionary fashion. In other words, you ought
to try a few on suspension, you ought to try a few through the nor-
mal rules process, and I would suggest as well you perhaps try the
Calendar Wednesday procedure to move some of these pieces of leg-
islation on to the floor and figure out what may indeed work best.

One of the merits of Calendar Wednesday is that you don’t need
to go through the Rules Committee, you do allow amendments, you
can adopt a bill by a simple majority vote, but you can also move
to close off debate, and | know there has been a concern about
being arbitrary on the part of the majority in disallowing amend-
ments,

For my own part, I would be concerned if Corrections legislation
was moving through on a very fast track with no opportunity for
amendment at all, because I can imagine in several cases there is
going to be agreement that a problem needs to be fixed but perhaps
some disagreement about exactly how the fix ought to be con-
structed, whether, for instance, it ought to be very narrowly drawn
to one locality or it ought to be more generic to say every commu-
nity that fits that particular set of circumstances. So if you have
a procedure that allows some amendments, Members may be a lit-
tle more comfortable in bringing those up.

I know my testimony will be included in the record, so I’m just
going to quit there. I also would beg your indulgence. I have a med-
ical appointment I need to get my wife to fairly shortly this after-
noon. So if you don’t have questions, I’m going to go ahead and exit
before the rest of the panel continues.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Davip M. Mason, Director, U.S. ConcRess ASSESSMENT
Provect, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Chairman Dreier, Chairman Mcintosh and Members of the Subcommittees, I ap-
preciate this opportunity to discuss the proposed Corrections Day process, which I
lieve can represent an important development in House procedure with a far
reaching affect on the federal regulatory and legislative processes. I am flattered to
appear on this panel with Dr. Thurber, and especially with two former colleagues
from the House staff, Mr. Pitts and Mr. Robinson, both of whom are highly expert
in House procedure, and who acted as guides and teachers to me during my time
in the House. I would also like to thank Congressman DeLay for citing the Heritage
Foundation’s new book, “Red Tape In America” in demonstrating the need for a
process to correct the excesses of the regulatory state.

In outline, I believe that the Corrections Day proposal is an innovative and appro-
priate response to a new set of legislative challenges and conditions, including the
dramatic political reversal last fall and the growing consensus about the need to
rein-in an invasive and over-active federal government. Speaker Gingrich is to be
commended for recognizing and moving forward with this proposal, though I would
note that he is being uncharacteristical ly cautious and measured in proposing, ini-
tially, only a minor and evolutionary, though still useful, change in House proce-
dures. I fear, however, that the suspension of the rules process may unnecessary
restrict the scope and subjects of corrections legislation.

Ultimately, I believe the full purpose and utility of a corrections procedure will
be accomplished only with a more specialized and flexible procedure and/or a sepa-
rate calendar for corrections bills. Because such a procedure is likely to be best de-
signed through experimentation and evolution, I cannot provide the text of a rules


2

Mr. Dreier, do you want to introduce your ranking member?

Mr. DREIER. Well, let me just say that it is a great privilege for
me to be here in behalf of the Rules Subcommittee on Rules and
Organization of the House. We are very pleased to have the full
chairman—the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Solomon, and
the vice chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and are
there any other Rules Committee members here? Mr. Beilenson is
here from the Rules Committee and Mrs. Pryce is here from the
Rules Committee, and this clearly demonstrates that we as a com-
mittee are making history in that we for the first time have really
taken our show on the road, so to speak, teaming up with this sub-
committee. And it is great to have Mr. McIntosh as my partner

ere.

On the 4th of January the new Republican majority implemented
a package of rules changes that, among other things, reformed the
committee system for the 104th Congress. But there is one reform
that clearly did not need to be spelled out in House rules. That is
the desire among the new committee and subcommittee chairmen
to work together rather than against each other, and I believe that
this hearing is symbolic of our commitment to make Congress more
responsive to the American people, and Speaker Gingrich observed
that in seniority we moved from McIntosh, Dreier, Clinger, and
Solomon in descending order here, which was obviously a very in-
teresting observation of the way things have changed here in the
Congress.

I want to commend Speaker Gingrich for what he had done in
bringing forward Corrections Day, working with the mayor of San
Diego Susan Golding, Governor John Engler, and others, and I be-
lieve that we have a great opportunity here to proceed with dealing
with some of the most stupid and inane laws that have come down
the pike, and I hope we will be able to put into operation a system
that will address that.

Thank you very much, and we look forward to your testimony,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MCINTOSH. We will dispense with opening statements, ex-
cept I want to recognize my chairman, Mr. Clinger, and I under-
stand Mr. Solomon has a statement he will make after the Speak-
er.
Mr. CLINGER. I would also submit my statement after the Speak-
er has spoken, but I want to talk about the Speaker and also join
in commending him for what I think is an inspired idea, and now
we just have to figure out how to do it and make it effective. I look
forward to hearing him and the rest of our witnesses.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Yes.

Mr. WaxMaN. Mr. Chairman, I’m over here.

I would like the opportunity to make a very brief opening state-
ment of no longer than 2 minutes in length.

Mr. McINTOSH. Would you prefer to do it before or after the
Speaker?

Mr. Waxman. I would prefer to do it at the beginning of the hear-

ing.
Str. McINTosu. All right. Mr. Waxman.


16

we do rather than create new processes which serve the special in-
terests rather than the interests of the American people.

Tyield back the balance of my time.

'r. MCINTOSH. Thank you, Mrs. Collins.

I would like to now recognize my chairman, Mr. Clinger, for an
opening statement.

Mr. CLINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I’m
pleased to join with you and Chairman Dreier, Chairman Solomon,
and all of the members of the panel here today in this very inter-
esting, innovative, and exciting prospect that we are going to be
considering and discussing this morning.

Depending on how it is structured, Corrections Day can provide
us with a truly unique opportunity to fix in an expedited manner
some of the laws, policies, or regulations that simply do not make
much sense and are unnecessary, outdated, and overreaching. We
are going to have a chance to reinvent government not just through
talking about it, but by taking concrete steps to make government
more reasonable and efficient.

There is no reason, no reason at all, to continue unnecessary or
nonsensical government policies. We can change the way govern-
ment operates and show that we will teach it new tricks. It is also
an opportunity for us to communicate to Americans outside of the
Beltway that not only are we serious about changing government,
but to come forward and help us identify what may be needed in
terms of a correction. One of the most innovative ideas, is that we
are really going to be encouraging Americans to come forward with
those suggestions that they think clearly make no sense and have
the sense that something can actually be done about it—where ac-
tions can be taken.

Perhaps most importantly in structuring Corrections Day is that
we need to define what is a correction. It may be most useful ini-
tially to focus our attention on administrative policies and regula-
tions. Coming from the Oversight Committee perspective, regula-
tions and policies often do not receive thorough oversight review
since they have not been funneled through the legislative process.
In addition, policies and regulations promoted by Federal agencies
often go far beyond what statutes intended if there even is a statu-
tory basis, thus providing government bureaucrats with power that
extends beyond what is held by Congress. For example, the Title
V permitting regulations proposed by EPA to comply with the
Clean Air Act go way beyond what the statute requires and could
result in an extremely high cost to our economy without corollary
environmental benefits, some of the examples that Chairman Solo-
mon alluded to.

If regular order is not the procedure that is used to structure
Corrections Day, I do have specific suggestions that I would like to
put on the table for consideration. As I understand it, the commit-
tee processes might be short-circuited. The disadvantage of bypass-
ing committees is that issues would not be vented or considered
thoroughly by various stakeholders in a public forum, and that is
a very serious concern that needs to be dealt with.

First, if this is the case, I believe that we would need to establish
a standardized review process by which proposals made for Correc-
tions Day will be closely scrutinized and issues would be vented.


53

Mr. Herr. I might add on that very issue that he was speaking
about, we have spent about $100,000 extra putting in walkways
and things for the handicapped people, and I doubt very much if
we have had anyone use it, or there might be one or two people
using it, so it seems like there is a lot of waste there, and I think
it costs businesses a lot more than what they anticipated when
they started, because I was at the hearing with President Bush
when we testified against that for that very reason, but it was
made very clear to us that this is going to pass regardless of what
we said, and it did, and it cost us money, but it cost all businesses
money. I don’t know how you evaluate that as far as helping the
American people.

Mr. McIntosH. Yes, and if I understand correctly, Mayor
Cornett, in your case you also spent money on the paratransit sys-
tem, so that there is an alternative to provide the very same serv-
ice.

Mr. CorRNetTT. That is right. It is customized, door-to-door, by ap-
pointment, yes.

Mr. McINTOosH. I thank both of you. I have no further questions.
Do any of the other Members?

Mr. BEILENSON. I have one tiny question, if I may.

Mr. McINTOosH. Mr. Beilenson.

Mr. BEILENSON. First of all, we appreciate the testimony of both
of you gentlemen. I have a very minor question of the mayor, if he
would Be so kind, just as a matter of curiosity. You testified both
to the fact that you have to retrofit your nine regular buses with
lifts for disabled persons, but you also mentioned that in the future
you will have to put down these 4-by-4—I think it was 4-by-4 con-
crete pads, and my question is, do you have to provide these same
pads for the paratransit buses or vehicles at all, or are they able
to operate without them?

Mr. CornETT. No. Those go to residences and pick people up and
can be operated off the street.

Mr. BEILENSON. Do you not do the same thing with the regular
buses perhaps? I mean not to the residences.

Mr. CorNETT. Well, the buses are on a fixed route, and they stop
the same place every time, and that is where the regulation comes,
that there needs to be a pad there for the lift to land on.

Mr. BEILENSON, OK. Thanks.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. Beilenson.

Do any other Members have any questions for the panel?

Mr. Fox.

Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First to Mr. Herr, welcome. You have been a great business lead-
er for us in the Northeast, and we appreciate all that you have
done to achieve the great American dream through your company.
We agree with you that the mood is changing here in Washington.
We are trying to hold the line on taxes, become pro-business and
pro jobs, and in the same process pro reform.

I would like to expand on the chairman’s question by asking
what percent of businesses in NFIB that you represent would you
say didn’t expand because of overregulation or couldn’t grow due to
that same problem?


77

Mr. Pitts. I would agree with that. If 1 may make a couple of—
first of all, I don’t think that the Private Calendar is really the ap-
propriate mechanism for corrections. Those are immigration cases
Bnd claims against the Government as differentiated from what I
believe your intentions are here today.

Mr. Fox. That is correct.

Mr. Pitts. But the aspects of a calendar that I do like is that it
kind of puts all in one place, highlights what it is that you want
the House to consider on a given day.

Now Pete made reference to the Suspension Calendar. There
really, quite frankly, is no such entity. Bills under suspension are
taken from the Union Calendar, and if you look at the Union Cal-
endar it literally has a list of every bill reported out of committee.

So I like the idea of being able to designate in one place or be
able for the public, the Members of Congress, and their staff to be
able to see in advance and anticipate what it is that is coming up.
Quite frankly, you really don’t have that ability right now even on
suspension bills. You usually get them the Thursday or Friday of
the week before. I mean there is some anticipation if you are a
member of a committee that certain legislation will be considered
under suspension.

So I like highlighting it and printing it sort of as a separate doc-
ument. I like the idea of having a special designated day or 2 days
a month for consideration so that people can plan in advance.

Mr. Fox. That probably is appropriate based on the time factor.

The last question I would ask of the panel, and it really came
up in your testimony originally, the questioning, Mr. Pitts, regard-
ing the definition of corrections. Do you see it as regulations and
rulemaking, or do you See it as another area of legislative endeav-
or’

Mr. Pitts. Well, that is the problem that I have. I would guess,
particularly with the Members from the western States, that they
feel most aggrieved and want to correct what is rulemaking or reg-
ulations, but I’m not sure that statutory enactments is the best
way to address that. As I suggested in my remarks, on many occa-
sions merely a statement by the managers as part of a report of
an appropriation bill is sufficient to change an agency’s mind about
a particular rulemaking proposal. So I’m not sure. I actually am
wondering myself what the definition of correction should be. I
have no easy answer. I don’t believe that there is an easy answer.

Mr. Fox. If you didn’t change the rules for the agencies, how else
would you communicate your dissatisfaction with the status quo?

Mr. Pitts. You could make expressions on the floor of the House
that aren’t necessarily a statutory enactment. The House could go
on record saying that this proposed regulation or rule is inconsist-
ent with the original intent. When that happens there is going to
be kind of a Pavlovian bells ringing and saliva flows at the agency,
at the authorizing committees, at the Appropriations Committee
level. I mean there are ways rather than trying statutorily to
change a rulemaking that could be used. I’m not advocating that
in a broad-based sense, but I want you to be very careful about
statutorily changing all proposed rulemakings. I don’t think it is
going to work across the board.

Mr. Fox. That would be part of our debate.


60

That argument prevailed, but it could not be carried overnight or without a care-
ful, widespread effort. Hopefully, the understanding about the industry that came
out of this debate will last.

After all, it is important for industry to establish a mutual relationship with ca-
reer professionals in the federal government. They must be assumed to responsibly
carry out the law as it is presented to them, and responsible and efficient regulatory
enforcement requires a deliberate approach to changing those laws. As it is unfair
for industry to have to engage in_guesswork about how a law will be enforced, it
is inappropriate to have federal officials guessing what the law will be from day to
day under a piecemeal approach.

ile some have characterized corrections day as a boon to lobbyists, that may
be a bit exaggerated. | reiterate that a legislative fix may by the only solution for
industry or state and local governments. But industry also makes marketplace deci-
sions all the time based on the state of the law. One only has to look at the financial
services, the telecommunications, or the computer industry to realize the effect on
long-range business planning of the law on the books and. the status of regulatory
enforcement. A Microsoft is keenly aware of the competitive advantages and dis-
advantages, the limits and horizons, flowing from antitrust and FTC review. The
recent federal appellate court decision on ethanol as a gasoline additive may imme-
diately benefit other sectors of the fuel industry. For every private sector loser there
is likely to be a winner.

Congress must proceed carefully in upsetting this “apple cart.”

For these reasons, and based upon my experience as a parliamentarian, I rec-
ommend that strict guidelines and review qualify proposals for a corrections process.
There shauld be some type of committee review. The Administration should be
heard. Every attempt should be made to consult all affected parties, as a change
in the law or regulations may have a ripple effect or unintended consequences not
at all apparent in the text of a bill. A simple revision or correction may also have
an unknown effect on how other related laws should be administered, or how courts
will construe legislative history or the general obligations of the agencies. Finally,
there should be bipartisan input, such as through an informal clearing committee
with Members, from both sides of the aisle, with appropriate expertise to judge the
qualifications of a proposal and to put it into the context of the whole body of law.

I would not recommend that guidelines such as these be written into the House
rules, nor would I recommend that a formal corrections calendar process itself be
written into the rules. The rules of the Republican Conference could suffice. For ex-
ample, as an existing example of how this might work, guidelines for suspension
legislation are presently in the party rules.

a at options are, or could be, available under current House rules and proce-
lures?

The appropriations process is one clear option and one of the best congressional
avenues for keeping agencies on a “short leash” year after year. Limitations on the
use of funds are available, within certain boundaries, not to change the law but to
deny the use of funds for certain purposes, rules, or regulations. As a matter of fact,
a limitation which can pass the muster of House rules and a majority vote has to
be addressed by the Senate, as appropriations bills are must-pass legislation.

Despite the hue and cry about legislating in appropriation bills, the authorizers,
when unable to process annual authorizations, have ¢n fact often relied on the ap:

ropriations process to make their own points—the Commerce, State, Justice bill
Flas been a case in point. More frequent processing of regular authorization bills is
the perfect venue to make corrections on a routine and vetted basis. Another stand-
ard, and usually effective, tactic has been report language in an appropriation or
authorization il; the Administration ignores such direction at its peril.

A targeted approach to congressional review is represented by regulatory reform
proposals moving through Congress. A moratorium or congressional veto approach,
while not a correcting approach, could certainly effectuate that result.

As far as regular calendars of the House are concerned, the only two subject-spe-
cific calendars appear to be the private calendar and the District of Columbia cal-
endar, neither of which are used very much. The private calendar may in.fact be
appropriate for corrections legislation drafted specifically to relieve an individual or
company, although under the present rule several Members objecting may kill a pri-
vate bill.

Motions to suspend the rules clearly are available for corrections legislation and
unreported bills may be brought up under this procedure, although most suspen-
sions are in fact reported from committee. The counterbalance to the fact that any-
thing can be brought up under suspension, and that debate is limited and amend-
ments are prohibited, is the two-thirds vote requirement. With proper guidelines



33

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Sure. We are going to be followed by Billy
Pitts and some of the others who worked with these procedures
over a long period of time. They probably have a lot more expertise
than we do on the actual procedures.

Mr. ZELIFF. I would just like to add one little quick thing, Tony.
I think that, frankly, most of these issues, I would say almost 100
percent of them, are going to be consensus issues. They are going
to have a scale of zero to 10 of stupidity, and they are going to be
in the 10 range, and so the things that we bring up together here,
people on both sides of the aisle are going to view it as a vehicle
of getting things done, cleaning it up and moving forward, and I
don’t see it as a big fight, I see it as more of a consensus.

Mr. BEILENSON. I agree.

Let me just say one more thing, if I may, very quickly, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. McInTosH. Certainly.

Mr. BEILENSON. To back up something that our friend Mr. Peter-
son said earlier, to a certain extent this proposal is a result of com-
mittees not having done their job well enough, not having spent
enough time on oversight and so on. Part of the problem is that
there are not enough Members of this Congress, if 1 may say so,
with all respect, who settle into the job of legislating and spend
enough time in Washington and going to hearings, thinking
through some of these things. They are too anxious to go home and
make little sound bytes and talk about all the things that need to
be done, rather than staying here and working.

We have only 435 Members in the House. We need at least a cou-
ple of hundred of them working hard, mostly full time, to accom-
plish our work. We are not going to be able to escape this problem
even if we have this kind of process, because someone around here
is going to have to take a serious look at these kinds of matters.
So I hope that this will encourage us to do our committee work.

Mr. BILBRAY. I would just like to say, we are really talking
about, let’s do a reality check. The intentions of the legislation,
much like we talk of 20 or 30 years ago, need to include a reality
check every once in a while, and if we have got people come—and
I don’t know where the lists come from, but if you have got people
saying, excuse me, I think there is a gap between the theoretical
approach of the legislation and the practical application, and so we
bring it out and we basically shine a light on it and say is this a
reality we meant to create, and if it wasn’t, we are going to have
to take care of it. So I think it can be very healthy for the people
in Washington to finally sort of do a reality check, a performance
review, and then see if the law is appropriate, and then also we
can fine-tune it to really do what we meant it to do if we find a
problem.

Mr. BEILENSON. Of course, and I was only suggesting, Brian, that
we should have been doing a better job of checking on how things
are working many years after we first passed them than in fact we
have been doing.

Mr. Biupray. As our new reality.

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Would the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. BEILENSON. Of course.


73

Finally, Congress does not use the term “corrections” when amending acts, but
that is exactly what is being done. One does not say “corrections” to the Clean Air
Act one say “amendments” to the Clear Air Act. Otherwise it is disingenuous. There
is ample procedure and policy available to Congress to change legislation; this is a
short-sighted attempt to short-circuit the processes in place and it should not be in-
stituted, Thank you.

Mr. Fox. Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr. Thurber.

Now we have heard from the whole panel, I will ask Chairman
Dreier if he has questions.

Mr. DreEter. Thank you very much.

I thank all of you for your very helpful testimony, and I would
like to raise a couple of points. Jim, I concur that we shouldn’t be
dramatically altering the operations of the Congress, the rules of
this place. I too am a conservative, but I think the Speaker in his
testimony this morning, which we all heard, was really outlining—
trying to put forward a vehicle whereby the American people could
finally feel as if they would have an opportunity to say to their
Representative in Congress that there is something that does meet,
I think, the three criteria that you outlined: Obvious, noncontrover-
sial, and bipartisan, but an absolutely preposterous idea that is out
there, a law that is out there, and there may be, as all of you have
pointed out, ways in which we could address this now through limi-
tation amendments and other items, but I think that the goal here
is to really proceed with some of the specific, very narrow areas of
concern.

Testimony was provided earlier in which a statement was made
that we don’t know exactly how great the ripple effect is going to
be from this, but, quite frankly, that happens with every sin, Te law
that we have. There is a tremendous effect that it has all the way
across the board with virtually everything.

So I guess one thing that I would pose other than the three cri-
teria that you outlined, Jim: Would you all establish what you
would consider to be a definitional criteria for us in looking at the
whole prospect of a Corrections Day?

Mr. THURBER. May I comment on this very quickly because it
may not be directly related to a definition or a criteria of correc-
tions. I think this has to do with leadership. I think that, Mr.
Dreier, if you have a bipartisan committee that sits down and de-
cides in a bipartisan way what kinds of issues that they think, in
an objective way, not simply a checklist but decides what is “dumb
and stupid” and then sends a message from the leadership with a
time limit to the committee of jurisdiction to deal with this particu-
lar issue, I think you have a Corrections Day process started with-
out any changes in the existing rules.

Mr. DREIER. You went through a litany of items that should be
included in looking at this—budget estimates and agency input, ad-
ministration input, and all.

Mr. THURBER. Right, and interested parties.

Mr. Dreier. Right, and I think it is incorrect to conclude that we
don’t plan to include all of those factors. I mean that is yet to be
determined.

Mr. THURBER. Right. However, when I wrote the testimony I
didn’t have all of the testimony to date. It is obvious to me that
there is a lot of consensus between both parties and everybody that
has appeared here with respect to using the regular legislative


34

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Tony, I agree with you that I think we need
to do a better job in our oversight, but I also think we have to ac-
knowledge that part of this problem has been created by some very
activist agencies who choose to take on the mantle of legislation
through regulation. So I think it is a two-pronged problem.

Mr. McIntosh. If I might interject, let me say, from the stand-
point of someone who served on the executive side, that this proc-
ess and the hearings that it will generate in the committees I think
will have an enormously beneficial effect and will find that there
seems to be a huge number of targets of opportunity out there that
will find the agencies are actually more responsive to the citizens
and ingenious in finding ways of correcting many of the problems
of their own as the hearing process works.

Mr. BEILENSON. I’m sure you are right, Mr. Chairman. We just
want to make sure there are hearings in committees.

Mr. McINTOosH. And I think there is a lot of merit to that.

Mr. DeLay. In defense of some of the oversight hearings, if you
don’t have a process like this, there is no process by which you can
easily correct a problem other than browbeating a bureaucrat or an
agency and going through the appropriations process to do so.

Mr. BEILENSON. With respect, if you were chairman of a commit-.
tee and you cared about some particular matter, you could have
gotten the votes to report out a bill—a little rifle shot, as my friend
Mr. Waxman has suggested—to correct some of these things. That’s
if you had been in a position prior to now, which you haven’t been,
to do that. I think committees could have done this, and one good
thing about this whole matter, I think, will be to encourage com-
mittees to do the kind of work they should have been doing all
along, whether we establish a specific new process or not.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Condit, I note that you had a question for Mr. DeLay.

Mr. Connit. Actually, because we have taken a lot of time and
I know Mr. DeLay has to leave, I'll make it real brief.

I just want to say for the record that I think this suggestion is
a very constructive suggestion and hope that we can figure out a
way to make this work, but I would like the committee as well as
Mr. DeLay and other people interested in this to take heed to what
I think was suggested by the Speaker and members of this panel,
and that is that we make this balanced. I don’t know if you have
figured out a way to do a one for one—the minority offers one, the
majority offers one—but I think it ought to be balanced, and that
would my suggestion, that we figure out a way to make sure
that we get a one-for-one kind of ratio so that the minority and the
majority end up with the same thing on the floor, because there are
a lot of us who are interested in doing this, and we don’t want to
be sort of out of the loop because we don't have access to the task
force or to whatever policy we put together.

In addition to that, I would encourage some way—Mr. DeLay,
you or the Speaker—and I know the Speaker left to go meet with
Mr. Dole, but, you know, the House can’t unilaterally change Fed-
eral law or regulations, we are going to need to work out a system
that works with the Senate as well. So I think we need to spend
a lot of time making sure that happens because we can have an
all-day, 2-day session on the floor every month and end up just


49

of $14 million in wages per year. Total company wages are $29-
plus million.

When Congress passes laws, part of the burden is that the laws

et caught in bureaucracy. The Clean Water Act, for example, has

een taken over by regulatory bureaucracy and delay. One of the
principal concerns of business today is the time and effort
consumed in merely attempting to conform to the regulation. As
regulatory agencies mature, the method of obtaining approval be-
comes increasingly difficult with more and more individual approv-
als required for each succeeding application. Timeframes for ap-
proval become distorted and extended as each person required to
review and sign off on a given application seems to want to leave
his or her mark on it.

We have a great need for the regulation writers to have a com-
mon sense understanding of the business people who are carryin;
out the regulations. Many regulations are too cumbersome, an
communications break down. It takes too long these days to get
permits necessary to grow and expand a business.

Take the environmental regulators as an example. I agree that
we need to protect our environment, and I think most all business-
men will agree. What then is the common sense solution to improv-
ing the environment? If the regulators would state the problem
they see and work together with the business person for a solution
we could solve the problem and do it in a much shorter timeframe.
This would be much more productive than trying to catch the busi-
ness person in a moment of trouble and sock them with a fine.

However, for the most egregious and burdensome regulations I
believe the concept of correction day seems to be a step in the right
direction. The time has come to focus not on instituting new regu-
lations. Instead, Congress should take this opportunity to correct
the regulations that everyone can agree are outdated or overly bur-
densome and are too complex. From where I’m sitting, the mood is
already shifting out there. Some Government agencies seem to be
understanding that many rules they make do not work. However,
more must still be done. I hope this mood continues to grow, and
I hope that Congress and the agencies can work together to elimi-
nate archaic and oppressive regulations for the betterment of our
society.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address your com-
mittee.

Mr. McINTOsH. Thank you very much, Mr. Herr, and your full
statement will be made part of the record for this proceeding.

Mr. Herr. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herr follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES S, HERR, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, Herr Foops, INc.

Mr. Chairmen, my name is James S. Herr. I am the Chairman and C.E.O. of Herr
Foods, Inc,, and’I also serve in another capacity as Chairman of the Board of the
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). NFIB is the nation’s largest
small business advocacy organization, representing more than 600,000 small busi-
ness owners in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The t; pical NFIB member
employs five people and grosses $250,000 in annual sales, NFIBS membership mir.
rors the nation’s industry breakdown with a majority of its members in the service
and retail sectors. It is also important to realize that NFIB sets its policy by directly
surveying its members on issues important to small business.


22

the Federal inaction and a wink of the eye and say go ahead, you
can dump sewage for the next few days. The thing is that we have
had all this attention about something that anyone and everyone
who has really researched the San Diego outfall issue has said that
the law’s inconsistent—the technical interpretation of the laws is
inconsistent with the intent.

The fact is, this issue with the secondary sewage mandate of San
Diego was not something that was brought to me by the people of
San Diego, it was brought to me by a man called Roger Revelle,
and those of you who do not know Dr. Revelle, did not know him,
he was the director—the senior member at the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography. He also happened to be the individual, you might
remember, who originally developed the concept called the green-
house effect, it is somebody who has pretty good environmental cre-
dentials. The fact is that when we looked at the Federal mandate
to go to secondary sewage, and when the studies were done of the
environmental impact of fulfilling the letter of the law, it became
quite obvious to not only those of us in the environmental health
point of view, but those of us who have been involved in environ-
mental activism, that the damage that was going to be created by
initiating the law was greater than doing nothing at all, and that
was a major concern.

We have tried to raise awareness that the law, the intent of the
law, was not being followed. It has been a hard struggle, and let
me tell you as somebody who was on the other side of this issue
before we kept hearing at the local level:

We know that this law is ridiculous, but the Congress has mandated that we do
this, and the bureaucracy said we don’t have a choice, we are stuck with what Con-
gress forced on us, so unless you can go to Congress and try to change those

ys
or those people’s attitude, we are just stuck with this, and it is stupid, it’s Tidicu.
lous, and environmentally damaging.

I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, it is much like a situation—
I don’t believe it is like cleaning out the closet; I would equate it
to the concept that this is a 1972 vehicle. It was great, it was up
to date when we first adopted it, it was best for the science at the
time, but we now have new science and we not only have a right
to put in new spark plugs, a new carburetion system, a new injec-
tor system, a new catalytic converter, even maybe a seat belt, but
we have a responsibility to do that. I know there are the purists
that say no, leave it the way it was in 1972, don’t change it, but
I think that we are talking about a situation here that not only will
save the taxpayers millions of dollars, but also will clean up the en-
vironment.

But let me just say one thing else. Probably more important than
even money or the environment, for those of us here in Washington
it may do something very radical, and that is, it may institute a
degree of confidence that we really can respond to reality and re-
flect reality, and I think that is something we really want to do.

I want to make sure that we draw the Federal attention away
from the letter of the law and the misguided intentions, that we
tune up and we use a new spark plug, we use a new carburetor
to make it run better and more cost effective, but I also want the
Federal agencies to address the real environmental problems, not
just what they think we are mandating from Washington. I don’t


52

There has to be more than one way to solve things depending on
the soils, and our landfill, for instance, has a special soil which is
different than other places, and we think that the rules that apply
to that ought to be different because of the different makeup, and
yet so much of it, is whatever we do here we have to do every-
where, whether it makes sense or not.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, I appreciate that. I think that is the
correct approach.

Mr. Herr, let me ask you a question about your business experi-
ence. Have you found that in the past, because of some of these
regulations and perhaps the permitting requirements needed in
order to expand your facilities, that you have made decisions which
have resulted in perhaps slower growth than you would have liked
to see or even in some cases necessary to close down some oper-
ations and perhaps therefore cause the loss of job opportunities in
some communities?

Mr. HERR. Well, the one that I indicated to you up here in Mary-
land, it, of course, hampered our business by 2 years as far as
building the warehouse, so we may have had more product in the
Washington area if we could have started 2 years earlier.

However, we are right in the midst of working on a solution to
our waste water at our home plant, and we have been working for
a whole year now trying to solve that problem, and it seems like
it goes from one person to another person to another person, and
it is just very difficult to get it solved.

I cannot say that we were shut down or hampered in any way
by these people, but it just seems like it is very difficult to get deci-
sions out of these organizations.

Mr. McINTosu. I appreciate that.

Let me ask a question on a slightly different track, and it is pick-
ing up on something the Speaker had mentioned earlier today,
which was, Members would no longer be in a position where a con-
stituent, in this case the mayor, or Mr. Herr’s Congressman or
other Members that you are aware of are confronted with these
type of problems and the Member says, “Well, there’s not much I
can do because that is held up as part of a reauthorization of a
larger bill,” and he thought that was a valuable way of empowering
constituents to be able to call upon their Members to do that.

Have either of you experienced in the past in dealing with Mem-
bers of Congress the phenomenon where there was a sympathy for
the problem that was brought by you to them but this general in-
ability to operate because of the procedures requiring a larger look
or that the particular problem which may not—which may be rifle
shot being caught up in a larger process here in Congress? Is that
something that ye-1 had heard from Members who had represented
your communities in the past?

Mr. CorNETT. Certainly I have. On the instant that I indicated
here, there are others who agree that this is not necessary, to put
these lifts in, but they say, “We don’t have any choice, you have
to go ahead and do it, and if you don’t the funds will stop.” I
haven’t had any of them directly blame Congress, as has been men-
tioned here this morning, but obviously that is where the ultimate
decision is made and that is the easiest place to dump it.


61

and bipartisan consultation, suspension is a recognized device for handling correc-
tions.

Then there is the Rules Committee, with the expertise to clear either individual
or omnibus corrections measures for the floor. Generally, however, a report by the
committee with jurisdiction is presumed. .

My final observation relates to whether a corrections calendar or special process
should be engrained in the rules of the House. While House rules have a constant
political backdrop, they generally avoid elevating legislation dealing with specific
subjects or based on certain premises. I remember when I helped the Democratic
leadership craft an amendment to the rules in the 102nd Congress to require spend-
ing and revenue bills to include in their text a CBO cost estimate to be determina-
tive as a matter of law. This rule was an attempt to ensure that congressional esti-
mates, rather than those of OMB under Republican control, would control budget
decisions. The rule was difficult to implement and was usually ignored, until it was
repealed two years later.

Ta his Manual of Procedure which still guides this House, Thomas Jefferson wrote
that, on the regularity and consistency of parliamentary rules, whether the rules “be
in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much
more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there
may be a uniformity of proceeding in business. . . . It is very material that order,
decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.”

That concludes my testimony.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson. You have in
large part outlined early on in your testimony exactly what it is
that we are trying to pursue here, and I appreciate that.

We have a Pecorded. vote on, and we have asked Mr. Fox to cast
his vote and then come back, so we are going to recess, but I think
it will be very brief because Mr. Fox will then call on that very fa-
mous Claremont Men’s College graduate, Mr. Mason, to proceed
with his testimony. So we will stand in recess for just a few min-
utes.

[Recess.]

Mr. Fox [presiding]. Mr. Mason, we interrupted you in order to
have some floor votes, and now we are back. If you can continue
your testimony I know we'd appreciate it.

Mr. Mason. Thank you, Mr. Fox. I would also like to express my
appreciation for being allowed to present testimony this afternoon.

Mr. Fox. We are privileged to have you here. Thank you.

Mr. Mason. I will summarize by saying I don’t think you are
going to be able to accomplish the sorts of things you have talked
about without a new procedure or new calendar that doesn’t now
exist in the House rules. And it is largely for the reasons and sorts
of arguments that Mr. Beilenson and Mr. Bilbray were getting into
this morning.

I think the number of real legislative provisions of relief that will
be able to be handled in a noncontroversial way, where there won’t
be another side of the issue are very, very limited and that in order
to do real work in the corrections process you are going to need to
do something other than suspensions.

1 know we have had cases for many years where major bills, re-
authorizations, were hung up over very parochial, minor points,
and I can only imagine if you start trying to get committees to
process large numbers of corrections in a short period of time that
there is soon going to be a pretty high toll, whether it is a matter
in some cases of Members having pride of authorship of having
written the original legislation some years ago or participated in
the reauthorization process or simply wanting for their town some-
thing different. For instance, there seemed to be a sense in some





41

Mr. Waxman. Mr, Chairman, if I could have additional time to
ask other members of the panel questions I would be glad to yield
time, but I do want a chance to ask——

Mr. Bivpray. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that.

Mr. McINTosH. Let me just say yes, you will have additional
time, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Bilbray, let me ask your indulgence for 1 second. I know it
is somewhat unfair to make a statement and then not let you re-
spond, but if we could have the other issues come forward and then
let you make your statement in response to that.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m not trying to cut you off, I’m just simply trying
to get to the other questions on this whole Corrections Day issue,
and maybe the San Diego issue could be fashioned in a way that
it ought to move forward on a Corrections Day calendar, but maybe
it ought to move forward on another calendar. This is not the only
way for us to pass individual pieces of legislation.

Mr. BILpray. OK.

Mr, WaAxMaN. And there is a Clean Water Act reauthorization
that is moving forward as well.

But Mrs. Vucanovich, as a Member of the leadership, I’m con-
cerned how we distinguish among those issues that are obviously
dumb and require correction and those which constitute sub-
stantive policy disagreements. Are we going to have an objective
criteria, or is it simply poing to be 60 votes or two-thirds votes, and
if you have the votes then you call it dumb, and if you don’t have
the votes there is a serious policy disagreement, or do you think
that will just be ironed out in the hearings in the committee?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. We hope, Mr. Waxman, that we will have an
equal advisory committee, if that is the word, I’m not sure just how
we will set that up, but both Democrats and Republicans in an
equal number. We hope that we are not going to pick something
out of the air that is the most controversial thing that you can
think of and then say we are going to try to pass this, I don’t think
that is our intent, but I think all of us will agree that there are
many just dumb regulations that are being implemented and
shouldn’t be.

Obviously, I don’t think we are going to be able to pass some-
thing if we don’t have an agreement on what the criteria are, and
I think that is what we are in the process of trying to set up.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I’ve seen a lot of dumb things pass.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Oh, I have too.

Mr. WaxMaN. So it isn’t a question of whether the votes are
there or not, the question is whether or not we are going to have
an expedited procedure of something that is going to be called
dumb but it is not without controversy.

Mrs. VucANOovICH. I would hope that that isn’t our reason for ex-
istence.

Mr. WAXMAN. You are envisioning a committee, Democrats and
Republicans, to oversee what goes on in this calendar?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. That is my intent.

Mr. Waxman. OK, that is an interesting and helpful clarification.

Would tax provisions be open to be put on the table?

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. We _haven’t really set down exactly what
would qualify, but, again, I think it has to have the input of wheth-


39

Pus_ic Law 103-431—103d Conaress (H.R. 5176)

TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT RELATING TO SAN DIEGO
OCEAN DISCHARGE AND WASTE WATER RECLAMATION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Ocean Pollution Reduction Act”.
SEC, 2. SAN DIEGO OCEAN DISCHARGE AND WASTE WATER RECLAMATION.

Section 301(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311()) is
amended—

(1) in paragraph (1XA) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the follow-
ing: “, and except as provided in paragraph (5)"; and

©) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(5) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—In the 180-day period beginning on the date of the en-
actment of this paragraph, the city of San Diego, California, may apply for
a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of the requirements of subsection
(bX1XB) with respect to biological oxygen demand and total suspended sol-
ids in the effluent discharged into marine waters.

“(B) APPLICATION.—An application under this paragraph shall include a
commitment by the applicant to implement a waste water reclamation pro-
gram that, at a minimum, will—

“(i) achieve a system capacity of 45,000,000 gallons of reclaimed
waste water per day by January 1, 2010; and

“(ii) result in a reduction in the quantity of suspended solids dis-
charged by the applicant into the marine environment during the pe-
riod of the modification.

“(C) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.—The Administrator may not grant a modi-
fication pursuant to an application submitted under this paragraph unless
the Administrator determines that such modification will result in removal
of not less than 58 percent of the biological oxygen demand (on an annual
average) and not less than 80 percent of total suspended solids (on a
monthly average) in the discharge to which the application applies.

“(D) PRELIMINARY DECISION DEADLINE.—The Administrator shall an-
nounce a preliminary decision on an application submitted under this para-
graph not later than 1 year after the date the application is submitted.”.

Approved October 31, 1994.

Mr. Waxman. Mr. Bilbray, I don’t feel it would be all that pro-
ductive to debate these issues with you, but I think there are seri-
ous concerns expressed by people——

Mr. McINTOsH. Would the gentleman yield for 1 second?

Mr. Waxman. Yes.

Me McINrosu. Would you have any questions for Mrs. Vucano-
vich!

Mr. WAXMAN. You know, I don’t particularly, except some of the
general questions, and as a Member of the leadership, if she
wouldn’t mind just staying one more minute, I’ll be brief, I’m sorry,
and we should have probably, if I might say, Mr. Chairman, gone
through in 5 minutes, each of us, and all the panelists could have
left, because a lot of the questions of Mr. DeLay were questions
that other members of the panel might have addressed.

But, Mr. Bilbray, the point in Mr. Mineta’s letter is that correc-
tions for San Diego were handled in previous legislation and that
there is an argument that a fundamental problem with San Diego’s
argument, it is already provided relief, additional legislation might
be harmful because they acted on conditions that they get this
waiver, and I just put that out there.

Mr. BILBRAY. And I will just say, I haven’t met with the Con-
gressman yet and I am going to meet, because I think there are



64

of statutes and regulations, many of which are now dated if they were ever useful,
which are already on the books. A corrections process will allow the House to begin
addressing problems in existing law and regulation on the basis of common sense
priorities: coming to the most outrageous and expensive abuses first.

The process of considering numerous corrections may even help to suggest what
forms more comprehensive legislation, such as reauthorizations of broad statutes or
changes in overall regulatory procedures, should take.

INADEQUACY OF THE SUSPENSION PROCESS

I fear that the two-thirds majority required for suspensions may be too high a
hurdle for many legitimate measures, even those targeting widely-decried legislative
or regulatory abuses. Disputes over related but less clear-cut issues, or because of
partisan or jurisdictional turf battles could well block a two-thirds majority. This
sort of reverse log rolling or legislative blackmail has often stalled major legislation
over minor or parochial points’ and I suspect committee leaders would quickly find
themselves paying steep legislative tolls for corrections measures if every one is re-
quired to muster a two-thirds vote.

I also foresee the likelihood of nearly universal agreement that a particular law
or regulation needs to be fixed combined with significant disa, ment about how
to do so. Disagreements over specific community- or facility. ‘ted fixes versus
more generic remedies are particularly easy to imagine. For this reason, it would
be useful for a corrections procedure to leave at least some room for amendments
or substitutes. It may not be necessary for the Rules Committee to take an active
role in vetting amendments for corrections, since, due to the envisioned narrowly-
focused nature of such measures, corrections bills are not likely to be subject to a
wide variety or number of amendments. If some amendments and alternatives are
possible, minority party members are likely to feel far more comfortable about the
procedure, and about considering specific bills under it. If amendments are limited

y the nature of the legislation or by a new process the majority need not be con-
cerned by the threat of dilatory tactics or the potential need to issue controversial
closed rules in order to expedite the legislation.

PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the suspension procedure, I would urge you to consider Calendar
Wednesday an related provisions for DC business as a possible means of advancing
corrections and as a model for a new procedure. The call of committees allows

to come to the floor without a rule, provides opportunities for amendment, but also,
at least in some instances, allows a floor manager to move to close or limit debate.
The procedure also allows opponents to bring the question of consideration, which
might provide an opportunity to challenge the expedited procedure as distinct from
the underlying legislation itself.

The leadership might begin by using the Calendar Wednesday process for selected
corrections, and then considering changes to that. process or developing a parallel
tule for corrections based on the initial experience.

Among the adaptations which may be useful are a definition in rules of the stand-
ards for @ corrections measure. A focus on a single provision of an existing law or
regulation is the most obviously likely standard, but there may be others as well.
A new procedure should provide relief for most or all requirements for committee
reports, since measures are likely to be short and self-explanatory. At the same
time, if the new calendar or procedure required at least a week’s notice, anyone with
questions about a bill would have adequate opportunity to raise them. You might
also consider providing that the raising of the question of consideration would trig-
ger a delay until the next corrections day. This would ensure consultation with the
minority in scheduling, allow opponents to challenge the expedited process, and pro-
vide time for negotiated changes in the face of opposition, but all under a certain
deadline. Finally, provided adequate notice, amendments should be required to be
pre-filed, allowing the bill manager to shape and propose a debate limitation earl
in consideration if a limitation is necessary. By guarantceing at least a vote on all
pre-filed amendments, this procedure would not cut anyone off, and the limited na-
ture of corrections is likely to make it unusual that a large number of amendments
would be filed in any case.

Again, I thank the subcommittees for the opportunity to present these views, and
I welcome your questions an the opportunity to continue discussing this new proce-
dure as it is developed.

Mr. Fox. OK. Well, I thank you very much for your testimony,
Mr. Mason, and we will include your full statement for the record.



9

Part of the difference is, I want to communicate to the country
the idea that there is a corrections process, that your Member is
part of it, and if you run into a bureaucracy that is particularly
dumb or particularly outrageous, that you have an avenue of
power, not just an avenue of griping, and that if it turns out that
you are right and it is legitimate and serious, that something that
can be done.

Now I think even if we were only to pass four or five corrections
a month—and I think we could do more than that on the suspen-
sion basis, but even four or five a month would send a signal of
change to the country that would rebuild, I think significantly,
faith in elected officials.

So I don’t know if that is responsive, but that is sort of how I
see it happening.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, as I understand it, the situation now is that
with some of these programs you have to get at it through the ap-
propriations process. I guess that is the only way we can——

The SPEAKER. I think that is a matter of scheduling, and when
I leave—which I’m told Senator Dole wants me to come, and I tend
to be very responsive to Senator Dole in these kinds of moments,
so let me just say, I would want to hear from the Rules chairman,
but I believe that many things which in the past we tried to get
at in the appropriations process was a function of what could be
scheduled and that in fact if the Rules Committee were willing to
work with the membership on this specific corrections process we
wouldn’t have to encumber appropriations bills with all sorts of ex-
traneous things, we could go straight at changing them, and that
would be my goal.

Let me just back up and say one last thing because I am told
I have got to run over to this meeting. I would really like this—
if this is going to work, it has to be bipartisan, it has to be genuine,
it can’t just be game playing. Mr. Waxman’s injunction is right, it
can’t be taking care of a handful of lobbyists or taking care of
someone’s special interest. There has got to be a sense that there
is a standard you rise above, that the bureaucracy has to be par-
ticularly dumb to do it, and that it has to be something where it
is silly—it is silly to go home and defend it. That is probably the
best standard I can give you. If it is silly to go home and defend
it, why don’t we quit doing it?

And I want to ask on a bipartisan basis both committees to de-
sign a procedure so every Member could go home by June and say
to their constituents if something happens that is so silly that you
can’t really defend it, let me know Pocause I would like to bring
it to the attention of the Corrections Day process. I think that is
the spirit I would like to set.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me?

The Speaker. Sure.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I don’t disagree with what you are
saying because we ought to be able to respond to problems, we
ought to be able to respond to them in a simple, finite way and not
have to do a major bill to deal with a specific problem.

But let me just ask you this question about the IRS matter. I do
want to put in the record a letter from our colleague Congressman
Norman Mineta, who has indicated, I think very convincingly, that


51

‘As with so many items, the cost of going from good to excellent to perfect in-
creases geometrically. Regulations which continue to tighten down discharge criteria
without reference to the cost of achieving that level of treatment do the country the
disservice of discouraging investment in otherwise worthwhile projects.

Issue 3—Sound, Applicable Science

The EPA and the states should be required to demonstrate that sound, proven sci-
entific evidence has been used in formulating reglations and permit limitations. If,
for example, biomonitoring of a potentially toxic waste is required, the species of

lants and animals used for a given permit should be indigenous to the stream at
and, not some exotic, extremely sensitive creatures which will never be found at
the site under the best of conditions.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committees.

Mr. McINTosSH. Let me ask, Mayor Cornett, if the city could have
a process by which they could seek waivers for this requirement
under the Americans With Disabilities Act and perhaps other man-
dates that the Federal Government places on local government,
would that be something that you would see as a useful correction
that could be brought up, or would you recommend that we try to
address these as we hear from each government about particular
regulatory processes?

Str. CorneETT. I think seeking a waiver would be certainly an al-
ternative. There are many times at the local level that, because of
circumstances, special situations, that an appeal on a particular
rule would be in order, in my opinion, in order for common sense
to prevail.

In my opinion, because of the “one size fits all” mentality, or I
can’t make an exception because then I’ll be in big trouble, common
sense doesn’t prevail, and I don’t find any problem with making an
exception. I think if it is common sense, it is good to make an ex-
ception and still enforce the rule maybe equally or the same else-
where.

We just get very frustrated, and the frustration leads to anger,
very frankly, when common sense doesn’t prevail because of what.
it might affect somewhere else. With all due respect for other com-
munities, we would like to be able to do what is right by our citi-
zens without being influenced by what is going on elsewhere.

Mr. McINTosH. Actually, without opening up the question fully,
let’s take, for example, one that was discussed this morning on San
Diego with the sewage treatment. As mayor in the Midwestern city
where those requirements are necessary in order to protect ground
water and other treatment is necessary because of the geographic
situation there, which is very different than San Diego’s being next.
to the ocean, would it cause a problem for you or for the city if San
Diego were given a waiver or there was a process by which the:
didn’t have to comply with a particular regulation, but because it
did make sense for cities in the Midwest and others to have that
regulation apply to them—I guess putting yourself on the other
side of that where you were not able to receive a waiver but some
other city was, would you envision that as being a fair process?

Mr. Cornett. I certainly would. I think as fone as, as has been
stated here this morning, that the policy or the ultimate result is
obtained, I would have no problem at all in granting other cities
exceptions or allowing us to do things a bit differently than other
people and therefore let them do things differently as long as we
end up with a clean environment, as long as we end up with a safe
place for all of us to live.


57

under way in this Congress are something that is much needed out
there. When a business or State or local government has a dispute
with an agency, specific and immediate corrective legislative action
sometimes is the route, but often I have found that it is the route
of last recourse. .

Part of the way our system works frequently is for industry to
try to negotiate with the agencies while working with Congress to
try to bring out a negotiated solution, and one of the things I would
like to point out is that with regulators and even with Congress
there is frequently simply a lack of simple information and under-
standing about an industry and how it works. I'll throw out one
small example.

When the administration proposed a Btu tax several years ago,
which went down in flames in the Senate but which passed this
House, very few people in the administration or in Congress recog-
nized the unique status of the aluminum industry where electricity
is, chemically speaking, an essential ingredient of making alu-
minum rather than an incidental use by the industry, and it took
months to carry this argument through the administration and
through Congress in order to get special treatment of this in the
Btu tax as it passed the House.

I would also point out that there is often science on both sides
of an issue and that information and educational campaigns are a
very necessary part of working with the agencies and with Con-
gress. After all, I think industry will tell you that most of the time
it is essential to establish some kind of working relationship with
the agencies. Sometimes that is, frankly, out of fear, but also it can
lead to a more productive relationship in the future.

As to a piecemeal approach to regulatory correction, I would say
it is unfair for industry to have to guess how they are going to have
to comply with regulations, but it also is probably inappropriate for
Federal officials not to know where the law is going on a day-to-
day basis. They have to have notice, and they have to know where
they are going to be down the line.

While some have characterized Corrections Day as a boon to lob-
byists, I think that is a little exaggerated. There is also a flip side
of this issue, which I think all of you have seen, which is the fact
that industry makes marketplace decisions all the time based on
the law as they understand it and the status of regulatory enforce-
ment. Much of the focus here has been in the environmental arena,
but one need only look at the financial services industry, the com-
puter industry, to realize the effect on long-range planning that the
present status of FTC review, antitrust review, and the law on the

jooks has. A Microsoft, for example, is keenly aware of where the
law is and where it is going and every step it takes.

For every private sector loser there is also likely to be a winner
in complicated areas of law such as energy, telecommunications,
and the like, so I believe that Congress must proceed carefully in
upsetting this apple cart. Therefore, I recommend that if there is
a corrections process that there need to be strict guidelines and re-
view to qualify proposals. There must be some type of committee
review. The administration must be heard. Every attempt should
be made to consult all affected parties as a change in the law or
regulations may have a ripple effect or unintended consequence not


11

The SPEAKER. Absolutely. In my judgment you have to start with
the experts who spent the time studying the topic.

Mr. WaAxMAN. Thank you.

The SPEAKER. Thank you all.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for launch-
ing this project.

efore we get to our second panel, let me now turn to those who
deferred on their opening statements.

Mr. Solomon, do you have a statement?

Mr. SoLoMoNn. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do, and I hate to take up
all of the time, but I do have some points I would like to make that
might clarify the air for some of the Members.

‘irst, I really want to commend the Speaker on his innovative
and his constructive proposal for a House Corrections Day. I can’t
think of anything that is more important that will face this Con-
gress during this session. I think this is a much needed antidote
to public cynicism over the Federal Government and its sometimes
unresponsive and bungling bureaucracies, and my district has suf-
fered immeasurably because of it.

Second, I really want to commend subcommittee chairmen, David
Dreier and David McIntosh, as well as the full committee chair-
man, Mr. Clinger, for really taking the initiative to hold this joint
subcommittee hearing of our two committees, also Barbara Vucano-
vich and Bill Zeliff who are out in the audience, and Tom DeLay
who will be testifying in panels later on. I hope this will set an ex-
ample for other committees and subcommittees to work closer to-
gether on problems of mutual concern. It is certainly preferable to
expending time and energy on needless turf fights, which we in the
Rules Committee run into all the time.

Third, without preempting or prejudging the various proposals
that will be made by various witnesses today for creating Correc-
tions Day, let me put forward a few standards and suggestions for
consideration in formulating a workable Corrections Day process,
and this is purely my opinion that has arrived from my experiences
with dealing with all of the complex rules and the turf battles with
all of the committees over all of these years.

First, there should be a major concern to a large segment of our
leadership and membership. As Mr. Gingrich, our Speaker, has
said, they should be confined to a single subject. I do not think we
should en bloc groups for debate. They should not involve the ex-
penditure of additional moneys for the raising of additional reve-
nues. Again. We would be getting away from the original intent of
the Corrections Day. They should be reported by the committee of
jurisdiction so that Members will have the benefit of a full report
to allow them to make fully informed decisions. And that deals
with what Mr. Waxman was worried about before. They should be
referred to a new corrections calendar, in my opinion and in addi-
tion to their normal calendar only by direction of the Speaker. They
should be considered on a Corrections Day either once or twice a
month, preferably on Tuesdays after suspensions. That would be a
logical time to take them up. They should be subject to not less
than 1 hour of debate. They should not be subject to amendment
unless offered by the manager of the bill, which is the case, as you
know, under current suspension bills.


TL

COMMITTEE ON RULES
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York, Chairman

JAMES H. QUILLEN, Tennessee JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts
DAVID DREIER, California ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
PORTER GOSS, Florida MARTIN FROST, Texas

JOHN LINDER, Georgia TONY P. HALL, Ohio

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
ENID WALDHOLTZ, Utah
DON WOLFENSBERGER, Chief of Stoff
GEORGE C. CRAWFORD, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE House

DAVID DREIER, California, Chairman
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado TONY P. HALL, Ohio
ENID WALDHOLTZ, Utah
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

VINCENT RanDazzO, Counsel
MELISSA RICE KUCKRO, Minority Counsel


32

Mr. BEILENSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

dust a brief comment, if I may—and I say this with all respect
because the members of the panel, with the exception of the new
gentleman from San Diego whom I’ve not had the pleasure of meet-
ing personally but obviously is a very intelligent and concerned

erson, the others are all good friends or ours—to be frank about
it, your testimony has not been very helpful. You have got the nub
of a nice little idea here, but we still have to discuss in some speci-
ficity how we handle it.

Mrs. Waldholtz asked exactly the kind of question that needs to
be asked, along with a good many more of them, and answered as
well. We need some help in defining and writing the kind of proc-
ess that we need to accomplish what you all and what we too may
want to accomplish. Do we need a new process at all, or, as a cou-
ple of people have suggested at various times, including perhaps
the Speaker—I don’t mean to be speaking for him, but I think I
heard him say this—should we simply designate a suspension day
every now and then as a Corrections Day. Maybe that is the best
way of doing it.

0 do we need a new process entirely? What would be the exact.
process of handling the corrections bills prior to enabling them to
ave floor consideration? There are all kinds of ideas about things
that need to be corrected, but what we need help on—and we ask
your help in the weeks to come—is how to write a process and de-
fine these concepts in such a way as to make it possible for all of
us to accomplish what we want to accomplish.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Beilenson, I would like to try to answer
that. I think since we have been talking about just what proce-
dures to use for Corrections Day, and we debated about whether
we wanted a corrections calendar or how we wanted to do it,
whether we would do a combination of suspensions and regular
order or suspension of the rules or regular order, or a monthly cor-
rections package, we looked at all of these, and we are in the proc-
ess—I suppose that is what this hearing is about. But we recognize
that we do need to have some factors that have to be considered
in setting priorities, and that is why we are hoping for input on
both sides of the aisle, and I suppose some of the factors are, if we
are going to do this, is the legislation controversial, and how many
people would support it, and whether it would be Democrats and
Republicans or just what, and the number of people affected.

I mean we are not going to do this for some one person who has
a bird in his yard that he doesn’t think needs to be there, and also
we have to look at criteria about preparation time and the urgency.
If you look at some of the people who have, particularly in the
West, who have suffered from a lot of the regulations that come
down—and when I say the West I always think about the western
States that have public lands but—and also the savings or the
costs.

So I think we are in the process of setting down those criteria,
and we hope we will get input from the other Members.

Mr. BEILENSON. Well, I thank the gentlelady and thank the
chairman, and I look forward also to our next panel, where we
have some folks who deal with some of the specifics and may be
of some help to us.


74

process through the committees for corrections. I’m sorry I can’t
add quickly other easily measurable criteria.

Mr. DREIER. Billy?

Mr. Pitts. If I could, as a question of personal privilege, sort of
take issue with the doctor’s earlier statement about an amendment
that had a woman’s name and telephone number on it, because I
was a victim of the late, great Phil Burton in that instance. That
was Gramm-Latta——

Mr. THURBER. Sorry. It wasn’t an amendment. It is just scribbled
on the side of a bill.

Mr. Pitts. Right, but it actually wasn’t part of the legislation.

Mr. DREIJER. May 1981.

Mr. Pitts. That is right.

Mr. DrEIER. I had been here 4 months then.

Mr. Pitts. How well you remember, I’m sure.

Mr. DREIER. Very well.

Mr. Pirrs. There have been examples of guidelines that have
been adopted. The Private Calendar and the Consent Calendar
were two, and I included one example as part of my testimony
where the majority and the minority got together and did sort of
generic guidelines that were not put in the rules of the House but
instead were put in the record to sort of give the membership and
the public an idea of what it was the criteria was for determinin;
which bills would be on the Private Calendar and which bills woul
be considered under the Consent Calendar. My lament, as I put in
my remarks, is that we really haven’t used that bipartisan proce-
dure since 1985, and I would like to see more bipartisanship in
measures such as you are proposing here because I think that it
works best when it is bipartisan.

Mr. DREIER. Great.

Mr. Pitts. So I would be an advocate of developing some kind of

idelines that would not make them part of the rules of the

louse.

Mr. DREIER. Of course the whole idea is that if we are going to
have a supermajority we know that it has to be bipartisan.

‘ete.

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I think obvious, noncontroversial, and bi-
partisan are a pretty good starting point.

I think perhaps there ought to be some sense of urgency, some-
thing that perhaps can’t wait the ordinary legislative process. Com-
mittee consideration I believe is very important for bringing in
budgetary concerns and for some kind of judge on the ripple effect.

But it has occurred to me this morning that perhaps there are
certain areas of the law and areas of the relationship between the
public and the Federal Government that we are most concerned
about, and I’m not sure they have to be ingrained in guidelines, but
clearly we are talking about heavy regulation in the labor area, en-
vironmental area, FDA area. I’m not sure we are talking about in
a general sense tax law. I think perhaps that ought to be off the
table and handled separately through the Ways and Means Com-
mittee with very careful deliberation. I’m not sure you are talking
about financial services.

Mr. DREIER. The IRS question is the one that Newt was raising
earlier.


20

The intent of Corrections Day is not to replace debate and
lengthy study of complex issues when it is needed. We also don’t
want to tread on the jurisdiction of standing committees. I believe
there is a middle ground available which will allow us to meet
these criteria. I can tell you with my brief experience chairing the
Steering Committee on Corrections Day that people in our country
want us to take action on these trifles without excuse and without
delay, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to give you
my input, and I hope that you all will consider very seriously doing
something about legislating and Legislative Corrections Day.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Vucanovich.

Mr. Zeliff has been very active in attempting to adopt a correc-
tions procedure in the A to Z legislation, and I think that experi-

ence has granted him a great deal of wisdom in this matter as well.
Mr. Zeliff.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. ZeLIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too would like to thank
you and Mr. Dreier, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Clinger for your leader-
ship in doing something that is long overdue.

Frankly, I think the Speaker has a great gem of an idea, and
what we have to do, our challenge is, how do you make this idea
work. I think this is the kind of an idea that will get us into the
20th century before the 20th century is over. It is kind of like
cleaning out our closets. We need to change or break the culture,
and this is a process that will challenge us to do it better. It fo-
cuses on correcting our mistakes; it gives us the opportunity to
make the system more efficient.

Some folks on the other side of the aisle may rightly be con-
cerned by bringing out such things as careful consideration of sub-
stance, sound bytes, and clear legislative purpose, pointing out our
job of oversight, and obviously this all needs to be maintained in
a very accountable way.

Our intent is to provide an efficient process to allow us to be ac-
countable, to do our work more efficiently, and I think that is the
key here as we look to the future. We need to make all the thin,
that we do much more efficient than we have done in the past. We
have got to figure out a way to put those things on a fast track
where we can, and this particular case provides a focus. Then we
can be held responsible for our results.

Some of the things that I picked up in my 10 town meetings held
in the last 3 weeks: “Government is out oF control. Government is
not being held accountable. We have overreached and outreached
to a point where we need to sit back and look at some of the things
we have done.” Certainly the IRS life-style audit is a good example.
Superfund is another example. We can go on and on.

My idea on A to Z last year was originally intended to do an A
to Z on spending cuts, an A to Z on regulatory reform, and an A
to Z on tax loopholes.

This Corrections Day frankly is great, because it addresses the
problems in a very orderly way. It goes through the committee
process, goes through the rules, gives everybody input, it is a bipar-


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York CARDISS COLLINS, Iinois
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR, New Hampshire JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
STEPHEN HORN, California York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts GARY A. CONDIT, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
RANDY TATE, Washington THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey Columbia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South

Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Maryland (independent)

JAMES L. CLARKE, Staff Director
Bup MYERS, Minority Staff Director
KEVIN SABO, General Counsel
JupITH McCoy, Chief Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GRowTH, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS

DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana, Chairman

JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
RANDY TATE, Washington JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Maryland GARY A. CONDIT, California

Ex Orricio

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania CARDISS COLLINS, Minois

MILDRED WEBBER, Sto/f Director
Davin WHITE, Clerk
MATTHEW PINKUS, Minority Professional Staff

a)


44

only bring it up for processing, if the monitoring detects there is
a problem.

Mr. WaxMAN. The disagreement we have is not a broad philo-
sophical one, I think the disagreement—and it is one we need to
discuss—but the disagreement seems to be that, according toa
judge, the sewage treatment program in San Diego has had, “a fail-
ure of political leadership,” and the judge indicates that there has
been an outrageous record of spills closures and distress to resi-
dents over sewer backups in their homes, churches, and businesses.

Mr. BILBRAY. Nothing to do with the outfall.

Mr. WAXMAN. I think that we need to make sure that, whatever
we are going to provide for, that we don’t simply trust San Diego
to do what is right if they have a record where they have not acted
responsibly.

Mr. BILBRAy. Again, this judge’s statement was to EPA and the
city of San Diego, ‘and that is why he was distressed, and I think
that we need to clarify that these words actually are an indictment
of the Federal Government with the city of San Diego at that time
because they were following Federal mandates on this issue, and
that is why the judge was so vocal on this issue, and I say that
as somebody who sat through the trial.

Mr. BEILENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN, I yield.

Mr. BEILENSON. Just for a moment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

What may be even more relevant, I say to my friend from Los
Angeles and our friend from San Diego, is that this clearly is a
complicated and controversial matter that may not really lend itself
quite so easily as we were led to believe at the outset to being part
of a new process. In a sense, that is the relevant consideration
here. There are two sides to this matter.

The ranking minority member of the full committee is very much
opposed to it, although hopefully you can change his mind, Brian.
But it may not, as I just said, be something which can easily be
resolved in the way that the Speaker and some of his friends Rav
in mind.

Mr. BILBRAy. Well, to be blunt, the real controversy here is, is
there a flaw in the Clean Water Act as we passed it in 1972, and
does it need to be corrected, at least when the evidence goes the
other way.

Mr. BEILENSON. We certainly need a hearing to find out an an-
swer to that.

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I’m saying all you need to do right now is to
read the report that we commissioned as a Federal Government,
the Academy of Sciences, that says the law does not reflect the
science and should be changed.

Mr. BEILENSON. I don’t mean to be picking on you, Brian, or your
suggestion; I’m just suggesting that a lot of these things, seem to
make a lot of sense to their proponents may be far more com-
plicated and controversial once you get into them and may defy our
trying to squeeze them into some kind of new simplified process.

Mr. Bitpray. And I appreciate that. I just get—I guess the frus-
tration of those of us that are living with environmental problems
is that we forget sometimes that people are wedded to the legisla-
tion even more than they are the environment sometimes because


28

Do any of the members of either of the-subcommittees have ques-
tions for Mr. DeLay?

Mrs. CoL.ins. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Yes, Mrs. Collins.

Mrs. CoLins. Mr. DeLay, I have a question. I have here a list
that is called “Corrections Inventory,” and on this list there are
several items, about 32 of them. One of them is “Individuals With
Disabilities Act Revisions,” and it says under that, “1. Apply Fed-
eral Administrative Procedures Act, 2. State Option To Combine
IDEA Fund With Other Federal Funds, 3. Authority for States To
Use 10 percent of IDEA Funds for Noncategorical Supports.” An-
other one that says something about, “50 CFR 930, Requires Agen-
cies To Review Competence and Physical Qualifications of All Em-
ployees Who Operate Vehicles.” Another one, “Title IV-E, Client
Eligibility Requirements for AFDC,” et cetera.

My question is, have you seen this list?

Mr. DELay. I have not seen that list.

Mrs. CoLuins. Would you have any idea where it might have
come from, how it might have been developed, who was consulted,
or any of that?

Mr. DELAY. I haven't seen the list. I don’t know where it came
from. I don’t know how you got it. I would just suggest that I don’t
even know the meaning of the list because we don’t have a Correc-
tions Day procedure yet, and we have already testified that any-
thing that would come to floor under a Corrections Day procedure
would go through the normal open legislative process.

Mrs. CoLLins. So you have no list—you don’t already have a list
of things that you might want to have——

Mr. DeLay. Oh, I’ve got plenty of lists in my own mind. Being
a businessman for 20 years, I have gota list. In fact, I refer you
again to the Heritage Foundation book that I had a lot of input in,
the “Red Tape in America,” and many other lists that are out there
that we ought to look at as candidates for the Corrections Day pro-
cedure.

Mrs. Couuins. Well, Mr. Zeliff just grabbed his microphone. I’m
sure Mr. Zeliff wants to say something.

Mr. ZELIFF. I just wish, and, you know, I think your intent is
well justified, but I think what we have here is a gem of an idea
to make us more efficient: How do we focus on mistakes so that we
can get beyond the mistakes, get the things that are holding us up
from being more successful, and so whether you have a list or ev-
erybody has a list, I think what we need to do is set up a process
so that we can process those lists, and there may not be any final-
ists on your list.

Mrs. Couiins. Excuse me for interrupting you, but I am con-
cerned if there are already lists, because no Democrats have been
on this committee—on the steering committee that has been set up.

I would also like to know where these lists are generated from
because I want to know who is doing it. One of the witnesses here,
either you or the Speaker, has said that people are calling your of-
fices and they are talking about the things that have to be looked
at. Nobody has called my office, and I don’t know about other Mem-
bers. I can speak only for the Seventh Congressional District of Illi-


37

ropriate case. The issue of San Diego's secondary treatment stands more for vacil-
frang and inconsistent municipal decision-making than it does for federal intrusive-
ness and inflexibility. The problem here was not inflexible federal laws or regula-
tions. Federal law was flexible in that it gave San Diego the opportunity to deal
with the objections of the State of California either by going to secondary treatment
or by extending its outfall pipe. San Diego's problem was that it could not stick with
one decision or the other; it was not capable of handling the flexibility it was given.

‘When San Diego reversed itself for the second time and sought, in the last Con-
gress, a legislatively  Pranted waiver, it made several key representations as to why
it should be accorded the special treatment of having the waiver window reopened
for it. (See for example the letter of Congressman Filner to me, March 2, 1994, at-
tached.) First, it represented that it required only a slight deviation from secondai
treatment standards and only with respect to biological oxygen demands (BOD). It
would continue to meet, for example, the secondary treatment standard for 85% re-
moval of Total Suspended Solids. Second, it would reduce the total amount of its
discharge by undertaking a major reclamation project, by which a significant minor-
ity of San Diego’ total wastewater would be reclaimed and used for various landside
purposes. And third, by obtaining a waiver it would be subject to the same kinds
of monitoring and periodic renewal that any waiver holder and any permit holder
is subject to in order to assure that there are no substantial deviations.

In the course of considering that legislation during 1994, San Diego again began
changing its mind as to what it was willing to do. As a result, the bill enacted in
the Fall of 1994, at San Diego’s insistence, relaxed not only the BOD standard from
85% to 58%, bit also lowered the Total Suspended Solids standard from 85% to 80%;
and it reduced the amount of reclamation and extended the date by which it would
achieve that reclamation, as compared to San Diego’s initial representations. The
bill Congress enacted in the Fall of 1994 was what San Diego said in the Fall of
1994 it could do and was willing to do. Yet early in 1995, San Diego was back tryin,
to get out of what it had just said it would do. Under H.R. 794, San Diego woul
receive in effect a permanent exemption from secondary treatment—no conditions,
no review, no questions asked. Not only would the secondary treatment standard
be tossed aside, but so would the 58% BOD standard and the 80% Total Suspended
Solids standard. Anything that was “chemically enhanced primary treatment” would

walify. That simply means screening out the larger solids and adding chlorine to

 rest—basically untreated sewage except for the addition of chlorine. Any re-
quirement for reclamation would be tossed aside. And there would be no require-
ment for monitoring and periodic review. It is important to note that this bill would
allow San Diego to provide significantly less treatment than it provides today.

So the issue presented by H.R. 794 is not whether San Diego should have to do
secondary treatment—it will not have to do secondary treatment whether this bill
is enacted or not. The issue is whether San Diego should have to do the things it

roposed a few months ago that it should do in lieu of secondary treatment and
whether it should even have to continue the low level of treatment it provides today.

I should also note that it is sometimes claimed that the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography supports this bill. That is not true, and we have just reconfirmed that
with the Director of the Institution. There are a couple of employees of the Institu-
tion who, as individuals, endorsed a secondary waiver for San Diego, but who de-
clined to endorse H.R. 794 as introduced. I understand that these individuals have
recently said that with certain modifications they could support H.R. 794, but what-
ever their position may be, they do not speak for Scripps.

‘The most immediate question for purposes of this hearing is whether these issues
presented by H.R. 794 should be decided by some new Corrections Day procedure
yet to be worked out, or whether they should be decided through normal legislative
deliberation. I do not believe H.R. 794, or any similar bill, is an appropriate can-
didate for Corrections Day.

First, this is not a case of excessive or rigid federal requirements needing to be
corrected. The problem here is that Federal faw—Section 301(h) in particular—gave
San Diego a degree of flexibility which it could not handle. First San Diego wanted
a waiver, then it rejected the waiver option, then it wanted the waiver and needed
legislation to get it, then it wanted legislation to eliminate the commitments it had
devised to get the waiver legislation. San Diego is a better case for giving less flexi-
bility to municipalities than it is for Biving more. And I consider that very unfortu-
nate, because as a former mayor myself I have long worked to achieve greater flexi-
bility for municipalities. The Judge in the San Diego sewage treatment case, Judge
Rudi M. Brewster (a Reagan appointee who has agreed with San Diego that second-
ary treatment is not necessary), summed up this sorry story when he described San
Diego as follows: “the court concludes that the sewage treatment program in this
City has been victimized by a failure of political leadership dating back at least


23

think you wanted to mandate stupidity. The citizens don’t under-
stand why the Federal Government is mandating it, and I think if
we respond to this, it will work, it will be appropriate, and I think
that it is something that we can all be very proud of.

Dr. Revelle is no longer with us today, he passed away last year,
and, Members of Congress, I would like to just say if there was
anything we could do, this could be the Revelle bill, to be able to
straighten this mess out for the environment and for our children.
As he said to me a week before he passed away, he said, “Brian,
if you do anything else, bring some sanity to this stupid situation,
change the mandate and make it reflect science and the environ-
ment, not the bureaucracy and regulation.” The question we have
before us, those of us that are fighting the environmental battles,
is, is the regulation more important than the environment? If the
environment is what is important, we not only have the right to
change that regulation, we have the responsibility to do it, and we
have to have the guts to do the right thing on this item.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTOosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray.

Let me ask Mr. DeLay and the other members of the panel, I
know you have all got busy schedules, do you have time for a few
questions, or do you need to—

Mr. DeLay. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, I would ap-
preciate taking first any questions that would be coming to me. I
have a leadership meeting that started 20 minutes ago, and I need
to be moving along soon.

Mr. McINTosH. OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. DeLay leaves, I hope he
will let some of us ask him some questions.

Mr. DELayv. I would be glad to.

Mr. WaAxMAN. I mean when we have hearings it is two way.

Mr. DeLay. I didn’t say I wouldn’t answer questions, Mr. Wax-
man.

Mr. Waxman. OK.

Mr. McINTOSH. He just has a leadership meeting.

Why don’t we proceed quickly to the questions, and I have one.
The thing that I Keep puzzling through in my mind is the relation-
ship of this process to the committee process generally, and per-
haps, being a freshman, I’m naive to this, but it always struck me
that it would be possible to have the committees view this as some-
thing that empowered them, as an additional opportunity to bring
legislation to the floor. I was wondering if you or the other Mem-
bers would comment on that generally and how you see this relat-
ing to the regular business that the committees would be doing?

Mr. DELay. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I can speak to that. I think,
as the chairman so rightly puts, this empowers particularly sub-
committees to really look at what is going on, particularly in those
agencies that they may have oversight responsibilities for. It also
puts an extra burden on those subcommittees to respond to com-
plaints by American citizens to abuses that they feel are being per-
petrated on them by the Federal agencies.

I also might say that I hope that the procedure will consider al-
lowing, as I think one of the panelists alluded to, no amendments


7

vate Pension and Welfare Plans, the city of Fort Worth, Governor
Howard Dean of Vermont, Governor Jim Edgar, have ail come up
with very specific proposals, and in Governor Edgar’s case he went
back home, told his senior staff about the idea, and brought in a
five-page, single-spaced letter with correction proposals from the
State of Illinois.

Now I’m just suggesting that we don’t want to get into
micromanagement and we ought to set some standard of relative
cost, relative dumbness, relative urgency, but there ought to be a
screening process. I want to commend in particular Congress-
woman Barbara Vucanovich and Congressman Bill Zeliff and Con-

‘essman McIntosh, who have been working on this for the House

publican leadership, and they are going to talk about it a little
bit. Tom DeLay has been developing this whole question of how do

ou deregulate. He wrote the foreword to a new book called “Red
i e in America: Stories from the front line” by Craig Richardson
and Jeff Siebert, and I'll just give you two last examples so you can
understand where we are coming from, again, drawing the distine-
tion between general policy and legal but dumb behavior.

Two examples out of “Red Tape in America.” An elderly woman
in Wyoming was prohibited by bureaucrats from planting a bed of
roses on her land. In Florida the owner of a three-person silk
screening company was fined by OSHA for not having a hazardous
communications program for his two part-time employees.

Now there is some point here where common sense—how do you,
in a free society, in the information age, with great complexity, how
do you reinstill common sense in bureaucracies which all too often
are made up of people who have never done any of the work that
they are supervising and who have never been to the site for which
they are setting a regulation?

d so I think Corrections Day, properly approached, can in fact
be one more tool in that direction. I think it has to be done in an
orderly, open, bipartisan manner. It has to be done with expert
consultation, but I think if the average citizen knew that we were
serious about correcting the bureaucracy when it was dumb and if
they knew that they could go to their Member of the Congress,
Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, and say to them,
“This one is so dumb, I think you ought to propose it for Correc-
tions Day,” I think you would in fact see more common sense in
the system.

I appreciate very, very much the two committees, on a common
sense, practical basis, getting together to meet. I think it is exactl:
the way we ought to function and commend all of you for partici-
pating.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I truly ap-
preciate your effort in this regard and can tell you that literally ev-
eryone I talked to in Indiana was very enthusiastic about it.

I know that you have got a very tight schedule. I wanted to see
if you had any time.

‘he SPEAKER. Yes. Particularly I want to allow any of our friends
on the Democratic side who have any concerns about the way we
would approach this, because this will not work if it is just a par-
tisan game, but it will work if every Member of the House feels
that they have standing and they Rave an opportunity to bring


59

Then there is the Rules Committee with the expertise to clear ei-
ther individual or omnibus corrections measures. However, gen-
erally a report by a committee with jurisdiction is presumed with
the Rules Committee.

Finally, just a general comment on how you proceed in terms of,
if you do decide to set up a process, how you do it and whether it
becomes a part of the House rules. My advice, based on experience,
is that while there is a constant political backdrop to the House
rules, they generally avoid and should avoid elevating legislation
dealing with certain subjects or based on certain premises.

I remember back in the 102d Congress when I helped the Demo-
cratic leadership craft a rule that required every spending or reve-
nue bill to contain as part of its text a CBO cost estimate. The pur-
pose was political and quite clear, to ensure that congressional
scorekeeping rather than OMB scorekeeping under an administra-
tion of the different party would control budget decisions. This rule
was difficult to implement, was ignored, and was repealed 2 years
later, and I think that is an example of a symbolic approach in the
standing rules that shouldn't be repeated.

That concludes my testimony at this point.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER D. ROBINSON, ATTORNEY, BAILEY & ROBINSON

Distinguished Members and Chairmen of the Committees, it is a pleasure to ap-
pear before you today to discuss a “corrections” process or calendar for the House
of Representatives.

As I understand it, the specific purpose of this panel is to explore procedural o)
tions and ramifications for a regular legislative approach to address particularly
burdensome or ridiculous federal rules, statutes, and perhaps court decisions.

I will turn to that topic in a moment, based on my experience here in the House
first in the Parliamentarian’s Office and then as a strategic advisor to Speakers
Wright and Foley. But I would first like to touch on what guidelines should govern
a so-called “corrections” process, based on my experience in the private sector.

Since I left Capitol Hill, I have been engaged in government practice with Bailey
& Robinson, a unit of Ketchum Communications. In our business, we represent a
variety of highly regulated industries. This includes manufacturing, pharmaceutical,
health, energy, financial services, and transportation, to name a few. I have wit-
nessed a variety of instances where federal regulations or their enforcement lacked
flexibility, predictability, and common sense to the point of goofiness or worse.
Working these problems out has involved intensive work with concerned Members
and committees of Congress as well as with the agencies, A serious problem or dis-
pute, particularly where a specific industry has become a target, may require coordi-
nated campaigns involving lobbying, grassroots, and media.

Real jobs and the survival of real American companies can be very much at issue.
Few people would deny that efforts underway in this Congress and in the Adminis.
tration to review and streamline federal regulations are needed—and the American
people are demanding less government in their lives.

en a business or a community has a dispute with a federal agency, specific cor-
rective legislation may be the only remedy, but it has also often been the last re-
course. Part of the way our system works is for industry to bring their concerns to
the agencies in order to educate, to inform and to negotiate.

The partnership that comes out of private industry working with the federal gov-
ernment, with Congress, and often with states and local communities, is a valuable
commodity for all parties. One example—when the Administration proposed a BTU
tax several years ago—we spent months with a major domestic lucer of alu-
minum educating policy and career staff from the executive branch, and Members
of Congress and their staff, on the technical and practical effect on the industry.
The fact is that electricity is not merely incidental to making aluminum—it is
chemically-: peaking, an essential ingredient, and thus an energy tax would have
had a crippling and regional effect.


75

Mr. RoBINSON. Right. I think you have to proceed cautiously in
the tax arena. That’s all I’d say. But perhaps there are some indus-
tries we are not talking about being brought into this on a routine
basis such as telecommunications.

Mr. Pitts. A couple of comments. One is, the State legislatures
now are memorialing and petitioning the Congress, and if you look
in the back of the Record on a regular basis these petitions are
being referred to committees, and they are asking for corrections.
What is happening is, those corrections in many cases are minor
corrections, are usually folded in or reserved when the larger au-
thorization is being considered, so really maybe you should ask the
individual authorizing committees to start pulling out those minor
things and considering them separately.

Mr. DREIER. It is interesting that you raise that because the San
Diego question, as far as the sewage treatment, is going to be ad-
dressed in the Clean Water Act, and there are other areas where
I think that probably will be the case, but I think it has been the
public attention that this issue of Corrections Day has gotten that
had led many States to move forward and make recommendations
to us as to what things they think we should address.

Mr. Pitts. The problem you are going to have then, again, is
going to be going through and culling out and prioritizing which
corrections you want to move forward quickly.

Mr. DREIER. Especially if they all end up going to the Rules Com-
mittee.

Mr. THURBER. I would be also concerned about “reverse pork bar-
reling” if you have “rifle shot” corrections. Pork barreling is a ne-
cessity for say Phoenix and for everybody else it is pork barrel.

Mr. DREIER. Is that the way it works?

Mr. THURBER. Yes, right.

The rifle shot approach rather than—in other words, limited
scope in a correction can be dangerous. There can be unintended
consequence in the sense that you will have people all coming in
for very, very special sorts of things rather than having a correc-
tion that corrects the entire rule associated with the allocation of
something. Maybe the correction should be giving the agency gen-
eral direction for making decisions rather than changing one spe-
cific thing in Boise, Portland, or something like that.

Mr. Pitts. That is why I was suggesting the possibility of some
kind of like mini-moratorium on some of these rules that essen-
tially sort of holds it in place until the authorizing committees have
time to deliberate more fully on its implications not only locally but
nationally.

Mr. DrEIER. Let me thank you all very much for your very help-
ful testimony, and I would like to make this request of you as we
proceed with the deliberations in establishing the steering commit-
tee and with our goal of putting into place a Corrections Day. I
hope that you all will continue to stay in touch with us, and I
thank you very much.

I have to go downstairs in a few minutes, so you can ask your
questions, and I thank you all.

We have got this sort of unique cochairman position here, but the
gavel is now going to be handled by Mr. Fox, who is trying to turn


45

that is what we see here in Washington, we don’t see the pollution
on the beaches of the Pacific.

Mr. BEILENSON. Yes. Be patient because you are much closer to
a solution than you have ever been before.

Mr. McINTosH. Let me just say I think this is extremely helpful
to us as a real life example of something that may or may not work
under this new process.

I want to now move on to discuss further issues in the question
of the process of Corrections Day. Are there any other questions for
Mr. Bilbray?

Mr. Fox.

Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I did want to ask a couple
more questions, if y could, of Congressman Bilbray. He obviously
has a great deal of expertise in the area.

By having the Corrections Day, we are going to be able to move
toward fast tracking some reforms in Congress that you have been
discussing. Do you see Corrections Day as focusing on legislation
or focusing more on regulations and Rohicies?

Mr. Bivpray. I think that you would need to look at policies, and
what you will find is many times the agencies will say we are just
following the rules ye told us to do in legislation, and you have
to respond to it. So I think that obviously you will startup the path
by starting at the smallest denominator, the agency on the street,
and then you see if there is a pattern, are the people with the
Clean Air Act enforcing it as—interpreting it the same way in a
nonattainment area in Pennsylvania as a nonattainment area in
California, and if they are, then you can follow it up. If they are
not, then you start saying, now is it a site specific issue, and do
we need to modify it based on the way the regs are being enforced
as opposed to base legislation?

So I think there are going to be times you are going to run right
up to the base legislation like we did with the Clean Water Act,
that we were told again and again we know that this is not reason-
able but Congress is not reasonable and you have to go to Congress
to change this, we can’t do it; and even the judge said that.

Mr. Fox. Well, how do you handle the situations we had in Penn-
sylvania? We had incorrect data by the agencies being applied to
the businesses and therefore the Tripta production was going to be
mandatory, causing great economic harm without great environ-
mental benefit.

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I think that what you are saying right there
are in a lot of the other things. We need to make a decision as pol-
icymakers; is the process more important than the product? Is our
goal expendable because we designed or we are part of it is the
Federal process, the Federal process is important?

What I’m here to say is, the Federal process is only viable as
long as the product it produces is viable and that when we get
down here, the more you look into it, you need to do this reality
check of, is it doing what we intended it to do, and I think there
are times you are going to find no, it isn’t. There are times you can
see we can do more, and I'll tell you, as Mr. Waxman pointed out
with tobacco, m: father died from tobacco consumption, but maybe
we ought to talk about minor girls smoking in the tunnel of the
Capitol to set up some credibility with the American people now


aT

Herr, who is the chairman and CEO of Herr Foods, Inc. If I re-
member correctly, Mr. Herr published a little booklet called “Chips
of Wisdom,” which I enjoyed very much and still have on my desk.
It is an excellent example of what the private sector can do to fur-
ther knowledge in our country.

Mr. Fox. That is the noncaloric version.

Mr. McIntosh. That is right, all dietary.

Mayor Cornett, if you could lead off with your testimony about
examples you have seen as you administer the city of Richmond,
and feel free to give us any information you have and can supply
greater information at length for the record.

STATEMENTS OF ROGER CORNETT, MAYOR OF RICHMOND, IN;
AND JAMES S. HERR, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, HERR FOODS, I

Mr. CorNneTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distin-
guished members of the committee. It is a privilege and honor for
me to be here today to represent the municipal government of Rich-
mond, IN. My name is Roger Cornett, and I'm currently serving as
mayor. I’m here to share with you information about situations
that face our municipal government on a regular basis as a result
of Federal regulations.

Our community of 38,000 people operates a public transit system
which is composed of six fixed routes served by nine buses. In addi-
tion, we operate a paratransit system for the exclusive use of the
handicapped and senior citizens. This system has five fully
equipped vans that provide on-call service 12 hours a day 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m. 6 days a week. These vehicles are all equipped with
wheelchair lifts and other amenities to satisfy the requirements of
their constituents: senior citizens and the handicapped.

In 1993 it became necessary to replace some of the buses for the
fixed routes. As a result of new Federal regulations under the
Americans With Disabilities Act, the new buses had to be equipped
with wheelchair lifts even though we were operating a fully
equipped paratransit system. The additional cost per bus to provide
this equipment was over $6,500 per unit. So far we have received
five buses for an additional cost of $32,500, with a sixth bus on
order, and ultimately all nine buses will be converted for a total
cost of over $58,500. The overall cost of all nine buses is $414,000,
80 percent of which is paid for by the Federal Government. Since
the new buses started running in 1994, only one citizen has used
the lifts on these buses. Even though this is not a tremendous
amount of money, it is an example of an unnecessary expenditure
in our community because of the “one size fits all” mentality. In the
future we will have to modify the sidewalks wherever the bus stops
to allow for a level spot with a concrete pad to land the lift. In
order to satisfy this requirement, the city must install at least 132
concrete pads 4 feet by 4 feet at a total cost of $80,000. It makes
no sense to spend the money necessary to comply this additional
requirement when only one citizen is unnecessarily using the
equipment.

In the case of these regulations and many others facing our city
we think there are alternative solutions that would cost much less.
However, the “one size fits all” mentality always prevails. Spending
on regulations takes priority over other expenditures in the com-



10

the San Diego example is not a good example, but that will be de-
ated.

But the IRS issue raises a question in my mind. Let’s say you
have a man who owns a restaurant. He pays no taxes because he
claims he has no income. He buys a $90,000 Jaguar, buys a
$500,000 dollar home. And then buys another $500,000 vacation
home. Shouldn’t the IRS be able to do something to evaluate this
man because it seems like something may be wrong?

The SPEAKER. Sure, but in that case, Mr. Waxman, there is a dis-
crepancy sufficiently large to have a presumption that there may
be criminal conduct.

We have been told in the news reports—and this may turn out
if Ways and Means holds a hearing not to be true—but we have
been told in news reports that the IRS is thinking about randomly
pulling names and then doing a life-style audit and forcing you to
prove how you can have your property.

Now I was responding to reports I had been told from several
news sources that they are poing to be randomly pulling people out
and auditing them. Now I think the average American’s idea of the
IRS showing up on a random lottery basis——

Mr. WaXMAN. Well, I agree that would be horrifying and we
ought to stop that.

The SPEAKER. So we ought to just look and see which it is.

Mr. Waxman. In other words, you would want the committee of
jurisdiction to take testimony on the issue so we are sure we are
not——

The SPEAKER. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Legislating without the full facts and
not just on someone’s anecdote, and, second, you would want it on
a bipartisan basis so it would require a two-thirds vote because it
is just obvious to us——.

The SPEAKER. Well, no. I said that there are two procedures. I
would certainly want it—I would want it to go through on a purely
bipartisan basis, and I would like the staff on both sides, the Mem-
bers on both sides, to participate. If it was something which
couldn’t get two-thirds but could get 60—you know, could clearly

et a majority on a bipartisan basis, I would feel very reluctant to
bring up as a correction something which was only Republican. It
would seem to me that there was something profoundly wrong. It
can’t be that dumb if you can’t get Democrat votes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, it has got to be profoundly stupid, and if
something is profoundly stupid and can’t get something that is
more than a simple majority, it sounds to me there is a contradic-
tion here. If it is controversial——

The SPEAKER. Then you may want to look at, do you really want
to require to have two-thirds? Do you really want to require to
have two-thirds? I just raise that as something for you all to look
at, and I would like to get back from you a recommendation on how
to proceed and how do we set the right threshold, but I do believe
we will do the country a lot of good if we can send the signal that
we are very serious about giving people some vehicle for something
which is so outrageous that currently they feel powerless about.

Mr. Waxman. But the committee of jurisdiction would hold hear-
ings?