59

Testimony of Royal H. Holz IT
U. S. House of Representatives" Committee ‘on Governnent Reforn & Oversight

The former Soil Conservation Service, now the N.R.C.S., has been referred to
as "the farmer's friend". They still claim to te the farmer's friend, but in
practice have become profuctive agriculture's worst nightmare.

Since 1993 the Iowa state office of the N.R.C.S. embarked on policies that
are so restrictive that they practically have eliminated any improvement in
agricultural drainage. Anyone who attempted drainage improvement was met with
severe penalties. In my dralnage istrict, Charles Gunn had his converted wet-
lanl grow each time he appealed it. He was finally forced to permanently idle
28 acres.

The landowners in our drainage district spent $425,000 improving their main
drainage outlet. Yet, the state N.R.C.S. will not allow the laterals to be
Improved: because ‘Of the possibility that it might be taking water axay fron
farmed wetlands. This is in spite of the fact that the proposed improvements
would not go through any farmed wetlands. If a lateral serviced 600 acres
an3 only 40 acres of it was considered farmed wetlands, the other 760 "prior
converted" acres have to do without the drainage needed to maximize production,
In our district in 1995, inadequate drainage cut corn production from 20 to
120 bushels per acre on the best "prior converted" land. This type of policy
is insane, considering our corn stocks carryover will likely be the lowest in
history as per cent of usage. To ald to the irony, while the best land is
having its production restricted, the government is calling back into produc~
tion the fragile, highly erodable G.R.P. land to meet the current grain short
age. Should administrative policy be to restrict drainage on 95 % of the land

in oréer to insure poor drainage on % of the land?

In 1993, Jeffrey Vonk, smiteg Towa State Conservationist, dictated that

Proving the existence of lateral tile in land classified as farmed wetland


123

the farm to market system. One is our State map, one is our Fed-
eral map. They are identical, but we have to have two maps. And
it seems strange that we would have to have two maps to do things
like that.

The other thing is the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act. Since that came along, we have had to participate in
regional planning agency [RPA], to plan projects that we had al-
ready planned before. So we have another layer of bureaucracy to
go through and documents to submit, and I am sure there are peo-
ple who have been hired in the State of lowa to watch our actions
so that we can do the same thing that we were always doing be-
fore. And it also sets aside 10 percent of Federal funds for enhance-
ment projects. And when you do submit for an enhancement
project, if you are an agency, like in Atlantic, IA, I am on a group
that has the depot and we want to restore it. One of the questions
they ask you for restoring your railroad depot is how close are you
to an airport. Who cares? We are doing everything inside, it is res-
toration of walls, floors and things like that. But those are things
that we have to deal with.

Some of the other things that I wanted to talk about real quickly
is contracts and the Federal Government furnishing money—we
have to pay Davis-Bacon wages. On every other contract, where it
is local money or State money, we pay the local wages, whatever
the contractor bids. But on those others, we pay higher wages, the
higher paperwork, the extra people to look it over, and there is
really not that much difference in western Iowa where we are at.
We are not in a big metropolitan area where we have to pay the
higher wages and it costs the taxpayers more.

Bell rings.]

Mr. COFFMAN. Do I have a little bit more?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.

Mr. CoFFMAN. And the last issue is commercial drivers license.
Our motor grader operators drive a truck on occasion, snow plows,
things like that. We have to get licenses and now we have to go
drug testing just because they occasionally drive a truck.

r. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Coffman, Representative Ganske has a
question.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. One thing that we have
not talked about this morning is asbestos. I sincerely hope you do
not run into that problem as you renovate your railroad station,
but this has been an unbelievably expensive regulation from Wash-
ington that just about every school district in the congressional dis-
trict has had to deal with, and in many cases for minimal, minimal
health benefit.

Mr. COFFMAN. That is what we run into all the time. I am also
the landfill manager in Cass County, so I am aware of some of the
asbestos problems and some of the costs that they have had to go
through.

This is just an inkling of all the things that we have to go with.
Businesses run into the same thing as the local government also.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Coffman.

No. 22, Jim Melton.


25

does cost jobs.

Give us equal access to justice,

‘We further suggest that "Corrections Day” elimination of over burdensome regulations include 29
CFR 1910, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry". A majority of these
Standards were adopted from then-existing National Consensus Standards. OSHA adopted them,
never revised them, and continues to attempt to apply these out-dated standards.

Few people realize that these original National Consensus Standards were never written to become
regulations and have other special characteristics. The most important of these is that they are
subject to regular review and revision or validation. A revised, current standard replaces the
previous version. OSHA persists in attempting to apply National Consensus Standards which are
nearly balf a century old in some instances!

More than three fourths of the 732 pages of 29 CFR 1910 could be eliminated and the current
version of the National Consensus Standards used.

Please contact me or my office if we can further explain or clarify these comments, We encourage
and support you in your efforts at Regulatory Reform.

Very truly yours,
James B. Meehan, PE

Ga
MEEHAN, PE, PC :

jbm:jm

James B. Meehan, PE.,PC. 3006 Rownd Street Cedar Falls, lowa 50613-5813




149

can is on upland, according to the SCS. This is the same soil, same
elevation, same flood plain.

I am confident I will win. It is just that it takes time. But you
know, you proposed maybe more flexibility in the regulators. 1
think that would be good, but I think at the same time, if the regu-
lators are wrong, the agency itself and the regulators should be
held responsible.

Mr. GANSKE. I actually asked for advice as to whether this was
the way that we should go.

Mr. GROENENDYK. I support that as long as they are held respon-
sible rather than taxpayers held responsible for the damages.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. ich is one of the points that you made,
Mark, and I think it is a significant point, and again, I do not want
to legislate based on anecdotes, but when there seems to be a clear
agenda by various groups, which you allege and I have no reason
to not suspect that from the ve: beginning they wanted that area
declared a wetland. So what chance do you have—what we are
talking about, what we are considering, and I think it was men-
tioned earlier, we talked about it in Sioux City yesterday, is some
kind of a bill of rights. Because right now, I mean, you have had
to go through all of this legal expense and will have additional ex-
pense and you have no chance for recovery even if you win. Is that
not right?

Mr. GROENENDYK. Well, my attorneys think that I do. The money
that I paid to them. I can show the income because I have
farmed—some of the ground has been farmed since at least the
1900’s. The Corps of Engineers was insisting that this was a wet-
land, my predecessors paid drainage taxes to the Corps of Engi-
neers to straighten that river back in the thirties. They paid drain-
age taxes which amounts to 10 times more than property taxes on
that farm, for years. The Corps of Engineers says it comes from the
river, the SCS——

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We heard from a gentleman yesterday in Sioux
City who had amassed over a quarter of a million dollars in legal
fees and essentially told us he had really no way to recover. So that
is something we are looking at. Keep us posted on exactly what
happens in your case. Just write us in care of the committee.
Would you please?

Mr. GROENENDYK. Sure.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mark.

Next, we have Jim Boyt. Is Jim here?

[No response.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. George Kappos.

{No response.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Lyle Krewson.

[No response.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Barbara Easler. Barbara, thank you and wel-
come to the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA EASLER

Ms. EASLER. Thank you for the opportunity to talk. I know I am
probably last on the list, so I will try and hurry with this.

As I have listened to all of the comments today, we have been
talking about the ADA and as everybody knows it is the Americans


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

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

Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland (Independent)

James L. CLARKE, Staff Director
Kevin Sano, General Counsel
JupitH McCoy, Chief Clerk

Bup Myers, Minority Staff Director

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

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana, Chairman

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

Ex OFFicio

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr, Pennsylvania CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
Mitprep WespeR, Staff Director
KAREN BARNES, Professional Staff Member
Davip WulTe, Clerk
Bruce Gwinn, Minority Professional Staff Member

a)


119

We would also like a clearly mandated recovery process that in-
cludes recovery targets, specific actions to achieve recovery, and
deadlines for action.

We would also like technical informational assistance to be pro-
vided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to private landowners.

Fourth, we would like increased positive incentives for protec-
tion, particularly to private landowners. A suggestion would be tax
credits. And decreased disincentives which often come from Gov-
ernment programs that make protection less likely.

The state of best scientific art currently is that harm inflicted on
a species can occur in at least two ways. One, through direct de-
struction; and second, through destruction of critical habitat. Wit-
ness the Supreme Court decision this summer of Babbitt v.
Sweetholm, to see the legislative support for that concept.

So, in our efforts in looking at the Endangered Species Act, let
us move forward in our thinking and our actions.

And last, we would like that act to be adequately funded.

I, and I certainly hope we, of environmental priority, intend to
speak out over and over again what we know, believe to be true,
and want. And hope to listen to other priorities with ears to hear
our common ground so that we can move forward, for I suspect our
future is tied to our willingness to achieve a balance and work to-
gether.

I urge you to accept the challenge to provide us with a strong En-
dangered Species Act that will help us to move forward.

Thank you.

Mr. McINTOSH. Dr. Means, I appreciate that, and this issue will
be coming up in this Congress and probably subsequent Congresses
and I am particularly interested in comments like “let us use in-
centives,” because I think that is a smarter way to go a lot of times.

A couple of priorities that I have heard that you should think
about and how you would recommend we address them, and that
is, how do you prioritize among species and the other is how do you
balance out the cost to people if it costs jobs and so forth?

Ms. MEANS. I shared earlier with Congressman Ganske’s office a
packet of material on that and would suggest referring to the Na-
tional Academy of Science summary statement and also the Key-
stone Conference that establishes some priorities with regard to in-
centives.

Mr. McINTOsH. Thank you for coming today and participating.

Ms. MEans. You are welcome.

Mr. McINTOSH. No. 19.

STATEMENT OF KATHY LOECKLE

Ms. LOECKLE. Hello. My name is Kathy Loeckle and I am a
human resource and safety manager at Holnam Cement located in
Mason City, IA. Holnam is one of the largest manufacturers in the
United States and cement companies throughout the Nation have
long been committed to environmental quality and our contribution
to a better environment is considerable.

Holnam is very interested in regulatory reform and appeals to
you to hear all of the testimony today, to eliminate unnecessary,
outdated regulations and redtape. The safety and health of our em-
ployees, our customers, and our communities are our first consider-


68

There may be some hope for that. In fact, there is a bill that Sen-
ator Nickles has been pushing that would require, or allow at least,
Congress to—any Member bring up one of the regulations after it
has passed, and have the Congress vote on it before it went into
effect. And that would force the Representatives and the Senators
to be more accountable on what is going on in the regulatory area.
I think that would be good.

Thank you all very, very much for coming today, I really appre-
ciate it. Sorry I had to shorten some of your testimonies but we will
make the entire testimony part of the record.

If I could call forward the third panel, which is a panel of people
who are working in the public sector.

If the mayors could join us, that would be great. Mayor Gray of
Manson, Mayor Reel of Missouri Valley, Dean Torreson, city ad-
ministrator of the city of Atlantic, L.D. McMullen, who is CEO and
general manager of Des Moines Water Works, Robert Layton, city
manager of the city of Urbandale, and Mayor Hanafan of the city
of Council Bluffs.

Thank you all for joining me today. We will ask you to summa-
rize after 5 minutes, and we appreciate you taking the time. The
entire testimony and anything else you think we should have in
the record will be made part of the record. And I particularly ap-
preciate you taking time out of your busy schedules to join us for
this hearing. You are the level of government that is closest to the
people and I think we can learn a lot from you in Washington.

Let me call now on Mayor Joe Gray. Oh, thank you—Mildred is
reminding me I should be sure and swear you all in. If you would
please rise.

{Witnesses sworn.]

Mr, McINTosH. Thank you. Let the record show that each of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Our first witness on this panel will be Mayor Joe Gray of the city
of Manson. Mayor Gray.

STATEMENTS OF JOE A. GRAY, MAYOR, CITY OF MANSON, IA;
FLETCHER REEL, MAYOR, CITY OF MISSOURI VALLEY, IA;
DEAN TORRESON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, ATLANTIC, IA; L.D.
MCMULLEN, CEO AND GENERAL MANAGER, DES MOINES
WATER WORKS, DES MOINES, IA; ROBERT LAYTON, CITY
MANAGER, CITY OF URBANDALE, IA; AND THOMAS
HANAFAN, MAYOR, CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA

Mr. Gray. Good morning, Congressmen and subcommittee mem-
bers. Thank you for this opportunity to address you today on the
important issues of how environmental mandates and regulations
are squeezing the economic life out of many small rural commu-
nities.

I am the mayor of Manson, IA, a relatively small community, of
approximately 1,900 People in west central Iowa. In 1,990, the city
of Manson was issued an administrative order by the Iowa Depart-
ment of Natural Resources to reduce the level of fluoride in the
public drinking water supply. At that time, the fluoride level of our
water was 4 to 5 milligrams per liter, while the Federal regulations
required 4 milligrams per liter.


152

tee or you can contact Congressman Ganske either here in Des
Moines or in Washington.

With that, I thank everyone for joining us and this meeting is
now adjourned.

(Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.]

O°


79

Page Three.

City Council. They do not see wisdom in spending that kind of
money on a 70 year old building, which leaves us with only the
option of building a new structure with a price tag
conservatively beginning at a half-a-million dollars.

We have a wonderful progressive library built shortly after
City Hall. To meet compliance standards it will take an elevator
to move between floors and a few other modifications ~ price tag
starting at $100,000.

The final building is our middle school. It was built to be
a high school at the turn of the century. It 1s sound and
functional but is deficient in a host of federal compliance
standards not limited to the ADA. We will need to build a new
structure at the cost of $5.5 million.

The updating of our City Hall and Middle school would become
a necessity someday, we know this. However, allowing us to save
and plan would have given us the opportunity to remain functional
and keep costs down. Roughly, one fourth of all of our city
sewer and water lines were put in the ground before 1930. In
practical terms, at present, they are a much more critical
priority than bringing these buildings into compliance.

I£ we commit the roughly $6.6 million it will take to meet
these compliance standards and move very near our bonding
capacity for both city and school district, what would we do in
an emergency? My greatest fear is that a spring thaw following a
hard winter, such as the one we're in now, could cause a major

collapse of our sewer and water lines. We would have nothing


15

Mr. BEAL. Let us get the microphone straight first. Can every-
body hear me?

Mr. McINTosH. No, they cannot.

Mr. BEAL. How is this?

Mr. McINTOsH. That is better.

Mr. BEAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on the impor-
tant issue of regulatory reform. I would also like to thank and con-
gratulate all of you on your efforts in passing comprehensive regu-
latory reform legislation earlier this year and we hope the U.S.
Senate will follow suit.

For the record, I would also like to compliment Secretary Pate.
I know he had to leave, but he has been a real ally of our industry
in the State of Iowa.

I would like to hit a couple of highlighting issues here in the in-
terest of time. First of all, I am a very small home builder in the
Des Moines area. I am here today representing the Home Builders
Association of Greater Des Moines together with the Home Build-
ers Association of Iowa.

The building industry recognizes the need for certain regulations;
however, even the most necessary regulation should be adminis-
tered in a fair and efficient manner. In the last 10 years, as in-
creased Federal regulations have layered upon existing State and
local requirements, the cost of these regulations has increasingly
been felt by the new-home buyer.

Overlapping and conflicting regulations are a major part of the
problem. Federal regulations govern everything from infrastructure
and workplace employment related issues to financing, particularly
if the mortgage revenue bond and tax credit programs are involved.

Environmental regulations in particular often have unintended
consequences of making housing less affordable and preventing
Americans from obtaining home ownership. Inflexible rules and
overlapping jurisdictions of Federal agencies often prevent com-
monsense solutions that could better protect the environment. En-
vironmental regulations, including those related to endangered spe-
cies and wetlands can increase the cost of housing directly by limit-
ing the amount of land available for residential construction or
even prohibiting construction in some areas. They can also increase
the cost of housing through extensive review and permitting delays
and require fee, land dedications and other expensive actions by
developers. Equally important, groups that oppose development
often use environmental issues to mask the true intention, exclu-
sionary zoning or the complete halt to residential growth. I would
just pass some information that our National Association of Home
Builders has estimated that the cost of Federal regulations contrib-
ute some 20 percent to the cost of housing today.

Now in the interest of time—you have my written testimony—I
would like to dwell on a couple of issues if I could—occupational
Safety and Health in the residential arena and the Davis-Bacon
Act.

First of all, I would like to stress that none of my comments
should be interpreted to give the impression that the residential
builder is at all against safety regulations. Just the tragic accident


128

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope that that area
could be looked at very seriously for saving money for everyone in
this country.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, that is one of the rea-
sons we are trying to reform the Medicare system, because we have
created that monster you were talking about in 1964. You were ab-
solutely right.

Mr. Murpny. In 1965, I wrote to Neal Smith and requested what
you are doing here today and got turned down 100 percent. He
pointed out that everything in that book was necessary.

Mr. GANSKE. May I make a comment? J think that you are right.
There is certainly waste and in some cases fraud in, for instance,
the government health programs. One of the things that we are
trying to do in the Medicare reform bill is to address that issue.
The status quo has not worked very well by the Health Care Fi-
nancing Administration. Just one example is the fact that for
many, many years, the commercial insurance carriers have had
computer software that can cross-check billing and eliminate dupli-
cative charges. HCFA has refused to purchase the same type of
program that Blue Cross-Blue Shield and other private insurers

ave used to eliminate waste for years. Only now, only in January,
after significant prodding from Congress, are they beginning to ad-
dress that. You are absolutely right, we need to look at that, and
I thank you.

Mr. Murpuy. And I limited my comment to the hospital, but ac-
tually if we took that same thing and projected, what you are talk-
ine _about, into the nursing home, you would find multiple double

illings.

Mr’ GANSKE. You can do that. It is a program that can be done
across the board for all types of providers. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Congressman Latham, did you——

Mr. LaTHAM. I just wanted to make one point about the urgenc
of this situation. We just had a report become public this wee
with the Medicare trust fund, that was supposed to have a $4.7 bil-
lion surplus this year and in fact, we went into the red for the first
time in 23 years in the Medicare trust fund. And it is going to be
broke—we thought initially in 2002 but it is 2 years ahead of
where it was expected to be and it is going to be probably 1999 or
2000. So we have got to act on this issue immediately.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. OK. We are up to No. 26, Steve Oriatt and then
perhaps if Bill Beutke, if you could be in line and Amy Christensen
on deck, if you will.

STATEMENT OF STEVE ORIATT

Mr. Ortatr. Thank you. My name is Steve Oriatt, I] am an em-
ployee at AAA Roofing here in Des Moines. We are a residential
steep roofing company.

I would like to express my concern regarding the current fall
safety requirements. We started wearing safety harnesses when
the new laws regarding fall safety went into effect. The result was
extremely negative. The ropes from these harnesses were con-
stantly being tripped over and slipped on. Your mobility was so
drastically reduced, you could not even walk across the roof to get
to your material. At the end of the day, the amount of work that


134

STATEMENT OF JEROME M. SKEERS

Mr. SKEERS. Thank you, Chairman Gutknecht, Congressman
Ganske and Congressman Latham, I appreciate you holding these
hearings in Iowa.

My name is Jerry Skeers. I am an employee of the division of
labor of the State of Iowa. In Iowa, that means we do OSHA. I am
here to reiterate what Commissioner Orton told you yesterday with
regard to his interest in working with all employers and employees,
all interested groups from throughout the State. He would have
been here to tell you that himself, but as he mentioned, he is going
to the fatality investigation which is currently ongoing here in Des
Moines.

I would remind all of you that much has already changed in
OSHA in the recent time period. Next week, I will be doing train-
ing for all of our people on a negotiated rulemaking change that
allows a different set of fall protection measures for people engaged
in residential construction. I would mention, as an aside, that that
was negotiated some time in early December between the U.S. De-
partment of Labor and the U.S. Homebuilders Association. One of
the things which I do not know for sure but I believe held up that
arrival of that document here in Iowa was the shutdown of Govern-
ment which caused many things to not be issued or done.

1 would say to you that an extensive directive on paperwork vio-
lations that have no relationship to safety and health is already in
effect. Recently Iowa has adopted an additional penalty reduction
measure beyond the good faith, size, and past history reductions
that are already provided to all employers.

The reason I am mentioning these things and some of the other
things such as citations from 1976 that have been mentioned here
today, is that as you address the status quo, please remember that
the status quo of OSHA, like any other organization, is constantly
changing, and I hope you would address the current status quo.

I would also like to thank Congressman Ganske for his com-
ments early in the hearing with regard to the feelings and efforts
of what many may refer to as bureaucrats, but who are really em-
ployees of an organization that was a creation of Congress and in-
tends to do what the mission was called for.

I remain available for any questions that you or anyone in the
room may have. And that goes for not just today, but for any day
when something comes up with regard to OSHA or our activities
in the State of Iowa.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Skeers. You did a good job yes-
terday and a good job today.

Mr. LaTHAM. I appreciate what you are saying. I think the laws
many times are so unworkable, and very, very dedicated people try-
ing to do the best job possible with a bunch of laws that simply do
not make sense or have mandates in them that are un-do-able. I
appreciate very much what you do and the Position you are in. I
ai have to say, I mean, we are not concerned with the issues from
1976. The Sioux City Fire Department situation was last year and
where you referred to that department as being incompetent when
they were nationally recognized for the job they had done in the
United Flight 232. I think that is very unfortunate.


74

Mr. REEL. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, distinguished colleagues,
ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor for me to be here to testify
before you today to tell you the story of our small town and how
the Americans with Disabilities Act has unfairly altered our civic
priorities. It has forced us to look past money which could have
been spent on critical needs.

Missouri Valley is a town of about 3,000 people situated in the
Loess Hills of western Iowa. It is a good town with good people.
When Thomas Jefferson envisioned the agrarian/egalitarian com-
munities which would make America great, he envisioned Missouri
Valley. In Missouri Valley, the poorest kid in town can be friends
with the richest kid and no one takes notice. By the same token,
the best athlete in town can be best friends with a handicapped
kid, and likewise, no one takes notice. In Missouri Valley, we take
care of each other.

At present, I share a house with a good friend who has been
handicapped since birth. I am personally familiar with the chal-
lenges he faces every day and every night. And I understand his
difficulties go well beyond the physical barriers he faces.

Missouri Valley’s annual budget is less than $2 million a year,
as is its bonding capacity. We do not have working margins nec-
essary to bring our facilities into compliance, and the people simply
do not understand why hundreds of thousands of dollars are nec-
essary to solve problems that could be solved by simple, practical
solutions.

Let me relate our community situation in regard to ADA and
how the problems could have been solved. Two years ago, every
city-owned facility, our middle school, our post office were all out
of ADA compliance. Not much had been done to march toward the
ADA deadlines.

Last year, the post office spent about $100,000 to build a
ramping system to its front door. I have never seen anyone use it.
However, I know that my 95-year-old grandmother used it once.
She went back to the steps because all the winding back and forth
made her dizzy and the extra distance she had to walk seemed a
much greater task to her than just walking up the steps.

At present, we have three public buildings which need to be
brought into compliance. The first is our city hall. This multi-level
structure was built in 1931. It houses our council chambers, mag-
istrate’s office, city clerk’s office, police station and fire station. It
also is utilized regularly by our Boy Scout troop, a senior citizen’s
card club and a host of other users. The facility was built to last
another 100 years, it is extremely efficient for our needs and re-
quires only modest maintenance.

We recently received a cost estimate of what it would take to
bring city hall into bare bones compliance with ADA. The price tag
was $200,000. The appraised value of the building is less than
$100,000. We have a very thoughtful and conservative city council.
They do not see wisdom in spending that kind of money on a 70-
year-old building, which leaves us with only the option of building
a new structure with a price tag conservatively beginning at half
a million dollars.


32

Mr. DuCHMAN. I cannot put a specific year on it, but I would re-
spectfully state that I believe it probably started to occur much be-
fore 2 or 3 years ago, I think it was probably maybe 2 or 3 years
after the inception of OSHA that it began.

Mr. LaTHAM. Mr. Houston.

Mr. Houston. I would think that it started when the rules were
promulgated in 1974 and it began as an enforcement agency in-
stead of—if it had started as a consultation agency, we would be
a long ways from where we are today.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Beal.

Mr. Beat. All I can speak for is our particular industry, and I
think we felt the impact of it toward the early part of 1992.

h Mr. LaTHAM. Was there a change in law or just attitude some-
LOW ¢

Mr. BEAL. I could not answer that.

Mr. LaTHaM. OK. And that is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man,

Mr. McInTosn. Thank you, Mr. Latham, very good question.

Let me again say thank you to all of the panelists. This has been
yey helpful and one of the most informative panels we have had.
So I appreciate it. Items like this where we have got real examples
of citations for something you can go out and buy at the hardware
is something that I think most Americans would understand is pa-
tently ridiculous. So thank you again for coming, and we will in-
clude your entire remarks into the record, and the staff may be fol-
lowing up with you on a couple of other items that we talked about.

Let us move on now to our next panel. This is a group of people
who are involved in the agriculture industry. They are Mr. Harvey
Johnson, who is a farmer; Mr. David Whiton, who is an owner of
a feed and milling company; Richard Siegle, also a farmer; Howard
Alff, a farmer here in Iowa; Bill Willis, a soil conservation consult-
ant and Curly Holtz, who I believe is also a farmer. If you could
all please come forward, I think we have got seats for everybody,
and we may ask you to share the microphones as we move down
the line.

If all of the witnesses would please rise.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. McINTOsH. Thank you. Let the record show that each of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Thank you all for coming today, and let me, by way of introduc-
tion, say I appreciate the effort of the farming community. One of
the things that I heard from farmers in Indiana was, you know,
David, we would be able to make ends meet even in cases where
prices start to go down on some of our products if we did not have
to spend so much money year after year complying with new and
additional Federal regulations. And so I worked with some of the
folks, particularly in the Indiana Farm Bureau, to list out those.
They sent me a book this thick [indicating] of regulations—this was
not even the full regulation, it was just a two-page summary of
each one that they had to comply with in the State of Indiana, al-
most all of them Federal regulations. We have been working with
Senator Lugar over in the Agriculture Committee in the Senate, to
try to include some regulatory relief provisions as we move forward
with different legislative vehicles in Congress.


103

Doug Potts

Presentation at Congressional hearings on regulatory matters,

My name is Doug Betts, and I am an engineer. I have two points I would like to make
to this committee, first the tremendous burden of regulatory paperwork on small business
and second, the distrust that industry has grown to have for regulatory agencies.

represent a small manufacturing company here in lowa. My job is to interpret and
implement regulatory measures, specifically OSHA safety rules and EPA environmental
rules. When I started with the firm 6 years ago, this function was performed by the
Personnel Manager, and occupied about 20% of his workload. Today, it is my full time
job. This represents almost exclusively the paperwork, research, and monitoring required
to maintain compliance. This is a tremendous burden for an employer of only 200 people
to support a full time engineer just for regulatory compliance. Our costs of compliance
in this area have increased 500% in the past 6 years.

1 feel the emphasis on paperwork has overshadowed the true goals of these
regulations, protection of the employee and the environment. Of the top 25 most-cited
OSHA violations in 1994, 55% or 24,238 violations related to paperwork problems.
Written plans, posters, labels, and other documents were found to be substandard in some
way. Citations issued by the EPA also show an increase number of cases involving
clerical type discrepancies. My point to you is that no one was directly injured by
these problems nor was the environment in danger. I acknowledge evidence that
proper procedures and planning can reduce accidents, however resources expended on
paperwork violations do not alleviate the situation or solve the true problems. Inspectors
and regulatory rule makers are the least prepared to pass judgment on programs created
by the people who work in the industry every day. Yet they are in a position to fine those
industries based solely upon this paperwork shufile. I understand that Congress is
looking at eliminating the threat of fines for paperwork problems and I strongly
support doing so.

‘This brings me to may second point, distrust and animosity towards regulatory
people. Each day without fail, I can read in the newspaper where some industry or
individual is defending themselves from ut le or ridiculous regulation. Much
money and effort is being expended in these'@S¥es, none of which improve working
conditions or the environment. I have an example of this, where a regulatory official
passed judgment on compliance obviously and totally ignorant of their subject matter,
and 1 would like to share it with you.

Several industry engineers and myself attended a voluntary OSHA class on
compliance this past year. This class was to educate industry on handling inspections.
‘During the class, the OSHA inspector explained that when she was on an inspection, an
item that she always looked for was tape on the handle of a circuit breaker. | am sure you
have seen circuit breakers in your office that have been taped in the “on” position to
prevent someone from inadvertently shutting off a computer or other important piece of
equipment. Most electrical apparatus makers even provide little metal clips for this,
purpose. This inspector claimed that this was an casy violation to cite because the
tape would prevent the breaker from tripping in the event of an circuit overload.
This statement instantly told me three things...first, the inspector had absolutely no
knowledge about electrical equipment she was inspecting, All circuit breakers approved



39

What and who is Whiton Feed & Milling Co.? We are—and one
of the few left—a family owned, independent feed manufacturer.
Simply put, we buy ingredients from the local farmers and proc-
essors, put these ingredients together in meal-pellet-crumble form
to make complete and balanced rations for all type of livestock.

What I have got here is a picture of our mill, if you would not
mind showing the Congressmen this. I want to show you that we
are from a very small town, a small feed mill, we are not a mega
mill.

We have seven employees, that includes my brother and myself.
We take care of our employees. We have full health care for them
provided by Whiton Feed, which is through Blue Cross & Blue
Shield, which at the expense of Whiton Feed Co. We contribute to
a Whiton Feed profit sharing plan for their retirement, with no
matching contribution, we will contribute up to 15 percent to their
retirement. We also provide vacations, a loose atmosphere of letting
employees be able to be involved with their families like con-
ferences and athletic events.

In a nutshell, we make feed, put it in a bulk truck and we de-
liver it to the farm. We manufacture about 100 tons of feed a day,
that is about 25,000 tons a year.

Our most important asset, I feel, is our customer, the farmer. My
father always said he never worried about the money the farmers
owed him because he never dealt with dishonest people, he always
dealt with his customers, the farmers.

Our niche in the feed business is to take care of the small pro-
ducer. We gear ourselves to be able to take out 1 or 2 tons, whereas
the competition demands large loads and will not deliver. We hon-
estly feel we have been able to keep some of the smaller family
farmers in business within a 20- to 30-mile radius of Perry.

Ladies and gentlemen, Whiton Feed is nothing but an average
successful family business in an average and normal town dealing
with nothing but average and normal suppliers and customers. I
guess you could say we are the epitome of the hardworking Amer-
ican citizen.

But my biggest hurdle and frustration is over government regu-
lation. I can always fix my machinery problems, but I cannot do
battle with the government regulations that keep me in daily fear
and at the same time try to continue to operate my business. We
have to perform, comply, obey and be threatened of our livelihoods
to obey the following county, State, and Federal regulations.

Let me list a few of them, just to keep seven employees, includ-
ing the two owners, in business: The FDA, the DNR, the EPA,
OSHA, DOT, weight and measures, workmen’s comp, unemploy-
ment regulations, wastewater management, hazardous material
management, bankruptcy laws, drug and alcohol tests, commercial
drivers licenses, grain tax, feed tax, machinery tax, unemployment
tax, workmen’s comp insurance, scale license, both State and pri-
vate, incorporation license, property tax, tag labeling regulations,
Americans with Disabilities Act, annual truck inspections—and I
could go on. In fact, icom, which we are—and Agribusiness is
an association that we belong to, they have put out a calendar to
help me keep track of all these regulations. Of course, I had to pay



64

panel was talking, I was thinking about this—part of the problem
is that Congress could make law better than it has in the past.

Mr. WILLIS. I think that is exactly correct.

Mr. GANSKE. OK. And part of the problem with the fact that
Congress has not made law very well is that it has not used good
science definitions that are realistic. Would you agree with that?

Mr. WILLIS. In terms of the wetlands, I would have to agree. In
terms of CRP and conservation compliance and some of the other
provisions, I think Congress was very, very, very explicit in exactly
what they meant. After it passed into the rules and regulations de-
partments and became interpreted and then affected by I do not

ow what, political pressure—~I do not know what affected that.

Mr. GANSKE. Would you, as an administrator, like to see the
process changed to this—let us say Congress passes a law of some
type, it goes through the regulatory process, but the regulations are
not enforced until there is time period where Congress can review
how the agencies regulate, so that we can get input back in from
the communities and groups that are affected directly by the regu-
lations that come out of the law. Would that be a reasonable thing
to do?

Mr. WILLIS. Exactly. And I think there is a responsibility out
here with us, beyond what your responsibilities are. I think it is
a two-way street. If we are going to write rules and regulations,
then let us not hide them. Let us put them out there in the open
and let people take a shot at them. And if they are not right, then
let us be responsive to the changes. And if it takes a long time to
compromise some kind of a solution, then let us take the time and
compromise it.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Willis. And I will close by just say-
ing that I think in general, my impression of Congress is that it
has made work for itself in the past and has legislated in a lot of
areas where things were working quite well in the past; that is, the
old NRCS. Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Ganske. Let me also just note
your earlier point about the tension between discretion and specific
rules came up in spades with the wetlands manual, where earlier
they had given people discretion to go out and see whether it really
was an environmentally sensitive area. They switched over to very
detailed rules and the soil and conservation officer might come up
with one conclusion and the fish and wildlife officer will come up
with a different one, and it became a morass for everybody in-
cluded. And Mr. Willis is right, that was done in secret, nobody
knew what was going on and it created a huge problem for us. So
there is a lot we can learn about the problems in the regulatory
and legislative process in that area. Chief among these is that wet-
lands is not anywhere in statute. It may be when we pass our
Clean Water Act, finally codified that there is a wetlands program.
But this has been made up all by the regulations.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Johnson, would you care to comment?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I got to the place where I had to stop, but
I would like to make one or two last statements. And that is that
if the government thinks wetlands are so valuable, let them buy
them and let all the taxpayers pay for them, not just a very select
few of us.


148

in March 1991. In the meantime, before they can tell me it is wet-
land, they did not have enough information from these people from
Mississippi that put their information into it, what they found,
they send me in to this wetlands initiative that the EPA was pro-
posing already in February. And the Corps of Engineers personne]
was going to these quality water meetings, you know, with the SCS
and other agencies on wetlands, and they could promote my pic-
tures of what I had done as being criminal for destroying wetlands
but yet they did not have the funding to notify me, a 32 cent stamp
is too expensive.

But before they sent me a determination, Representative Jim
Leach suggested I go to the SCS and file for a determination. So
I did that-——

[Bell rings.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. You have waited long enough. You can have as
much time as you need. Go on.

Mr. GROENENDYK. As it turned out, I spent 5 years in monkey
court with the SCS and the last appeal was before an independent
agency, had nothing to do with the NRCS or farmers, and he ruled
100 percent in my favor.

Mr. GANSKE. Did you handle this entirely on your own or did you
get legal counsel?

Mr. GROENENDYK. I have got legal counsel and I have got a hy-
drologist working with me.

Mr. GANSKE. How much has that cost you?

Mr. GROENENDYK. I worked 6 years, it’s is about $500,000 now
from loss of income and what I paid out to the hydrologist and en-
gineer and my lawyer.

It is kind of ironic, 10 days before I went to this last hearing——

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And you won.

Mr. GROENENDYK. I won. The ironic part of it is I walked into
the local SCS office unexpectedly and demanded to look at my file.
Right on top about three pages under, the previous owner in 1988
had requested a wetland determination and it was not a wetland.

Mr. GANSKE. So, you bought this property from somebody else
who had already had a determination that it was not a wetland.

Mr. GROENENDYK. Right. Before I bought it, I went into this of-
fice and asked if I could do this and they said there was no prob-
lem. I did not have it in writing, which is my fault, I found out
now. Ironically enough, as it turns out the Corps of Engineers and
the SCS had been under the table trying to get it as wetlands. Peo-
ple have been coming to me now from these other meetings with
this quality water and these people have been talking—I will not

ive so much detail, but as it is now, I have got two government
documents saying my farm is not a wetland, yet the government
is taking me to court in August, suing me because it is a wetland.

Mr. GANSKE. We talked earlier about not legislating on anec-
dotes. But when you begin to add one story after another onto an-
other onto another, a pattern emerges. It seems to me that a pat-
tern has emerged in this particular area and we need remedi-
ation—justice.

Mr. GROENENDYK. The irony of this whole thing is, if your pop
can is my fence line, during the whole time they were in this proc-
ess, my side of the pop can is on wetland and your side of the pop


35

HARVEY D. JOHNSON
1665-310
Forest City, Iowa 50436
$15-581-3997 - phone
‘515-581-4997 - fax

TO: Congressman Tom Latham
Congressman Greg Ganske

Tam Harvey D, Johnson of Forest City, lowa, Iam grateful for the opportunity to testify on
bebalf of our situation and all the formers of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. I wish I could
have brought all my nelghbors along with me, many of whom could also tell you horror stories of
their coercion and harassment with the SCS and their conservationists.

Thave in my hand 1,000 signanures on petitions stating that they want this wetland nonsense
stopped immediately.

‘This wetland confiscation by designation without compensation is the most ruthless, vicious,
coercing, harassing assault on private property rights of the 20th century. It is also the most unfair,
unjust and unconstitutional governmental land-grab theft of'a magnitude that has ever occurred since
the founding of America. It is not about saving wetlands, it is about destroying peoples’ lives.

I never thought we would ever see the day when we would have to fight the federal
government in court to protect our private property when the Sth amendment to the constitution is
supposed to do that for us.

It is pure blackmail and fascism when the regulators which include the SCS, Corps of
Engineers, EPA and the Fish and Wildlife can apply an eternal designstion to a private property
without the owner's consent and then take your government payments away.

‘We have also been accused of violating the 404 Clean Water Act which is also very unfair.
‘The goverment will pay farmers in southera lows to build terraces which create wetlands and then
pay them to drain them.

‘Our neighbors can all tile without permits. The water is all the same and it all goes into the
same ditch, so why are we in violation of the Clean Water Act when these other farmers ate not.
‘This is not fair.

Our fiasco started three years ago when our son purchased 82 acres of property which the
SCS had placed a 49 WLD on. it is nothing more than an absolutely level piece of prime northern
Towa soi]. I don't know why we can have wetlands when none of our neighbors have any. We
appealed the unjust designation to the state level. It is very hypocritical to have to appeal to the
thieves to get your property back. They only reduced the WD by ten acres.


67

neers—there are four agencies that we have to deal with when you
address wetlands. Why we cannot get it into one agency and maybe
have one place where we can go and talk about these issues is way
beyond me.

But I would ask anyone who has stories, the impacts, say of Har-
vey and Curly—I have been on the Gunn place with you—please
submit that to me, to bring some common sense to this, because we
need to make a record, we need to tell the bureaucrats that we are

oing to take back control of this country and take back control of
Congress. They have gone way beyond the intent.

And I guess I will not ask any questions, but I appreciate the
time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. I appreciate your hard work in that area, Tom,
it is very, very important.

Thank you all very much for participating. Mr. Whiton, did you
have one—

Mr. WHITON. Yes, just back to Mr. Ganske. You asked the first
panel a question about giving the inspector some latitude. I would
like to back up a little bit back to when the law or regulations actu-
ally thought of, dreamed of or whatever the case may be—you
know, this DNR, this emission control thing. Here is what we ted
to fill out, my little feed manufacturing plant. My question is who,
what person—it has to start somewhere, who starts the process?
Who says all right, my gosh, that feed mill is putting out too much
dust, let us make them fill out this form and everything. Maybe I
am ignorant on the process. You know, they are not consulting me,
they are not consulting an agribusiness about a problem, I have
never heard of anything like this. So who comes up with this? Is
it somebody from Maine, is it somebody from Florida, is it some-
body from Missouri?

ir. GANSKE. I sit on the Commerce Committee and we deal with
a lot of this. My subcommittee will deal with a lot of this regula-
tion. There has actually been written into some of the law a prohi-
bition against people who have expertise in these areas providing
the information or consulting with the regulators when they write
the laws—for fear that it might be corrupted by, “special interests.”

We have already had some hearings in my committee on this.
And yet, if you do that, you may have excluded the very people who
have the closest insight into what would work and what loes not
work. So, it is one of the things that we are going to have to look

at.

I do believe though that—well, No. 1, we have to just be much,
much more careful about passing more law unless we have done a
cost/benefit analysis.

And No. 2, I think Congress should review those regulations, be-
cause for every page of law that we pass, the regulators will build
about 50 pages of regulations off that—or more in some cases.

The intent may be good, but then it gets adulterated by the regu-
lations that come out of it. I firmly believe that Congress should
do a better job reviewing those regulations before they take the
force of law and can arbitrarily make somebody guilty of some-
thing.

Me WHITON. Thank you.

Mr. McINnrosu. Thank you.


104

for use are internal trip, the securing of the handle has no effect upon the operation.
Second... the inspector knows that in every office she will be able to find this condition
and be able to use it as a compliance issue with that business. It will automatically place
the business on the defensive. And thirdly, when this attitude is presented at a training
session sponsored by a regulatory agency, it must therefore be acceptable to that agency.
When several people in this class, including myself, pressed this issue with the inspectors
present at this class, we were made very aware that it was improper for us to question
their presentation or their knowledge of the subject.

This is only one example of how industry has been alienated by the regulatory
community. These people need to be held accountable for their statements and actions,
and properly trained in the area to which they are inspecting. Many of the “voluntary”
programs offered by these agencies are not used because the public simply feels they
cannot trust the agency.

In conclusion, I would like to offer suggestions for improvement. First, | fee!
paperwork-type enforcement actions must be limited to written reprimands. Acceptable,
approved written procedures should be published by the agencies as a guide to business.
Some of these examples already exist but are 10 my knowledge untested in a enforcement
situation. Secondly, [ feel there should be some type of industry committee, whose
qualifications are suitable for the job, to oversee the inspection and consultation services
offered to the public. This will insure that someone with direct, irrefutable knowledge of
the technology, has had an opportunity to pass judgment on these services and has the
ability to hold the agencies accountable for their performance. In turn, the managers of
these agencies must hold their employees accountable for their actions with the public.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinions and I will take any questions
you may have.

plag He
2D des lite ney might of of chet lg Heo
pe Tn ag, prtenlaken ose nat oma. 9 easy

BMhidhe wi Fh rhee agence

Dov Bers
Zest Marchal/
he Nbcon Le Saco

Krew
works So Leree ve

Marshall tor Le egg


126

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE NENSTADT

Ms. NENSTADT. My name is Debbie Nenstadt. I have exchanged
places with someone because I am a teacher at East High School
and I have to get back to my 7th hour class.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. OK.

Ms NeEnsTApT. I also belong to the Sierra Club. Secretary Pate
mentioned the waste reduction center at UNI. I served on that cen-
ter’s citizen advisory panel and I agree with him that this is a good
example of how the regulated community can be helped to protect
the environment.

I have given testimony at USDA hearings on the farm bill in
1994. Each panel consisted of a member of a professional society
such as the Soil and Water Conservation Society, a producer and
a representative from non-profits involved with environmental ad-
vocacy. Yesterday, I was on a panel set up by DNR with a toxi-
cologist from the University of lowa, consultant from industry and
I served as the representative of the Iowa Environmental Council.

I told them what I am telling you. There is common ground.
There is common und. The way the panels were set up today,
there is no chance for common ground to be found.

Representative Ganske, when I saw you in Washington, DC at
the beginning of the year, I came to you to talk about CRP because
my family has CRP. You shared with me your views on risk assess-
ment and I want to make sure that I understood you correctly. You
told me that there are greater chances for getting esophageal can-
cer from eating red meat than there is from getting cancer from
second hand smoke. When I tell people that, they do not believe
me, they do not believe that is true. But I really do believe that
is true.

Mr. GANSKE. May I interject for a moment? Congressman Henry
Waxman, last year, on the Environmental and Health Subcommit-
tee, requested that the Congressional Research Service do an anal-
ysis on secondary smoke. They recently came out with that. Basi-
cally, their determination—this is an independent research organi-
zation was that the risk, health risk from secondary smoke, except
in very specific instances, for instance an enclosed room where you
may have an asthmatic child—is very, very, very small. In fact,
that there are other risks that we do in our normal everyday life,
for instance, eating high cholesterol foods or other things, that may
be more risky than that. That is the type of cost-benefit analysis
that I think we need to do so that we can direct our resources in
places where it will do the most good.

Ms. NENsSTADT. I contend this example shows how relying on just
numbers is not common sense. People can choose to eat red meat,
often a person cannot choose the air they breathe.

Sierra Club believes H.R. 9 is a one-size-fits-all mandatory full-
blown risk assessment approach where a shorter process may suf-
fice. One of the problems Superfund has is that the money for
cleanup is being spent on litigation. This could also happen with
H.R. 9 with major rules. Major rules could end up in court and the
programs could be tied up in court.

Science has determined that there is no threshold for substances
that cause cancer. I believe no amount of education will convince


45

Mr. SIEGLE. Thank you. I have been in DC, I have seen your
faces and I am pleased that you are here. Thank you for being here
so we cannot have to go such a long distance and for you taking
your time to listen to some of our problems.

I happen to be Richard Siegle. I have lived in this vicinity that
I am going to be speaking about all my life. I am 61 years of age
and I would just like to relate to you that I am concerned about
one issue. I happen to be chairman of a drainage district.

If you can take the palm of your hand—I will give you the back-
ground. It is too bad I have not got a map—you take your four fin-
gers and I will call them drainage ditches which drain water from
the upland and from seep water from the two adjoining rivers, the
Iowa and the Mississippi. The palm of your hand, you can call it
the Iowa slough, as I have called it a slough in my testimony. By
your wrist then I have a pumping station with three pumps, we
pump the water from this 17,000 acres in this district, into the
Mississippi River. This 17,000 acres is a portion of 50,000 acres in
the whole district—we have several drainage districts.

We have run into a problem since 1993. We did not flood but we
drowned internally, we had a lot of water depth because we were
not able to pump it off, a lot of auxiliary pumps and we were not
able to pump the water off of the land. It in return caused a lot
of sediment to be in our drainage ditches and also in the Iowa
slough. From that point on, we cleaned our drainage ditches, start-
ing in the fall of 1993, continued and we have all the drainage
ditches completed as of now.

Since 1993, we have tried very hard to get our 1.1 mile of slough
area dredged out. It has to be dredged hydraulically. We have
asked all the environmental agencies if we may place it on the side
of the slough. We had all of them there, took them in a boat, we
walked over all the property. It is wetlands, but we told them that
we would put the material there and we would put it back to na-
tive grass and we would create much more habitat than what there
is now. It is not farm ground, it will never be farm ground and the
farmers welcome the material there and will just leave it at that.

Since then, we have been searching what to do. We had to rent
47 acres of prime farm ground, agriculture, which I had to prove
or we had to prove it was not wetland—prime farm ground. Then
we were asked to—I am running out of time, I have got a big
story—see if there were any artifacts on this piece of property. In
turn, we had to furnish an archeologist to do this, we had to fur-
nish all the machinery to do this. After weeks of searching, they
found one artifact, one artifact. They have taken 5 acres, approxi-
mately, of this 47 and are going to make us put a 10 foot high levee
around this. We are not able to even drive a pickup truck on this
ground. We are not even allowed to get our machinery over across
this ground, artifact ground, to our 40 some acres that we have to
use to build the levee to put the dredge material on. I do not know
what we are going to be able to do. We just received this the last
week. And please bear with me, we need help—common sense.
Please, it is common sense.

I have much more, but thank you.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you for your story, Mr. Siegle, and we will
make sure we get the rest of it into the record and make sure


87

CITY OF URBANDALE
Orica of City Manager
915 «Toth Sveet

Urbandale, towa 50322
Phone (515) 278-3900

February 6, 1996

The Honorable David McIntosh

Chairman

Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources,
and Regulatory Affairs

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Chairman McIntosh and Members of the Subcommittee:

I wish to thank you for this opportunity to visit with you
regarding the impact of federal regulations on municipal
governments. My comments will concentrate on two specific
areas of regulation, the Americans with Disabilities Act

and wetlands preservation, Additionally, my written testimony
will address the impact of federally mandated drug and alcohol
testing.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was adopted by
Gongress in 1990 to establish civil rights protection for
individuals with disabilities. This protection applies to

the areas of employment, public accommodations, local government
services and telecommunications. Under the ADA, a city may

not exclude or deny a qualified individual with a disability

from participating in ite services, programs or activities.
Additionally, a city must make reasonable modifications to

its policies, praccices and procedures to eliminate discrimination
on the basis of disability, unless such modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the activity. The ADA

became effective for local governments on January 26, 1992.

I should state up front that che City of Urbandale does not

object to the purpose and intent for the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The goal for full accessibility to City programs and

services is shared by the Mayor, City Council and City staff.
However, compliance with che ADA has been time consuming

and costly. Additionally, the ADA has introduced an element

of liability for the City'since it may be sued for non-compliance.
Legislation that was less stringent in its timetables and

more flexible in its execution would have better served local
taxpayers.



8

This whole idea of regulations I think gets back to the basic con-
cept of first of all cost/benefit analysis. Is what we are paying justi-
fied? Or the reverse, do the benefits justify the cost? Is there actu-
ally a risk out there? Risk assessment to find out whether we are
just like Gil talked about, you know, a $50 solution to a $5 prob-

lem.

I see a couple of people here have the same concerns I do as far
as wetlands. Once again, getting back to the idea of respect for in-
dividual private property rights. It is in the Constitution but it has
been totally ignored by many bureaucrats.

Once again, I just thank you very much for bringing this hearing
to Iowa and I look forward to the excellent testimony. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McInTosu. Thank you, Tom. I appreciate you joining us here
today.

Let me now call forward our first panel which is a panel of small
businessmen. Wes Houston, Don Beale, and Loren Duchman. If you
would please come forward and take a seat, we will be able to
begin with your testimony.

While they are coming forward, let me take a moment to say
thank you to Katherine Willis on Representative Ganske’s staff for
helping coordinate a lot of this. I appreciate that effort. And also
point out some of the full committee staff members. Mildred
Webber who was taking names at the beginning; David White who
will be keeping the time for us and Karen Barnes have worked
very hard to make this possible.

Let me apologize in advance to this panel of witnesses and the
subsequent panels. I am going to need to keep very strict time to
keep it flowing because we have a lot of people who have asked to
sign up and participate in the open microphone section. So if you
have additional remarks, we will be able to put those in the record,
but I will be asking you to be brief and keep them in summary so
we can have an exchange in some of the question and answer pe-
riod.

Thank you all for coming. I appreciate the effort and the time
that you are taking to be here with us.

Mr. Houston, why do you not begin today with this panel. Wel-
come.

STATEMENTS OF WES HOUSTON, HUMAN RESOURCES MAN-
AGER, JOHNSON MACHINE WORKS, INC.; LOREN DUCHMAN,
CONSULTANT, JAMES B. MEEHAN, PE, PC; AND DON BEAL,
PRESIDENT, BEAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Houston. Thank you. I do appreciate the opportunity that
you Congressmen have provided for us.

I am Wes Houston, the Human Resources, Safety and Hazard
Control Manager for Johnson Machine Works. We are a steel fab-
ricator and we fabricate steel for buildings, sewage treatment
plants, dam gates, and navigational locks. We do get into a lot of
Government subcontract work which gets into a lot more regula-
tions. We currently employ 133 people and we do try to be a good
corporate citizen. We have been in that community for quite a
number of years and we will continue to be there. We do try to pro-


REGULATORY REFORM

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1996

House OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EcoNoMIC GROWTH,

NATURAL RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Des Moines, IA.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in the
Hotel Fort Des Moines, 1000 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA, Hon.
David McIntosh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives McIntosh, and Gutknecht.

Also present: Representatives Latham and Ganske.

Staff present: Mildred Webber, staff director; Karen Barnes, pro-
fessional staff member; David White, clerk; and Bruce Gwinn, mi-
nority professional staff member.

Mr. McINTosH. The Subcommittee on National Economic
Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs is called to
order.

Welcome. This is our 12th field hearing and it is great to be here
in Des Moines. Let me say thank you to Tom Latham for a great
field hearing he helped us organize yesterday and to Greg Ganske
for. helping us put this together and hosting this field hearing
today.

As the first order of business, I ask unanimous consent from Gil
Gutknecht, the other subcommittee member, that Representative
Latham and Representative Ganske can join us as members of the
committee today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Without objection.

Mr. McINTosH. So ordered.

This is the 12th field hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulatory
Affairs. We decided early on we wanted to get outside of the belt-
way and listen to real Americans about problems in our regulatory
system and boy, have we heard an earful in these subcommittee
hearings. People who have lost their jobs, people who do not under-
stand why they have to raise their prices and make more costly
products all because of regulations that do not make sense, are
counter-productive, coming out of Washington, DC.

Oftentimes, we have heard from people who sincerely want to fol-
low the regulations and do the best they can to comply and still
engage in their business or farm their land, and they tell us, you
know, we hear different things from different agencies. I will never
forget a farmer in my home State of Indiana. A young lady named
Kay Whitehead came and testified that she ran a fair! ly good sized
pork production facility and disposed of the manure that her pigs

a)


150

with Disabilities Act. I know that it is a costly thing for consumers
or people that are employers and things like that. And I am sorry
that that has happened. But all that the ADA has asked is that
we have equal rights. It is not—you know, it is not a mandate, it
is equal rights for persons with disabilities.

All I am asking is that I can get into any place that anybody else
would get into, anybody that is able to walk into a building, those
rights. That is all I am asking for.

know that it looks like it is really hard to understand, and it
has been in effect for 5 years. That is what people are complaining
about. If they had gone through the process when they were sup-
posed to go through the process of changing things over—and I un-
derstand the cost of it—then we would not be fighting with the
fight that now they are thinking they are going to get sued. That
I understand. But we have asked for it for 5 years. We are almost
on 6 years now.

So it needs to stay as not just something that you can throw
away. I want the rights that anybody else has. And just because
I am sitting down or cannot reach something, does not mean I do
not have those rights.

Mr. GANSKE. I appreciate your testimony. Were you here earlier
to hear the city manager of Urbandale?

Ms. EASLER. Yes. I was listening to it and I understand what he
said about it.

Mr. GANSKE. As an example, they have a very good building,
structurally sound. They do have a lift in it, so that you can get
from one floor to another, but it is not an elevator. So, technically
it does not meet ADA qualifications. Do you think that it would be
reasonable to allow somewhat more flexibility, after listening to
some of the testimony that we have had today?

Ms. EASLER. Yes, I do. Flexibility is good. If I can get into it, if
it is a chair lift, is it going to be able to deal with the electric chairs
that are coming in and out of these buildings? We are looking at
a 150 to 200 pound chair and that is not counting the person that
is in the chair. So that is why the elevators are safer and I think
that is probably why ADA is looking at safety reasons. But if I can
get into a building and get where I need to and the same rights
that everybody else has, then I am not going to complain a whole
lot. I just want to be able to do what everybody else is doing.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And we certainly agree. The ADA really has
opened all of our eyes. What we are beginning to consider though
is, you know, are we coming up again with more expensive solu-
tions than are really needed to get to the conclusion that you and
I think all Americans really want.

Ms. EASLER. Most of the cost for accommodations, except for
building kind of things, are under $50 to $100, is the information
that I have.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, let me give you an example, and this is
something that we have heard some testimony about, particularly
from smaller cities that still have bus lines. For example, they are
in the process now of putting the lift equipment—or buying new
buses with lift equipment on it, even though, for example, I think
we heard from one city manager, there are only like two people in
the community who regularly ride the bus, who would avail them-


42

In a nutshell, we make feed, put it in one of our bulk delivery trucks and deliver it
to the farm, “We manufacture (in one shift - 9 hrs.) about 100 100 ton of feed a day or
about 25,000 ton a year. This comes to about 4-5 million dollars in sales per year.
We have four bulk delivery trucks which deliver our products. We have 3 - four

ton mixers, a 100 horsepower pellet mill, a crumbler and a grinder (hammermill) to
grind the corn we purchase,

Our most important asset we have is our customer - the farmer. My father always
said he never was worried about the moncy the farmers owed him because he only
dealt with honest people - our customers.

Our niche in the feed business is to take care of the small guy. We gear ourselves, |
to be able to take care of one or two tons of feed, whereas the competition

large loads or they won't deliver. Wrote webe teen le erp
some of the smaller family farmers in business within a 30 mile radius of Perry.

course, we have some very large accounts we take care of also.

Ladies and gentlemen, Whiton Feed Co. is nothing but an grerage, successful

family business in an average and normal town dealing with ig but average,

normal suppliers and customers. I guess you could say we are the epitome of the
normal hardworking American citizen,

Looks like a pretty picture doesn’t it? We have our own lems - we have sick

employees, -30 degree weather, frozen gear boxes, gelled up diesel trucks, burned
in two elevator legs, frozen pipes and many more headaches. These problems, I
can handle.

But my biggest hurdle and frustration is over government regulation. I can fix the
machinery problems, but I can not continue to battle government regulations that
keep me in daily fear and at the same time continue to operate my business. We
have to perform, comply, obey, and be threatened ‘of ou livelihoods to obey the
following county, state, and federal regulations.

‘Let me list the compliances I have with only 7 employees just to stay in business:
FDA - DNR - EPA - OSHA - DOT - weight and measures - workman's
unemployment regulations - wastewater management - hazardous

management :

bankruptcy laws - drug and alcohol test - commercial drivers licenses -

grain tax - feed tax - machinery tax - unemployment taxes - workman's comp insurance
scale licenses (both state and private) - incorporation licenses - property tax

tag labeling regulations and annual truck inspections and I've probably missed a few.


3

inflexible and enforced by bureaucrats who have no idea the
struggles and challenges that rural American communities face
today--an ever shrinking dollar having to stretch further and

further.

In my opinion, the government needs a common sense approach
to regulating our water systems. One that is health-risk based,
not mandated without proper scientific methods being applied,
and that provides the necessary financing for sanctioned
improvements. A system based on local, state, and federal
governments working together to solve environmental problems--not
as adversaries. The Safe Drinking Water Act, recently passed
by the United States Senate and currently being contemplated
by the U.S. House of Representatives, will provide a regulatory
system to enable government to function in the best interests

of its citizens for the century to come.

I want to thank you again for taking the time to hold these

meetings. Thank you.


82

A bigger problem is the cost of collecting recyclables. In Pitts-
burgh, for example, it costs $94 per ton in 1991 to collect regular
garbage, but $470 per ton to collect recyclables. Recycling is also
environmentally costly. Every mile of truck travel in pursuit of
cast-off newspapers, plastics, or aluminum cans, adds carcinogenic
particles, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and rubber particles
to the environment. It also uses energy and other limited resources.
Overall, the authors suspect recycling consumes more resources
than it saves.

(Bell rings.]

Mr. TORRESON. Just another minute or so, please.

Mr. McINnTosH. If you could go ahead and just summarize the
rest of it, that would be great.

Mr. TORRESON. Back to Atlantic, LA. The cost of landfill fees is
a factor in the problem we have in cleaning up the burned out
buildings, not the whole reason, but a factor. Some say that the
property owners were underinsured, and they were. But it is un-
derstandable when one considers that landfill fees have increased
over eightfold in 4 years.

The city has attempted to help by applying for a special permit
from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, to remove the
burnable material to another site and burn it under controlled con-
ditions. The request was denied by the State agency working under
a State law meant to implement the Federal Clean Air Act. There
is an inconsistency in the State law, however, that allows rural
buildings to be buried or burned onsite without any State approval.
I am not sure this makes sense.

This is not a disastrous problem for the Atlantic community, the
mess will get cleaned up one way or another. Either someone will
or will not eventually build back into the empty space. The point
I would like to make is that governmental regulations have af-
fected this situation and made it more difficult to resolve quickly
and economically for the good of the community.

ank you.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, we appreciate your testi-
mony.

Our next witness on this panel is Mr. McMullen, who is the CEO
of the Des Moines Water Works. Thank you for joining us.

Mr. MCMULLEN. Thank you, Congressman, and thanks for com-
ing out into the field and being here in Des Moines and hearing
from us kind of in the grassroots.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you primarily
about the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in 1974 and
amended in 1986, that is currently up for reauthorization. And it
is really an opportunity of a lifetime to make significant changes
in the drinking water industry as well as providing safe and
healthful water to all of our consumers.

The current bill, as you probably are well aware of, required 83
contaminants to be regulated with an additional 25 every 3 years
thereafter. That list was originally put together in the original bill,
or as part of the amendments of 1986, and have been worked on
by EPA. They have recognized, in the process of doing their work,
that many of the contaminants are not found very frequently with- -
in the actual drinking water of the Nation, and as a result have


REGULATORY REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

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

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 9, 1996

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-721 WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-055218-4

a


108

know that name, southeast 200 miles. It is a family owned bank
since 1893, my great grandfather purchased it and we have been
running it ever since. |] am the fourth generation, I have two sons
in the bank with me. I started in 1958 after graduating the Univer-
sity of Iowa and Chairman McIntosh, I am reminded we used to
worry about the State of Indiana with some of those great teams
you used to have in the fifties, particularly those two back-to-back
NCAA champions, they were tough.

You will have in your hands a document on a recent dialog with
a regulator, which I have subheaded “Bureaucratic overkill of the
community bank.” I liken the monster that has been created to the
historical problems of a government gone amok. The conversations
relate to people who have administrative powers above and beyond
what is necessary at this time in the banking industry. Regulators
are destroying reputations of long-standing banks for obviously no
reason. The savings and loan industry, thanks to congressional lib-
eralism and counting paper as capital, caused the downfall of that
industry at a huge cost to the taxpayers. And with this power that
was created for the S&L industry, millions of regulators are
branching out from Washington to cause the problems that I have
outlined in these documents.

Community banks are at a threshold of full interstate banking
in 1997 and are being crushed out of existence by faceless bureau-
crats using laws promulgated for the S&L industry. Crushed, in
spite of comparisons that show outstanding banking being done in
the State of Iowa.

I urge you to carefully review my dialog, which I will turn over
here in a moment, with a regulator, from the perspective of a fam-
ily owned bank, smal] bank in the town of Keokuk, IA, population
11,000. I urge you to support my language in this document for
Corrections Day, with this question: What is happening in this
country? We have got to give these banks some relief.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Logan, before you leave, may I ask you a ques-
tion?

Mr. LoGaN. Certainly.

Mr. GANSKE. You played basketball at the University of lowa?

Mr. Loan. Yes, I did.

Mr. GANSKE. Were you on Don Nelson’s team?

Mr. LoGan. No, he came a little bit later, but my roommate
Sharm Sherman coached——

Mr. GaNSKE. Sharm Sherman.

Mr. Locan. He was our guard, Sharm was our guard and Carl
King, who is here in Des Moines, was our forward, and Bill Schulte
and Bill Siever. But that Indiana team was the tough team.

Mr. GANSKE. Well, I just wanted to let you know, I remember as
a kid listening to your team’s exploits, and I think I have a picture,
an old college picture that the University of lowa sent out with
your picture on it.

Mr. Locan. Well, thank you. It is nice to be remembered.

Mr. GANSKE. I would have never thought at that time that you
would be giving testimony before me. [Laughter.]


131

nity. We need to change the major focus of EPA and OSHA from
enforcement to compliance assistance. They need to directly be out
there helping us do the things that we are required to do under the
a

Ww.

If we have Federal agencies, State agencies, the regulated com-
munity and the public all pulling together, we will be able to figure
out what is necessary to make our workplaces safe and to have a
clean environment. And we can do it in ways that make sense. As
we are working through the process together, we will be able to see
which laws do not make any sense and which need to be modified
and which are of value.

We can make this change. You must lead us to this change. It
is a critical time right now. We can do this if we all work together.
We have to treat each other as though we are respected partners,
not government versus the regulated community versus the public.
That is not the way that we can continue to function. We have
come as far as we can with the old system, and it is time now for
you to change things fundamentally and get us working together
in figuring out what we have to do to make our workplaces safe
and our environment clean.

Thank you. I have submitted written comments that give you
specific suggestions for compliance assistance, things that you
could do. And I gave those to your staff, I assume that will be in
the record.

And my answer to the question of: Do we want to give the regu-
lators flexibility? Is, if you have a regulator with their major focus
being helping us comply with the law, then you bet, I want them
to have flexibility, and I want my businesses to have flexibility too,
to do what makes sense.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Ms. Christensen, I could not have said it better. That was excel-
lent and we appreciate our testimony and your written sugges-
tions. They will not only be a part of the record, hopefully they will
be part of our recommendations to the 105th Congress. Thank you
very much.

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Next, Keith Kuennen. Am I saying it right?

STATEMENT OF KEITH KUENNEN

Mr. KUENNEN. Kuennen.

First I would like to say I totally agree with her.

My name is Keith Kuennen, I am the safety and maintenance of-
ficer for four companies here in Des Moines—Ecotech Contractors,
National Concrete Services, Crown Ready Mix, and Midwest Ready

Mix.

I feel that the Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion is becoming inefficient and ineffective by wasting valuable
time on frivolous things or missing the mark on very important
things that the agency originally set out to do, such as saving lives
and preventing occupational injuries and illnesses.

Because of recent history and statistics, I believe that they are
not doing what they originally set out to do. For instance, in 1993,
hazardous chemicals caused only 1.8 percent of occupational
deaths. Exposure to harmful substances accounted for only 5 per-


Iv

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued
Duchman, Loren, consultant, James B. Meehan, PE, PC, prepared state-
ment of ..
Gray, Joe A., mayor, city of Manson, A, prepared statement of .
Hanatan, Thomas, mayor, city of Council Bluffs, IA, prepared statement

Holtz, Royal “Curly”, farmer, prepared statement of
Houston, Wes, human resources manager, Johnson Machine Works, ine

prepared statement of ..
Johnson, Harvey, farmer, prepared statement of
Layton, Robert, city manager, city of Urbandale, 1A, prepared statement

of . ve
Reel, Fletcher, mayor, city of Missouri Valiey, 1A, prepared statement

of.

Siegle, : ;

Whiton, David ‘owner,
of .

iton Feed and Mil

Page
23
70

93.
59

12
35

87

76
47

41


109

Mr. Locan. Well, we appreciate you coming out and listening to
us.
Mr. GANSKE. Thank you.

Mr. McINnTOSH. Mr. Logan, you would appreciate the analogy
that I often use on where we are at in Congress in solving some
of these problems, including the problems of over-regulation. Com-
ing from Indiana, I tell them about the movie Hoosiers and that
we are sometimes like the small town Milan team up against the
big city team but we are determined to be victorious in the end.

o thank you for coming today.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman
I know exactly where your town is, I was there Tuesday evening,
spent a florious evening, stayed overnight there, very nice. Than!
you. We know were Keokuk is.

Mr. Locan. We are going to have riverboat gambling. [Laughter.]

Mr. McINTOosH. Thank you for your proposed Corrections Day
bill. We will take that up.

Our next witness is Ms. Cecilia Gaudineer. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF CECILIA GAUDINEER

Ms. GAUDINEER. Thank you for this opportunity.

I cannot believe I am up here. I am not a speaker but I feel very
strongly about what I have to say.

am a roofing and sheet metal contractor, I work with my hus-
band and son. We are a fourth generation company, one of the old-
est in Des Moines. My husband has been there 36 years and myself
22 and our son 11, so we are not youngsters in the business.

We face the same issues discussed earlier concerning the envi-
ronmental and safety, and not only is it increasingly difficult to re-
main in business but it is discouraging as well.

I have not been able to get answers to questions concerning the
8(a) set-aside program. After a hands-on experience with one of
these contractors, I can honestly say that the Government is pro-
moting discrimination against authentic, knowledgeable contractors
and costing the government, and in essence the taxpayers, thou-
sands and maybe millions of dollars.

I had a contractor come to me for an extensive project, 20 dif-
ferent roofs. | spent much time on this and I broke it down many
times for him. He wanted—he had no knowledge of the industry,
I had to sit and explain to him every facet of the job for every roof
and so forth. He—then out of my breakdown, he picked out 15 per-
cent that he said he was going to do, but really he was not, he was
going to sub it back. So not only did he mark my quote up 10 per-
cent or whatever it was, he marked the 15 percent he claimed to
be doing up an additional amount.

I just cannot believe that the government has such a program
where a person can only do paperwork and get all this money. This
is not fair and I feel so strongly about it. You are discriminating
against me and we are the hard core working people.

He was not honest with me and told me different things, and I
am just asking that I be treated as an equal.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudineer, for coming
forward. Oftentimes you do not have to be a good speaker to have
a very good point. All of us believe in President Kennedy's goal of


30

that, but they have the staff in a moment to go out and cite an in-
dividual for some of the things that I referred to in my testimony.

Now to answer your——

Mr. GANSKE. Let me just followup. Do you think that it is nec-
essary to have that kind of division; that is, between the consult-
ative services and the “enforcement inspection” services or can you
merge that together and have the same individual doing both?

Mr. BEAL. I think you can merge those together and have the
same individual doing both, as long as they can move back and
forth.

Now to answer your philosophical question, that scares me a lit-
tle bit, to give anybody that kind of power without—power corrupts
in certain instances, and unless there is a constant monitoring of
the attitude of those people, and as my colleague here pointed out,
an experience level that would allow them to make those decisions,
I would be a little leery of that.

Mr. GANSKE. And this, of course, is the tough line that we are
going to have to walk in doing this——

Mr. BEAL. Absolutely.

Mr. GANSKE [continuing]. To allow some common sense, but
allow some uniformity and lack of arbitrary decisions also. Thank

ou.

Mr. McINtosu. Thank you very much, Congressman Ganske and
the panel.

Before turning to my other colleagues, let me mention there is
also a third option in that philosophical debate, and it is more eas-
ily understood in the environmental context but I think would
apply in safety regs too. And that would be for the Washington reg-
ulations to supply a goal or a standard and then allow some of the
details to be met either by the regulated entity or local enforce-
ment. For example, you could have a rule that said if you have a
safety record that goes beyond a certain level, you get a certain
number of accidents, then we are going to trigger a very close scru-
tiny and very detailed controls. But if you have a company that has
no accidents year after year after year, you would have a different
approach and much less scrutiny and detailed plans. That type of
approach I think then gets you a good combination of the flexibil-
ity, yet specificity and different outcomes trigger different events in
the regulatory process.

Let me now turn to our colleague from Minnesota, Mr.
Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and
I want to thank the panel for the excellent testimony—more impor-
tant, for the excellent documentation. I used to use the $50 solution
to the $5 problem, this sounds like a $15,000 solution to a $5 prob-

lem.

But I just want to say that Congressman Ganske, I think, has
really nailed this issue more than maybe we even stop to think
about. I just want to share a story. When I was in the State legisla-
ture back in Minnesota several years ago, I was invited in to meet
with one of the older judges and spent the day, and he said, you
know, when I went on the bench 20 years ago in Albert Lea, MN,
there were 20 police officers in town. And today, he said I think
they have 50 in Albert Lea. And he said back then, their job was


CITY OF URBANDALE

In Burlington, the city improved accessibility to its police
headquarters, airport Yerminel, Library and municipal auditorium
in order to comply with the ADA. Finally, cities throughout
the state have been required to improve the accessibility

of playground equipment and other park facilities in order

to comely with the ADA. The review of park facilities has

been especially difficult due to the scope of the legislation.
In Urbandale, we have wrestled with the concept of accessibility
for neighborhood parks. Must every park facility be accessible
or only those serving a broader population? We continue

to struggle with thig issue as park projects are planned

for the future.

Wetlands P

Another federal regulation of increasing concern to local
governments pertains to wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers
was given responsibility for the preservation of wetlands
through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments

of 1972. Under Section 404 of thie Act, the Army Corps of
Engineers was authorized to formulate regulations for the
protection of navigable waters in the United States. However,
over a period of time, the Corps’ responsibilities have extended
beyond the country's main waterways. In fact, the Corps

is now responsible for the protection of most wetland areas
in the United States.

vation

Qnee again, it is difficult to argue with the legislative
intent of wetlands regulation. This legislation was designed
to reduce flooding and siltation, replenish aquifers and
result in cleaner water. However, its application has become
extreme over a ported of time. The wetlands regulations

are especially burdensome in urban settings. A city wetland
could be something as simple as a man-made pond. Such bodies
of water are coumon in urban developments and do not appear
to be consistent with the original wetlands definition,

A story of wetlend regulation in Urbandale may help to illustrate
the problem. In the 1960's, a local property owner installed

a one acre Fond on land in Urbandale. Although thie land

was eventually to be used for residential and commercial
development, it initially served as a family recreation area.

The pond was installed by the owner to serve as a fishing
location for his children and grandchildren. A few years

ago, the owner finally decided to sell the property for a
commercial office project. Much of the land wae cleared

and the owner took steps to fill the pond. However, the

Towa Department of Natural Resources, acting under the federal
wetlands regulations, would not allow this action. Instead,

the pond was designated as a wetlands area and the owner

was informed that the area was to be preserved. After almost



84

Our next witness is Mr. Robert Layton, who is the city manager,
city of Urbandale. Thank you very much.

Mr. Layton. Thank you.

Chairman McIntosh, members of the subcommittee, like L.D., I
would like to thank you for coming out to visit with us and giving
us _an opportunity to talk to you Sere in the field. My comments
today will concentrate on two specific areas of regulation, the
Americans with Disabilities Act and wetlands preservation. I have
also submitted written comments on federally mandated drug and
alcohol testing which I would ask you to review at a later time.

Regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act, as you know, it
was adopted by Congress in 1990 to establish civil rights protection
for individuals with disabilities. This protection applies to the
areas of employment, public accommodations, Tocal government
services, and telecommunications. The ADA became effective for
local governments in January 1992.

I should state up front that the city of Urbandale does not object
to the purpose and intent for the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The goal for full accessibility to city programs and services is
shared by the mayor, the city council, and city staff. However, com-
pliance with the ADA has been time-consuming and costly. Addi-
tionally, the ADA has introduced an element of Rlability for the city
since it now may be sued for non compliance. Legislation that was
less stringent in its timetables and more flexible in its execution
would have better served local taxpayers.

In order to conform with the ADA, city staff members were re-
quired to conduct a self-evaluation of all the city’s facilities during
1992. The survey identified various items in each facility that could
limit access to programs or activities. It took our staff several
months to prepare the 177-page document to comply with the ADA
requirements. The plan’s scope and length were driven by the li-
ability concerns that were introduced through the ADA.

The implementation of the city’s ADA plan has been somewhat
costly. For instance, it was determined that over 550 new sidewalk
ramps were needed to meet the requirements of ADA. The esti-
mated cost for the construction of these ramps was $235,000. In
order to integrate this work into the city’s capital improvements
program, which is our annual planning document for our public in-
frastructure improvements, it was necessary to phase the ramp
construction over several years. Unfortunately, the ADA did not
give us that flexibility. We were required to meet all of the ramp
requirements by July 1995. Obviously, this deadline did not recog-
nize the magnitude or expense of such a project in a municipality.
Although the intent of the legislation is sound, the implementation
regulations became onerous for many local governments in Iowa.

It has also been difficult for the city to receive reliable advice re-
garding the implementation of the ADA and that has been ex-
tremely frustrating. In fact, experts in the field have disagreed over
the interpretation of the act, creating additional apprehension and
nervousness for city officials. For instance, the city’s administrative
offices are housed in a building that was constructed in 1961. In
order to comply with the Federal Government’s previous accessibil-
ity requirements, a chair lift was installed in city hall. However,
it now appears that the chair lift does not meet the new require-


12

p. 2
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and

Regulatory Affaire
Public Testimony
9 Feb 96

I am Wes Houston, the Human Resources, Safety, and Hazard Control
Manager for Johnson Machine Works, Inc. We fabricate steel for
buildings, sewage treatment plants, dam gates and navigational
locks. We currently employee 133 people. We do try to be good
corporate citizens in our community, providing a safa work place
for our employees and keeping an environmentily sound facility.

In 1995 I spent $25,600 on safety, much of which was on
mandated safety training. The OSHA regulations have from the very
beginning been burdensome to me. Much of my time is spent in
studying the regulations, writing the required written programs,
revising them from year to year, instead of actually being out in
the shop making sure employees are working safely. In 1994, two of
the top five most cited standards in Iowa were paper work
violations, which have nothing to do with the employee working
safely.

I have had an Iowa OSHA inspector come to our facility several
times in recent years. Each time a record search was done at the
start of the inspection, and each time my required written programs
and records were found to be in order. The inspector signed off on
the inspection and left. I know my luck will not hold out for
ever. When a complete inspection is done, the intention of Iowa
OSHA will be finding items of non-compliance and setting fines. I
will try to cooperate with the inspector, but I know there will be
confrontation, followed by litigation. My safety record shows I am
trying to provide a safe work place for our employees. Why could
not Towa OSHA come with the intent of helping me, instead of
confronting me? The consultation diviaion of Iowa OSHA will come
only by invitation. Why do I have to invite them to come help me?
Why can they not do that at the time of the inspection?

In 1995, I spent $29,602 trying to comply with the EPA
regulations. | The number and extent of regulations in the
environmental area is absolutely amazing. I find it hard to
believe there are people that can actually think up some of this
stuff. There is no way I can try to comply with the Clean Air Act,
Storm Water Discharge, RCRA, and SARA, without the help of an
environmental attorney and an environmental engineer This of
course greatly inflates the cost of compliance. The Clean Air Act
is about the most bizarre thing I have ever tried to understand.
EPA can't even get it figured out. Every deadline they have
established has been pushed back several times, which is to my
benefit. I think it ie virtually impossible to be in full
compliance with the environmental and OSHA regulations, and I think
the regulations are written with this purpose in mind.

Thave three experiences that I want to relate concerning EPA:

1. In 1994 an EPA contracted inspector came to our facility
with the purpose of gathering information regarding the impact of



54

cattle on your CRP ground. And he said I do not have any cattle.
She said well, that does not matter——{Laughter.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Do not confuse me with the facts.

Mr. ALFF. So, as a friend, I have been watching his land, I get
no compensation or anything for it, but I sort of watch it and m:
sure the thistles are down, whatever.

Anyway, he called me and told me this and I said I will go out
and check. Well, this was a Friday, I called my nephew who lives
on my farm and he said that he goes fishing down there like three
or four times a week and he said yes, I saw some cattle in there,
there was three or four head of calves and he said they were there
between 1 and 2 days and he said but now they are not there any
more.

I was working, so on Sunday, my day off, I went out and I took
my pickup and drove around the fence. Well, I found where the
fence was bad and where they had came through, and it was neigh-
bor's cows, neighbor’s fence. And they had an electric fence up by
then.

OK, so I called over at the ASCS and told the gal and she said
well, I am sure glad you did this and now I will put this in his file.

A week later, I got a call from my friend ‘and. he said, Howard,
they sent me a bill and they are fining me $2,200.

{Bell rings.}

Mr. ALFF. Can I finish? It is only going to take a few seconds.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Yes, I would like to hear the rest of this.

Mr. ALFF. I said well that does not make sense because I said
there are only 12 acres there that it was on and if they fined you
the whole thing it would only be $900 if they took away all your
payment on the 12 acres. And he said well, 1 have got to go toa

earing, would you go with me. And so I went with him to the
hearing, and they said that he was responsible, it did not matter
whose cows, whose fence or whatever, he was responsible, he
signed the contract, that is the way it was.
ly question is, the person that accuses us, if they are justly ac-
cusing us, they should not be afraid to face us. And if they are
falsely accusing us, we should be able to defend ourselves and get
just compensation for the problems they are causing us.

I thank you.

Mr. McinrosH. Thank you. Next they will be seeing cows with
wings. (Laughter.]

Gil, you had a comment?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, one of the things—great idea, and one of
the nice things about these field hearings, in Sioux City a gen-
tleman who testified yesterday talked about the possibility of a bill
of rights, a regulatory bill of rights. And I talked to David about
this, and I think this is one thing that if we can put this together,
it would be an excellent inclusion, some way of knowing who your
accusers are, particularly if you are falsely accused.

Mr. ALFF. Exactly.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Excellent point, thank you.

Mr. McINTOSH. It is in the bill of rights right now. We ought to
get it applied to regulations. .

Let us continue on with the panel and then we will all have some
questions for you. Our next witness on this panel is Mr. Bill Willis


Page 3

The aforementioned are examples of what the City did or is
doing: to meet ADA requirements. While we understand the need
to provide accessibility, we do not need standards that may not
work in our environment. We need the ability to be flexible
and be able to adapt to our local environment.


75

We have a wonderful progressive library, built shortly after city
hall. To meet compliance standards, it will take an elevator to
move between floors and a few other modifications, price tag start-
ing at $100,000.

The final building is our middle school. It was built as a high
school at the turn of the century. It is sound and functional, but
is deficient in a host of Federal compliance standards, not limited
to ADA. We will need to build a new structure at the cost of $5.5
million.

The updating of our city hall and middle school would become a
necessity someday, we know this. However, allowing us to save and
plan would have given us the opportunity to remain functional and
keep costs down. Roughly one fourth of all of our city sewer and
water lines were put in the ground before 1930. In practical terms
at present, they are a much more critical priority than bringing
these buildings into compliance.

If we commit the roughly $6.6 million it will take to meet all
these compliance standards, and move very near our bonding ca-
pacity for both city and school district, what would we do in an
emergency? My greatest fear is that a spring thaw following a hard
winter, such as the one we are in now, could cause a major collapse
of our sewer and water lines. We would have nothing left with
which to face this crisis.

We do not want to see our physically challenged citizens limited
in their access to our public buildings or events. Let me explain a
simple solution to the problem we could have implemented had the
ADA given us the simple mandate of providing access rather than
detailing to us how it would be provided.

For less than 10,000 a year, we could have developed a mes-
senger system which could have picked up and delivered items to
our post office, city hall, library, et cetera. And they could have
done more as well. We already have the video capability set up to
broadcast closed circuit television of city council meetings, school
events, et cetera. And it could also be two-way communication. Ul-
timately, we could have provided comprehensive public services
and event participation to every handicapped citizen in Missouri
Valley at a dramatically lower cost than meeting current ADA com-
pliance standards.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is good and right for
government to safeguard the freedoms of our handicapped citizens,
but it is an impossible task for government to restore the freedoms
which God has taken away.

Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mayor, very powerful testimony and
I appreciate you coming forward on that. I am sure we will have
questions for you in the next phase.

Our third witness in this group of witnesses is the city adminis-
trator for the city of Atlantic, Mr. Dean Torreson. Thank you for
coming today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reel follows:]


36

Mr. Dan Sulky, the Hancock County conservationist, trespassed twice on our property and
proceeded to turn us into the Corps of Engineers, We received two registered cease and des{st orders
plus several threatening phone calls and ordered us to break all the tile and retum the property to its
pre-project condition. If we dida't abide by their whims and orders, they would fine us $25,000 per
day, which they have done.

Last spring the Jocal ASCS office requested that we write them a letter stating exactly how
‘We were farming the 82 acres of Jason's property, of which he is not receiving any government
payments. Ifwe did not respond with a written statement, they would not let us sign up fot the 1995
farm program. We thought everything was finally settled until e fellow by the name of Martin
Dahlke who is representing Charles Gillum, Office of Inspector General of the U.S.D.A. walked into
our local Forest City bank aad told them that the U.S.D.A. was going to subpoena all our family's
bank records back to 1992. Needless to say, we all about had heart attacks on the spot. You would
have also been upset if the government did this to you and your only crime was trying to protect your
private property and farming your own land, on which we are paying interest, taxes and principal.

The subpoena notice has accused us of frend. They have been to the county courthouse plus
other places of business and they know absolutely everything sbout our business for the last four
years, trying to justify their actions, All of this nonsense and we as property owners have absolutely
not had one thing to sey about anything they are doing to us as a family.

This terrible assault on our lives and property will eventually cause death in our family
because of all the stress on us as individuals. Again, all of you would also respond the same way
if the government stole your property by designation, It is uo wonder I had liver cancer and many
sleepless nights. My wife and son have ulcers and our daughter is on the verge of anorexia because
of the many unknowns and what the future holds in this fiasco.

Ifthe government thinks wetlands are so valuable, let them buy them and let all the taxpayers
pay for them, not just a few select farmers.

The DNR has purchased 4,800 acres within 20 miles of our farm. These acres will all be
wetlands and conservation areas. How much more wetland do they want?

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. stated it best when he said what
a waste to not utilize our good productive Clarion-Webster soil with the ideal rainfall and the proper
sunshine.

Farmers all across northern Jowa and southern Minnesota afe mad at the SCS and all their
conservationists, plus all the other regulatory agencies. We have had enough of this wetland
confiscation nonsense and we are not going to stand idly by and take it any longer.

If this confiscation of private property by designation without compensation is not stopped
dead in its tracks, it will continue to affect land values, transfers and business transactions from now
to etemity. Why own property, if the federal government can come in at any time and confiscate it
by designation? It is not fair to provide $92 million to pay farmers to reinvent wetlands, but not pay


48

THE TIME MY NEIGHBORS AND MYSELF THOUGHT NOTHING
COULD BE WORSE THAN OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE FLOOD.
SINCE THE FLOOD WATERS RECEDED, HOWEVER, AND AFTER
GOING THROUGH A LONG AND EXPENSIVE FLOOD RECOVERY
EFFORT, WE ARE NOT SURE WHICH WAS WORSE AS BETWEEN
THE FLOOD OR THE AFTERMATH. AS | SPEAK TO YOU TODAY, |
WOULD PROBABLY CHOOSE THE FLOOD OVER THE AFTERMATH.

WHY IS THIS SO? I WILL TRY TO SUM UP THE REASONS FOR
MY FEELINGS AND GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OR TWO OF WHY !
BELIEVE THE WAY | DO

1 AM NOT HERE TO POINT THE FINGER AT ANY PARTICULAR
FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCY OR ANY PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THOSE AGENCIES. ] WILL SIMPLY SAY
THAT THERE ARE SOME AGENCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN MUCH
EASIER TO DEAL WITH THAN OTHERS. FOR INSTANCE, THE OLD
ASCS, NOW NRCS, WORKED CLOSELY WITH MY DISTRICT AND
OTHER AFFECTED DISTRICTS IN EFFORTS TO CORRECT SOME
LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS WITH OUR MAIN MISSISSIPPI RIVER
LEVEE WHICH HAD BEEN PRESENT FOR YEARS AND WORSENED
CONSIDERABLY BY THE 1993 FLOOD. THIS AGENCY EXPEDITED
THE FLOOD RECOVERY PROCESS BY PUTTING EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS INTO EFFECT AND WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR DISTRICTS. A SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT
WAS COMPLETED IN LESS THAN A YEAR BY OUR DISTRICTS
WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH THE FEDERAL AGENCY ON A
COST SHARE BASIS. FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, THE PROJECT
WAS A HUGE SUCCESS AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GOOD
THINGS CAN COME OUT OF THE REGULATORY PROCESS IF
PEOPLE KEEP THEIR PERSPECTIVE AND WORK TOWARDS A
COMMON GOAL.


117

structions with it. And for what purpose? These forms were in ad-
dition to the normal business paperwork that we complete for the
Government every day such as tax preparation and employee infor-
mation.

I would like to share with you those 14 reports: No. 1 is wage
survey, fringe benefit surveys, industry verification statements, en-
ergy information, commodity flow surveys, occupational employ-
ment report, Federal contractor veterans employment report, report
of organization, census of distribution trades, census of retail trade,
economic census, survey of occupational injury, annual fuel oil and
kerosene sales report, DOT registration and licensing. And I am
sure I have missed at least 10.

Allow me to expand on the nuisance of one of them.

(Bell rings.)

Mr. Rice. I do not have a whole lot left here.

We received from the U.S. Department of Labor a veterans em-
ployment report. This information requested dealt with whether we
employed any special disabled or Vietnam-era veterans and how we
identified them. In the very instructions, it detailed that you can-
not ask an employee if he is disabled. But yet the instructions dem-
onstrated various ways for us to get this type of information out
of them. Where is the common sense in this Government regula-
tion?

One other glaring example is the Clean Air Act which others
have already mentioned. We received by mail a package of forms
to complete. The postage alone on this package was $5.10. The
forms were stacked 1 inch thick. Fortunately our State association
was able to hire a computer programmer and a professional engi-
neer to decipher the information in the report. The errors in
Government formulas and the processes that these two people
found would make an Edgar Allan Poe horror story. But to top it
off, the compliance was based on our potential to emit, not on what
we were actually emitting. Our association found that all of the
members that completed these forms, of which there was more
than 400, less than 1¥2 tons of hydrocarbon emissions were being
emitted in the whole State of Iowa. Thank goodness our association
was able to solve this matter in this way so that we could all share
this cost. As a group, we spent $12,000 on the engineer and the
computer programmer. Otherwise, I would have had to spend that
on my little business.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Rice, I appreciate you
bringing that forward. Maybe the nightmare movie would be titled
“Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.” [Laughter.)

If you could just go ahead and give us a concluding statement so
we can get to the others.

Mr. RIcE. The bottom line is we are losing our bottom line. And
it is time that the bureaucrats started listening to the very people
that they regulate. And I thank you very much for this time.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you. And please submit any additional
materials for the record.

Mr. Ganske.

Mr. GaNskE. Mr. Chairman, if you would just let me interject-a
comment, because we have been talking primarily this morning
about agriculture, small business, local government concerns. I ha


53

Mr. ALFF. Thank you for inviting me and I appreciate your con-
cern over these problems.

The subject I would like to address is the whistleblowers on the
regulations and why we as US. citizens do not have the right to
know who the whistleblowers are.

T have a farm in Cass County, and on this farm I have some CRP
ground. But it was not all eligible for CRP, so part of it is in pas-
ture.

In the spring of 1993, I received a letter from the ASCS office
saying that I had cattle running on my CRP ground. I work at the
local elevator, I am the assistant manager, so I deal with these
people every day, so I called them, I know them personally. And
1 told them that I rent this pasture to a friend of mine. So they
said OK, we will acknowledge that and we will take care of it.

A few days later the ASCS called again—this time they called
me, and said that they had two more calls that my cattle were still
on the CRP ground. IT said well, I explained to you—and we went
out and checked and the tenant has checked the fence and every-
thing is fine and there is no cattle on there. They said they would
acknowledge this again.

About a week later, the field man from ASCS stopped in at the
co-op, and I know him personally too. He said he had been out
looking and that he could not find any evidence that cattle had
been on this ground. I said no, they have not been and we have
kept close watch because we have been turned in four or five times
already. He said well, I am just going to go back and report it.

So time went on awhile and about 2 weeks later, my tenant came
in and he said the field man was back out and he happened to be
there at the same time when he came and he told him that this
person had called again several times and he had told him, well,
I have been out and checked and there is no cattle on the CRP
ground. He said well this guy says that he is running them on
there overnight and on weekends when you are not working. And
he admitted to my tenant that he was out there at 6:30 a.m., 11
p-m., and twice on Sunday and he said he had never found any cat-
tle on the CRP ground. He said as a matter of fact, I walked the
whole fence line and he said the fence looks real good. He said yes,
it has, because I went and fixed it because Howard is getting tired
of getting harassed about this fence. He said well, we are going to
end our investigation.

I saw him 2 weeks later and he said they got at least three or
four more calls and he said in all, they got between 12 and 20 calls.
I had asked him more than once, I said who is calling. Well, he
says, I do not know, the office just sends me out. So I called the
office several times and they said we cannot tell you who is doing
this.

I have another example. A friend of mine owns a farm right
across the road from my farm. He is a diabetic and on total disabil-
ity and lives in Storm Lake, IA. He called me last summer and he
said that he had called down to the ASCS and said what about the
CRP ground, are we going to be able to put it in because it comes
out this year. He was asking about that and while he was talking
to them, they said oh, by the way, we have had a call that you have


138

more than one area of the resident’s health status. And a copy of
this assessment form is going to be attached to your written testi-
mony. In addition, every 3 months, the nurse must complete a 2
page assessment which covers 77 separate items.

it takes a team of health professionals approximately 8 hours to
complete a full assessment on each resident, and this does not in-
clude the time to write the actual plan of care. Compare the time
needed to complete the nursing home assessment with, Dr. Ganske,
a comprehensive physical that a patient receives in a doctor's office.
The Pederally mandated assessment forces the staff to consider
every possible health issue, whether or not the resident has a com-
plaint in this area or whether the nurse has observed that it may
be an area of concern. For example, every resident must be checked
for fecal impaction every quarter, without regard for medical signs
or symptoms.

Although originally intended to make the assessment process
more thorough, the Federal Government has succeeded in taking
away nursing judgment, physician involvement and the time with
the actual resident, and has replaced it with full time nurses writ-
ing assessments and care plans to satisfy a survey team.

No one, not advocates, families, residents or staff believe that pa-
perwork improves the quality of care—no one except the bureau-
crats. Our dedicated, caring staff needs to spend time with resi-
dents instead of with government manuals and forms. By returning
the responsibility of developing standards of care to the State,
health professionals who are actually providing the care, can work
with the State inspection agencies to develop an assessment system
that is both comprehensible and usable. Please return the care of
Towa’s long-term care residents to those most qualified to deter-
mine their needs—the residents, their families and the health care
team.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Mr. GANSKE. Let me just make a comment and maybe ask for a
comment.

I think this goes back to what the theme of this entire hearing
is about. I mean, I know that you feel that regulations are nec-
essary in the nursing home industry.

Ms. Pope. Yes, I do.

Mr. GANSKE. The nursing home industry is probably one of the
most heavily regulated industries in the country. We really need to
get into that, with some of the other examples we had today. Your
example of needing to check everybody for a fecal impaction is an
anecdote.

Ms. Popr. Yes.

Mr. GANSKE. I agree with the testimony from a gentlelady a little
while ago that it is not a good thing to legislate on anecdotes. In
my opinion, the purpose of the hearing today is to send up some
red flags. Unfortunately, what we have had from Congress over the
last 30 years has been legislation based on anecdote. That is why
we are trying to change the debate. It is very difficult to determine
the validity of statistics, or in some cases to tell how widespread
an anecdote is. But I believe that we should at least attempt to im-
prove the science and the facts behind the legislation that we do


49

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER IS A PROJECT THAT
OUR DRAINAGE DISTRICT COMMENCED IN 1994, BUT STILL DOES
NOT HAVE FULL REGULATORY CLEARANCE TO PERFORM. THE
PROJECT INVOLVES REMOVING SILTATION FROM DRAINAGE
DITCHES WHICH WERE SILTED IN DURING THE 1993 FLOOD. THIS
IS NECESSARY SO THAT THESE DITCHES CAN FUNCTION AS THEY
WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO DO. WE
STILL DO NOT HAVE CLEARANCE TO COMMENCE OUR PROJECT.
THESE SPECIFIC AREAS WE HAVE HAD EXTREME PROBLEMS IN
DEALING WITH INVOLVE THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT OF 1969 OR NEPA AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF
1977 AND THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS THEREUNDER.

THE PROCESS TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED LACKS
COMMON SENSE AND CONSISTENCY. IN MANY INSTANCES THE
PEOPLE WE ARE DEALING WITH ARE UNINFORMED AND DO NOT
TAKE THE TIME TO CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH THE FACTS.
THEY ARE UNWILLING TO COME TO OUR PROJECT SITE TO
UNDERSTAND OUR PROBLEMS. EVEN AS ELECTED PUBLIC
OFFICIALS IN THE STATE OF IOWA, WE FEEL AS THOUGH WE
HAVE VERY LITTLE LOCAL CONTROL OVER THE THINGS THAT
HAPPEN IN OUR DISTRICT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE.
SUBJECT TO THE DICTATES OF THESE REGULATORY AGENCIES.

IN MANY CASES WE ARE SUBJECT TO INCONSISTENT, NON-
EXISTENT, OR HARD TO UNDERSTAND RULES AND MYSTIFIED
WHEN THESE RULES ARE UNEVENLY APPLIED TO US. WE DEAL
WITH FEDERAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES WHO APPEAR TO BE
MORE INTERESTED IN PUSHING THEIR OWN AGENDAS THAN
THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC GOOD. SOMETIMES THESE PEOPLE
FORGET WHO THEY ARE WORKING FOR AND SEEM MORE
INTERESTED IN CREATING PROBLEMS THAN SOLVING THEM.

IN OUR PERMIT PROCESS WE HAVE RUN INTO INDIVIDUALS


18

Page Two.
dollars are necessary to solve problems that could be solved by
simple, practical solutions.

Let me relate our community's situation in regard to ADA and
how the problems could have been solved. Two years ago, every
city owned facility, our middle school, and our Post Office were
all out of ADA compliance. Not much had been done to march
toward the ADA deadlines.

Last year the Post Office spent about $100,000 to build a
ramping system to its front door. I've never seen anyone use it,
however, I know that my 95 year old grandmother used it once.

She went back to the steps because all of the winding made her
dizzy and the extra distance she had to walk seemed a much
greater task to her than just walking up the steps.

At present, we have three public buildings which need to be
brought into compliance. The first is our City Hall. This
multi-level structure was built in 1931, It houses our Council
Chambers, Magistrate's Office, City Clerk's Office, Police
Station, and Fire Station. It also is utilized regularly by our
Boy Scout Troop, a Senior Citizen's Card Club, and a host of
other users. The facility was built to last another hundred
years, is extremely efficient for our needs, and requires only
modest maintenance.

We recently received a cost analysis of what it would take
to bring City Hall into "bare bones" compliance with ADA. The
price tag was $200,000. The appraised value of the building is

less than $100,000. We have a very thoughtful and conservative


CITY OF URBANDALE

In order to conform with the ADA, City staff members conducted
a self-evaluation of the City's facilities during 1992. This
survey identified various items in each facility that could
limit access to programs or activities, The self-evaluation
also determined the accessibility of sidewalks and parks.
Additionally, the survey identified corrective measures for
any facility, sidewalk or park found to be in non-compliance.
It took staff members several months to prepare this

page document. The plan's scope and Length was driven by

the liability concerns introduced through the ADA.

Tha implementation of the City's ADA plan has been somewhat
costly. For instance, it was determined that over 550 new
sidewalk ramps were needed to meet the requirements of the
ADA. The estimated cost for the construction of these ramps
was $235,000. In order to integrate this work into the City's
Capital Improvements Program, it was necessary to phase the
Tamp construction over a few years. However, the ADA provided
little flexibility for cities in this regard. Under the
provisions of the Act, the ramps were to be constructed by
July, 1995. Obviously, this deadline did not recognize che
magnitude or expense of such a project in a municipality.
Although the intent of the legislation is sound, the implementation
regulations are onerous.

It has also been difficult for the City to receive reliable
advice regarding the implementation of the ADA. In fact,

experts in the field have disagreed over the interpretation

of the Act, creating additional apprehension and nervousness

for City officials. For instance, the City's administrative
offices are housed in a building that was constructed in

1961. In order to comply with the federal government's previous
accessibility requirements (Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973) a chair lift was installed in City Hall. However,
there has been some discussion that this chair lift does

not meet the accessibility requirements of the ADA. If the

City were required to install an elevator, the cost would

be approximately $70,000. Since the City plans to eventually
move city hall to a new location, it does not appear that

the construction of an elevator would be a wise use of tax
money. Additionally, it is not even clear if such an improvement
is required by the ADA, unless the building is remodeled.

Again, the City not been able to obtain reliable information
regarding this requirement.

In total, it is estimated that the City's compliance efforts
with the ADA will cost $275,000, excluding any significant
building modifications. Cities throughout Iowa have experienced
similar costs. For instance, the City of Carroll estimates

that over $205,000 will be needed to address the sidewalk

ramp requirements of the ADA. The City of Iowa City has
allocated $100,000 annually for its sidewalk ramp program.


43

‘Let me further explain some of my frustrations: | -

Let's start with the Department of Transportation - 1 own 4 delivery trucks. J
cannot drive any of them unless { go through « bunch of “red tape” and baloney to receive
aCDL. Regulations bave himped a little company that travels no further than SO miles
from home into 2 bunch of regulations and laws set for interstate transportation. Who - or
what persons - actually design and make up this type of regulation? What do they intend

to accomplish? Obviously, it is a group of people NOT javolved in trying to run a small
business. I would suggest that these rules come from an agency “created” by the
goverriment to “create more government jobs or further justify the ones they have”. The
DOT can- at will - stop ay trucks with no regard to my work schedule or payroll- pull:
them over for inspection for anywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour and nit pick very minor
potential problems from s dim brake light to being over weight. Tharo is no due process -
the DOT officer is the sole judge and jury. We drive very good equipment, 1991 - 1995
‘trucks. Its a simple business decision - if we drive junk, they will break down and the
repair time costs money, If that contimcs I would be out of business and I dont fee! I
need government to tell me how to maintain my tucks.

Let's talk about OSHA. The threat of all business owners. ] would suggest that the
agency is set up all wrong. OSHA should be there to help us! Their whole purpose
should act be to put me out of business with fines and shutdowns but OSHA should be
‘structured to conse in and tel me what it would take to help me operate more safely and
meet the needs of my employees and business. Shutting me down only burts my
‘employees, my customers, they town and ultimately my company. If this makes sense - I
‘am 8 taxpayer, part of which funds OSHA. Why shoulda’ they be geared to help me
succeed rather than to shut me down? It is beyond my comprehension - I would suggest
that any government operation should have “help” as their motio - not penalty or

Let me give you one example of an OSHA inspection. Upon inspection, my inspector
cited me for not having a tollet paper “bolder” in or restroom. ‘od we sre paying money

for this type of inspection?

Let's move onto the EPA - IDNR. As you may be sware, this last year the IDNR has been.
trying to saddie us with # “mega form” to control air emissions. The potential to emit - 1
‘ask you to look at this form that had to be filled out (Which incidentally the IDNR.
disposed of the following year) I am no engineer and did not bave the expertite or time to
Teara all of the things involved to do this so we had to hire socncone to fill this
encyclopedia cut. (Display forms)

‘My question to you is who - I mean what actus) person because it had to start with
sorpeone - who could have possibly dreamed up such a needless regulation. This person
obviously did not uke the time to research the difference between potential to emit and
actual emissions, they did not think through the ramifications of the emissions which come
from an operation such as mine and to put it bluntly - one regulation does not fir sll.


129

was done was reduced about 60 percent. When you have got guys
that are getting paid by what they put on, this is an extremely
large number.

My fellow employees and I were extremely irritated and we all
threatened to quit. I have been working for 5 years and I have
never experienced the slipping, tripping, falling the way that I did
while I was wearing these safety harnesses.

I came here today to give you an employee’s opinion rather than
always hearing from the owners that are always griping about it.
I agree a safety system is necessary and I hope we can find @ sys-
tem that provides sufficient safety and still allows us to do our job
adequately with as little resistance to mobility as possible. 1 think
my biggest question is, for me, they say OSHA is supposed to be
protecting the employee, making sure the employer is making it
safe for you to work. My question is if the employers offer it to you,
should you not have the right to refuse it as long as it is there, so
that it is easier for you to work. I was just wondering if that would
be possible.

Thank you. That is all I have.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you. That is a great question, because
right now many employers get sued—or get fined, I am sorry, by
OSHA because they have guards on certain equipment and some-
times employees, to make their job easier, will actually remove the
guards or not use them, or some of the other safety equipment. The
employer is placed in a very difficult situation. But I think—I
would appreciate it if you would spend some time and send us a
letter if you have got some better ideas because this is a serious
issue and we all are concerned, and particularly in Des Moines
after apparently a construction worker fell to his death yesterday,
what we can do that would make sense that would work to hel
Protect people. And I admire you guys who want to go up in high
places.

Mr. LATHAM. Just one question, how far off the ground is it that
you are required now to——

Mr. ORIATT. I think they recently did change it, it was I believe
6 feet and I think it has went up, I think it is—I am guessing, like
15-16 feet now I believe. And the same thing over a relatively low
pitch also.

Mr. LaTHAM. I did not know whether that had been changed. I
know I had a lot of complaints not too long ago when it went to
6 feet. I mean you pass that going through the —

Mr. OrIATT. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Steve.

Bill Beutke.

STATEMENT OF BILL BEUTKE

Mr. BEUTKE. Yes. My name is Bill Beutke and I am with Zeneca
Ag Products. We employee about 200 people in the State of lowa—
Council Bluffs, Coon Rapids, Slater, Muscatine and Des Moines. I
live in Ankemy, and I wanted to address the committee and thank
them for coming out and listening to people in Iowa, and particu-
larly Mr. Ganske for his help in getting the government to look at
science-based decisions when it comes to some of these regulations.


113

natural childbirth and owning your own small business. [Laugh-
ter.

Ms. ONnsTAT. Owning your own business is still the American
dream and small businesses, including farmers, are the backbone
of the Nation and Iowa. Because of the confidentiality of my com-
plainants, I cannot fe into specifics at this time, and I encourage
you to contact me if you have any questions. But I also urge you
to change the system so my job can be eliminated some day.

And Representative Ganske, for your information, Santa Claus
brought us something for Christmas, and the author of the book
will be speaking at the National Ombudsmen’s Conference in St.
Louis in May.

Thank you.

Mr. McINTOSH. Ms. Herschman, I want to commend you on one
thing. I have never heard anybody who has an official office come
to Congress and ask us to do the steps it would take to abolish it.
And I appreciate that. [Laughter.]

Ms. HERSCHMAN. You are welcome. Part of that is selfish, I do
not like getting up in the morning that early. Thank you. [Laugh-
ter.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you. We look forward to working with you
in the future, we will take you up on your invitation to get more
information.

Our next witness, No. 13, has been a witness before this commit-
tee in Washington, Ms. Nancy Donley.

STATEMENT OF NANCY DONLEY

Ms. DONLEY. Starting off with No. 13 is really starting off on a
terrific foot.

I am Nancy Donley and I am from Chicago. I took a day off work
today specifically when I heard about this hearing being conducted,
and my concern that of the three panels, that consumers were not
being represented at all. I was not invited today, I just invited my-
self. Congressman MclIntosh knows I do that from time to time.

I want to speak today—I am here representing the voice of 4,000
people who died this past year from meat and poultry contami-
nants and for the 5 million that have been sick this past year just
again from meat and poultry contaminants. Most personally, I am
here as the voice for my dead child, my G-year-old son, Alex, who
died 2¥2 years ago from E. coli 015787 poisoning. Just as a matter
of statistics here, just in the State of lowa this past year, 54 docu-
mented, known cases of E. coli poisoning have occurred.

1 want to be the first to say I do not view regulatory reform as
necessarily a horrible, horrible thing. There are areas that frankly
need some work. There are silly things. But deregulation is not the
answer. I am very, very concerned with the direction that the bill,
as it is written now, that what is going to happen is that it is going
to deregulate the public’s health and safety. We have heard many
things today about cost-benefit and risk analysis and what happens
in this bill is that this has been a part of legislation, any sort of
regulation that has been proposed before. This stuff is already
being done. This new bill is calling for very excessive and imprac-
tical and unavailable information to make determinations of what


122

OSHA officers around the country, but they failed their ultimate
mission of saving lives.

In 1984, they confiscated $182 million from the American people.
Perhaps OSHA should be changed to IRS.

I submit to you that OSHA, from my point of view, having grown
up under the Nazi and Communist tyranny, reminded me of some
bad dreams. I felt that 1 was under arrest when OSHA came on
my premises. In my eyes, OSHA is nothing but a terrorist organi-
zation. It took the constitutional rights away from us, it mandates
fines for no reason at all, and it is also testimony that when the
government fails, it resorts to tyranny. OSHA is an arm of the gov-
ernment.

I think that we should keep in mind that the country belongs to
the American people and not to the regulators and I am requesting
that OSHA be abolished and the regulators impeached.

Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Saul.

I would say to all of the witnesses that we have, and if you ever
watch C-SPAN you will see Members stand up and at the end of
their remarks, they will say “Mr. Chairman, could I revise and ex-
tend my remarks.” You will all have the opportunity if you want
to send in written comments to become a part of the transcript of
this hearing. I will keep that open, and I do not know if they can
still hear me, for 10 business days. So if you will mail something
in, just mail it in care of the Government Reform Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, 20515, we will get it. So if you would like written
comments put into the record of this hearing, just send them in.
Or you can send them in care of Congressman Ganske or Congress-
man Latham as well.

And I am not sure where we are on the number here, but if you
would just tell me.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH COFFMAN

Mr. COFFMAN. No. 21. My name is Kenneth Coffman and I am
the Cass County engineer in western Iowa, and I had a few things
that I wanted to bring up about over-burdensome and unnecessary
regulations.

‘e just spent $9,000 this year on analysis for scour for our
bridges. This is supposedly a one-time thing but probably will de-
velop into more. We have 243 bridges in the rolling terrain of Cass
County and the analysis brought up that there were possibly 14
bridges that would need some Sind of looking at in the event of a
flood. The sad part of it is that we had to pay someone $9,000 to
tell people what we already knew. There are certain bridges we
look at after we get high water and those bridges were all on that
particular list.

Some of those, by the way, are on dirt roads with five vehicles
per day and the highest on some paved roads with about 1,000 ve-
hicles per day. So in terms of people, there is not that very many.

The other thing that I would like to talk quickly about is the
functional classification system. We have two maps for functional
classification system. That defines which roads are on the Federal
system, which roads are on the local system, which roads are on


127

the public that they should accept carcinogenic compounds in their
water, air, food.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Now let me use the power of the gavel, it is my turn.

Do you know there are more carcinogenic materials in a straw-
berry than there are in a lot of the things that you were talking
about? When you say there is no acceptable level, that means you
cannot eat or drink anything.

Ms. NENSTADT. I said science has determined, yes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. You said science has determined, but you de-
nied the facts that have been brought together by a congressional
study—you said well those facts do not matter. You know, this is
the difficult thing we have because if facts do not matter, what
does matter?

Ms. NEnsTapT. I do not think I ever said that facts did not mat-
ter.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, listen, thank you very much. There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the acceptable level of risk
is in this country.

h The next person on our list I believe is John Murphy. Is John
ere:

STATEMENT OF JOHN MURPHY

Mr. Murpuy. I am No. 25.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. John, you are No. 25, and you are up.

Mr. Murpuy. OK. John L. Murphy, I am an Iowa boy and I spent
80 years in the sales—medical field. And the absence of the medi-
cal field in this forum today indicates the fact that it is the most
subsidized industry in the United States today.

Farmers have been criticized for years for being subsidized but
the medical industry truly has been. And it all started with a 1,200
page book sent out in August 1964, that I took the time, as I wait-
ed for administrators, to read it. All the administrators laughed
about that book and what it would cost. Many of them thought that
the highest a hospital room rate would go—as an example, I was
paid basically on what percentage of the Fospital room cost I would
get, so I was very familiar with that figure. In Iowa in 1964, if we
averaged every hospital in the State of Iowa, it was $22.50 a day.
Many people, including Neal Smith, said that it would never pos-
sibly go over $100 a day. I wrote to him and I suggested that it
would be $100 a day within 10 years if the 10 year phase in pro-
gram was instituted. I had many gentlemen’s bets with administra-
tors that knew that I loved to look at that book, because I had the
time to go through it step-by-step.

If that book was reviewed by administrators that are very famil-
iar with true costs, even though I retired 6 years ago, the savings
that we are looking for could come about because many, many of
the things that were discussed today are part of the hospital cli-
mate. Total waste in paperwork, time—as an example, when I
started in the industry, an administrator wore many hats. Because
of that book, an administrator has many vice presidents today and
most of them are doing administrative functions as a result.


151

selves. So the cost per ride, they said it would be far cheaper for
us to send two people out in a cab to pick them up, than buy these
very expensive buses. And yet, because of Federal mandates, they
feel compelled to spend literally hundreds and hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars in that community.

This is the kind of thing where I think we do have to work to-
gether with the folks in the disability community, as well as city
managers and others to try and come up with solutions to the prob-
lem. But at the same time, cost-effective solutions.

Ms. EASLER. Right. I do not think a lot of them are asking the
persons that are disabled for the information that they need. We
do not want the world, we are not asking for it on a silver platter,
not everybody is. But I would be willing to give any information or
any help that I can on any of the ADA accessibility type of things
and do it in a way that is not—I do not want to put anybody out
of business, I do not want to put the government out of business,
you know, because they have got to put so much money into things.
But they have to look at giving me and anybody else that wants
to go someplace, you know, bus, whatever, the same rights as they
would give anybody else.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Good. Any other questions or comments?

[No response.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Barbara, you were the last name on our list
and not the least, and we appreciate you spending the time and
your patience to be here.

Is there anyone else who would like to offer any last comments?

(No response.]}

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Congressman Ganske.

Mr. GANSKE. I just want to thank the people at the end of the
list for staying.

I think this has been a very interesting hearing. I appreciate the
fact that we could have this in Iowa. I think it facilitates people
like yourself being able to come and testify before Congress.

Ms. EASLER. And it would have been almost impossible right now
to get to Washington.

Mr. GANSKE. Absolutely.

Ms. EASLER. It was nice to know that this was happening, to be
able to get here.

Mr. GANSKE. I thank you for coming.

Ms. EASLER. Thank you.

Mr. GANSKE. And everybody else too.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank Congressman Ganske for
helping to put this meeting together and all of his staff. But par-
ticularly I want to thank our House stenographer who has not only
had to sit here for the entire length of time, but has dutifully taken
down every single word of the testimony.

J would remind those who are still present that we do have the
potential to revise and extend your remarks. If you have particular
comments, concerns, additional items you want inserted in the offi-
cial record of this hearing, please send them to us within the next
2 weeks and we will make certain that they are.

Also, I would also share with you we get lots of mail and we do
read the mail, we do pay attention to the mail. So if you have par-
ticular concerns, you can always write either in care of the commit-




CONTENTS

Hearing held on February 9, 1996 ..
Statement of:
‘Aprahamian, Vic
Berhow, Trent
Betts, Douglas
Beutke, Bil
Brentnall, Dale ..
‘arl, Larry ..
Christensen,
Christiansen, Ralp!
Coffman, Kenneth .
Dickey, Mark
Donley, Nancy
Eagle, Chip .
Easler, Barba1
Gaudineer, Cecilia
Gray, Joe A., mayor, city of Manson, 1A; Fletcher Reel, mayor, city
of Missouri Valley, IA; Dean Torreson, ‘city administrator, Atlantic,
IA; L.D. McMullen, CEO and general manager, Des Moines Water
Works, Des Moines, IA; Robert Layton, city manager, city of Urbandale,
1A; and Thomas Hanafan, mayor, city of Council Bluffs, IA ..
Groenendyk, Mark
Herschman, Kristi
Herscovici, Saul
Houston, John
Houston, Wes, human resources manager, Johnson Machine Works, In
Loren Duchman, consultant, James B. Meehan, PE, PC; and Don Beal,

president, Beal Development Corp _
Jo id Whiton, owner, Whiton Feed and Milling

nson, Harvey, farmer; Davi
Co.; Richard Siegle, farmer; Howard Alff, farmer; Bill Willis, Soil Con-
ind Royal “Curly” Holtz, farmer .

servation Consultant
Juckette, Thoma:
Klua, Darrell R
Kroeger, David
Kuennen, Keith
Loeckle, Kathy
Logan, Bill ...
Means, Sharon
Murphy, John
Nenstadt, Debbie .
O'Neill, James R
Onstat, Nancy
Oriatt, Steve
Pate, Paul, secretary of state, State of lowa
Pope, Carla ..
Redman, Chet
Rice, Dick
Rowan, Don
Skeers, Jerome M
Swanson, Edward
Till-Retz, Roberta

Beal, Don, president, Beal Development Corp., prepared statement of
Betts, Douglas, prepared statement of .

ab


145

My name is Darrell Klua, I am the director of environmental af-
fairs for Rockwell International. And I would like to thank the U.S.
Congress and U.S. EPA for terrific job security. [Laughter.]

Today, I have been listening to all the testimony of this negative
government, this nonproactive, nonflexibility. You opened your ini-
tial comments talking about common sense in enforcement and
they do not fit into the same sentence, or very seldom do they.

T came forward today because I want to share with you some
positive issues that I have had with the U.S. EPA. In 1982, the
Superfund Act contacted Rockwell International as to its activity of
disposing of any hazardous materials in and around before they
were declared hazardous materials. Rockwell International an-
swered the response and said that in fact they did have a landfill
in the Cedar Rapids area. In 1990, the EPA finally got around to
reviewing the site and in 1992, Rockwell entered into a consent
order ‘under Superfund with Region VII of the U.S. EPA.

When you get into Superfund, it is written by a bunch of law-
yers, it is very documented, very regimental and one criticism of
applying Superfund right now is nothing ever happens because it
always winds up in court. We were fortunate and asked if we
would like to participate in a pilot project called the Superfund Ac-
celerated Cleanup Model. It is sponsored as a pilot program by the
U.S. EPA. Rockwell decided to join the pilot project. We, as well as
a team of EPA officials, EPA consultants, and Rockwell staff, spent
83 days locked up in a room doing brainstorming sessions on how
to remediate this site, set forth a program, went out and did some
initial investigations, got back together, did some more discussions.
Basically what happened was that we took a 10-year process and
turned it into a 2-year project.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Did you not have to spend 75 percent of the
money on lawyers?

Mr. Kuuva. Right. And they are all crying—they are all crying.

To date, in the spring of 1995, our remediation activities started.
We are anticipating that we will have the site cleaned up before
we would have even reached an agreement under the old
Superfund.

T guess the intent that I would have, and I would support being
involved in sharing with anyone else the positive actions that we
have had. I think that the actions and the results that we have ini-
tiated with region VII could be utilized in other places within EPA.
As a customer, and I was a customer of EPA in this particular in-
stance, I found them extremely flexible with a lot of common
sense—I would like to use the words common sense. It is still a
legal document but it is something that we have actually worked
out together. It does work.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you. This is excellent testimony. In fact,
I would love to have you send me a letter. 1 do not need a moun-
tain of documents, but just describing it. This is I think exactly
what Ms. Christensen earlier talked about.

Mr. Kuua. Exactly.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And this is the kind of thing we want to see
more of and we are trying to figure out how to change this para-
digm from where we are now, enforcing the letter of the law, to
keeping the peace. We all want to clean up—but I did not use that


106

ample, they have a builder out and the builder needs their money,
they come into the bank, they know they have been approved, and
we tell them you are going to have to wait 3 days. They say the
builder is there, he has got his material, he is demanding his
money. In some cases, I have written my check and he has already
deposited it, I have got problems—you are right. The right of re-
scission should be waived.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Houston. You bet.

Mr. MCINTOSH. The next three people would be Mr. Bill Logan,
Cecilia Gaudineer and Edward Swanson. If you can line up there,
Karen will show you where to stand. Mr. Logan.

STATEMENT OF LARRY CARL

Mr. CarRL. No, ny name is Larry Carl, I was part of the first
three that you called.

Mr. MCINTOsH. Great.

Mr. Cart. My name is Larry Carl, I am the executive director
of the Iowa Chiropractic Society, the professional association rep-
resenting the chiropractic profession in the State of Iowa. Our staff
has already made available to the subcommittee staff a publication
from the Cato Institute under their banner Policy Analysis, entitled
“The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers or Limiting Com-
petition?” What I would like to do is read a quick excerpt from
that.

Another approach to limiting health care competition used when licensure and
scope of practice restrictions fail is to restrict or limit substitute providers’ services
from payment by government health programs. That approach has been used, for
example, to limit access to chiropractic treatment. Medicare regulations prohibit re-
imbursement to chiropractors for services they are licensed to perform in all 50
states. The federal reimbursement regulations appear not to be based on empirica}
evidence. In fact, the federal government's Agency for Health Care Policy and Re-
search recently released national guidelines that recommends spinal manipulation
as a safe and cost-effective treatment for acute back pain.

This document represents one of the most outstanding presen-
tations of the current U.S. health care industry and the restrictive
Federal regulations resulting in less patient choice and higher
prices for consumers.

On the subject of Medicare Part B and its administration in
Iowa, the Jowa Chiropractic Society board of directors has asked
me to present the committee with a sampling of the administrative
nightmare that faces the chiropractic profession. The one that I
want to key in on is the prepayment screen system. This automatic
system has resulted in an unprecedented number of denied chiro-
practic claims based on medical necessity. The problem with the
prepayment screen is that doctors’ records have not been submitted
at this early point in the process and therefore that automated pre-
payment screen system has no objective criteria to judge medical
necessity of the denied claim. The doctor is then presented with a
difficult system of denied claim review, which generally results
only in both physician and Medicare recipient frustration.

IASD, the Federal carrier that administers the Health Care Fi-
nancing Administration’s rules may argue that it is simply exercis-
ing good oversight by auditing claims at the prepayment level. In
truth, the review process is so discriminating it has been decided


66

you may not remember this either, but when Congressman Latham
and Congressman Ganske were elected to the Congress, I do not
know what the price exactly was here in this part of Iowa, but up
where I came from, the price at the elevator for a bushel of corn
was $1.89. I checked on my way down, it was $3.24. Coincidence?
Maybe. (Laughter.}

Mr. McInTosu. I like you Gil, taking credit for the freshman
class, that is great.

Let me now call on Mr. Tom Latham.

Mr. LaTHAM. I thank the chairman.

I do not know where to start on this issue as far as the wetlands.

I want to say, Harvey, I have known you and your family for
years and years, and it is simply outrageous what is being done to
you. And Curly, we go back to college—had a little more hair back
then, it actually was curly at that time. [Laughter.]

But I think we have kind of got to lay out a little bit the impor-
tance of this issue. In Iowa, we have 25 percent of the prime farm-
land in the world—not in the United States, but in the world. In
1993, with the rains that we had, the floods, virtually all of that
prime farmland could have been determined by a bureaucrat to be
a permanent wetland, and taken out of production on a permanent
basis. I mean, this is where we have gone.

I have been going back, as we go through the farm bill debate,
trying to get some common sense into the wetland provision. And
reading the intent in the record back in 1985, you have people who
are now totally on the other side of this issue like Senator Daschle,
the minority leader who, in the record, talks about it has never
been the intent to have prior converted farmland taken out of pro-
duction, that maybe there was a reason that a wetland should have
some relationship to water, which it does not have to have.

d when we talk about giving relief in agriculture in wetlands,
they talk about are you going to do away with 60 percent of the
wetlands in the country. The fact of the matter is, by definition,
they increased it by 60 percent to begin with, which never was a
wetland.

And Curly and Harvey, I know you have the same situation I do.
My family has been on a farm for over 105 years, it has tile that
was hand dug at the turn of the century and put into production
to feed the country. And now a bureaucrat is coming in and saying
that you can no longer farm that, because they have gone way be-
yond the scope and the intent of the law. But I will tell you how
difficult it is to bring some common sense, if anyone saw an edi-
torial in the Des Moines Register last August, you know, where we
were called the filthy five because we tried to insert some common
sense into the whole argument. I am not going, to get into calling
names, that is their business apparently, ut things like that are
not constructive and you can tell maybe that I have very strong
feelings on this issue.

But I will just ask anyone here—in addition to serving on Agri-
culture, I serve on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee there, and
we are trying to address problems with the EPA as far as wet-
lands. And the point was made earlier, it is not just, you know, the
USDA, we are dealing with Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engi-


52

QUR DRAINAGE DITCHES DRAIN WATER FROM UPLAND AND SEEP WATER FROM
‘TWO RIVERS (THE IOWA & MISSISSIPPI) TO A LARGR BODY OF WATER CALLED
‘THE SLOUGH. THE WATER FROM THE SLOUGH IS THEN PUMPED INTO THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

‘THE 1993 FLOOD FILLED THE DITCHES WITH SOIL AND ALSO FROM PRESSURE
FROM HIGH RIVERS, PUSHED THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCHES AND SLOUGH
UPWARD. THAT STOPPED THE WATER FROM FLOWING INTO THE SLOUGH SO WE
COULD PUMP IT OUT INTO THE RIVER. AT THIS TIME, ALL DITCHES HAVE
BEEN CLEANED EXCEPT THE 1.1 MILBS OF SLOUGH.

WE TRIED SEVERAL OTHER PLANS TO DREDGE THIS SLOUGH BUT WAS STOPPED
BY ENVIRONMENTAL RULES, SUCH AS PUTTING ON WETLANDS.

WE ARE RENTING 47 ACRES OF PRIME FARM LAND TO CAST THE DREDGE
MATERIAL THAT WE REMOVE. HOWSVER, BEFORE DOING THIS WE HAD TO HIRE
AN ARCHEOLOGIST, WHICH WE DID. WE WERE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY ALL
MACHINERY NEEDED To SEE IF THERE WERE ANY ARTIFACTS ON THIS LAND.
AFTER WEEKS OF SEARCHING ONLY ONE ARTIFACT WAS FOUND.

WE ARE NOW REQUIRED TO LEAVE 5 ACRES. NO MATERIAL MAY BE APPLIED
TO THIS PIECE OF LAND AND NOTHING CAN BE DRIVEN ON IT. (NOT EVEN A
PICK-UP). ALSO WE MUST BUILD A 10 FOOT LEVEE AROUND THIS 5 ACRES.
WS ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO GET THE MACHINERY TO THE
REMAINING ACRES TO BUILD THE LEVEE WHEN WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE
ON THE THIS GROUND.

THE COST IS GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER.

2 YBARS HAVE PAST AND WE STILL DON’T HAVE THIS SLOUGH PUMPED OUT SO
THAT WE CAN KEEP THE 17000 ACRES OF PRIME FARM LAND IN PRODUCTION
AS WELL AS PROTECT A TOWN OF 500.

LETS HAVE COMMON SENSE!


101

Mr. Gray. No, we have two wells.

Mr. LaTHAM. Two wells.

Mr, Gray. Right.

Mr. LaTHAM. I know in some—and I come from a town of 168
people and that type of cost goes up greatly per person and espe-
cially a town like mine, you simply cannot afford to—you cannot
raise taxes enough in my home town to pay for the testing that is
going on. And I really appreciate your testimony here.

I will conclude. I know we have a lot of people that want to tes-
tify before the committee.

0 thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. Latham.

Thank all of you for joining us today. I really appreciated your
comments and your testimony, it will be very helpful to us in look-
ing at a lot of these regulatory problems. I know you have got busy
schedules and a lot of responsibilities, so thank you for coming and
joining us.

At this point, we are going to switch over to our open microphone
section. Mildred Webber, who is the staff director, was taking
names from People who wanted to testify and I think some people
have indicated they had to leave or left, but I am going to call out
the names who are stil] on the list, and if you could come forward
to the mic there. What I will do is call out three or four names at
a time so we can have some people on deck as we get ready to go
forward. We did have a total of about 48 people signing up, so I
am going to ask that everybody keep their remarks to 3 minutes.
If you have additional materials that you would like us to include
in the record, we will definitely do that. And I will also be asking
everybody to state your name for the record.

If I could ask everybody in the room who wants to participate or
thinks they might want to participate in the open microphone sec-
tion to please stand and I will administer the oath en masse. Just
about everybody, that is great.

{Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, I appreciate that. Let the record
show that each of the forthcoming witnesses answered in the af-
firmative. I hope you caught that, recorder over there. [Laughter.]

David, is he back—someone will come up and give you a timing
on the 3 minutes to help, and I do apologize, I know that some-
times interrupts, but that will let us hear from everybody if we
keep going.

The first person on the list who is still here is Mr. Douglas Betts.
Then Larry Carl, John Houston and Bill Logan. If you guys could
come forward and if you get out of line, that is fine, just state your
name for the mic. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS BETTS

Mr. BETTS. Thank you.

My name is Douglas Betts, I am an engineer. I have two points
I would like to make to this committee.

First is the tremendous burden of regulatory paperwork that has
been placed on businesses and small communities by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the OSHA groups. And the second
is the distrust that industry has grown to have for these agencies.


26

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Mr. Duchman, I appreciate that. And
I want to followup with you on that suggestion because it is a very
good one.

I neglected to ask the panel to be sworn in before giving your of-
ficial testimony. I assume you have no problem with being sworn
in now and having it apply to the written remarks you have given
us. If you could join me and please rise.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you. Let the record show each of the wit-
nesses answered in the affirmative. Mr. Clinger, who is the full
committee chairman, has asked as a policy that we swear in all
witnesses regardless, so do not think that it is picking on you or
any of the other witnesses here.

is was very moving testimony and I think very compelling in
the argument that we need to redirect our focus, particularly on
safety regulations, and seek greater cooperation, a greater ability
to work with businesses toward a common goal of providing a safe
workplace for the workers.

One of the things that I wanted to follow up on was a comment
you made toward the end of your testimony, Mr. Duchman, that
without that—and using the old standards and imposing unneces-
sary costs, that it did Jead to job losses. That has been one of the
things that I have wanted to focus on because oftentimes the de-
bate about regulations can become fairly dry in the context, but
when you start showing people how it affects the ability to be com-
petitive in the world marketplace and keep good jobs and allow em-
ployers to expand jobs—and. I was wondering if you could expand
on that in any regard or any examples that you might be familiar
with in your work as a consultant with some of these businesses.

Mr. DUCHMAN. Yes. We deal with a lot of companies, and pri-
marily smaller companies that do not have full-time safety staff
members. And in the instance that I mentioned, this company was
in the process of using a solvent-based paint, and its competitors,
in order to comply with EPA and other rules and regulations, had
switched to a latex paint, and the competitors’ product was unsafe
due to some chemical characteristics of the paint. And this com-
pany that we were working with, when OSHA cited them and said
in order to come in compliance with us, you must increase the ven-
tilation in your system. Well, increasing the ventilation in this sys-
tem would not have allowed them to produce the quality product
that they needed, and in fact they would have had to produce an
inferior and possibly unsafe product.

What we are looking at is a company in this case that employed
about 30 people in a very competitive market. If they would have
been forced to comply with the OSHA rules and regulations, at
least the way OSHA interpreted them, they would have literally
been out of business, they could not have competed.

We run into many instances when companies are forced—and
again usually smaller companies—if they do incidental painting,
which the rules and regulations make reference to incidental paint-
ing—OSHA would say that if you do any painting at all, according
to some of the rules and regulations, you must have a paint booth,
and along with this paint booth, you must have the fire protection
to go along with it, you must store your paints outside this room


22

will continue. People will continue to be injured, will continue to
injure themselves and fatalities will still occur.

'e recommend that equal access to justice be made a real rem-
edy for the abuses of the system. Each and every cited employer
should be reimbursed when OSHA has been proved wrong. Any bu-
reaucratic excuse involving reasonable cause to cite or any other
term describing an excuse for inappropriate OSHA action must be
eliminated.

Exemption from programmed inspections provides little relief
from the bureaucracy. We have seen no programmed inspections
among our clients for several years. Our clients have, however, ex-
perienced numerous ex-employee or employee complaints as venge-
ance for imagined slights.

OSHA prevails and continues abuses simply because they can.
The private sector cannot afford to fight for what is right with lim-
ited funds, and yes, the costs of unreasonable OS! compliance
does cost jobs.

Give us equal access to justice.

We further suggest that Corrections Day elimination of over-bur-
densome regulations include 29 CFR 1910, Occupational Safety and
Health Standards for General Industry. A majority of these stand-
ards were adopted from then-existing National Consensus Stand-
ards. OSHA adopted them, never revised them, and continues to
attempt to apply these outdated standards.

Few people realize that these National Consensus Standards
were never written to become regulations and have other special
characteristics. The most important of these is that they are sub-
ject to regular review and revision or validation. A revised, current
standard replaces the previous version. OSHA persists in attempt-
ing to apply. National Consensus Standards which are nearly half
a century old in some instances.

More than three-fourths of the 732 pages of 29 CFR 1910 could
be eliminated and the current version of the National Consensus
Standards used.

Please contact me or my office if we can further explain or clarify
these comments. We encourage and support you in your efforts at
regulatory reform.

ank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duchman follows:]


105

STATEMENT OF JOHN HOUSTON

Mr. Houston. I want to briefly talk about some of the bankin;
issues. There are so many of them, I cannot possibly talk about all
of them, but I have four real quick ones I will simply summarize.

One is the prohibition of collection of data concerning applicants
for a loan based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin. 1
want to talk briefly about the right of rescission, the Home Mort-
gage Disclosure Act and the Truth in Savings Act.

The Federal Reserve has suggested that we waive regulation B,
which would allow and enforce banks to collect data on all types
of loans, not just HMDA loans. I strongly oppose this. To collect in-
formation on someone’s religion or national origin has no basis
whatsoever to the quality of the loan and as of now, no final deci-
sion has been made. I ask that you do what you can to stop the
Federal Reserve from allowing this information to be released.

On the second Point, the right of rescission. 1 have been in bank-
ing 22 years, and not one of my customers has exercised the right
of rescission, but many of them have been very angry that they
have to wait an additional 3 days to get their loan proceeds after
they have signed the documentation. Frequently they do not know
this. For example, if they order a car and it comes in early, they
go to the dealer, they write the check, they come to the bank and
we tell them no, you have to wait 3 days for the right of rescission.
They are very unhappy and it is time that we end the right of re-
scission.

The third Point J want to talk about is the Home Mortgage Dis-
closure Act [HMDA]. A lot of studies have been made in Washing-
ton and the attempt on that was to prove that banks discriminate
against lenders. Many studies have been done and it has been
proven that HMDA does not prove discrimination whatsoever in
credit analysis. And I think it is time that we end HMDA, end this
expensive collection of data, 7, 8, 10 people in every bank have to
spend a great deal of time collecting this kind of foolish data, that
has nothing to do with the quality of the loan.

And the final issue is the Truth in Savings Act. That should be
done away with entirely as soon as possible. Since the regulation
came into effect June 21, 1993, there have been three proposals by
the Federal Reserve saying that their formula was wrong, they
need to change it, and each time banks have overwhelmingly re-
sponded as well as the public, that this is ridiculous and terribly
costly to the public. Truth in Savings does not give good direction
to the public as far as what is the best account for them to study.
I have a copy of our disclosure which is extremely difficult to read.
You would need—I need a magnifying glass to read it—it is two
pages long and every time they change, we have to print another
25,000 of these. I have read this twice and I am the compliance of-
ficer, | doubt whether any of our customers have read it at all.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you, I appreciate that. I also heard that
the rescission makes most of your customers frustrated because
they have to wait an extra 3 days before they can close on their
home.

Mr. Houston. That is correct, if it is a refinance that is correct,
they have to wait 3 days to get their funds, as well as, say for ex-


34

plus several threatening phone calls which ordered us to break all
the tile and return the property to its pre-project condition. If we
did not abide by their whims and orders, they would fine us
$25,000 per day.

Last spring, the local ASCS office requested that we write them
a letter stating exactly how we were farming the 82 acres of our
son’s property, of which he is not receiving any Government pay-
ments. If we did not respond with a written statement, they would
not let us sign up for the 1995 farm program. We thought every-
thing was finally settled until a fellow by the name of Martin
Dahlke, who is representing Mr. Charles Gillum, Office of Inspector
General of the USDA, walked into our local bank in Forest City,
IA and told them that the USDA was going to subpoena all of our
family’s bank records clear back to 1992. Rreediess to say, we all
about had heart attacks and you would have also been upset if the
Government did this to you and your family and your only crime
was trying to protect your personal property and farming your own
land and paying property taxes, interest and principal.

The subpoena notice has accused us of fraud. They have been to
the county courthouse plus other places of business, and they know
absolutely everything about our business for the last 4 years, try-
ing to justify their actions. All of this nonsense and we as property
owners have absolutely not had one thing to say about anything
they are doing to us as a family.

‘his terrible assault on our lives and property will eventually
cause death in our family because of all the stress on us. Again,
all of you would also respond the same way if the Government stole
your property by designation. It is no wonder I had liver cancer
and many sleepless nights. My wife and son have ulcers and our
daughter is on the verge of anorexia because of the many un-
knowns of what will happen to us in the future in this fiasco.

lam sorry, I cannot finish.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]


115

We get bombarded. There is not a day that goes by that we do
not have a new regulation proposal that hits my desk. I have not
conversed with any of the others and I do not want to be repeti-
tious, just a little more emphasis.

The first thing on my list was abolish Reg D, Truth in Savings.
It has caused huge amounts of paperwork for opening new ac-
counts, renewal notices with special language for renewing those
time deposits, created special interest rate sheets with special lan-
guage for all interest-bearing accounts. It has been really costly.

fe have spent thousands and thousands of dollars for all these
forms, training, periodic update training. Customers really do not
care about all these costly disclosures. And customers really do not
understand APY—neither do some other people. They just want to
know how much that monthly, that quarterly interest check is
going to be. And we are still getting technical amendments to cor-
rect ith in Savings, they are still coming down. So there are still
some problems. Let us just abolish it. They still have not got it
right.

The next point I would like to make, and the young lady from
Indianola, I did not know she was going to mention this, but I have
been in banking for 27 years and all we needed to do to close a real
estate loan 20 years ago was just a little note, mortgage and a little
disclosure statement and we were all done, and just a little promise
to pay. Now that customer has to sign a series of papers like she
reiterated, a pile of—a series of papers at application and then a

eat big pile at closing. And I have had customers at all three
Banks that have just, you know, reiterated that it is ridiculous the
number of documents that have to be signed, either for refinancin;
or for purchase. And we have to keep these loan officers update
all the time in training whenever any new regulations come down.

(Bell rings.]

Mr. McINTOSH. Go ahead and summarize.

Mr. REpDMAN. There is a new regulation coming out April 1, 1996
on wire transfer recordkeeping rules that is going to cause a lot of

aperwork, really cumbersome. We cannot spend $8,000 to $10,000
for a software program to monitor this thing and keep it in compli-
ance. Let us reassess that student loan program, the Federal direct
lending. We could not make it fly the first time back in the sixties
and seventies because they did not train and did not have an effec-
tive communications program.

There is not a level playing field and we make four or five other
points here. But let us leave it in the hands of the experts who
have made it a success up to now.

Mr. McINTosH. If you could please go ahead and submit the
notes you have, we will make sure they are included. Thank you
very much.

No. 16.

STATEMENT OF RALPH CHRISTIANSEN

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. My name is Ralph Christiansen. I am a coun-
ty supervisor representing Pocahontas County and I am also the
president of the Iowa Drainage District Association. I want to ex-
press my gratitude for being here today and I want to commend
you gentlemen on the knowledge you have of our wetlands problem.


136

discriminated against, making our property worth much less. I
think the 1995 farm bill does need some reform. Why should pay-
ments be the same regardless of prices? I draw no government sub-
sidies, yet no one worries about the livestock man.

Please take a look at NAFTA. Cattle imports are up from Mexico
50 percent, while exports to Mexico are down 50 percent, besides
the disease problems that are coming into our country from Mexico.
Cattle pouring in from Canada and Mexico are distressing the cat-
tle market, yet packing plants enjoyed record profits. I feel that the
real reason for NAFTA was for big business —

(Bell rings.]

Mr. O’NEILL. I just have a little more, if J could finish. To build
factories in Mexico for cheap labor and export the products back to
the United States. The long-term effect will be devastating for the
United States in the future.

To address the young lady who lost her son, my sympathy is with
her, my heart goes out to her. I would like to see more inspection
of imported meats coming into the United States. I had the pleas-
ure of taking some Australians to the IBP plant at Denison 2 years
ago and was very impressed with their cleanliness. I feel a lot of
our problem—not all of it—does come from some of the foreign
meats that come in here without as much inspection as ours.

In summary, I only ask that you take a look at this unfair re-
striction which vastly takes away the value of our land, just be-
cause of the history of land dictates this. Every operation changes.
Do not make us operate under restrictions of the farm program as
it is.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. O’Neill. Any questions?

(No response.]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Vic Aprahamian, thank you and welcome to the
subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF VIC APRAHAMIAN

Mr. APRAHAMIAN. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I
am Vic Aprahamian and IJ am a partner in Homestead Farms, Inc.
We package vegetable oils.

Recently we have been successful in providing the Federal Gov-
ernment oil packed in 8 ounce bottles. We have two refineries in
Des Moines which provide vegetable oil, and there has been a new
change in the small business set-aside procurement which says
that the domestic side, which is about 7 million pounds per month
that the Federal Government buys, it used to be 50 percent set
aside and 50 percent nonset aside. And we were participating in
the nonset aside. We are a small company, with only five people.
Now the new regulation is that 100 percent has to be set aside,
which means that they can never buy oil from the two refineries
that we have here, to provide let us say oil that goes to Sioux City
or Kansas City. There are only three small refineries in the United
States that qualify to be small and that is one in Kentucky, one
in Oklahoma and one in Rhode Island. Because of this change, we
totally cannot participate in this program.

The second thing, because of this change, the prices have gone
up because we have seen, the last bid that they came out, the suc-


58

Other ridiculous policies applied to farmed wetlands are calling
velvet leaf, smart weed and foxtail wetland vegetation when any
farmer knows they grow prolifically anywhere. [Laughter.]

Another—and Tom recognizes this—is that pressurized tile lines
from miles away—

(Bell rings.]

Mr. HOLTz. I have just got a couple more sentences.

Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, go ahead and please summarize.

Mr. Ho.tz. Another is that pressurized tile lines from miles
away are making some areas much wetter than they naturally
would be.

Not just farmers, but all Americans, are the losers as we cut pro-
ductivity and lose our Constitutional freedoms. We have been pray-
ing to our Almighty God for justice. Hopefully, those prayers are
being answered today.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtz follows:]


112

Current RESPA and Reg C requirements require many disclo-
sures to be given to the borrower at application day and others
within 3 days of application. This set of papers includes early
Truth in Lending disclosures which is the most confusing document
to a consumer. They are always uneasy to sign this document along
with the other eight or nine required pre-disclosures that need to
be given under the RESPA regulations. These include good faith es-
timates of closing costs, transfer of servicing disclosures, adjustable
rate program disclosures, notice of right to receive a copy of ap-
praisal, equal credit opportunity notices, settlement cost booklet,
adjustable rate booklet, required use notices and controlled busi-
ness notices. These are just pre-disclosures given at time of appli-
cation.

Then to close a loan, you basically duplicate all the same infor-
mation on a note, mortgage and HUD settlement statement along
with a final Truth in Lending form. To obtain a loan, our borrowers
have had to at least sign 20 forms, many of which are duplication
of the very same information.

In my opinion, all of these required forms have not strengthened
our loan portfolio or the credit quality of our borrowers in any way.
They have not even served the purpose of protecting the borrower
by making them feel better informed. Instead, they have only
served to confuse, frustrate and cost the borrower more fees to ob-
tain a mortgage loan. Today, the average fee, which used to be only
a few hundred dollars, is now closer to $2,000 per loan. I do not
think the average consumer can afford any more of this protection.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, we appreciate that and I look for-
ward to including that entire list in our hearing record.

Our next witness is No. 12.

Ms. HERSCHMAN. Kristi Herschman. I did not think my writing
was that bad.

Mr. McINTOSH. My contacts need correcting.

STATEMENT OF KRISTI HERSCHMAN

Ms. HERSCHMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My
name is Kristi Herschman, I am a born and bred Jowan, raised in
northwest Iowa and for the last 17 years my husband and my fam-
ily have lived in Winterset. And you should all know where

‘interset is.

I work for the Iowa Citizens Aid Ombudsmen’s office. Our office
provides free confidential services to anyone with a complaint
against State and local government in Iowa. Many of the State and
local regulations we get complaints about are a direct result of Fed-
eral legislation. My official title is assistant for environmental af-
fairs. I started work November 13, 1995.

The need for my job is testimony to how difficult environmental
regulations have become for small businesses. Having been a small
business owner in both the ag and environmental sector for the last
18 years and having dealt with increasingly difficult and question-
able environmental regulations over the last 18 years and being
the mother of three children, I can say with some experience that
two of the most over-rated activities of the United States today are


76

Testimony Before the
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform & Oversight

by

The Honorable W. Fletcher Reel
Mayor of Missouri Valley, Iowa

February 9, 1996
Hotel Fort Des Moines
Des Moines, Iowa


28

knowledge of or access to, would tell them maybe a safer way to
do it or at least a different way than what is cited in the book.

Mr. McINTOosH. So it is possible if they tried to follow the OSHA
standards, they actually would be doing something that is less safe
than maybe the modern standard would arrive at.

Mr. DUCHMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McInrosH. OK. Thank you very much, all of you, for your
testimony. Let me now turn to Congressman Ganske, if you have
got any questions for our panel.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I suspect that throughout the testimony today, we are going to
hear a lot of examples of interpretations of the regulations that
most of us here in the room would say are unreasonable and lack
common sense—everywhere from a $400 fine for finding a wrapper
in a first aid kit, to some of the examples you have given today.

I do not think the purpose, of this committee is to bash bureau-
crats and regulators. These are our neighbors, these are people
that are trying to do their job. Were we in the same situation I
think that they were in, there but for the grace of God go we, be-
cause they are dealing with mandates and job descriptions that
have come from Washington.

So I am going to ask this panel the same question that I am
going to ask every panel. And if you will bear with me for a
minute, I want to read a paragraph from this book, “The Death of
Common Sense.” I would like to get some opinions from you. For
the other people that are going to testify, you may be thinking
about this. What we are §ealing with is regulators from these
agencies who have been given very detailed descriptions of how to
interpret the rules and the laws that Congress has passed—9 feet
of it every single year. And they are prescribed to do that by law.
I want you to think about this for a minute.

Do we want to allow those regulators more leeway in the inter-
pretation of achieving the goals that all of us want to get to; i.e.,
safety in the workplace, safe products, safe food, et cetera. And let
me just read this for you: Making rules as precise as possible has
become almost a religious tenet in Washington. “Only precise spe-
cific guidelines,” said Herbert Kaufman of the Brookings Institute
in 1977, “can assure common treatment of all like cases.” So you
need to think about this. If you give a regulator more leeway to en-
able him to become a facilitator and a helper without very, very
precise, specific guidelines, is there a chance that there could be
abuse in the interpretations?

“Only precise, specific guidelines can assure common treatment
of all like cases. Otherwise,” he said, “programs lose all consist-
ency”. “As nearly as possibly”, another scholar wrote, “legal rules
should be self-executing, and aimed toward solutions that can be
carried into effect without discretionary administration.”

T really think that this is the crux of the type of decisionmaking
that Congress is going to have to deal with. I would like some brief
comments from you. Common throughout your testimony, was the
feeling that I am getting that when a regulator comes in, they are
being a policeman instead of a facilitator and a helper. Would you
like to see our Government regulators have more flexibility and lee-


ADI

As we all know local governments are covered by the
Americans with Disability Act and are responsible for making
all of our programs and activities accessible to persons with
disabilities.

Title 11 of ADA prohibits public entities from
discriminating against or excluding people from programs,
services or activities on the basis of disability. Title II
falls into four broad areas (1) general non discrimination, (2)
equally effective communication, (3) program accessibility, and
(4) employment ~ ADA utilizes a three-pronged definition of
disability. For purposes of coverage under ADA, a person with
a disability is defined as an individual who: (1) has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities; or (2) has a record or history of
such an impairment; or (3) is perceived or regarded as having
such an impairment. It also needs to be noted that local
governments receiving federal funds are required to meet
similar requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, which prohibits discrimination in all entities that
receive federal financial assistance. However, because of the
fact that Section 504 has been in effect for 23 years design
criteria and regulation have made some changes obsolete.

Considering how local government must meet ADA
requirements in responding to physical barrier, the following
example reflect action that the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa
has taken or will take over the next ten years.

Public Works Department - ADA Handicapped Ramps

Due to the ADA regulations requiring cities to install
all intersections with handicapped ramps, the City of Council
Bluffs has been forced to forego its normal sidewalk inspection
and repair program and channel its resources and monies to the

ramp program.

As a result, the City completed an inventory of all
intersections in 1993 and has now established a program of
reconstruction/replacement. Areas of high pedestrian traffic
have been identified and targeted for new ramps. This program,
which is now costing an estimated $150,000 per year, will
continue until every intersection has been addressed.

The Department has estimated that it will take ten years
to complete this program.

Equal to the curb replacement program is the cost to
install ramps in new or recontruction of streets. Total cost
for both programs over 10 years is estimated at $3.5 million.


9

vide a safe workplace for our employees and keep an environ-
mentally sound facility.

In 1995, I spent almost $26,000 on safety. Much of it was on
mandated safety meetings and safety training. The OSHA regula-
tions have from the very beginning been burdensome to me. Much
of my time is spent in studying the regulations, writing the re-
quired written programs, revising them from year to year instead
of actually being out in the shop where the work is being done and
seeing that the people are working safely. In 1994, two of the top
five most cited standards in Iowa were paperwork violations, which
has nothing to do with my employees working safe out in the shop.

I have had an Iowa OSHA inspector come to our facility several
times in recent years. Each time, a record search was done at the
start of the inspection and each time my required written programs
were found to be in order and the records found to be in order. So
the inspector signed off on the inspection and left. I know my luck
is not poing to hold out forever. When a complete inspection is
done, the intention of Iowa OSHA will be with finding items of
non-compliance and setting fines. While I will try to cooperate with
the inspector, I know there will be confrontation and there will be
litigation. My safety records shows I am trying to provide a safe
workplace for our employees.

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Houston, excuse me for interrupting. Mildred
is telling me that it is difficult to hear you in the back. I do not
know if it is possible to just take the microphone and maybe speak
into it.

Mr. Houston. Is that better?

Mr. MCINTOSH. Yes.

Mr. Houston. OK.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you.

Mr. Houston. I have a problem understanding why OSHA could
not come with the intent of trying to help me instead of trying to
confront me. The Consultation Division of lowa OSHA will come
but they will only come by invitation. Why do I have to invite them
to come help? Why can they not come with the intent of helping
me when they come for an inspection?

In 1995, I spent almost $30,000 trying to comply with the EPA
regulations. The number and extent of regulations in the environ-
mental area is absolutely amazing. Really, I find it hard to believe
there are people that can actually think up some of these regula-
tions. There is no way as a small employer that I can try to comply
with the Clean Air Act, the Storm Water Discharge, RCRA, SARA
and whatever else is out there without the help of an environ-
mental attorney and an environmental engineer. This, of course,
runs the cost of compliance up considerably. The Clean Air Act is
about the most bizarre thing I have ever tried to understand. EPA,
I think, is having a great deal of difficulty understanding it them-
selves. Fortunately for me, every deadline they have set has been
pushed back because they are having difficulty trying to figure it
out.

There are three—well at least a couple of experiences that I
would like to relate to you, specific situations. While at a seminar
on the Clean Air Act amendments, the DNR was explaining how
to figure total potential emissions. In using a spray paint gun as


77

Page One.

ADA Parting With Common Sense:
A small Town's story

Mr, Chairman, Members of Congress, Distinguished
Colleagues, Ladies, and Gentlemen, it is an honor for me to
testify before you today to tell you the story of our small town
and how the American Disabilities Act has unfairly altered our
civic priorities. It has forced us to look past money which
could have been spent on critical needs.

Missouri Valley is a town of about 3,000 people situated in
the Loess Hills of Western Iowa. It is a good town with good
people. when Thomas Jefferson envisioned the agrarian/
egalitarian communities which would make America great, he
envisioned Missouri valley. In Missouri valley the poorest kid
in town can be best friends with the richest kid in town and no
one takes notice. By the same token, the best athlete in town
can be best friends with a handicapped kid, and likewise no one
takes notice. In Missouri Valley we take care of each other.

At present, I share a house with a good friend who has been
handicapped since birth. I am personally familiar with the
challenges he faces every day and every night. And I understand
his difficulties go well beyond the physical barriers he faces.

Missouri Valley's annual budget is less than two million
dollars, as is its bonding capacity. We don't have the working
margins necessary to bring our facilities into compliance, and

the people simply don't understand why hundreds of thousands of


83

gone through a redirection process within EPA to be able to make
it more reasonable and sensible and responsible to meet the health
needs of the drinking water consumer. However, in being able to
do that in a reasonable, sensible, responsible way, changes need to
be made in the legislation. Otherwise, they will not be able to fulfill
their mission of the redirection.

To give you some examples, at the Des Moines Water Works, we
test currently for the 23 contaminants that are regulated—I am
sorry, the 83 contaminants that are regulated. And of those 83, we
only find 5. And those are pesticides, trihalomethanes, nitrates,
and a few other things that happen to come along the way. Now
you say, why on earth do you have to do all of this, and we have
to do it every year even though we do not find 78 of the contami-
nants that are presently regulated. That cost is somewhere in ex-
cess of $350,000 per year of our operating costs. We made an in-
vestment of $750,000 for a new laboratory and $1 million worth of
equipment to be able to monitor for things that we never find.

That is very common across the Nation as a whole and it results
in a cost that is being distributed to our customers for an investiga-
tion and hunting trip for things that we cannot find.

The 104th Congress has this opportunity to correct the problem.
Senate bill 1316, that passed unanimously in the Senate, reauthor-
ized the Safe Drinking Water Act to correct some of the problems
that are currently in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The corrections
that they put in is they removed the 25 contaminants every 3 years
and basically have directed EPA to establish standards only when
they find them occurring in drinking water, and when they pose a
significant risk to health. We think that both of those things are

sitive and need to be implemented in a revision of the Safe
Brinking Water Act. The other thing that is also included in the
reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act going through the
104th Congress is to set standards based on a risk-benefit formula.
The idea is that why should you invest billions of dollars in the
treatment equipment to save $100,000 worth of risk? Those bene-
fits are also extremely important. A perfect example of that is the
city of New York that is looking at having to Build $14 billion
worth of filtration system at minimal benefit of health to the con-
sumers. In fact, it is such a big risk to the city of New York that
they have made the determination not to do it as a community, but
to give it to private business because they cannot raise the money
to be able to do it. These are significant issues that are impacting
the industry that I think can be easily corrected—at least from my
chair, with changes in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In closing, I really, for the Des Moines Water Works, really again
appreciate the opportunity to be able to give you these comments
about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Again, 1 want to compliment
you for coming out to Iowa and doing the hearing, and to tell you
that the water industry is truly seriously dedicated to providing
safe, clean, and affordable water to its customers.

Mr. McIntTosH. Thank < you very much, Mr. McMullen, and dur-
ing our questioning period, I want to ask you about an issue that
was in the paper a few years back on Cryptosporidium and some
of the regulatory issues relating to that.


5

sider using this successful model to restructure other Federal man-
dated programs. In Iowa, we are working together in an effort to
have jobs environment that promotes a partnership between gov-
ernment and business. I believe that government can wear the
white hat and with your help and the work we are going to do here
in Iowa, we will accomplish that.

I thank you for the opportunity to visit with you and hope your
stay here is very positive and very beneficial. Thank you.

Mr. McINtTosH. Thank you very much, Secretary Pate. I appre-
ciate your good work and hard efforts to tackle this problem here
in Iowa. It sets a good example for what can be done nationally.

Mr. Pate. Thank you.

Mr. McINTosH. Let me now call on our host, my colleague who
is a good friend. I must say the folks in Des Moines should be very
pleased and proud of Greg’s work on your behalf and the freshman
class and the Republican Congress. Thank you for helping us orga-
nize this hearing and share with us your thoughts, Greg, on thi
problem of regulatory relief.

Mr. GANSKE. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Secretary of
State had to leave, but I did want to thank him also.

We need to have cooperation between the Federal Government,
the State government and the local governments. Just a few days
ago in Washington something unprecedented happened. The Na-
tion’s Governors, both Republicans and Democrats, unanimously
agreed on a welfare and Medicaid reform package in consultation
with Congress. We will be dealing with that in the next couple of
weeks. That is the type of cooperation we need to have in the envi-
ronmental and the regulatory areas as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this important
hearing. It is important because Iowans will get a chance to give
their testimony without having to go to Washington.

Nationally, the cost of complying with Federal mandates has sky-
rocketed. Estimates of the cost to the economy in 1994 is in the
range of, conservatively, $300 billion, possibly as much as $6,000
for every household in the United States. I do not think we should
be misunderstood. Government regulations are necessary. We need
to have clean water, we need to have clean air, we need to have
good conservation practices. Nobody argues with that. There is
definitely a function for Government. The question, in some cases
is, have we lost common sense? Have we gone too far? This hearing
will give Iowans an opportunity to give some specific cases.

I think this is an educational process for us and for you. If any-
one in the audience has not read—I am not usually in the habit
of recommending reading material like the Speaker of the House
does. But there is a very good book called “The Death of Common
Sense” by Philip Howard that I think everybody should read who
is interested in this area.

There are three general areas where I think we need to look. We
need to look at the issue of unfunded Federal mandates in which
State and local governments are forced to pay to implement the
rules that we send from Washington. This is a little bit like—the
mayor of Columbus once remarked that an unfunded mandate is
like having Uncle Sam take us out to dinner, order our food and


111

Not included in the estimates are the costs incurred by requiring
all service technicians and managers have a commercial drivers li-
cense, as the gentleman from the farm panel also said. These costs
include 2 year physicals, drug and alcohol testing, random drug
and alcohol testing throughout the year of 50 percent of the com-
pany. Direct costs and lost production time taken up with all that
increased regulation is substantial to the private sector.

In summary, the Hazardous Material Transportation Act was in-
tended to regulate large interstate carriers of hazardous materials,
such as truck lines and railroads and airlines that transport across
State lines. The regulations impose a monumental burden on small
businesses which only incidentally transport small quantities of
hazardous materials.

We would suggest that the small quantity carriers, trucks under
10,000 pounds, be excluded from these regulations.

Quite frankly, just real simply, we will go to get our guys li-
cense—because we drive pickups now—and even the people at DOT
are like what are you guys doing in here for a commercial drivers
license, even they do not know that, you know, we need to have
these types of licenses.

Mr. McINTosu. It does not make sense to them either.

Mr. Swanson. It really does not.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you.

Mr. SwANSON. Thank you. I appreciate your time and appreciate
you listening.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you for coming forward.

The next three people I am going to call forward are Nancy
Onstat, Kristi Herschman and Nancy Donley. Nancy, welcome,
good to see you again.

STATEMENT OF NANCY ONSTAT

Ms. OnsTaT. I am Nancy Onstat, a real estate loan officer with
Homeland Bank in Indianola.

I started with the bank in 1980 and had no idea what I was in
for in the lending area. The seventies were the days of the good ole
boy lending era with very limited paperwork requirements and also
limited cost to the consumer to obtain a home mortgage loan.

In the late seventies, a real estate note was a real simple prom-
ise to pay on a half sheet document that basically stated the repay-
ment terms and collateral for the loan. The mortgage was a one-
page instrument signed and recorded, and the total fee averaged
only a few hundred dollars to get a mortgage loan.

"Then came the eighties and updates and new regulations. The
revision of the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act and the updated appraisal requirements was the
onset of paperwork to complete a mortgage loan. What used to take
very little time and expense has exploded into a paperwork night-
mare for lenders and homeowners.

It has become so complicated that most compliance agencies are
producing long matrix guides as to which forms are required with
each type of loan by purpose or by collateral. We occasionally find
discrepancies in these guides as the regulations are confusing and
interpreted in different ways.


81

Mr. TorRESON. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I will relate a situ-
ation that currently exists in the community of Atlantic, LA, a com-
munity of 7,500 people, and cite the public policies that contribute
to our inability to resolve the situation.

In late November 1995, we had a fire on Main Street, a newly
renovated Main Street, in Atlantic. It destroyed 75 frontage feet of
buildings comprising three businesses. Each building was insured
for full value plus $5,000 each for cleanup of debris after the fire.
This $5,000 figure is standard for a 25 frontage foot building. Also,
one renter had available $5,000 for cleanup of debris. That is a
total of $20,000.

The property owners decided to pool their money and hire some-
one to clean up. Bids ranged from $45,000 to over $100,000. The
low bid did not include disconnection of utilities, which would add
another $3,000 or so. An adjacent building owner, whose building
was smoke-damaged, was interested in constructing a new building
in the 75-foot space, but was willing to pay only $15,000 at most
for the vacant land after all debris was cleaned up. This left more
than a $12,000 gap that would have to be absorbed by the three
property owners. Thus, over 2 months later, the situation is still
stalemated with no resolution apparent. The businessman who was
interested in the site has lost interest and is looking to build else-
where. He perceives that neither the timing nor the economics are
in his favor. Our concern—how many years before someone else is
willing to build there.

How does this situation relate to this congressional subcommit-
tee? Federal law and regulations provide a framework of standards
and expectations for State governments in the area of landfills and
solid waste reduction. The State governments then pass statutes
and adopt regulations that directly affect local governments. The
State of Iowa mandates that each landfill reduce its waste stream,
a 25 percent reduction by 1995 and a goal of 50 percent reduction
by the year 2000.

The only way to reach these reduction levels is by recycling,
which is done to one extent or another by virtually every jurisdic-
tion in the State and across the Nation.

Recycling is expensive in and of itself, and the fact that it re-
duces the waste stream into the landfill pushes up landfill fees to
pay fixed costs. It is an upward spiraling cycle of costs. The Cass
County landfill, of which the city of Atlantic is part owner, started
a recycling program 4 years ago. During that period of time, land-
fill fees have increased from $7 per ton to $60 per ton. Much of this
increase is attributable to their reduced waste stream. In addition,
the net cost of recycling each year is about $100,000. This is consid-
erable for a county of 15,000 people.

In a 1995 book titled “Time to Dump Recycling” by three profes-
sors from Carnegie-Mellon University, the authors contend that re-
cycling is both extremely uneconomical and detrimental to the en-
vironment. The book cites the fluctuation of demand for recycled
glass, plastic, metal, and newsprint. According to a recent study,
the price of a typical set of recyclable materials dropped from $107
per ton in 1988 to $44 per ton 4 years later.


107

by the carrier that telephone reviews to correct simple clerical er-
rors is time-consuming for denied chiropractic claims.

The Iowa Chiropractic Society requests that this subcommittee
set a high priority for review of the Health Care Financing Admin-
istration regulations which allow, or worst yet, promote the con-
tinuing administrative nightmare perpetuated by HCFA regula-
tions.

On a personal note, Congressman McIntosh, I applaud you for
utilizing the Boy Scout sign to administer the oath this morning.
Thank you.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you. It is an old habit I guess. Thank you
Mr. Carl, I appreciate your testimony. One of the great things
about our freshman class is that we now actually have three doc-
tors in Congress, and I know they have experienced some of the
same frustrations that you do in your profession. I understand
there are also some questions about discrepancy in how they are
administered. But one of them is Dr. Ganske. Did you have any-
thing?

Mr. GANSKE. Sure. My understanding is that the IRS currently
allows chiropractic care expenses as a deduction, as a regular part
of health care, is that not correct?

Mr. CarL. I believe that to be true.

Mr. GANSKE. OK. And the reason that I asked that is that under
the Medicare reform bill that Congress has just passed, there is an
option for medical savings accounts. Basically, allowable health ex-

enses would be the same as what the IRS allows. So there would
be a provision in the Medicare reform bill that will at least par-
tially address some of your concerns.

Mr. Car. Thank you.

Mr. GANSKE. I will talk to you more about that later.

Mr. McINTOoSH. That is an interesting point. And I know we saw
it in those other regs, but the point that Mr. Ganske is making is
if we get out of this regulatory morass on reimbursement and go
to these savings accounts, then we solve a lot of the problems.

Mr. GANSKE. There is no question that the way that HCFA, the
Health Care Financing Administration, has basically tried to con-
trol cost has been through price control and overwhelming bureau-
cratic control. So, the question in terms of moderating health care
inflation is not whether choices are going to be made. Choices will
be made either by a government bureaucrat, by a health insurance
executive or by a patient. What we are trying to do is to devise
some options for patients in the Medicare Program that would
allow them more flexibility in terms of their choosing which of
those options they would have.

Mr. Car. Thank you.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mr. Bill Logan.

STATEMENT OF BILL LOGAN

Mr. Locaw. Yes, that is correct.

Gentlemen of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, my name is Bill Logan.
I come to you today as the president of a $140 million bank on the
banks of the Mississippi in Keokuk, [A—some of you might not


92

Mr. HaNaFAN. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to join
you today.

I am going to deal with the Fair Labor Standards Act. I have
some written comments on the ADA.

On February 19, 1995, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case
of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority made the
body of law known as the Fair Tabor Standards Act of 1938 appli-
cable to the State and local governments. At face, the immediate
ramifications to Council Bluffs did not appear overwhelming, since
we already were paying minimum wage, overtime and complied
with all the child labor relations contained within the act. Never-
theless, the problems associated with taking legislation originally
intended for the private sector and applying it to government func-
tions were quick to surface.

Because the application of the law was new to State and local
governments, problems began to arise immediately in the public
safety sector that require varying work schedules. Section 7(K) of
the law recognizes the different work schedules required of law en-
forcement and fire personnel. Unfortunately, the treatment of am-
bulance personnel who work at the same fire station during the
same work schedules was left open to interpretation.

Section 7(K) allows cities to pay overtime after 53 hours of work
rather than the 40 hours specified for non—7(K) jobs. Most cities,
including Council Bluffs, have paid ambulance personnel under the
7(K) exemption. Numerous Federal District Court decisions have
attempted to further clarify application of this section with the end
result of a myriad of conflicting results. Despite the fact that this
law has been applicable to State and local governments since 1986,
it was not until the Supreme Court case of December 1994 that
this was resolved. In the case of Chicago v. Alex, the Supreme
Court let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that found that
paramedics are not subject to the 7(K) exemption because their du-
ties are not related to fire protection or law enforcement activities.

What does this mean to Council Bluffs? Our city will be subjected
to paying current and past ambulance employees 2 years of back
wages for overtime after 40 hours rather than 53. This is estimated
to cost the city in excess of $65,000. We will now have to begin pay-
ing ambulance personnel who work 24 hour shifts overtime after
40 hours. This means that they will be paid more than the fire-
fighters they work with.

As a result of this decision, as well as the inability of Congress
to provide corrective legislation to this issue, we must now reassess
the manner in which we provide this service—if we are going to
continue providing the service. This is yet another example of a
well-intended legislation evolving into an uncontrollable myriad of
regulations that eventually results in a detrimental effect on the
very services that benefit the citizens we represent.

Thank you.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Hanafan follows:]


2
could not be used as a criteria to have that land reclassified as "prior con-
verted" farmland, Many of these so called "farmed wetlands" have numerous
strings of lateral tile of spacings from 50 to 120 feet apart. It is impos-
sible for such fields to ever act as wetlands with so much drainage capacity.

Probably the most important point is that it was never the intent of Con-
gress to regulate farmland as wetland. The report of House Committee on
Agriculture (page 419) dated July 31, 1985, the report of Senate Committee
on Agriculture (pages 303 - 304) dated September 30, 1985, and published
interin rules dated June 27, 1986 verify that the intent of the bill was to
give jurisdiction over true wetland, not cropland. The final rules, pub-
lished September 17, 1987, added jurisdiction over farmed wetland. The pub-
lic never had a chance to comment to this great expansion of jurisdiction.
The U.S.D.A. has no legal farm bill jurisdiction over so-called "farmed wet-
land" under production prior to December 23, 1985. This is especially true
for wetland, previousiy drained.

Congress’ intent that if drainage had commenced on farmland or if substan-

tual funds were spent, it would be considered as “prior converted" farmland
not as wetland. Bureaucrats have used administrative discretion to change
‘the intent of Congress to gain control over farmland by calling it wetland,
Yet the public has never been allowed to comment on the change. In addition
to violating the federal law, it is no doubt a violation of landowners' rights
guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Labeling farmland as wetland decreases
its value and qualifies the action as a Constitutional taking.

Not a single page of the National Food Security Act Manual, its 7 ammend-
nents, 15 Jowa annendnents, or any part of the 3rd adition have been sub-
jected to administrative rulemaking and public input. Since the idea of
farmed wetland was added to the regulatory mix after the interim rules of

the farm bill were published in the Federal Register, it, by lay, would have

to have teen subjected to public input, Thus the N.R.C.S, is in violation of


56

being committed by the Federal agency that is charged with the
first line of enforcement.

On June 13, 1993, I was forced to retire by coercion, and exten-
sive documentation has been assembled to verify that fact also.

I want to call your attention to the Des Moines Register and
what it has said in the past about this very issue. There was an
editorial where they talked about conservation compliance, and
they referred to the problem as erosion ticket-fixing. A Register fea-
ture article on January 30, 1994, that talked about my particular
situation, the State conservationist at that time was quoted as say-
ing that Willis was following the letter of the law instead of the
spirit of the law.

The man is saying stop.

Mr. McINTOosH. If you could go ahead and summarize the rest of
it, but I need to keep going so we can hear everybody.

Mr. WILLIS. Well, without going on, I do have some suggestions
and I will make it real guick. 1 have four.

Whenever I bring you a complaint, or when any of my employees
ever brought me a complaint, I had one thing that I always asked
for—bring me an idea for improvement or suggestion or change.
And I have four ideas for change.

First, eliminate the practice of making agency heads or adminis-
trators, whatever you want to call them, political appointees.

Second, grant serious prosecution authority to such agencies of
the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board
and OIG, where they have documented evidence that they can
prosecute without political intervention.

Third, prosecute offenders of waste, fraud and abuse to the maxi-
mum extent of the law. And I guarantee you, the word will get out
throughout the whole entire Government work force, real fast.

Fourth, and last, streamline the Whistleblower Protection Act so
that it can move quickly and effectively when documented viola-
tions are identified and people like myself will not have to wait 2¥%
years to accomplish nothing, and people like Bob Kreuger in Mis-
souri will not have to spend 8¥2 years doing the same.

Thank you.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Willis, I appreciate
you coming today and sharing your experience and would like to
explore it with you further when we are at the questioning period.
Your whole testimony will be put into the record so it will be made
available for the committee.

Our final witness on this panel is Mr. Royal Holtz. They indicate
to me you go by the nickname Curly. Welcome and please share
your testimony with us.

Mr. Houtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the in-
vitation to come here today. I recognize at least one old friend and
farmer in the Congress there and I know that Tom is working to
get these things alleviated.

The former Soil Conservation Service, now called the NRCS, has
been referred to as the farmer’s friend. They still claim to be the
farmer's friend, but in practice, they have become productive agri-
culture’s worst nightmare.

Since 1993, the State office of the NRCS has embarked on poli-
cies that are so restrictive they have practically eliminated any im-


18

STATEMENT OF
DONALD M. BEAL, JR.

PRESIDENT, BEAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
7166 DAKOTA DRIVE
WEST DES MOINES, IOWA 50266

BEFORE THE

SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

Iwant to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on the important issue
of regulatory reform. I would also like to thank and congratulate all of you for your efforts in
passing comprehensive regulatory reform legislation earlier this year, and would hope that
the US. Senate will feel compelled to mirror the action of the House of Representatives.

I would like to highlight several issues of interest to the buildirg industry in an attempt
to illustrate how excessive regulations on a number of levels can have an adverse effect on the
cost of housing.

The Regulatory Environment

Efforts to reform the regulatory process in the U.S. arenot new. Unfortunately, inmany
instances, past attempts have only led to increased layers of regulaticn and more bureaucracy.

‘The building industry recognizes the need for certain regulations. However, even the
most necessary regulations should be administered in a fair and efficient manner. In the last
10 years, as increased federal regulations have been layered upon existing state and local
requirements, the cost of regulation has been increasingly felt by the new home buyer.

Overlapping and conflicting regulations are a major part of the problem. Federal
regulations govern everything from infrastructure and workplace/employment related issues
to financing, particularly if the mortgage revenue bond and tax credit programs are involved.

Environmental regulations, in particular, often have the unintended consequence of
making housing less affordable and preventing Americans from atzaining homeownership.
Inflexible rules and overlapping jurisdictions of federal agencies often prevent common-sense
solutions that could better protect the environment. Environmental regulations, including
those related to endangered species and wetlands, can increase the cost of housing directly by
limiting the amount of land available for residential construction or even prohibiting
construction in some areas. They can also increase the cost of housing through extensive
review and permitting delays and by requiring fees, land dedications and other expensive
actions by developers. Equally important, groups that oppose development often use envi-
ronmental issues to mask their true intention--exlusionary zonicg or a complete halt to
residential growth.

Page 1


47

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SIEGLE

TO: SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH,
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ON
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 IN DES MOINES, IOWA

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RICHARD SIEGLE. [AMA
FARMER RESIDING NEAR OAKVILLE, IOWA, WHICH IS A SMALL
COMMUNITY LOCATED IN THE MISSISSIPP] RIVER BOTTOM AREA
IN SOUTHEAST IOWA. I PRESENTLY OPERATE 1,100 ACRES OF
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND. 1 AM A MEMBER OF THE IOWA
AND NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION AND I AM ALSO
ON THE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE AT THE NATIONAL CORN
GROWERS ASSOCIATION.

THE LAND WHICH I FARM IS LOCATED WITHIN 50,000 ACRES
OF BOTTOM LAND PROTECTED BY A 54 MILE LEVEE SYSTEM
RUNNING FROM NORTH OF OAKVILLE TO BURLINGTON, IOWA.
THERE ARE 3 DRAINAGE DISTRICTS BEHIND THE LEVEE SYSTEM;
1 AM IN LOUISA-DES MOINES DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND
SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THAT
DISTRICT. I HAVE HELD THIS POSITION FOR 15 YEARS. AS A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF IOWA, OUR
DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS SUBJECT TO THE DRAINAGE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF IOWA AND SEVERAL STATE AND FEDERAL
REGULATORY AGENCIES. IN MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING |
WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE YOU MY VIEWS AS TO HOW SEVERAL
OF THESE FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES AFFECT MY SMALL
BUSINESS AS A FARMER AND TRUCKER AND AS AN ELECTED
PUBLIC OFFICIAL SERVING THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

THE GREAT MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD OF 1993 HAD A
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE AREA IN WHICH 1 FARM. 1 WAS
INVOLVED IN FLOOD FIGHTING EFFORTS STARTING IN APRIL OF
1993 AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE REST OF THE YEAR. AT


51

5

ROAD BLOCK HAS BEEN PUT INTO OUR WAY BY THOSE PERSONS
ADMINISTERING NEPA. THE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS THEY ARE
MAKING AT THIS TIME ARE COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE,
ARBITRARY, AND WILL COST THE DISTRICT MORE TAXPAYERS’
DOLLARS TO SATISFY SOMEONE WITHIN THE REGULATORY
AGENCY ON A MATTER WHICH IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF NECESSITY. BEING REASONABLE AND
USING COMMON SENSE DO NOT APPEAR TO APPLY TO THIS
PROCESS. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO ASSIST US IN ABOLISHING
THE PROGRAMS OR REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT WE WORK
UNDER, BUT SOME RELIEF IN THE FORM OF SIMPLIFICATION
AND RESTORING LOCAL CONTROL WOULD BE APPRECIATED. AT
THIS POINT IT MIGHT BE A BETTER FAITH TO BE DROWNED BY
THE WATERS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER RATHER THAN
DROWNED BY THE ACTIONS OF SOME OF THE REGULATORY
AGENCIES WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.


Page Four.
left with which to face this crisis.

We don't want to see our physically challenged citizens
limited in their access to our public buildings or events. Let
me explain a simple solution to the problem, we could have
implemented had the ADA given us the simple mandate of providing
access rather than detailing to us how it would be provided.

For less than $10,000 a year we could have developed a
messenger system which could have picked up and delivered items
to the Post Office, City Hall, Library, etc. We already have the
video capability set up to broadcast closed circuit television of
City Council Meetings, school events, ete. Ultimately, we could
have provided comprehensive public services and event
participation to every handicapped citizen in Missouri valley at
a dramatically lower cost than meeting current ADA compliance
standards.

In conclusion I would like to say, that it is good and right
for government to safeguard the freedoms of our handicapped
citizens, but it is an impossible task for government to restore
the freedoms which God has taken away.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today.

eee et


142

company will send one of its employees out in the plant to keep ac-
curate records, records that, depending on their accuracy, could be
used to close down the plant, appears ludicrous at best.

As stated by Dr. Ed Menning of the National Association of Fed-
eral Veterinarians, “If the agenda is to move from organoleptic in-
spection of carcasses to organoleptic inspection of paperwork, the
public is at risk.”

We need HACCP as an enhancement to inspection, but we also
need to implement it with common sense. And that means having
enough trained Federal inspectors in the plants doing what they
are hired to do—enforce the rules and protect the health and safety
of the American people.

Thank you.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Kroeger, if you would not mind answering a
few questions. My sense is that the meat inspectors are doing the
best job that they can, and that—would you agree that basically
the meat, as it leaves the packing plant, is—well, let me ask this
a different way. We had some cases of food poisoning around the
country that were tragedies. Where do you think is the most likely
breakdown in contamination? Is the meat clean when it is leaving
the meatpacking plant? Is it being adequately refrigerated or do
the statistics show that the majority of food contamination actually
happens at the place of preparation?

‘r. KROEGER. At the place of preparation.

Mr. GANSKE. At the place of preparation?

Mr. KRoEGER. I believe the Centers for Disease Control could
confirm this.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you very much.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, David.

Mr. Trent Berhow. We also have Dale Brentnall, would you be
on deck please?

STATEMENT OF TRENT BERHOW

Mr. BERHOW. Thank you. My name is Trent Berhow and I am
employed as a food inspector for the USDA Food Safety Inspection
Service in Denison, IA, which I was happy to hear referred to ear-
lier by the gentleman from Logan, as being a clean plant. That
made me feel OK.

I am here to address the issue of meat and poultry inspection
regulations and the safety of the American food supply. I have
worked in the meat and poultry industry for the past 15 years, 10
years as an industry employee and the past 5 years as a Federal
Government employee with responsibility for regulating the meat
and poultry industry. In the past 15 years, 1 have worked in ap-
proximately 20 different packing plants in the States of Nebraska,
Towa, and Minnesota and over that time, I feel ] have acquired a
special insight needed to address the committee about our country’s
need to maintain and improve its current system of meat and poul-
try inspection.

The U.S. Congress is currently mandating that new regulations
be implemented by the Food Safety Inspection Service over the
next several years. These new regulations are being proposed
under HACCP, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point. These
new HACCP regulations in their purest application will deregulate


135

Mr. SKEERS. Excuse me, Congressman. I have to once again reit-
erate what the commissioner said yesterday. No one from our agen-
Rd referred to that organization as incompetent. We believe exactly
the opposite. That organization is composed of brave, courageous,
well-trained firefighters, and they were well-led with regard to the
activities. That does not mean necessarily that everything was per-
fect and there was no room for improvement.

Mr. LATHAM. Well, you say you did not make that—the fire chief
and other senior officials did not demonstrate competency—this is
your citation. And to say that you did not make that accusation is
simply not true.

r. GUTKNECHT. We can continue this debate afterward. There
are about 20 more people who want to testify.

You are Mr. O’Neill?

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. O’NEILL

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes. I am Jim O'Neill, and thank you for the oppor-
tunity to testify.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. From O’Neill Angus Farm.

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes. We operate ONeill Angus Farm in western
Iowa. Logan is our address, we are 25 miles northeast of Council
Bluffs. I have come here today to speak about what I feel are some
unfair rules in the farm program, the current one and the one you
are about to really pass.

We own 600 acres of land and most of our land has been ceded
down since the late fifties and early sixties. We have taken care of
our land and at times we were in the farm program. Our need for
pasture encouraged us to put more and more land into grass while
most of our neighbors farmed fence row to fence row and built
large farm bases which were eligible for payments. This was during
a time when corn was in surplus. Our base was only 96 acres, yet
I was told I could not change this, the only way we could increase
our base was to stay out of the program and plant more acres of
corn. Still, we did not abuse this but had had 195 acres of corn on
600 acres. With the new farm program, which is titled “The Right
to Farm” bill, we will not be eligible for the farm program because
we have not been in the program the last 5 years.

Six months ago, I had to have a hip replacement and was told
by my doctor I had to change my lifestyle. In November, we dis-
persed most of our cattle, as we had no members of our family that
wanted to continue the operation.

I feel that the land history corn base is a very unfair program.
It discriminates against those who have taken care of their land by
having cattle and awards those who have planted fence row to
fence row and abused the land. These rules discriminate against
our operation and our rights as citizens of the United States. It
drastically devalues our land as it is worth much less because we
cannot get into the program when we have a small corn base.

Also, I understand that as a rule if your land has not been
farmed or broken up in the last so many years, you are not eligible
for assistance—for as much assistance in building terraces, dis-
criminating again.

I am 58 and am looking toward retirement and the possibility of
selling the property, but our land and our rights have been badly


13

p.2
Subcommittee Public Testimony
9 Feb 96

the 1993 flood on waste management activities. It is impossible
for our facility to be impacted by a flood, TI had to go through
the inepection any way. In my opinion the flood of '93 was just a
good excuse for EPA to access some extra money from Congress to get
into every place of business they possibly could. The inspector
looked at my hazardous waste disposal paper trail, walked through
the entire facility, and at the end of the inspection told me he
did not see anything that concerned him and he would so indicate in
his report to EPA. Over the next year I received three letters
from EPA, each stating I was not required to submit anything to EPA
at this time, but they wanted to bring certain items to my
attention.

I did not appreciate having to go through the inspection even
after the inspector agreed I was not impacted by the floods of '93.
1 do not like being treated as though I may have been doing
something wrong, and because of the '93 flood EPA now had a way of
finding out without having to go through the normal inspection
channels. TI object to thie kind of treatment.

2. While at a seminar on the Clean Air Act Amendments, DNR
was explaining how to figure total potential emissions. Using a
spray paint gun as an example, the employer is to figure the amount
of potential emission as operating the gun 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year. An employer objected to this because it is physically
impossible to do, and said this makes no sense at all. The DNR
representative agreed but then said that doesn't matter. How
ridiculous can olr government get? If the result of potential
emissions is a certain tonnage, even though it ig an impossibility
to do, the employer has to voluntarily restrict it's operations to
be in compliance. In my situation, I could agree to not paint on
Sundays, which I don't do anyway. But the vast amounts of
Paperwork and figuring to arrive at what I already know and am
already not doing, is ridiculous. Regulations seem to be written
in euch a way that common sense is removed from the process.

3. I had 287 gallons of material to dispose of that could be
diluted with water. The chemical company did not want it back and
told me to just put it down the drain, While I could have done
this, I did not want to without the approval of the local water
treatment plant. I took samples of the product along with MSDS
sheets to the treatment plant and discussed it with them. They
indicated they would work with me on getting it disposed of, and
thanked me for not just dumping it down the drain, To my surpri
I received a letter from DNR saying the local treatment plant will
not be given authorization to help me and J had 30 days to tell DNR
how I was going to dispose of the material. This I did, and
disposed of the material at the cost of $3,820.00. While at the
treatment plant I had learned another company, which had left our
community, hired someone to clean up their facility after they were
gone. ‘The clean-up company dumped some waste chemicals in the
Bewer system and when it hit the treatment plant it almost
royed the ph of the treatment process. I talked to the city



137

cessful bidders’ price had gone up about 5 cents a pound. Not only
that, the first prices that came in, the USDA decided to reject it
because it was too high. So what happens is, when they request
that it be open market, somebody comes and dumps, comes down
about 10 cents below what the normal price is. So that means
somebody is trying to choke out the small business so they will not
participate in this market.

So I would recommend that somehow somebody look into this.
Although I should say that you will probably hear from Ganske’s
office, we gave him this problem and he was very gracious to orga-
nize a conference call and we talked with Kansas City, they an-
swered some of the questions but they have not answered some of
the other questions.

One problem I have is this, the definition of a small business,
they say 750 members or less—that is not enough. There are com-
panies who have less than 750 and they are doing million, millions
of dollars of business with the Federal Government. So the volume
of the dollar should be also factored in. If the intent is to help
small business, we are the first casualty.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Carla Pope, please. And behind Carla, we have
Sharon Means—Sharon traded places with No. 18, Don Rowan, and
then No. 38, Thomas Juckette, and I am sorry, I am not a very
good reader.

STATEMENT OF CARLA POPE

Ms. Pope. My name is Carla Pope and I am the director of gov-
ernmental affairs for Iowa Health Care Association. We represent
320 long-term care facilities here in the State of Iowa.

I am here to share long-term care industry's problems with over-
burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulation. I am not here to
state that the nursing home industry should not be regulated, but
it should not be over-regulated either.

Towa nursing homes are regulated currently by 7 Federal and 15
State agencies. When the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1987 passed creating national nursing home reform, the Federal
Government introduced the concept of an outcome-based survey.
Nursing home professionals were pleased to be judged on the out-
comes of care, with promises that the focus of the annual survey
would be on how a resident looks and feels, and not on how the
nurse completed the paperwork. Unfortunately, the promise of an
outcome-based survey quickly became a myth.

We thought that the people of Iowa had it within their grasp to
solve this problem by moving quality oversight of nursing home fa-
cilities to the State. But unfortunately for you too, block grants
have lost their momentum.

The biggest paperwork nightmare that facilities face is an assess-
ment. tool developed by the Health Care Financing Administration,
called the Resident Assessment Instrument. This instrument, so
you can get the picture, is seven pages long, two columns wide with
the smallest print you can imagine. It lists 153 separate items that
the nursing home staff must assess when a resident is admitted to
a nursing home, annually and any time the resident experiences a
change, whether that change is positive or negative, that impacts


55

who is a soil conservation consultant. Mr. Willis, thank you for
coming.

Mr. WILLIs. Thank you for the opportunity. I am beginning to get
real nervous sitting where I am sitting. I am a former SCS em-
ployee in Atlantic.

Mr. McInTosu. We chose wisely, I think.

Mr. WILLIS. And Howard is a lot bigger than I am. [Laughter.]

I thank you for the opportunity because I am going to show you
the opposite side of the coin, a very definite opposite side of the
coin, and a side of the coin that T do not think that anybody has
really wanted to tell you about.

Voice. Bill, you need to speak up more. I am his wife. [Laugh-
ter.]

Mr. WILLIs. And that is why you see I am in real trouble.

Mr. McINrosH. Do not feel bad, Mr. Willis, my wife does that for
me as well. (Laughter.]

h Voice. I want him to get his point across and have everybody
ear it.

Mr. McINTOSH. Please continue.

Mr. WILLis. And I want to read my statements simply so that I
can get the whole point across, and I will be glad to answer any
questions that you have.

A forced retirement in 1993 prematurely ended my career with
the USDA Soil Conservation Service.

My career began in 1966 in Missouri and by 1970, I found myself
in Decorah, IA, charged with cleaning up a program that had be-
come a regular mess, simply by gross mismanagement on the part
of a former district conservationist.

Three and a half years later, I was sent to Cass County at Atlan-
tic, LA, to rebuild a program that had lagged far behind anything
that you would consider as average in the State of lowa. For exam-
ple, I brought that program from 20,000 feet of terraces a year to
over 300,000 feet of terraces a year. Computer design of terrace
construction was actually invented in my office by myself and my
staff.

Throughout my career, I gained a reputation of being energetic,
aggressive, and hard-working, and I had absolute insistence for
professionalism, honesty, technical excellence, and above all, strict
adherence to ethical standards. I also enjoyed the ability to work
effectively and easily with people.

But in 1992, it became very clear tc me and to a number of fel-
low district conservationists that the USDA Soil Conservation
Service had absolutely no intention to enforce the conservation
compliance provisions of the 1985 and the 1990 farm bills. A nega-
tive determination on the part of a field office staff would not be
upheld in the appeal process. It was plain that farm subsidy pay-
ments were then going to continue without justification. And docu-
mentation of these facts and my allegations have been—docu-
mentation has been accumulated by myself, by the Environmental
Qorking Group in Washington and by the Office of the Inspector

eneral.

Such actions by USDA SCS are not limited to lowa, they are
happening all across the Nation, and it constitutes a multi-billion
dollar example of waste, fraud, and abuse. And this offense is also


2

produced by spreading it out on her fields. The State Soil and Con-
servation Service would come to Kay and say, you know, you really
need to spread it on top of the fields but not plow it in because we
are worried about erosion and we want to protect the soil. Then the
State EPA would come by and tell Kay it is fine for you to spread
the manure but you really have to plow it in because we are wor-
ried about runoff and what that will do for the streams. Now, Kay
said she did not really care which regulation she followed, but she
knew whatever happened, she would be breaking the rules of one
of those two agencies. She did confide that her neighbors had a
strong preference for plowing it in. [Laughter.]

And those are the types of problems that average Americans are
encountering in our regulatory system. We are taking an inventory
of that. The testimony that will be given here today will be taken
back to Washington and become part of the official record.

Speaker Gingrich has created a new procedure in the House of
Representatives called Corrections Day where he allows Members
to bring forward bills to correct these problems in the regulatory
process. It is an expedited provision. You do not have a lot of
amendments and debate but you do get the chance to vote on the
bill on the House floor. And many of the ideas that we heard yes-
terday, and I anticipate today, would be excellent examples for Cor-
rections Day legislation.

Now before we begin hearing testimony from our panels, I would
like to recognize the Secretary of State of Iowa, Paul Pate, to make
a few opening remarks. Secretary Pate invited us to come in early
on. He mentioned that he had been going around the State and
hearing from a lot of businesses and farmers about the problems
of regulations here. I appreciate your help in facilitating this.
Thank you for welcoming us today and having us up to the State
Capitol earlier this morning.

Secretary Pate, could you share a few words with us?

STATEMENT OF PAUL PATE, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF
IOWA

Mr. PaTE. Thank you very much, Congressman. It is a pleasure
to have you in Iowa. I think the hearings yesterday in Sioux City
were a great beginning and I| appreciate the support of Congress-
man Latham and Ganske and Congressman Gutknecht by coming
here and joining us.

The fact that we are here to share some stories and some experi-
ences of Iowa small businesses and what their concerns are I think
is very important. While I might be involved in politics, I feel I am
very well grounded in the real world because this is the third gen-
eration of my family being involved in the construction industry. I
own a small. business of my own, a construction asphalt paving
firm in Hiawatha, LA and I know firsthand these struggles and the
frustrations that many of us go through in the business world and
that is what brings us here today, to make a genuine effort in try-
ing to make a difference in working for a better government and
a better system.

I have filled out those boxes of government forms to get through
a contract. In this case, it was an Army Corps of Engineering
project, a very small contract. But literally boxes full of forms, if


12

obtained by the sale of General Obligation Bonds. This large
indebtedness restricted the city's bonding capacity for repaizs

of sanitary and storm sewers and much needed street work.

Water rates were increased by 45% strictly to cover the
operational costs of the plant. Property taxes were raised
and now approximately 24% of these taxes are allocated to paying
off the water bonds. These expenses do not include future
maintenance, depreciation, or the additional cost of going from

a Grade 1 Distribution Operator to a Grade 2 Treatment Operator.

One of the more serious problems ve have encountered has been
maintaining an adequate water supply to meet both the demands
of the people and the Reverse Osmosis System. Approximately
fifty thousand gallons of water are rejected through this
treatment plant daily. This has put a major strain on our wells
and pumps, which have been lowered to the maximum depth possible.

New wells may have to be drilled to meet demands.

Providing safe drinking water is one of our objectives. Hovever,
through processing, we are wasting a tremendous amount of a
precious natural resource--vater. We have come from using
natural, raw well water to a system that adds 5 chemicals daily

to our drinking water.

I've told the story of how one community has dealt with the

government's burdensome regulations. Regulations that are


27

and the companies just literally do not have the financing or the
physical capabilities of complying with these, and they should not
need to comply with these, because it is incidental to their busi-
ness, it is not—they are not painting, they might do touch-up on
a vehicle if it gets dinged or damaged.

And we are again here talking about a company that probably
employs 50 or 60 people. If they have to spend their resources to
build an outside storage unit for a small quantity of paint or
change a maintenance garage into literally a paint booth, then they
are going to have to build another maintenance garage because
they cannot do maintenance in their garage that now is a paint
booth, but they are in compliance for painting, incidental painting,
because they have a paint booth. It does not make sense. And this
company, to expend those resources, would probably or possibly go
out of business. And again, there would be 40 to 50 people in a
small Iowa community that would be looking for jobs or employ-
ment otherwise.

Mr. McINTosH. And that is the very real human cost that often
is overlooked by the regulators when they come up with the rules
and regulations.

One other quick thing—would you be willing to submit to us for
our record the more updated National Consensus Standards for
that 29 CFR section 1910?

Mr. DucHMAN. While we could, what I was referring to is often
the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, standards are
used, and they are readily available. We have many of them, we
do not have them all, and for our company to supply you with all
those standards would be a considerable—many thousands of dol-
jars.

Mr. McINTosH. Oh, OK, maybe you can give us a referral and
we can talk with the Institute.

Mr. DucHMaN. Sure, that would be no problem at all.

Mr. McINTOSH. But let me make sure I understood what you
were saying, which is that sometime in the past, OSHA codified the
existing standards that were developed by this outside group as a
consensus across the country, and they failed to update their regu-
lations as new knowledge and experience has been gained in the
private sector?

Mr. DucHMAN. Yes, sir. In the early seventies, OSHA just adopt-
ed the ANSI standards, which had been—many of them had been
in existence for many years. ANSI, the American National Stand-
ards Institute, regularly reviews their standards and updates
those. The 1910 regulations, their source standards are the stand-
ards that were in existence back then. At this point in time, if a
citation was cited, they could refer to the older standards and say,
according to these older standards, this is the citation, because
1910 is based on the older standards, they have never updated
them as the new standards have been accepted.

Oftentimes, OSHA, when it is brought to their attention that,
based on the newer standards, there is no citation or is no viola-
tion, it is dropped. But all this costs money and companies—you
know, they look at the old OSHA standard and the old OSHA
standard says that they are supposed to do it one way where the
new updated standards, which most companies would have no


10

TESTIMONY OF THE CITY OF MANSON, IOWA BEFORE
THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC
GROWTH, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY

AFFAIRS

Respectfully Presented and Submitted by

Joe A. Gray, Mayor
City of Manson, Iowa


146

number without thinking about it. We are told that 75 percent of
the money so far that the Federal Government has appropriated for
Superfund cleanup has gone to either attorneys or consultants.
That is not what I think the Congress wants to have happen.

Mr. KLUA. You would not believe the studies mandated under-
neath the old law, and basically what we did is we looked at this
site and we said so what is so unique about it than any other site,
hydrogeological, et cetera. We are not talking rocket science here.
Under the old system, you go through a regimented process of engi-
neering documents, legal documents, review, you know, et cetera.
As a matter of fact, they are in the final phases of designing a for-
mat where we will not even get into Superfund, this project will
be run outside of Superfund because Rockwell has agreed to pay
for the environmental oversight before it is built. We basically do
not want the site to end up on a Superfund list.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Representative Ganske did you have a ques-
tion?

Mr. GANSKE. Were it not for the fact that it is getting a little late
today, getting into Superfund could take an hour.

Mr. Kuua. Right.

Mr. GANSKE. But we have a lot of testimony before my commit-
tee. It is fair to say that I do not care what side of the issue you
are on with Superfund, whether you are representing a citizens
proup, an environmental group, business group, the way that the
law has worked has just not accomplished the purpose of getting
these sites cleaned up. In State sites with some increased flexibil-
ity, we have seen a much more rapid cleanup of those toxic sites
than we have when the scheduled sites have gotten tied up in the
litigation.

Mr. Kiua. The States are more flexible because they are more
hands-on.

Mr. GANSKE. So, we will continue to work on Superfund reform
this year. I expect that there will be a Superfund reform bill be-
cause it is important to move on and get these sites cleaned up.

Mr. Kua. I guess what I am also challenging is not only just
within Superfund, but other segments of the EPA. I mean it is
back to dialog again, get the dialog going with the people and get
out of the enforcement mode, or less out of it, with responsible par-
ties I guess.

Mr. GANSKE. I think it is a matter of balance. If, for instance,
there is an auger that does not have a guard, it needs to be cor-
rected.

Mr. Kuua. Exactly.

Mr. GANSKE. If there is a roll of toilet paper that is sitting on
the back of the tank, maybe you are wasting your inspector’s time.

Mr. Kiva. Right.

Mr. GaNnskE. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Klua.

I must apologize, Mark Groenendyk traded his place earlier. If
he will take his place in line, we will—are you Mr. Dickey?

Mr. DICKEY. Yes, I am.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. OK. Then you go ahead. Mark, good to have
you with us.


63

people that you now have to publish calendars just to keep up with
the different regulatory components.

Let me turn now to Mr. Ganske. Do you have any questions for
our panel?

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do.

I want to followup a little bit on a line of questioning that I gave
the first panel. I think this panel really shows, how difficult it is
to do a proper, fair and just balance in this.

Mr. iton, I think your statement summed it up in a sense,
and that is, “one size does not fit all.” Mr. Beal on the last panel
had the same concern when I posed this line of questioning. And
Mr. Johnson, I must say that you very movingly talked about the
problem or the concern that one would have with increasing leeway
with regulators, because the regulator can find you guilty, and in
carrying the force of government has resources that no single fam-
ily has and can basically put you through hell. And you are now
in the Position where you have to prove that you are innocent.

So, I guess I would like to ask Mr. Willis this question, because
you worked in the system, and I think my sense is that you have
a strong feeling of wanting to work with farmers and still at the
same time achieve a goal of a good environment. How can we
change the system so that you, as a government regulator, can
work with every one of the other members on this panel in a fair
and a just way? How would you change what you have had to do
in the past?

Mr. Wiis. Senator Ganske, I think there are two things that
have to happen. No. 1 is if you are going to be a Federal employee,
then tell us what the rules are. For example, the wetland rules
were changed about as fast as most people change their socks. And
asa government employee at that time, if you had asked me what
a wetland was or to identify whether a piece of ground was a wet-
land or whether it was not, I would have probably opted to tell you
I really do not know. And if I had a source of information to go to
at a higher echelon in that bureaucracy, I do not believe I could
have found an answer.

When government employees go out onto a farm and have to ad-
dress the questions that these people have addressed today as far
as wetlands, whether it is or whether it is not, or what is the impli-
cations of if I do or if I do not, you are going to get as many dif-
ferent answers as there are Federal employees.

When it comes to instances like conservation compliance, I am
not here today to debate whether or not the environmental inter-
ests ought to be satisfied as a result of making farm subsidy pay-
ments. That is not my business, that never was my business. The
Congress said it was, they said it was in 1985 and they said it was
in 1990 and I think they are thinking a little bit about that in 1995
as far as the farm bill is concerned. There are 7 more years of pay-
ments that are coming down the pike and I think there are prob-
ably still going to be some strings attached. And if we are going
to be in the business of tying conservation to farm subsidy pay-
ments, then let us enforce it and let us make a very, very strong
message to the Federal employee out there—we do mean enforce it.

Mr. GANSKE. Let me interrupt for a minute because our time is
running out. I think I detected in your answer this—and as this


20

“wetlands” may not be wet at all and may have no significant environmental function or value
as an aquatic ecosystem.

Completion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers individual permitting process takes
an average of 373 days and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Cutting the permit
approval time to six months could have saved from $500 to $1,000 in finance costs for each
average-priced lot in 1993.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

‘The Endangered Species Act (ESA) sets lofty goals to protect America's rich plant and
wildlife resources. Unfortunately, the ESA's success stories have proven much more rare than
the plants or species it was designed to protect. The success of the current law seems to be in
its ability to catalogue, rather than to protect species. However, the ESA has been extremely
successful in stopping development once a species is listed as threatened or endangered. At
that point, even if there is no scientific evidence to justify the listing, the species habitat may
not be modified in any way, even if the species is not present in the area. The complicated
process for permitting requires years and usually thousands of dollars to complete, and even
then the builder has no assurances that another “endangered” species won'tbe found, or more
delays encountered. Currently, 854 U.S. speciesare listed as endangered or threatened. Since
Congress adopted the actin 1973, only 16 species have been removed from the list, six due to
extinction, five because it was later determined that they were not endangered or threatened,
and five due to species recovery.

Conclusion

T hope I was able to give you an idea of the real impact of government regulations on
small business, particularly within the building industry. On behalf of builders across the
state of lowa and nationwide, I would like to reiterate my strong support for regulatory reform
efforts, and hope meaningful reform measures can be enacted this year. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.

Attachments - IOSHA Citations
-End-

Page 3


37

or compensate a farmer for a designated piece of property.

‘Thank you for this opportunity. I would like to close by reading and submitting these
petitions for your consideration. They have already been given to Congressmen Latham, Senator
Grassley and Senator Harkin.

Trreads as follows:

We, the undersigned farmers of northern Jowa and southem Minnesota, are sick and tired of this
wetland confiscation nonsense. We are fed up with the government putting an eternal designation
on our property without our consent and/or just compensation.

Please stop wetland determinations immediately and rescind all the wetland determinations as set
forth in the 1985 and 1990 farm bills. We want our land back.

‘We strongly object to the regulatory agencies using our tax dollars for wetland designations.

Neen ae atece tthe eset peje haliag tte NRCS, bo Cons of Eeploees
eB? ihe Va and Wide and soy oer ateory involve das weand taking by dengnton
‘We also strongly urge you to eliminate al] the swampbuster, sodbuster, and wetland language in the
199 farm bill unless the government obtains the landowner's permission and properly compensates
the property owner for their taking and designations,

‘Thank you for your immediste action on this critica] wetland designation fiasco.

Respectfully submitted,

Harvey D. Johnson


57

provement in agricultural drainage. In my district, Charles Gunn
had his converted wetlands grow each time he appealed it. He was
finally forced to permanently idle 28 acres. In my testimony, I have
documented several other tragic cases as to—similar to Charles’.

Landowners in our district have spent $425,000 improving their
main drainage outlet, yet the State NRCS will not allow the
laterals to be improved without mitigation, because of the possibil-
ity that it might be taking water away from farm wetlands. This
is in spite of the fact that the proposed improvements would not
go through any farm wetlands. If a lateral serviced 800 acres and
only 40 acres of it was considered farm wetlands, the other 760
acres of prior converted would have to do without drainage needed
to maximize its production.

In our district in 1995, inadequate drainage cut corn production
from 20 to 120 bushels per acre on the best prior converted land.
This type of policy is insane, considering our corn stocks carryover
will likely be the lowest in history. While the best land is having
its production restricted, the Government is calling back into pro-
duction fragile, highly erodible CRP land to meet the current grain
shortage. Should administrative policy be to restrict drainage on 95
percent of the land in order to ensure poor drainage on 5 percent
of the land?

In 1993, the NRCS dictated lateral tile in farmed wetlands had
no significance. Many of these so-called farmed wetlands have nu-
merous strings of tile on spacings from 50 to 120 feet. It is impos-
sible for such fields to ever act as wetlands with so much drainage
capacity.

It was never the intent of Congress to regulate farmland as wet-
land. The Senate and House Committees on Agriculture dated July
31, 1985, and September 30, 1985, and published interim rules
dated June 27, 1986, verify the intent of the bill was to give juris-
diction over true wetland, not cropland. The final rules, published
September 17, 1987, added jurisdiction over farmed wetland. The
public never had a chance to comment on this great expansion of
jurisdiction. The USDA has no legal farm bill jurisdiction over so-
called farmed wetlands under production prior to December 23,
1985. This is especially true for wetlands previously drained.

Congress’ intent that if drainage had commenced on farmland or
if substantial funds were spent, it would be considered as prior con-
verted farmland, not wetland. Bureaucrats have used administra-
tive discretion to change the intent of Congress to gain control over
farmland, calling it wetland. Yet the public has never been allowed
to comment on the change. In addition to violating the Federal law,
it is no doubt a violation of the landowner’s rights guaranteed in
the U.S. Constitution. Labeling farmland as wetland decreases its
value and qualifies the action as a constitutional taking.

Not a single page of the National Food Security Act manual has
been subjected to public input. Since the idea of farmed wetland
was added to the regulatory mix after the interim rules of the farm
bill were published in the Federal Register, it, by law, would have
to have been subjected to public input. Thus the NRCS is in viola-
tion of the Administrative Procedures Act. Then all of the policies
and procedures concerning farmed wetland should not be valid
until NRCS complies with the Administrative Procedures Act.


23

James B. Meehan, P.E., B.C.

Engineering Consuting
3006 Rownd Strest
(Cedar Fale, A 50613-5813.
February 2, 1! .
JAMES B. MEEHAN. P.E. 2, 1996 ‘Area Code 319
LOREN F. DUCHMAN ‘Telephone 277-7030
Fax 277-7034
Congressman Greg Ganske
Washington, D.C.

RE: Congressional Hearings on Regulatory Reform
‘Comments for the Official Record

Dear Congressman Ganske:

By way of introduction, we are an engineering consulting firm whose practice includes assistance
to clients for industrial safety, OSHA compliance, contest of OSHA citations, and abatement of
citations. We apply the reasonable and consistent interpretations of the regulations. Clients and
their employees have benefited from our services for almost eighteen years,

We have served hundreds of private sector clients who have thousands of employees. Thousands
of citation items have been resolved by their being vacated, reasonably modified, or abated. One
client, an attorney, has estimated that his efforts using our services as safety experts has resulted in
OSHA prevailing in less than twenty per-cent of citations.

Let us relate afew ofthe problems that over burdensome Osta rules and regulations have required
our clients to use scarce resources to resolve:

1. A small manufacturer received multiple citatjons which would require prohibitively
expensive paint spraying equipment, a paint bopth, additional permitting for emission
equipment from the DNR, and more. The citations were vacated upon proof that the
operations involving the application of contact adhesive were not a paint spraying operation,
did not present the same hazards, and OSHA Regulations did not apply to the adhesive
‘operations. :

2. A manufacturer was cited for not tagging a defective ladder when his two employees had
disposed of the ladder by placing it in a garbage dumpster for construction debris. OSHA

~ attomeys and the inspector argued that the regulation called for tagging a defective ladder
and did not specify disposal as an altemative. The citation was vacated at the manufacturer's
cost for defense.

3. A plumbing contractor wes cited for trenching’ violations on a job site and a University
Professor was namod as the complainant who observed the violation and whose referral was


144

in Ames, IA, and I was happy to have you come to our fair city
jast-——

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes, I was going to say we have met some-
where.

Mr. BRENTNALL. Yes, we have.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And I know where it was now.

Mr. BRENTNALL. I would like to make these brief statements on
behalf of the Izaak Walton League, the national conservation orga-
nization that represents more than 6,000 members in Iowa and
50,000 members nationally. Our organization has a long record of
involvement on issues—in fact, over 74 years—issues related to
conservation of soil, water, wildlife, and wetlands.

We appreciate the changes in the Freedom to Farm Act that are
being considered to improve the bill’s environmental impacts. This
especially pertains to the Conservation Reserve Program. We en-
thusiastically support maintaining the CRP and allowing new en-
rollments of environmentally sensitive land. We also support re-
stricting early outs, except for the most farmable land. And if early
outs are allowed, any savings should be used for new enrollments.

However, we have a number of concerns about the provisions of
the House bill that are very negative from an environmental stand-
point. We ask that you: First, protect the Conservation Compliance
and Swampbuster. That is the wetlands provisions. These are not
regulations, per se. Instead, they are reasonable acknowledgements
that public support should be based on basic conservation stand-
ards.

Second, do not prohibit permanent easements under the Wet-
lands Reserve Program, which is the WRP. This program has been
a great success with farmers and the public. In the long term, per-
manent easements are more economically sound than short-term
contracts.

Third, do not allow Livestock Environmental Assistance Pro-
gram, known as LEAP, to become a cash cow for large confinement
operations. The concept is good, but the House’s version of the pro-
gram are lax, payments are high, and herd-size limits would bene-
fit very large, factory-type operations. Most people across this State
would resent having their tax money subsidize factory operations.
In addition, assistance should be based on a farm plant that serves
as a guide for farmers and agency officials.

Fourth, finally, please give farmers the same flexibility for soil
conservation rotations that are being allowed for program crops.
Farmers who want to rotate crops to enhance soil, protect water,
and reduce pesticide use should no longer be penalized by farm
programs.

Thank you for holding this hearing this afternoon in Des Moines
and the opportunity to express these concerns to you. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Brentnall, and we appreciate
all that the Izaak Walton League has done over the years.

Mr. Klua, and if Mr. Mark Dickey could be on deck and Mr. Jim
Boyt in the hold please.

STATEMENT OF DARRELL R. KLUA

Mr. Kuua. I always thought I wanted to run for Congress, but
I cannot sit that long.


CITY OF URBANDALE

a year of discussion, the 1esue was resolved. The owner
was required to provide a financial contribution to a group
developing a wetlands area near Ankeny. The state deemed
that this was a "replacement" wetlands and that the pond
could be £111

Hopefully, this example shows the problems created for cities
by wetlands regulations. The waterway in question was not

a natural body of water but a man-made fishing pond.

It was never intended to be a permanent facility and was
relatively small in ite size. The mitigation allowed under

the federal regulations proved to be expensive to the developer
in two ways. First, the contribution for the construction

of a replacement wetland was costly. Second, the development
of the land for office use was delayed by almost a year.

It is difficult to see the public purpose served by this
action. .

Drug and Alcohol ting

My last issue of concern involves the Federal Department

of Transportation's requirements for drug and alcohol testing

of Commercial Drivers License (CDL) holders. Under the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, a national prohibition
on the use of alcohol by operators of commercial motor vehicles
was adopted. Prior to this regulation, the enforcement of

such a motor vehicle restriction rested with state and local
authorities. It is difficult to say that existing laws have

not adequately addressed the situation. In most states throughout
the country, laws involving the use of a motor vehicle while
under the influence have become more comprehensive and punitive
in their scope. For this reason, there does not appear to

be a need for the introduction of this new federal regulation.

Mora importantly, the drug and alcohol testing regulations
adopted by the Federal Department of Transportation have

placed financial and administrative burdens on local governments.
Cities are now required to annually test 50% of its Commercial
Drivers License holders for drugs and 25% of its license

holders for alcohol. These tests are to be conducted on

a random basis. Additionally, all license holders must attend

@ one hour training session each year and supervisors must
attend two hours of annual training. This training must

deal with the impact of drug and alcohol use on the operation

of a motor vehicle, Additionally, contractors and subcontractors
doing work for the ctey must have a drug and alcohol policy

and the city must develop a similar policy. These requirements
became effective on January 1, 1996.

In order to meet these requirements, the City has joined
a drug and alcohol testing alliance. This organization consists
of over 350 cities, count: public utilities and transit



44

‘With the help of Senator Grassicy, I think there hes been some reprieve on this ridiculous
regulation but I would also suggest thet before any regulation is Imptement, there is a cost
analysis to the regulation, s cost benefit done to justify the regulation and that 10% of all.
regulated business compliance efforts be first done by the EPA/DNR before the other 90%

. give
understanding of the costs involved before full implementation is required. Now that is
government belping people, First of all a regulator must know what a fred mill looks like
and what it does!

The Federal Drug Administration is an agency that basically controls feed menufecture,
They throw me in with the Cargill's, Continental Grains, Purinas and all of the megs food
manufacturers. How can I, as smafl as J am, have the time or resources to comply with
the lengthy inspections and regulations? Is it the goal of government to make us all mega
operations?

Slowly the government is taking control of our business. They are telling me how to mix
feed, when to grease my machinery, when to inspect my mixers. Again, let me remind you
that as a business owner, if! fail to maintain ry equipment I will fail. J do not need the
regulators, that I am paying for, telling me how to run my business.

T could continue but may time is getting short. If I can remind you once more, I am being,
Domged down with mz goverment repulsion. I cannot afford to hire someone to just

handle government regulations. It is hard to teil you how many days I alone have to spend
to comply with these regulations but I estimate 3 - 4 weeks a year and that is ever
growing. I know there are other days spent by my employees.

Thave been at this for over twenty years and the last ten years have become progressively
more frustrating. As you might be able to tell - 1 am getting tired, alnrost worn out, trying
to keep up. I fove what I do - let me do what I do best - let me keep my men working,
with a good wage & benedits - let me help keep the small family farmer in business end ket
me leave you with ove last thought - or should I say plea....."One size does not fit all".
‘My government cannot continue to make “blanket* regulations.


85

ments of ADA and if the city were to stay in this building for an
extended period of time, an elevator would have to be constructed.
When that elevator would be required is the subject of interpreta-
tion, and we have had different opinions from different groups re-
garding whether that should be now or something that we could do
at the time that we were to remodel the building.

In total, it is estimated that the city’s compliance efforts with the
ADA will cost $275,000, excluding any significant building improve-
ments or modifications like the elevator. Cities throughout Iowa
have experienced similar costs and I have detailed those in my
written message.

One last item on ADA, I wanted to note that cities throughout
the State have been required to improve the accessibility of play-
ground equipment and other park facilities in order to comply with
ADA. Again, a noble objective; however, it has been very difficult
for us to retrofit playground equipment and even to determine
what the intent of the legislation was regarding neighborhood
parks, instead of just regional service parks.

In the area of wetlands preservation, another Federal regulation
of increasing concern to us does pertain to wetlands. The Army
Corps of Engineers was given the responsibility for the preserva-
tion of wetlands through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
amendments in 1972. Under section 404 of this act, the Army
Corps of Engineers was authorized to formulate regulations for the
protection of navigable waters in the United States. However, over
a period of time, the Corps’ responsibilities have extended beyond
the country’s main waterways.

Once again, it is difficult to argue with the legislative intent of
wetlands regulation. This legislation was designed to reduce flood-
ing and siltation, replenish aquifers and result in cleaner water.
However, its application has become extreme over a period of time.

(Bell rings.]

Mr. LayToNn. And if I could just give an example and then I will
conclude.

Mr. McINTOSH. That would be great.

Mr. LAYTON. In Urbandale, a local property owner in the 1960’s
installed a l-acre pond on land in the center of the city. Although
this land was eventually to be used for residential and commercial
development, it essentially served as a family recreational area.
The pond was installed by the owner to serve as a fishing location
for his children and grandchildren.

A few years ago, the owner finally decided to sell the Property
for a commercial office project. Much of the land was cleared and
the owner took steps to fill the pond. However, the Iowa Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, acting under the Federal wetlands reg-
ulations, would not allow the filling of the pond. Instead, the pond
was designated as a wetlands area and the owner was informed the
area was to be preserved. After almost a year of negotiation, the
issue was finally resolved and the owner was required to provide
a financial contribution to a group that was developing a wetlands
area north of the city. The State deemed that this was a replace-
ment wetlands and that the pond could be filled.

Hopefully, this example shows the problems created for cities by
wetlands regulations. The waterway in question was not a natural


62

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Holtz. I appreciate
your appreciation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is a
critical instrument in all of this process.

Let me back up—we have heard a lot about wetlands today—and
share with you how I learned about wetlands, which is when I was
a young staffer with Vice President Quayle. He came back from a
trip here to Iowa where he had met with several people in the
farming community and somebody spoke up—I do not Know who
that was—and said you know, our biggest enemy right now is a
guy named Bob Grady in the White House. It turns out Bob Grady
is the guy who wrote the wetlands policy for President Bush. Vice
President Quayle came back and said what is going on here, can
you look into it.

We started a process of reversing some of the worst parts of that
wetlands policy, where they had defined a wetland to be any land
that had one of the three things—water for 7 days, could be dry
the rest of the year; one of the plants that you mentioned; or the
soils from hydric soils which turned out to be a lot of the muck
soil—we have got a lot in Indiana and I think you do here as well.
You did not have to have all three of those. You could have per-
fectly dry land and they would still define it as wetland. This
greatly expanded the power grab in Washington over control of the
property in our country.

We were able to get some of those changed, but from your testi-
mony here today, I see that we have still got a lot more work to
do in applying the notion of property rights. If the government had
to compensate when it defines your land as wetland and therefore
restricts its use, I think that would lead to much better results in
the regulatory process because Washington would realize it would
have to pay every time it expanded its jurisdiction in this area.

So I appreciate those comments.

The other notion I wanted to mention was we are hearing a lot
about the farm bill, and Tom and Greg have been taking the lead
in making sure that that stays on track, really corralling a lot of
us in the freshman class—Gil has too—to make sure that we have
a farm bill. But the one that passed in the Senate and the one that.
I think will pass in the House will phaseout a lot of those sub-
sidies, and I think that then changes the dynamic and perhaps the
problem that Mr. Willis indicated might exist in government not
enforcing its regulations tied to the subsidies. If you do not have
those, you do not have that hook to lead to some of the con-
sequences of these regulations.

‘he thing we have got to make sure though is if we move in that
direction, that we do not keep the regulations that make it expen-
sive to farm, and raise the cost, and remove the government sup-
port structure for people.

So, these are all very critical issues and a lot of them intersect
with what the subcommittee is doing in terms of finding out about
regulatory problems. And I appreciate you coming here today and
sharing your histories and your examples with us.

One quick question. Mr. Whiton, could we get a copy of that cal-
endar that you showed us? I would like to introduce that into the
record in particular. Maybe you can tell us where to get one and
we will go out and buy one for ourselves so that we can show to


86

body of water, but a manmade fishing pond. It was never intended
to be a permanent facility and was relatively small in size. Obvi-
ously the mitigation that was required of the developer was expen-
sive and the developer lost a year of opportunity for the develop-
ment of the property.

In summary, again, I would like to thank you for the opportunit;
to speak. The city of Urbandale recognizes the need for certain Fed-
eral policies and laws to advance national priorities. However, the
development of regulations to enforce Federal legislation does not
always accurately reflect congressional intent. Instead, regulations
can introduce the element of uncertainty or provide a framework
for unyielding enforcement. We believe that congressional priorities
can be met through the adoption of flexible guidelines and regula-
tions and not through the use of specific restrictions and punitive
regulations.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Layton, and additional remarks
in your testimony will be included in the record and we will review
that.

Our final witness on this panel is Mayor Tom Hanafan of the city
of Council Bluffs. Thank you, Mayor for joining us.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Layton follows:]


121

time to freedom. That is the reason why I am here and I am de-
lighted, and thank you again.

I would like to look at page 2 on the two sheets that I passed
on to you. This is a citation issued by our illustrious lowa OSHA.
Waterloo Water Works was fined $1,000 for not adding the number
of injuries on the OSHA Form 100 and OSHA Form 200.

In their ultimate wisdom and high skills and medical profession,
they determined that not adding the number of injuries leads to a
hazard that may increase the potential for illness.

On the same page at the top, it is written page 1 out of 2, and
at the bottom it states that this is the last page. So my simple
question is who is the criminal here? Is Waterloo Water Works the
criminal because it did not add the number of injuries, or is it
OSHA because it extracted $1,000 from the citizens, or is it OSHA
because they do not know the difference between page No. 1 and
page No. 2. [Laughter.]

So there is a double kind of crime of OSHA.

And I would like to direct your attention to page 1 which is sta-
tistics put out by the National Safety Council of the United States.
Simply put, this is a chart that shows the number of workers, the
number of people working in the United States since 1933 to 1992.
It shows the number of people who died on the job and it shows
the death rate per 100,000 people. If you will look very carefully,
you will see that since 1945 to 1992, the death rate is declining at
a constant rate, an absolute constant rate. It is a phenomenon that
can be explained by this effect. Also apparent is that in 1970,
OSHA was started. So if OSHA would have been effective at all,
any minute amount of effectiveness in saving lives, then the rate
of death would have declined much faster. However, as if OSHA
was absent, no further decline was present.

(Bell rings.]

Mr. HERSCOVICI. I am sorry I am so slow. I would like to have
a minute or two.

Mr. McINTOSH. Yes. In fact, if you can let me interject 1 second
and then I will let you continue. I now have to turn over the gavel
to my colleague, Mr. Gutknecht and go to catch a plane back to In-
diana. I apologize to the other witnesses, but Mr. Gutknecht has
offered to stay here and continue to keep the hearing going so ev-
eryone will have a chance to participate, and as one of the commit-
tee members, he will make sure that record is available.

I appreciate you coming and thank you very much. Thank you
all, thank you to my colleagues for making this frankly the best set
of field hearings that we have had. I think you all in Iowa should
be very proud of the Representatives that you have and the fact
that they have done a great job in facilitating the work of this com-
mittee. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. Herscovicl. Thank you very much for the extended time. I
am sorry.

This chart also shows that by the year 2008, the industry will
arrive at near zero deaths at work. It is very unfortunate that even
one death should occur; however, the mission of OSHA has failed.
We are spending $350 million in 1995 in order to keep all the


124

{No response.]
Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. 23, Roberta Till-Retz.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA TILL-RETZ

Ms. TILL-RETZ. I am from Iowa City but I drink Des Moines
water, I buy it in Iowa City, that is how much I like it.

I was asked to serve last summer on a task force set up by the
lowa legislature, a focus group actually, to look at OSHA inspec-
tions and how the businesses investigated by OSHA inspections felt
about them. The businesses that were looked at were those that
had been inspected in the previous 12 months. And that is part of
who I am. I am also a union president and I teach workers, I am
a wife and a mother, I have been a small farmer, and I am a Demo-
crat.

To my mind, one of the things that has come out in today’s testi-
mony is that there is a danger to the commonwealth when public
policy is made based on anecdotes. And I would like to mention but
one example of that I think in today’s testimony.

Mr. Whiton, and God bless his family and his wonderful feed
company, it sounds like a really wonderful idea of a small business.
But he got a great laugh from this audience when he mentioned
his OS) citation for what is really a minor sanitation issue—I
mean it would appear to us to be so—the missing toilet paper hold-
er. But he passed over, and so did all of you, the citations that he
did get for another issue, which was “a few guards not on augers.”
Now I would urge you to look into those kind of anecdotes as well
as the others when you are making your report.

It was very tempting today for me to come here and read you off
a list of Iowa workers killed and injured on the job. In fact, I am
preparing such a list as we speak. But it seems to me that what
we need to look at is the bigger issue, and that is what kind of soci-
ety, what kind of State, what kind of country do we want to live
in. And I am here to say I think we need more regulations, not
less.

The fact is that the history of our country has led us as a society
to fear unregulated competition and to attempt to apply social con-
trols to that. Yes, OSHA is there to protect workers, it is not there
to help business. We have the Commerce Department and you
name it, there to help business. The Consumer Protection Agency,
the Environmental Protection Agency are there to protect those
exact issues. Why? Because we cannot trust market forces alone to
create a livable society, we need government forces. And that
means regulations and enforcement agents out there.

Government mandates such as the ones that you all here today
decry create a floor of standard practice on which businesses com-
pete. Remove or weaken those mandates and there is no bottom to
which our business practices will not sink in the competitive strug-
gle. Do we really want to compete with Pakistan——

{Bell rings.]}

Ms. TILL-RETZ. Can I have a little more time?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.

Ms. TILL-RETZ [continuing]. Which has children working in rug
factories or Chinese slave labor? Businesses, especially small busi-
nesses, I would argue, need to know that for all of them, for the


31

to keep the peace. Today, their job is to enforce the law. Now if
someone has had too much to drink, they have to take him to detox
now and there is a huge amount of rigmarole and all that goes
with it. He said 20 years ago, if somebody had had a little too much
to drink, many times they would put them in the back of the car
and take them home.

The question we really do have to wrestle with is how much lati-
tude—and that was in the days when police officers had a huge
amount of latitude in terms of how they were going to deal with
a fight at the local bar or how they were going to deal with what-
ever. And I do think we have to come to grips with that basic ques-
tion of how much latitude we need to give these people. And it does
require Congress, it seems to me, being willing to say OK, we real-
ly are not as concerned how you get to the goal. We do want a
clean environment, we do want safe workplaces, but we do not
want $15,000 solutions to $5 problems.

So I do not really have any questions for you, but I think it is
something we all have to think about as we begin down this path
of sort of bringing the pendulum back to the center. We are going
to have to allow some latitude with these different agencies and
give them, you know, fairly specific guidelines, but a different
charge in terms of how you get there. Are they going to be out
there to help keep the peace or just to enforce the law? And right
now, the truth of the matter is, many of them are out there and
they see their job as to strictly enforce the letter of the law. And
it gets very difficult from a congressional perspective, how do you
rein in on that without giving them a lot of flexibility.

So with that, again, I just thank you all. I think this has been
excellent testimony and the documentation is even better.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutknecht. Mr.
Latham.

Mr. LaTHAM. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, I know we have
several panels to go through here.

But I am one, I think like Gil here, that believes that safety in
the workplace, a clean environment, job growth, small business
growth, are not exclusive of each other. I mean, I think we need
to insert some common sense into the system, and that seems to
be what the problem is.

Your comment about you heard an OSHA inspector say that “I
am not here to help you,” is just mind-boggling as far as I am con-
cerned, because that was the intention of OSHA to begin with, was
to work in cooperation and now it has become a punitive agency,
it appears anyway. Can anyone tell me when it changed? I mean,
you know, is there something 5 years ago or whenever? When did
it change from being-——

Voice. Day one.

VoIcE. Day one is right. [Laughter.]

Voice. Basically I think it changed in our area when the Con-
gress allowed the increase in the fine structure, when it went from
the $1,000 fine per accident up to a $7,000 fine per accident, and
then it went up to $10,000 for a second violation, et cetera. That
happened about 2 years ago, perhaps 3.

ir. LATHAM. And the panel here. Do you have any




7

interpret, or enforce Federal regulations. And each year, those em-
ployees—and some might call bureaucrats—turn out some 65,000
pages in very fine print of new Federal regulations. We have heard
from business owners, large and small. We have heard from farm-
ers. We have heard from people who—we have heard from fire de-
partments. We have heard from school superintendents. As a mat-
ter of fact, in Indianapolis, I said that I think we have finally
reached the critical mass because we had both the editor and pub-
lisher of the largest newspaper in the’State of Indiana, as well as
the president of the University of Indiana coming before us saying
uncle, that they had had enough of Federal regulations. I said now,
we finally have the media and academia coming and saying that
we need some common sense in regulation.

I also want to underscore a couple of things that Greg said in
that we are not talking about no regulations. I think everyone un-
derstands there is a need for some Federal regulation. What we are
really asking for, and what I think the charge of this subcommittee
is, is to come up with commonsense solutions, because altogether
too often what we see coming from Washington are $50 solutions
to $5 problems. And what we are finding out out here in the great
breadbasket of the United States is there is still an awful lot of
common sense. Most Americans do want a clean environment and
a safe workplace and all the other things that we say that we
want, and I believe that to be true.

The other point that we are looking for is good science. Because,
J think, as we look at some of the facts, and you begin to examine
what the real dangers of different things are, the dangers have
been grossly exaggerated by certain groups. I think if we work to-
gether, we can come up with some commonsense solutions to some
of those problems.

I am delighted to be here in Des Moines and I thank Congress-
man Ganske and Congressman Latham for all the work that they
have done to try and bring some common sense back to Washing-
ton.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Gil. I appreciate your coming down
and joining us both yesterday and today.

Also with us is the other Iowa freshman who helped us set up
a similar field hearing yesterday in Sioux City, Tom Latham. Do
you have any opening remarks to share with us?

Mr. LATHAM. I will be very brief. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair-
man, for bringing this hearing to Iowa. Greg, thank you very much
for all the work putting this together today.

Yesterday up at Sioux City, we heard testimony ranging from an
individual—a small business owner who had 18 EPA people come
into his office with guns drawn, cocked, with a secretary. This is
a free country, folks. Things like that simply should not happen.
We had the Sioux City Fire Department, which were the heroes of
the United Flight 232, now held in somewhat contempt, I think, by
individuals who because they went to help out in an adjoining com-
munity and because they did not go into that jurisdiction and take
over the situation, even though it is not their responsibility or their
right to do so, they were fined by OSHA. I mean, a fire department
that is held in such esteem and was honored nationwide to be
treated like that.



139

in Washington. I have only been there a year, but I will tell you
that frequently there is a tendency for a victim to come into a con-

essional hearing, and, it can be the most heart-rending, sad case
in the world. Yet if one legislates based on the compassion that is
generated out of individual stories only, then unfortunately some-
times I think in terms of being compassionate to one group, you
may end up being mean to another group, unintentionally.

‘his, in my opinion, is why we need to do a much better job in
examining the consequences of the effects of some of the things
that we are trying to do in the regulatory areas. I know that this
is something of concern to the nursing home. If your nurses’ aides
are tied up for an hour and a half doing a checklist, they may not
be able to go and provide care, good caring service, to somebody
who is down the hallway. It is simply a matter of trying to do a
reasonable balance. And if you have any comments, I would be glad
to have them.

Ms. Pope. Well, I think that is correct and certainly we do not
have a lot of extra help in the nursing home industry. In fact, we
are quite short-staffed in some facilities. And I would like to see
how we could more effectively use the employees that we do have
to provide hands-on care rather than complete paperwork.

And to share with you just my own personal view of this, my po-
sition was added to the Association this year because my sole re-
sponsibility is to study regulations and explain it to nursing homes.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you. Congressman Latham.

Mr. LATHAM. Well, I just want to tell you, I am going to have
to leave because of an appointment I have, and I] just wanted to
thank Greg for putting this all together here, and Gil, for your pa-
tience in spending the day down here, and Chairman McIntosh, al-
though he has left, for holding the hearing here. These have been
very, very productive the last 2 days and I think it has given me
a greater insight as to a lot of the concerns people have. And I just
want to thank you and apologize to everyone. I thank everyone for
their testimony, it has been tremendous.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Next, we have Don Rowan from Iowa Citizen Action Network.

STATEMENT OF DON ROWAN

Mr. Rowan. Good afternoon. My name is Don Rowan, I am a
member of the Board of Directors of the Iowa Citizen Action Net-
work, a statewide public interest organization. I am pleased to
make this statement.

Regulatory reform is of keen interest to the groups in our coali-
tion and among our members. Regulatory reform—sounds as Amer-
ican as apple pie and motherhood. But the so-called regulatory re-
form bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year
was rotten to the core and bitter fruit to our kids.

Let me give you just one example of how our children might be
adversely affected by this. A few years ago the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency forced refineries to remove lead from gasoline, based
on threats to children’s health. At the time of the initial rule, little
was known about health risks at lower doses of lead in the body.
If EPA had been forced to do a detailed comparison of costs and


147

STATEMENT OF MARK DICKEY

Mr. DICKEY. I will tell you what, I am going to make this ve
brief because you have been sitting there for a long time. Than
you, Congressmen, for allowing me to speak.

I want to talk about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mayor Gray,
Dr. L.D. McMullen spoke eloquently on that today. I have worked
with both of those gentlemen, my testimony is much the same. In-
stead of me going through and speaking on the testimony, you are
going to get a copy of it in written format. I hope that gives me
extra consideration by you for not taking your time here at the po-
dium, to get you out of here quicker. I do not know how you guys
have sat there all this time and listened to all this and not even
gone to the restroom, or your stomach growling like mine has.

So I will turn mine over——

Mr. GANSKE. We have plenty of practice. [Laughter.]

Mr. Dickey. I did want to say one thing. I do want to thank Con-
gressman Ganske for coming to our annual banquet and speaking
before us on the Safe Drinking Water Act this past January. The
400 people there that listened to your speech, Congressman, every
one of them agreed wholeheartedly with what you had to say.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GANSKE. I appreciate that.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Let us £ to Mark Groenendyk. Is Mark still
here? I am sorry we skipped you, but thank you for joining us. You
are a farmer from down around Oskaloosa, is that right?

STATEMENT OF MARK GROENENDYK

Mr. GROENENDYK. Yes. It is kind of ironic, I swapped with the
lady who said she was a teacher, it turned out she was from the
Sierra Club. (Laughter.]

In 1989, I bought a 285-acre river bottom farm, some of it was
farm ground, some of it was timber. When I first farmed it, I had
dreams for it, I did some research on it, I could do some tree clear-
ing and I proposed to put in a levee system. I got my research in-
formation from the sc8, now the NRCS, and the lowa Department
of Natural Resources.

Well, I went ahead and applied for the levee permit and I started
doing the tree clearing where my levee was proposed to go in. Ev-
erything was fine until November 1989 when the Corps of Engi-
neers stepped in. They wanted to call 10 acres wetland. Well, that
10 acres was where the levee was going to go. So to get the permit,
I had to—Fish and Wildlife had to do an inspection and the De-

artment of Natural Resources again had to do another inspection.
Well they got done with their inspection and 100 acres of my farm
was a wetland.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. You are losing ground, pal.

Mr. GROENENDYK. It gets better. The Corps of Engineers did an-
other inspection, so they fly—you can see | am a little bit nerv-
ous—two people up from Mississippi, their top experts on wetlands,
along with a couple of other people from their agency and they
spent about 2 days around my area and my farm doing their re-
search. They were supposed to have their determination to me
within 3 weeks, this was September 20 and 21, 1990. I finally get
their determination, which they say due to lack of funding, finally




46

somebody gets there to help you sort through that. What a morass
of conflicting regulation. Thank you for coming today.
Our next witness is Mr. Howard Alff. Thank you for coming.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Siegle follows:]


6

then hand us the check. We frankly appreciate the meal, but it is
kind of hard to pay the bill.

There is an area that I, as a member of the Commerce Commit-
tee, am especially interested in, and that is in the area of risk as-
sessment which seeks to ensure that regulations are based on
sound science and are justified both in the areas of cost and bene-
fit. There is rarely anything that we do in our lives where we do
not do a cost/benefit analysis. In our personal relationships, in our
businesses, this is part of the decisionmaking process. Unfortu-
nately, we have examples in the Federal Government where no
cost/benefit analysis is allowed by law, where there is a zero risk
assessment standard. I think, this is contrary to being able to focus
sometimes scarce Federal funds into the areas where they can do
the most good.

We also need to look at private property issues which work to
guarantee that the Federal Government cannot take property
rights away from individuals unless they are fairly compensated.

So, I wil keep these remarks short, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
very much for having this hearing and for allowing Iowans to par-
ticipate in a very important governmental process.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you. Your work is going to be critical on
the Commerce Committee as they address many of these regulatory
problems. Thank you for helping us set it up and procure the great
witnesses we are tooking forward to hearing today.

Let me now turn to one of the full-time committee members, a
colleague from Minnesota, Gil Gutknecht, who shared with me ear-
lier that he was originally from Iowa. So, I am in good company
up here with three people who are from Iowa. Perhaps your State
has been able to actually get their sixth Congressman back again.
(Laughter.}

Gil, any opening remarks for us?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just might add that
when you look at the entire Congress, it is amazing how many
Members were born and raised in Iowa. An awful lot of Members.
1 think Jon Kyl was born and raised in Iowa. I forget the rest of
the names. There are about half a dozen who were educated here
and went on to other States and have been elected to Congress. It
is great to be back.

Let me just reiterate a couple of points. I want to be brief be-
cause we have got some great testimony lined up today. But a cou-
ple of points that Greg made.

First of all, that the estimates of the needless regulations, the
cost on our economy is astronomical, and we have seen various es-
timates. But I think it is reasonable to say that it is probably cost-
ing the average family about $6,000 a year in higher cost for every-
thing that they buy just because of the needless regulations. What
we have heard—this is our 12th field hearing, and we literally
have had field hearings from Maine to Minnesota. I am not sure
how far west we have gone, but we have covered pretty much most
of the United States. We are going to have additional field hearings
to just hear from citizens who have to deal with the Federal Gov-
ernment.

There are in Washington and scattered around the United States
approximately 65,000 Federal employees whose job it is to write,


40

for this, but these are listed in here—this is for 1995, and they list
most of these in here.

I could go on, but I think most of my time is up. If I could just
give 3 few short examples—are you going to let me go ahead and
finish?

Mr. McINTOsH. Perhaps—you have some interesting testimony
that Mr. Ganske is pointing out on an OSHA inspection, if you
could share that with us.

Mr. WuiTon. Being a small employer, OSHA I guess you could
say does not really bother us. But the one time they did, or the sev-
eral times they have inspected us—this has been years ago—we
had a few minor violations, a few guards not on augers, a few
handrailings, that type of thing. But the one that impressed me the
most was in our restroom, they tagged our restroom because we did
not have a toilet paper holder, the toilet paper sat on the back of
the stool, so we had to run down to the hardware store, put a toilet
paper holder up and install the toilet paper, but to this day, the
toilet paper is still on the back of the stool, but we do have a hold-
er. (Laughter.]

Mr. McInTOsH. They did not care where the toilet paper was,
they just wanted to make sure you had a holder.

Mr. WHITON. Exactly, exactly.

One other quick one is with the Department—DOT—I have got
another picture. This is a brand new truck we just bought, $62,000,
a beautiful truck. I cannot drive this truck, I have to have a CDL,
which requires me to go to a special testing and take a test to get
the CDL. We drive within 30 miles of Perry, LA. They have man-
dated these laws for interstate transportation, these huge mega-
companies that drive trucks all over the Nation, and I as an owner
cannot drive it. You know, these are the kind of regulations that
one size just does not fit all. I am not up there with the Cargills,
the Continental Grains, the Purinas. I am trying to survive and I
cannot do it being nicked every single day.

I cannot complain about fines, we have never been in violation
of any kind of rules or anything, but each day—I mean I spend 3
to 4 weeks a year trying to comply and filling out paperwork and
I do not have the resources to hire a compliance officer. So it isa
challenge.

Mr. MCINTosH. Or a fleet of lawyers.

Mr. WuITON. Or a fleet of lawyers, correct.

Mr. McInTosu. Thank you and thank you for your full testimony,
Mr. Whiton, I appreciate that.

I have got a couple of questions for you when we get to the ques-
tion period.

The next witness that we have got is Mr. Richard Siegle, who is
also a farmer.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whiton follows:]


120

ation in the production and distribution of our products. We have
a strong track record of achievements in this area.

Our industry as a whole actively seeks ways to manage waste in
a responsible and environmentally sound manner. We continually
implement effective controls that reduce or eliminate the release of
pollutants to the air, land, and water. We pursue effective improve-
ments in energy, promote conservation of resources, and are com-
mitted to waste minimization by recycling. We participate with the
lawmakers and the regulators and are good corporate citizens.

Our industry provides essential and high-quality infrastructure
products and an excellent wage and benefit package to its employ-
ees and are generous contributors within our community where we
live and where we work.

Regulated industries such as the cement industry must be al-
lowed to petition Federal and State agencies to review outdated,
unworkable regulations. There are too many rules for employers to
keep up with, they place unreasonable demands on employers, are
often out of touch with present technologies as well as have a sig-
nificant and negative impact on our businesses.

Our industry works very hard to comply with the regulations and
do not intentionally set out to break the rules. Implementation of
regulations that have a negligible risk to human health and the en-
vironment have a significant impact on employers. No person today
lives in a zero risk environment. Agencies should not be able to re-
quire that the business community produce such an environment.

We support the concept that State and local regulations in the
environmental area follow the State regulations so as not to further
mandate more restrictive regulations on employers.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you for coming. I know your industry has
worked hard to figure out ways of using some of the waste products
in an efficient way so that there is economic benefit and it is also
environmentally sound.

Ms. LOECKLE. I just wanted to make one last comment also. I
just received a 60-page supplement to interpret the Family Medical
Leave Act and I could barely read it, barely interpret it. 1 hesitate
to bring it up because that is a whole new area, but environmental
law, the ADA, they are so interpretive, I have manuals this thick
lindicating] to interpret. And if employers are to comply with the
regulations that are mandated on us, they definitely need to be
simplified.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you for coming today.

Our next witness is No. 20.

STATEMENT OF SAUL HERSCOVICI

Mr. HERSCOVICI. Good afternoon.

If you detect an accent in the English, it is because I was born
in Rumania. I grew up under the Nazi system and then subsequent
to that, I grew up under the Communists and I am set to tell you
that for the third time in my life I wake up under OSHA. [Laugh-
ter.

I made it my determination that not only will I leave my com-
pany creating jobs and goods, but I will also dedicate a lot of my


19

Federal Regulations
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (OSHA)

Although regulations are necessary to protect worker safety and health on construction
sites, home builders must follow rules that were designed for large commercial construction
projects rather than residential construction.

In recent years, state and federal OSHA officials have placed an emphasis on enforce-
ment within the residential sector, and home builders are now subject to inspections once
focused on large commercial construction projects as well as onerous fines that do not
reasonably reflect the significance of violations. True, the agency can apply less than the
maximum fine commensurate with the size of business, but all too often, 50% of the maximum
fine is assessed against the small business owner with assets equaling 1/1000th of the size of
a corporate employer receiving the legal limit. (See attachments).

It has proven difficult, very costly and sometimes impossible for home builders to
comply with some OSHA standards~particularly those relating to excavations, stairways and
ladders, trenching, fall protection, and scaffolding-during some phases of new home construc-
tion.

DAVIS-BACON ACT

‘The Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act requires construction workers on publicly-funded
projects to be paid a government-determined prevailing wage. Its effect has been to inflate
project costs and decrease the number of builders interested in doing federal work. AGeneral
Accounting Office report found that Davis-Bacon raised total construction costs on federally-
assisted housing projects by an average of 3.4 percent and added significant costs to HUD
Section 8 low-income housing programs. In 1982, Oregon State University found that Davis-
Bacon drove up residential and infrastructure construction costs in rural areas by an
astonishing 26 to 3 percent. Most residential projects in which the Federal Government is
involved, target low and medium income families. Therefore, artificially raising the overall
project cost puts a Federal budget burden on all of us which seems zo be counter productive

LUMBER COSTS

‘Timber cutting in the national forests of the Pacific Northwest has been severely
limited for the last three years due to a legal morass created by cenflicting laws governing
national forest management, including the Endangered Species Act, The National Forest
Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The cutbacks have occurred
even though tree growth has exceeded harvests every year for nearly half a century. The
decreased timber supply caused lumber prices to double from 1091 to 1993, raising the cost
of lumber and wood products for a typical 2,000-square-foot single-family home by as much
as $4,500. Although lumber prices have since moderated, they remain more than 50% higher
than in the 1980's.

CLEAN WATER ACT AND REGULATIONS

Builders and developers must follow myriad regulations set forth in the Clean Water
Act, including rules relating to wetlands, storm water, non-point source discharges and
citizens suits. Each provision may require the builder to take scores of steps, with the home
buyer eventually paying the costs. Wetlands regulations in particular, cause significant
delays, in large par: because of the lack of a workable wetlands definition. Land classified as

Page 2


14

Pp. 3
Subcommittee Public Testimony
9 Feb 96

manager about this; he contacted DNR; but several years later
nothing has been done. I tried to do the right thing, and it cost
me $3,820.00, plus I received a letter from DNR mandating certain
things of me. Why could DNR not have said to me “We appreciate
what your are wanting to do and we will help you accomplish in?
Why did they have to treat me as though I wag not to be trusted?

After the process was over, DNR did express their thanks to me for
not just dumping the material. why could they not have worked with
me on this at the start?

One of the greatest ways to help in the area of regulations
would be to remove the confrontational posture of the regulation:
If OSHA were truly about safety and not about the government making
the employer do something, OSHA would be a consultation agency
instead of an enforcement agency.

While growing up as a boy in a small rural school about an
hours drive from here, I was taught that government was here to
serve the people. Little did I know years later I would be working
in a position dealing directly with excessive, ridiculous,
expensive government regulations and learning that government is
not here to serve and help but is here to over-regulate, restrict,
mandate, fine, treat me like an enemy, and that my only recourse
for protection is to litigate against my own government. It is
rediculous that I have to protect myself from my own government.



3

you can picture these, and the paperwork that was involved in that
and the months of waiting for payment. I went through the chal-
lenge of meeting a payroll, and operating that same company, you
had to make the same tough decisions many business people do in
operating that company. And it makes it difficult if business be-
comes one of those burdens or one of those barriers—I_ mean—ex-
cuse me, government becomes that burden or that barrier because
we are trying to deal with our day-to-day operations. We are trying
to deal with how can we survive in the free market system, and
government needs to be a partner. And that is why I believe gov-
ernment can work together and become a team. I think government
can wear the white hat. I think they can be the good guy.

This past year, I have traveled the State meeting with business
owners and these business owners are community leaders. They
are very active in their own backyards and in over 50 meetings, I
have heard the frustrations of these real people in the real world
and I have listened to their commonsense solutions. The folks I
have met with are leaders in those communities and they are not
just evil business owners as some might want to paint them. They
do not want to destroy the environment; they do not want to hurt
their employees and they are not fly by-night owners working out
of a pickup truck or in some back alley. In many cases, they are
second or third generation owners hoping they can pass their busi-
ness or their farm on to their children. They are volunteers and
they are active in their communities, and I hope that someday that
they will have the opportunity to say that Iowa is truly the best
State to operate in and that is part of our efforts here.

Many of them have shared a common concern, a common frustra-
tion and even a common fear. They are honest and they want to
provide jobs at good wages. They want their communities to grow
and they want to hire more people. But they are also frustrated by
the government rules that do not make sense. They want to follow
those rules, and they understand the need for government's role,
and they cannot quite figure out why government sometimes acts
the way it does. And we are hoping ugh your hearings here
and through the efforts we are doing on the State level, we can put
some rationale in that process. Today’s hearing should provide
some key insights on these issues and I want to give you a couple
of examples that I have heard from business owners.

The first example comes from a small business in western Iowa.
It is a crematory and they applied for an air permit and one of the
questions the agency asked this business was for them to put to-

ether a projection on air emissions for this new permit and they

ad to do their projections based on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year. Well, the crematory responded back by saying
wait a minute, I have already cremated everybody in Council
Bluffs, Sioux City and I am working my way toward Des Moines
and we are not even going to dent this one. I ask you, where is the
common sense? That is what we want to bring back to this process.

Another interesting story is about two small towns in Rome and
Hillsboro, LA. Now they worked with the Federal Government to
bring sewage services to their small towns of about 60 or 70 homes.
Engineers wanted to use several innovative designs, including a 6-
inch sewage pipe which could handle about 150 to 200 homes. The


132

cent of the occupational injuries. Yet, hazardous communication
ranks the No. 1 most frequently cited serious violation. And in fact,
it accounts for almost 33 percent of the most frequently cited viola-
tions in construction.

The No. 1 cause of occupational injuries was over-exertion and
the No. 1 cause of occupational deaths was highway accidents. Both
these are not addressed by OSHA regulations, yet they are the No.
1 causes of injuries and deaths in occupations.

I am the safety officer for four companies with very good safety
records. We feel our safety program is adequate and we strive to
meet or exceed all State and Federal regulations. We are con-
stantly reviewing our program and improving it. But it becomes
very frustrating when an OSHA inspector comes to our job site and
does an inspection. There are no major violations onsite but yet
there is always some little minor detail such as paperwork, hazard-
ous communication or something that they can find to cite us for
because if they come onsite and do not cite us for anything, they
are basically looked at as not doing their job. Hazardous commu-
nication is almost impossible to be 100 percent compliant with.

When I was in Kansas City a couple of weeks ago at the OSHA
training institute getting clarification on some of the complicated
regulations, I witnessed inspectors in the class themselves ques-
tioning the regulations. Now how can they be out inspecting our
sites when they do not know the regulations themselves. One per-
son there was training to be an OSHA inspector and yet she did
not even know what welding was. How can you go out to a con-
struction site, inspect the site and not even know what welding is.
She never heard of the word before. I question their competency.

Towa OSHA's current inspection procedure is to treat employees
in a certain industry alike regardless of their individual safety and
health performance. Each employer is subject to the same enforce-
ment inspection regardless of their safety record or willingness to
cooperate. In any industry, there are some companies who operate
in an unsafe manner without any regard to their employees’ safety.

I propose the State of Iowa adopt a new OSHA workers safety
and health program that the Federal Government has put out and
also adopt some sort of a main 200 program where they adopt the
total quality management approach where it says that 80 percent
of your problems are caused by 20 percent of your people. In this
situation, what you do is you find out in each State who is causing
the deaths, the injuries, and you go after them. Do not do random
inspections where you are wasting your time and money on people
that are complying with the laws, have excellent safety vecords and
all you are doing is frustrating them and really getting them mad
because you are citing them for things when they think they are
doing a good job and they are really trying.

But using this approach Iowa OSHA would be able to focus their
enforcement toward employers of most concern, thereby getting big-
ger results from more effective inspections. This will make their in-
spection procedure more efficient and effective and continue to re-
duce occupational deaths and injuries as they originally set out to

lo.

In the past, in the nineties, injuries and deaths have come to
kind of a plateau. They were reducing pretty steadily as far as oc-


110

a color-blind society, but when you start having regulations that do
not use color-blind tests but reverse discriminate, then we have
moved the pendulum too far and are going in the wrong direction
again. So thank you for coming forward and talking with us about
that.

Our next witness is Edward Swanson.

Tom indicated he has got to go to a conference on the farm bill.
I know that is important. I appreciate you coming. Thank you.

Mr. Swanson.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD SWANSON

Mr. SWANSON. Yes, thank you. My name is Edward Swanson, I
am with a small pest control company, I manage it here in central
Towa and I am also on the Board of Directors of Iowa Pest Control
Association which is about 150 pest control companies here in

owa.

On behalf of the Iowa Pest Control Association, we want to thank
you for giving us the opportunity to discuss with you today some
concerns that we have regarding regulation by congressional and
Washington bureaucrats. Rather than discuss a far range of con-
cerns today, I would like to discuss the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation Hazardous Material regulations specifically.

I would like to put it in perspective. We do not believe there is
any set of Federal regulatory requirements which imposes a more
onerous burden on a broader segment of the small business com-
munity, without any corresponding benefit to human health, safety
or the environment.

Pest control operators, for example, typically transport small
quantities of fairly benign chemicals, most of which are identical or
nearly identical to pest control products which are sold to home-
owners in home supply stores, lawn and garden stores. Yet PCOs
are subject to a wide range of DOT regulatory requirements, in-
cluding container marking, shipping papers, record retention, dru,
and alcohol testing, commercial drivers license, insurance an
training. Worse than the requirements themselves is the difficulty
in knowing how to comply. The Federal regulations are voluminous
and confusing.

The cost of complying with these regulations is staggering and
imposes an especially large burden on small businesses. We have
calculated the approximate cost to just our industry for complying
only with the shipping paper, recordkeeping, marking and training
requirements. And | gave you a copy of that. Conservatively, we es-
timate the annual cost at $135 million, close to 3 percent of the in-
dustry’s annual gross receipts. Despite the high costs, we have seen
very little benefit to anyone. For instance, DOT requires that PCOs
maintain a 24-hour emergency response telephone number. Na-
tional Pest Control Association contracts this service through a
company called INFOTRAC. In a year, INFOTRAC has received
only two phone calls for incidents relating to the pest control indus-
try, and neither was related to the transportation part of it.

[Bell rings.}

Mr. SWANSON. I just have a couple more sentences.

Mr. McInrosu. Certainly.


69

For 75 years, the city has been pumping water from the same
wells, approximately 1,400 feet deep. During this time, the makeup
of the water has remained consistent. To my knowledge, the public
had been using it with no health problems. Our water was natu-
rally soft and required no treatment. However, due to Federal reg-
ulations, we were mandated to reduce the fluoride level.

Manson was forced to install a reverse osmosis treatment plant
to remove the 1 milligram or less per liter of fluoride. The cost of
this plant was $700,000. Since the city did not quality for any
grants to assist with construction, the money was dbtained by the
sale of general obligation bonds. This large indebtedness restricted
the city’s bonding capacity for repairs of sanitary and storm sewers
and much needed street work.

Water rates were raised by 45 percent, strictly to cover the oper-
ational costs of the plant. Property taxes were raised and now ap-
proximately 24 percent of these taxes are allocated to paying off
the water bonds. These expenses do not include future mainte-
nance, depreciation or the additional cost of going from a Grade 1
Distribution Operator to a Grade 2 Treatment Operator.

One of the more serious problems we have encountered has been
maintaining an adequate water supply to meet both the demands
of the people and the reverse osmosis system. Approximately
50,000 gallons of water are rejected through this treatment plant
daily. This has put a major strain on the wells and pumps, which
have been lowered to the maximum depth possible. New wells may
have to be drilled to meet demands.

Providing safe drinking water is one of our objectives. However,
through processing, we are wasting a tremendous amount of a pre-
cious natural resource—water. We have come from using natural,
raw well water to a system that adds five chemicals daily to our
drinking water.

I have told the story of how one community has dealt with the
government's burdensome regulations. Regulations that are inflexi-

le and enforced by bureaucrats who have no idea of the struggles
and challenges that rural American communities face today—an
ever-shrinking dollar having to stretch further and further.

In my opinion, the Government needs a common sense approach
to regulating our water systems—one that is health-risk based, not
mandated without proper scientific methods being applied, and
that provides the necessary financing for sanctioned improvements.
A system based on local, State and Federal Governments working
together to solve environmental problems, not as adversaries. The
Safe Drinking Water Act recently passed by the U.S. Senate and
currently being contemplated by the U.S. House of Representatives,
will provide a regulatory system to enable the government to func-
tion in the best interests of its citizens for the century to come.

I want to thank you again for taking the time to hold these meet-
ings. Thank you.

r. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mayor Gray. Your testimony, I am
sure, will elicit some questions when we finish with the panel
there.

Let me now turn to Mayor Fletcher Reel, who is the mayor of the
city of Missouri Valley. Thank you for joining us, mayor.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]


24

used as the justification for obtaining an inspection warrant. The citations were vacated
when it was discovered that the Professor was in Alaska at the time the alleged violation was
observed in lowa.

4, A metal spinner was cited for not having the metal spinning lathes guarded. The citation
was based upon a vague and generalized regulation that required that the point of operation,
of all machines shall be guarded. The citation was vacated because the employcr called tipon
the entire metal spinning industry to prove that metal spinning lathes have never been
guarded, are guarded to the fullest extent possible, and that guarding as OSHA would have
required would prevent the metal spinning operation from being performed. More than thirty
people would have been put out of work if OSHA had prevailed for impossible guarding.

5. Three different manufacturers, within the time span of approximately one year, were
alleged to have violated three different electrical regulations - for the same “hazardous
condition”. They had used an electrical handy box on an extension cord, formerly a common
means of making a multiple-outlet extension cord. OSHA prevailed in all three of these
inconsistent allegations simply because they lowered the severity of the violation and
amended the fines to make abatement a business decision.

6. A small manufacturer was faced with alleged violations for which OSHA required
“enginesring or administrative controls” for air contaminants when respirators provide
adequate protection. The controls urged by OSHA would have ruined a high gloss finish and
caused the manufacturer to go out of business. Settlement negotiations, extending over six
months, resulted in changes in OSHA demands so that the company is still in business.

‘We have found the policies and the behavior of OSHA personnel to be abusive and activist with little
regard for real hazards, Our compliance inspections have consistently resulted in the abatement of
a substantial number of hazardous conditions never identified or cited by an OSHA inspector.

Lower fines and OSHA “recommendations” will not solve the problems facing the private sector.
This will simply force unnecessary acts at the whim of OSHA and the same regulatory nightmares
will continue. People will continue to be injured, will continue to injure themselves, and fatalities
vill still occur.

We recommend that equal access to justice be made a real remedy for the abuses of the system.
Each and every cited employer should be reimbursed when OSHA has been proved wrong. Any

bureaucratic excuse involving reasonable cause (to cite) or any other term describing an excuse for
inappropriate OSHA action must be eliminated.

Exemption from programmed inspections provides litle relief from the bureaucracy. We have seen
no programmed inspections among our clients for several years. Our clients have, however,
experienced numerous ex-employee or employce complaints as vengeance for imagined slights.

OSHA prevails and continues abuses simply because they can. The private sector cannot afford to
fight for what is right with limited funds. And yes, the costs of unreasonable OSHA compliance

James B, Meehan, PE., PC. 3006 Rownd Street Cedar Falls, lowa 50613-5813


143

the meat and poultry industry to the point that food safety and the
health of the American public will be seriously compromised.

HACCP regulations in their original form were intended to be an
enhancement to the current system of meat and poultry inspection,
and as food inspectors, we fully support any program which is de-
signed to enhance food safety and improve consumer protection.
However, HACCP regulations, in their current form, have been di-
luted, changed, and rewritten to the point where HACCP would
now replace the current system of meat and poultry inspection and
seriously jeopardize food safety and the health of the American
public.

The changes in the proposed HACCP regulations have been de-
signed in conjunction with industry demands for less Government
regulation, the resulting effect of which would be greater profits for
the meat and poultry industry. However, while industry profits ob-
viously will increase, the incidence of foodborne disease outbreaks,
often with deadly results, will also increase.

In an attempt to enlighten the committee as to the potential dan-
ger involved with the implementation of new HACCP regulations,
T would like to make mention of a book entitled “The Jungle” writ-
ten by Upton Sinclair and published in 1906. Within his book, Mr.
Sinclair described the horrific conditions which existed in the poor-
ly regulated packing plants of Chicago during the early 1900’s. The
graphic accounts described in that book led to such intense public
outrage that in 1910 the Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Act
was enacted by the Congress of the United States.

In closing, I would like to state that our current meat and poul-
try regulations have delivered us from the conditions described in
Mr. Sinclair’s book to our current status of having the safest food
in the world. Let me point out that we would be taking a serious
step back toward the jungle with the wholesale elimination of the
current regulations and the initiation of the industry-created
HACCP regulations. This new HACCP jungle will be a jungle of
deadly bacterial contamination and a new and much more deadly
jungle, given the emergent strains of bacteria not yet known in Mr.
Sinclair’s day. This new HACCP jungle will put a complete and
dangerous end to our country’s claim of having the safest food sup-
ply in the world.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you. Dale Brentnall and then Darrell
Klua. Welcome to the subcommittee, Mr. Brentnall.

STATEMENT OF DALE BRENTNALL

Mr. BRENTNALL. Congressman Gutknecht and Congressman
Ganske, it is a pleasure for me to make a presentational statement
here this afternoon. You know, the mind usually does not retain
any more than the seat can endure—

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We are testing those limits right now.

Mr. BRENTNALL [continuing]. And we all have empty stomachs.

1 would like to make a statement concerning the current con-
servation policy and also some farm bill priorities.

My name is Dale Brentnall and I am a past national president
of the Izaak Walton League of America. I live at 429 25th Street


10

an example, the employer—this was alluded to earlier by one of the
speakers. But we have to figure that we are going to use that paint
gun 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and it is phys-
ically impossible to do but that is what we have got to figure. An
employer in the group objected to this because you just cannot do
that. The DNR representative agreed that it is impossible and that
it does not make any sense but then said that does not matter. I
wonder how ridiculous our Government can really get. Business
cannot look at something and say it does not make any sense, but
that does not matter. Maybe Government can but business cannot
get by with that. In my situation, I can agree to not paint on Sun-

ays. The only way we could get out of the problem is to take a
voluntary—a Title V voluntary permit and you do that by agreeing
to restrict your operation. We could agree to not paint on Sunday,
which we do not do. But the amount of paperwork and figuring
which the environmental engineer had to do for us to get to that
point to say we will not do something that we are not doing any-
way was ridiculous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. Regulations
seem to be written in such a way that common sense is removed
from the process.

I had 387 gallons of a material that I needed to dispose of. A
treatment method is diluting it with water because it is neutralized
with water. The chemical company did not want it back, so I took
some samples and some MSDS sheets and went to our local water
plant and told them what my problem was. They had agreed to
work with me on it and were going to be in touch with me later
about it. Then, to my surprise, I received a letter from the DNR
saying the local treatment plant will not be given authorization to
help and I had 30 days to tell the DNR how I was going to dispose
of the material. I did this and I disposed of it in the proper manner
at the cost of $3,820.

While at the treatment plant, I learned of another company
which had left our community, had hired someone to come in and
clean up after they were gone. The clean-up committee—or com-
pany dumped some chemicals down the drain, when it hit the
water plant, it just about blew the pH process at the water plant.
I talked to the city manager who talked to DNR and several years
later nothing has been done about it.

I tried to do the right thing and it cost $3,820, plus I received
a letter from DNR mandating certain things from me. Why could
not DNR have said to me, we appreciate what you are trying to do
and we will help you accomplish it? They did say this afterward,
but after I had jumped through all of the hoops and done all of the
work. Why could they not have helped at the beginning?

One of the greatest ways to help in the area of regulations would
be to remove the confrontational posture of the regulations. If
OSHA were truly about safety and not about the Government mak-
ing the employer do something, OSHA would be a consultation
agency instead of an enforcement agency.

While growing up as a boy in a small rural school about an
hour’s drive from here, I was taught the Government was here to
serve the people. Little did 1 know that years later I would be
working in a position dealing directly with excessive, ridiculous, ex-
pensive Government regulations and learning that Government is


141

gented to your committee. I would underscore this one concern that
ave.

As we move into the nineties, we have an ever-increasing num-
ber of citizens over 65 needing long-term care and we have a dra-
matically diminishing number of young people described as practi-
tioners in the work force to deliver that long-term care. That is pos-
ing a problem that creates staffing difficulties throughout the
State. That problem is being exacerbated by the regulatory atmos-

here. The atmosphere for these practitioners is so negative and so
fraught with excessive regulations that they can see as they try to
perform their tasks that more and more health care, hands-on type
health care, is being robbed from the patients by bureaucrats im-
posing more and more paperwork from the Federal level.

We then have a regulatory agency at the State level trying to
achieve and win back hands-on health care for residents and the
staff feels like they are caught between those two agencies. It is
very difficult for them to have job satisfaction, dignity, some of
those kinds of issues. It is frankly leading to an increasing dif-
ficulty in staffing our facilities. Most of the paper compliance that
they see adds nothing to the safety and care of the patients that
they are concerned about.

Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.
wt David Kroeger of the Midwest Council of Food Inspection

cals.

STATEMENT OF DAVID KROEGER

Mr. KROEGER. Yes, I am David Kroeger. I represent all of the
food and poultry—meat and poultry inspectors in Iowa, Missouri,
Kansas, and Nebraska.

The foodborne illness problems which may derive from the meat
and poultry industry—Congress has mandated more meat and
poultry inspection which includes microbiological testing and

CCP, which stands for hazard analysis, critical control points.

When first presented by FSIS, it was understood that CCP
would be an industry tool, used to keep their processes and proce-
dures in control to enable the industry to produce an acceptably
clean, wholesome product. However, now because of various influ-
ences, HACCP is now being presented as a regulatory program
which will take the place of real consumer protection.

Congress has mandated HACCP in meat and poultry inspection
which is to be in place in several years. However, in the meantime,
Congress has not given HACCP the funding needed to maintain
proper consumer protection, and as a result we are extremely short
of inspectors. This also results in inspectors being assigned to 11
plants and more to cover in a day. Under such conditions, there is
not time to do pre-operational and operational sanitation duties,
nor the many other needed duties, and the public is at risk.

HACCP as a regulatory tool is questionable. Although there are
to be periodical USDA inspector checks on meat and poultry plants’
activities, FSIS now says that the regulatory process will be de-
pendent on company-generated records of the company’s processes.
These records are proposed to be used as evidence in the case of
legal actions concerning a company’s activities. The idea that a


29
way, to interpret a broad goal of a regulation for safety? Mr. Hous-
mn.

Mr. Houston. Over the past 10 or 15 years, I have served on the
Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s Occupational Safety
and Health Committee and we meet with the division of labor, the
labor commissioner and his staff, eve year and we talk about
some of these problems, and I personally believe that in Iowa, we
have a State plan which is much to the benefit of Iowa employers.

Mr. McInrosu. Mr. Houston, if you could speak slightly louder,
they are telling me they are having difficulty in the back of the

room.

Mr. Houston. OK. I think Iowa OSHA, IOSH, has good man-
agers managing that program for lowa employers, but I think if—
and I think you can work with them, you can sit down and talk
with them, you can work with them. But I think where the prob-
lem comes in in Iowa is they are pushed by Federal OSHA, b
Washington, and if they could be left alone to do their job, I thin!
in Iowa at least we would have a lot better program.

Mr. GANSKE. You would like to see more local flexibility.

Mr. Houston. Yes.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Duchman.

Mr. DucHMAN. I would be in favor of more local flexibility, and
that is assuming that maybe we take it a step further. The Mining
Safety and Health Act requires that an inspector in the Mining
Safety and Health Act area have 5 years experience in the mining
area. In Iowa, there are many ins, rs that have absolutely no
experience in construction, absolutely no experience in manufactur-
ings however, they are going out and inspecting these. They have
a 2-week training course in Illinois and that es them qualified.
So I think if we are Rong to give them more flexibility, we must
also make sure that those people are qualified to take a look at a
problem. I have oftentimes gone into businesses where somethin;
very trivial has been cited and walked right by a definite haza:
that was not even addressed by the OSHA inspector, primarily be-
cause they were not aware what the hazard would be.

Mr. GANSKE. So, you would be in favor of more flexibility, as long
as you are comfortable in dealing with somebody who is knowledge-
able about the problem.

Mr. DucHMAN. Yes. And I think the inspector, along with the
management of the company, can come up with a workable deci-
sion. Probably the most often asked question of me by people that
I deal with is how was I supposed to know that—they do not know
that from the regulations. But if you say this looks like a problem,
they will address it and solve the problem.

Mr. GANSKE. Don, would you care to comment on this?

Mr. BEAL. Yes, I would.

] think in Iowa here, we have a certain amount of flexibility right
now. As I pointed out in my testimony, they are not obligated—
they being the inspectors—are not obliga‘ to assess maximum
fines. They do have flexibility. They also have some flexibility, I un-
derstand, in converting some of their enforcement personnel to con-
sultation. We have heard this across the panel this morning, if you
call and say I am very interested in job safety, could I have a con-
sultation, would you advise me, they do not have the staff to do


98

of our raw water sources as well as our finished water. We find
Cryptosporidium in the rivers—I mean it would be a surprise if we
did not, because of their common involvement with cattle, in par-
ticular, in our watershed. But we have never found it in our fin-
ished water. So we think that the treatment systems that we have
set up within the treatment plant and by optimizing these even
more, that is a better defense for that particular organism than to
just test for it.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you. I appreciate that. That is something
that has come up in previous cases and I wanted to check with you

it.

I will defer to my colleagues and do not have any further ques-
tions.

Mr. Ganske, do you have any?

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you.

I want to thank the members of this panel for taking some time
out from their busy days and also in some cases for traveling from
the other side of the district. I am very happy to see you here.

Mayor Gray, I was astounded by your testimony. You know, it
was about 35 years ago or so, maybe L.D., you can tell me this,
that a correlation was found between areas in the country that had
low rates of tooth decay. There were some places in the country
where nobody had any cavities, and they tried to figure that out.
They finally found out that it was because there were naturally oc-
curring fluorides in water.

So you are telling me that because your community was one of
those fortunate ones that had the fluorides in it that prevented ev-
erybody from having tooth decay—and probably lives Being lost be-
cause of dental abscesses and other problems—that you had pos-
sibly 1 milligram per million more than an arbitrary allowance,
and now you were having to remove it when most of the other com-
munities in the country were having to add it. Is that right?

Mr. Gray. That is right, and then we have to—our biggest ex-
pense now, you know, after the plant is in operation, is $50,000 a
year just to maintain it, just to operate it. And ] realize, you know,
if we are talking about a bigger community, $50,000 is not a great
deal, but we are only talking about like 850 services, which is a
great deal.

Mr. GaNSKE. Do you have any knowledge of scientific evidence
that there is any harm, to the people of your community at the
level at which the fluoride naturally occurs?

Mr. Gray. No, we do not.

Mr. GANSKE. Nor do I, and I have looked at that issue. I thank
you very much for your testimony.

As I listened to everyone on the panel, clearly there are water
concerns, areas having to do with safe water reenactment, that I
am very glad to hear about. Also, I think at least in the written
testimony, Mayor Hanafan has it in his testimony, there have
been, some unintended consequences of ADA. I feel very, very
strongly that we need to make sure that the disabled have access
to public buildings, in particular. But I will tell you that as I have
traveled throughout the fourth district, especially in the small
towns, we have had some unintended harmful consequences that
have not been addressed. If you go to a town, for instance, like


140

benefits, it might not have been able to prove what amount of addi-
tional health benefits would result from the full phase out of lead
from gasoline. Industry probably would have shown that a partial
reduction would be much cheaper to implement and EPA would
have had no data to prove the amount of health risk that would
remain. If EPA did have data on poisoning effects at low levels, for
example loss of IQ, the agency would then have had to assign a
dollar value to preventing such losses. Industry might have argued
that this monetary calculation should be based on lost earnings po-
tential, a calculation that would have been highly discriminatory
against children from poor neighborhoods, who were at great risk.

Although it has been given a high sounding name, regulatory re-
form has so far been nothing more than an assault on government
programs that safeguard workers, protect the environment and
public health. Its true impact would be to roll back years of exist-
ing safeguards and prevent government agencies from acting
promptly and effectively to adopt new added protections. Some-
thing so grotesque should be called deform, not reform.

y has the horror of regulatory reform been visited upon the
American people? Purely and simply, money and politics—lots of it.
Project Relief, a super consortium or corporate special interests has
banded together to bring the nightmare of regulatory reform to an
unsuspecting public. According to Citizen Action, Project Relief
members are responsible for more than $3.5 million of PAC con-
tributions to sitting Members of Congress in just the first 9 months
of 1995.

We ask you not to accept any additional contributions and stop
pushing to gut environmental, public health, worker and consumer
protections.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Rowan, for your perspective.

Mr. GANSKE. And Mr. Rowan, if you would just wait for a mo-
ment. We certainly share the same concerns for the health care of
our citizens. In the example that you gave concerning lead, it has
been well known in the medical journals, and medical literature for
a long, long time the ill health that can result from that and the
fact that lead is a cumulative heavy metal in the body. And this
is one situation where I seriously do not think that it would have
been very difficult to have established a cost-benefit—a benefit to
the regulation involved with lead. The problem with pica, which is
children eating paint lead chips around homes, has been exceed-
ingly well documented. I want to thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Rowan. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thomas Juckette and David Kroeger, you are
on deck and in the hold is Trent Berhow. Thank you and welcome.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS JUCKETTE

Mr. JUCKETTE. Mr. Chairman, Representative Ganske, I am here
representing the Iowa Council for Health Care Centers, a trade as-
sociation that represents approximately one-third of the nursing
beds in Iowa.

I am going to try real hard not to repeat anything that Carla
Pope said. J would echo and agree with everything that she pre-


91

CITY OF URBANDALE

agencies, representing over 5,150 covared enplo: s. In

order to participate, Urbandale has paid a $50 enrollment

fee and must pay $45 per employee for drug and alcohol testing.
It is estimated that the first year cost for Urbandale's
testing of employees will be §770 and that the ongoing annual
expense will exceed $700.

Although the direct cost for the CDL drug and alcohol testing
is not significant, it does represent an unnecessary burden
for local governments. It would have been more helpful if
enabling legislation had been adopted by Congress to allow
cities more flexibility in designing their drug and alcohol
policies and testing programs.

Conclusion

The opportunity to address the impact of federal regulation

on city governments 4s greatly appreciated. As noted above,
the City of Urbandale recognizes the need for certain federal
policies and laws to advance national priorities. This concept
of federalism is one of the most important building blocks

for our form of government. However, the development of
regulations to enforce federal legislation does not always
accurately reflect Congressional intent. Instead, regulations
can introduce an element of uncertainty or provide a framework
for unyielding enforcement. We hope that the Subcommit
will consider ways to work with local government in the formulation
of future regulations. We believe that Congressional priorities
can be met through the adoption of flexible guidelines and
regulations, not through the use of specific restrictions

and punitive regulations.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

Robert Layton
City Manager


11

not here to serve and to help but is here to over-regulate, restrict,
mandate, fine, and treat me like an enemy, and that my only re-
course for protection is to litigate against my own Government. It
just does not make any sense.

ank you.

Mr. McINTOsH. Thank you. You are absolutely right. [Applause.]

you get a lot more done working together than fighting each
other.

What I think we will do is hear from all the members of the
panel and then have some questions for them. So now, let me call
on Mr. Don Beal who is with Beal Development Corp.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Houston follows:]


97

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you. Let me just mention that I predict
yu will see a greater receptivity in Congress for relief in this area

ecause as of January all of our Congressional offices are now
under those same standards. [Laughter.]

For the first time. I have always said the best benefit of that law
will be that we will get much better laws out of Congress when we
have to live under the same ones that everybody else does.

Thank you all for coming and testifying today. I appreciate that
and I want to make sure we have time to ask some questions from
the panel.

I wanted to check with you, Mr. McMullen, on an issue that—
when I talked with some of the water companies in Indiana, they
were expressing frustration with the Federal regulation in an area
where the public had a real concern about the safety of the water,
and that was with the incident in Wisconsin with the
Cryptosporidium. And they were frustrated because the require-
ment was that they do tests rather than identify where there might
be a problem and research on ways to actually eliminate that
blight. But I wanted to check with you on what your experience
has been in that area and the intersection of the Federal oversight.

Mr. McMULLEN. Well, I think that the whole arena of micro-
biological contamination of water is an extremely important issue,
and Cryptosporidium is a very serious organism, especially for the
amino-compromised subgroup of the population.

The frustration that really enters on Cryptosporidium is the abil-
ity to be able to detect it. The current methodologies to be able to
find it are somewhere in the range of about a 10 percent recovery.
So you can—about all that you can really tell when you test for it
is that if you find it, you definitely have it; if you do not find it,
you do not know whether you do not have it or whether it is there
and you just did not find it because of only a 10 percent recovery.

It seems frustrating to the water industry in particular when you
are regulating a contaminant that you really cannot test for. It is
very difficult to try to communicate that appropriately to our cus-
tomers as well as the cost to be able to do this monitoring, which
the end result is you do not know what it really means.

The EPA currently has this Partnership for Safe Water Initiative
that is a voluntary program between utilities and the drinking
water industry. Des Moines, as one of those partners in this part-
nership, is really focused on the Cryptosporidium issue. And in
fact, what it is working with is turbidity or the fogginess of the
water, to minimize that and maximize the efficiency or the effec-
tiveness of the treatment plant, That approach is far more effective
in being able to address the microbiological risks of drinking water
than it is to test for Cryptosporidium. And that is really the frus-
tration that is in the water industry with that particular organism.

I think it is only going to be compounded, because as we look at
more and more of these same type of critters, we run into the same
problem of having to test for them.

Mr. McINTosH. And so in your case, you have spent the re-
sources on focusing on areas where you do see a potential impact
on this problem, rather than just testing periodically?

Mr. MCMULLEN. Well, Des Moines Water Works has done both.
We have monitored for Cryptosporidium in all of our rivers, in all



102

I represent a small manufacturing company here in Iowa. My
sole job is to interpret, implement and mandate the OSHA and en-
vironmental regulations for that company. When I started with
that firm 6 years ago, the equivalent of that job was done by the
personnel manager and comprised only 20 percent of his time. It
is now my full time job. This is for a facility that only employs 200
people. Our costs of compliance have risen 500 percent in 6 years.
It is pretty hard for an industry with only 200 people to support
a full time engineer just for these issues.

I feel the emphasis on paperwork has overshadowed the true
goals of the regulations, which is the protection of the employee
and the environment. Of the 25 most cited OSHA violations for
1994, 55 percent or 24,238 violations, related to paperwork. Writ-
ten plans, posters, labels and other documents were somehow
found to be substandard. Citations issued by the EPA also show an
increasing number of cases involving clerical type discrepancies.
My point to you is that no one was directly injured by these errors,
nor was the environment placed in danger. I acknowledge evidence
that proper procedures and planning can reduce accidents. How-
ever, resources expended on paperwork violations do not alleviate
the situation or attempt to solve the problems. Inspectors and regu-
latory rulemakers are the least prepared to pass judgment on the
programs created by the individual industries, by the people that
work in them every day. I understand that Congress is looking at
eliminating the threat of fines for paperwork violations, and I
would support doing so.

This brings me to my second point, distrust and animosity to-
ward the regulatory people. I know you have heard many cases
today, and bear with me for one more. Each day without fail I read
in the newspaper where some industry or individual is defending
themselves against an unreasonable or ridiculous regulation. Much
money and effort is being expended on these cases, none of that
money going to make conditions better.

I have had an example of this, where a regulatory official passed
judgment on compliance obviously and totally ignorant of their sub-
ject matter, and I would like to share it with you.

Several industry engineers and myself attended a voluntary
OSHA class this past year. This class’ purpose was to educate in-
dustry on handling inspections. During the class, the OSHA inspec-
tor explained that when she was on an inspection, an item she
looked for was taped circuit breakers, claiming that the breaker
would not trip. Anybody who understand electric knows that a
breaker is going to trip regardless of that, and it shows she did not
understand her material.

Thank you.

Mr. McInTosH. Thank you, Mr. Betts, I appreciate you coming
forward on that.

The next person on the list is Mr. Jim Houston—or John Hous-
ton. Is he here?

[The prepared statement of Mr. Betts follows:]


118

to shift gears a little bit when Ms. Donley came up and gave some
very moving testimony. I have three children, I was a practicing
physician, I never knew exactly how to convey condolences to a
parent of a child who had died. It must be the most difficult thing
in the world to bear.

It is clear that the status quo did not serve your child well. We
need to do a better science, we need to look at proper regulations
on refrigeration of foods in transit to help prevent problems and
tragedies such as yours. We will be doing that. There are many
outdated methods of meat inspection, that we have been using, vis-
ual examination, for instance. If a piece of meat carcass looks dirty
you trim it off a little bit. You have no real idea whether there are
those invisible bacteria that still remain on the carcass. And I just
want to let you know that my committee will have something to
do with that, as will Congressman Latham’s committee. We will
certainly try to improve the food inspection laws and try to do
something that is sensible.

I do want to thank you for coming.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Ganske, we appreciate that. And
I appreciate the role of your committee in looking into that.

The next group of four people would be No. 18, Mr. Don Rowan
of Bradlint; No. 19, Kathy Loeckle; No. 20, Mr. Saul Herscovici;
and No. 21, Mr. Kenneth Coffman.

Mildred is reminding me, if you will go ahead and state your
name for the record.

Mr. Rowan. Mr. Chairman, I am No. 18 and the young lady be-
side me is No. 37, and she has to leave. So if you do not mind, I
will just exchange those two, I will be No. 37.

Mr. McINTosH. That sounds wonderful, thank you. Come on for-
ward.

STATEMENT OF SHARON MEANS

Ms. MEANS. My name is Sharon McDonald Means for the record.

I come to you today both as a physician and member of the Si-
erra Club in advocacy for reauthorization of a strong, improved En-
dangered Species Act. Our health as human beings, both individ-
ually and collectively, depends upon and is directly linked to the
health of our environment. The relationship between biologic diver-
sity of plant and animal species and our future health is clear and
vital. Diversity is the fundamental light ray of life sciences.

We would like reform of regulations of the Endangered Species
Act as it currently exists, and we would like more cost-effective, ef-
ficient ecosystem-based protection.

Specifically in the area of prevention, health care has taught
us—the health care industry has taught us a valuable lesson, that
the most cost-effective and productive way to prevent disease—to
take care of disease, is to prevent it rather than to treat it. We
would like specific programs that prevent species from ever need-
ing recovery and protection. We would like this program organized
around ecosystems rather than State or national boundaries, there-
by moving resources, decisionmaking, and need closer together, a
concept which I am sure appeals to you.


65

And No. 2, the DNR has purchased about 5,000 acres within 20
miles of our place and a lot of this is good Iowa prime farmland.
How much more wetland do they want? You know, enough is
enough. Farmers have had enough of this nonsense and we are not
going to take any more. We have been harassed and coerced long
enough and the farmers are mad and they are not going to take
any more.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Let me turn to Mr. Gutknecht and then recognize you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would yield to Curly, apparently he has got
a point at this point.

Mr. Houtz. The point I wanted to make is that most of the land
in Congressman Latham’s district and probably your district up
there in Minnesota is what they call prior converted farmland. We
are trying to service the productivity on this prior converted land
and we cannot do anything because 5 percent of the land stops any
productive improvement on 95 percent of the land. And this has to

e changed, because obviously all Americans want production. So
we have offered in our district to go around the wetlands and what-
ever, but still no dice. You guys, if you want to do this drainage,
give us some land. They call it mitigation, but that is the policy.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Siegle, did you want to—I am sorry.

Mr. McINTOSH. Go right ahead.

Mr. SIEGLE. Yes, I would like to make two final statements.

We wish to work with everyone on this situation that we have,
and it is only to keep our ground in productivity to feed the world.
Please bear with me—and please let us use common sense. Put
that on your notes, put it on your minds, carry it back to Washing-
ton, DC—common sense, please.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I really do not have any specific
questions. I think this has been interesting testimony and I appre-
ciate Mr. Willis coming forward as well because there are several
dimensions to all of this, but it seems to me that one of the
threads—and Mr. Johnson, especially thank you to you—a lot of
Americans know that you are not required to testify against your-
self, that is the fifth amendment, we have seen people in front of
Congress literally take the fifth amendment. But most Americans
have forgotten that the fifth amendment also says that the govern-
ment cannot take your property without just compensation. fmean,
that is not a law, that is the Constitution. And one of the first
things that you do when you become a Member of Congress is you
swear to uphold the Constitution. Not just parts of it that you
agree with, but that certainly is an important part, and I think it
is one thing that has been forgotten by the Congress, it has been
forgotten by the Federal Government and unfortunately it has been
forgotten by the American people. And if we can do nothing else
in the next several years, at least we ought to reinforce the just
compensation clause of the fifth amendment. It is part of the Con-
stitution, it is not somebody’s suggestion, it is not just an idea that
has come up recently.

Let me also say, for the benefit of all you who are farmers and
I am glad that we have a panel of people mostly in the ag business,


7

Good morning Congressmen and Subcommittee members.

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today on the
important issue of how environmental mandates and regulations
are squeezing the economic life out of many small rural

communities.

I am the Mayor of Manson, Iowa, a relatively small community
of approximately 1900 people in west-central Iowa. In 1990,
the City of Manson was issued an administrative order by the
Towa Department of Natural Resources to reduce the level of
fluoride in the public drinking water supply. At that time,
the fluoride level of our water was 4 to 5S milligrams (mg.)

per liter, while federal regulations required 4 mg. per liter.

For 75 years, the city has been pumping water from the same
wells (approximately 1400 feet deep). During this time, the
make-up of the water has remained consistent. To my knowledge,
the public had been using it with no health problems. Our water
was naturally soft and required no treatment. However, due
to federal regulations, we were mandated to reduce the fluoride

level.

Manson was forced to install a Reverse Osmosis treatment plant
to remove the 1 mg. or less per liter of fluoride. The cost
of this plant exceeded $700,000. Since the city did not qualify

for any grants to assist with construction, the money was


16

here in Des Moines yesterday brings forth the need for safety on
the job.

I will now present my written testimony. Although regulations
are necessary to protect workers safety and health on construction
sites, home builders must follow the rules that were designed for
large commercial construction projects rather than residential con-
struction.

In recent years, State and Federal OSHA officials have placed
emphasis on enforcement within the residential sector and home
builders are now subject to inspections once focused on large com-
mercial construction projects as well as onerous fines that do not
reasonably reflect significant violations. True, the agency can apply
less than the maximum fine commensurate with the size of the
business, but all too often, 50 percent of the maximum fine is as-
sessed against a very small business owner with assets far, far, far
below those of the corporate employer receiving the legal limit.

What I would like you to do, if you could, is refer—I have given
you several OSHA citations. Bear in mind, in the State of Iowa, we
are—lowa OSHA administers the Occupational Safety and Health
program in lowa. Basically they are doing this in line with Federal
regulations. So we still feel that the Federal regulations is where
the problem stems.

If you would bear with me here a minute, please look at Ames
Home Improvement, page 1 of 2. This employer received a $5,000
fine three times for the breach—

(Bell rings.]

Am I over? Sorry.

Mr. McINTosH. No, go ahead. I would like to hear your expla-
nation of this. I will grant you 2 more minutes as they say on the
House floor.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Without objection. [Laughter.]

Mr. BEAL. Thank you very much.

This is a tube of caulking. I bought it at Payless. All of you could
buy it, use it and keep it around your children. This employer re-
ceived a citation for $5,000 for an improper hazardous communica-
tion program regarding that tube of caulking; $5,000 for no MSD
sheet involving that tube and $5,000 for alleged no training of his
employees because that tube of caulking was on his job.

e would respectfully submit that reform in the—reform in this
legislation based upon more emphasis on consultation than enforce-
ment. Two, tailor the fines and the breach to the size of the em-
ployer and three, develop a separate standard for residential hous-
ing work.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McINTosu. I appreciate that. Thank you for your full testi-
mony. There were a number of things in there I noticed that will
be very helpful to us. I look forward to following up in the question-
ing period.

r. BEAL. Thank you.


99

Oakland, you have a Main Street there, beautiful brick buildings
with lentils of sandstone, steps of sandstone, that are empty. And
you can repeat that story all throughout my district. Because the
original grandfathering exclusion in that bill is no longer in place,
because the property has passed into somebody else’s hands, in
bringing those buildings into compliance would cost more than the
buildings are worth. So we have had a withering of our main
streets in many of the small towns in this district. I thank you very
much for bringing that to our attention.

It is clear that it is not just a problem in Atlantic that we are
dealing with in terms of cleanup problems. I know of this problem
in Red Oak, in Villisca, in Corning, in Stuart—we have a situation
where, Mr. Torreson, if that building had been sitting just outside
of our city limits, you could burn all the charred timber, signifi-
cantly reduce the volume that you would then take to your landfill,
and you would not have to be dealing with the seeking of variance
like you are dealing with right now. That is an indirect con-
sequence of the regulations that have come from Washin,

I want to thank the panel. I really do not have a specific question
right now, but it seems to me that what you have been telling us
is that you have been suffering under a lot of unfunded mandates
from Washington. I will see what I can do to help.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, Congressman, we appreciate that
and look forward to working with you in your spot on the Com-
merce Committee. We identify a lot of regulations often that your
committee can help with and we will be making sure we get you
that information.

Let me turn now to Mr. Gutknecht. Do you have any questions
for this panel?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Chairman, no real questions. I want
to thank the panel for coming forward. For the benefit of Mayor
Gray, we had in Minneapolis at one of our hearings—or in St. Paul,
I should say—one of the gentlemen who helped develop the tech-
nology for the spectrometer which enables us to measure parts
million and now parts per billion, which we could not measure be-
fore. And he said he has mixed feelings about that development,
because he did not really realize what he had wrought when they
began to develop that technology.

fies ecially want to thank you and congratulate you. It takes a
special amount of courage as a public official to come and talk
about the problems that have been created, especially in some of
these areas that are related to clean water, recycling, the ADA and
the Fair Labor Standards Act. In many respects, those are consid-
ered, especially inside the beltway in Washington, sort of the politi-
cally correct issues that you cannot even talk about. As a matter
of fact, on the full committee when we had a bill to just have a
moratorium on new rules and new regulations proposed by the
Federal bureaucracy, some of us on this subcommittee were ac-
cused of wanting to kill People, and that people would die. In fact,
the Cryptosporidium example was used several times, that if you
had a moratorium on new Federal regulation, that people would
die. And I want to especially thank you, Mr. McMullen, for coming
forward to talk about the facts and the actual science about.
Cryptosporidium and other things.


21

Mr. DucHMAN. Thank you. On behalf of my employer, James B.
Meehan, | would like to thank you for the opportunity to address
this panel.

My name is Loren Duchman, and by way of introduction, we are
an engineering consulting firm whose practice includes assistance
to clients for industrial safety, OSHA compliance, contest of OSHA
citations and abatement of citations. We apply the reasonable and
consistent interpretations of the regulations. Clients and their em-
ployees have benefited from our services for almost 18 years.

We have served hundreds of private sector clients who have
thousands of employees. Thousands of citation items have been re-
solved by their being vacated, reasonably modified or abated. One
client, an attorney, has estimated that his efforts using our services
as safety experts has resulted in OSHA prevailing in less than 20
percent of the citations.

Let us relate a few of the problems that over-burdensome OSHA
rules and regulations have caused.

First, a manufacturer was cited for not tagging a defective ladder
when his two employees had disposed of the ladder by placing it
in a garbage dumpster for construction debris. OSHA attorneys and
the inspector argued that the regulations called for tagging a defec-
tive ladder and did not specify disposal as an alternative. The cita-
tion was vacated at the manufacturer’s cost for defense.

Second, a plumbing contractor was cited for trenching violations
on a job site and a university professor was named as a complain-
ant who observed the violation and whose referral was used as the
justification for obtaining an inspection warrant. The citations were
vacated when it was discovered that the professor was in Alaska
at the time that the alleged violations were observed in Iowa.
(Laughter.]

Third, a small manufacturer was faced with alleged violations for
which OSHA required engineering or administrative controls for
air contaminants when respirators provided adequate protection.
The controls urged by OSHA would have ruined a high-gloss finish
and caused the manufacturer to go out of business. Settlement ne-
gotiations, extending over 6 months, resulted in changes in OSHA
demands so that the company is still in business.

Fourth, during one inspection, I witnessed an IOSH inspector
turning to face the owner of a company and stating, “I am not here
to help you.” What a damning statement for a Government em-
ployee. This confrontational and arrogant attitude by both State
and Federal OSHA personnel has been witnessed many times. At
best, this behavior is condoned by OSHA management; at worse,
this behavior appears to be encouraged and in fact practiced by
OSHA management.

We have found the policies and the behavior of OSHA personnel
to be abusive and activist with little regard for real hazards. Our
compliance inspections have consistently resulted in the abatement
of a substantial number of hazardous conditions never identified or
cited by an OSHA inspector.

Lower fines and OSHA recommendations will not solve the prob-
lems facing the private sector. This will simply force unnecessary
acts at the whim of OSHA and the same regulatory nightmares


50

4

WHO NOT ONLY WILL NOT COME TO OUR SITE IN ORDER TO
ASSIST US, THEY WILL NOT TALK WITH US OVER THE
TELEPHONE OR MEET AT THEIR OWN OFFICES TO DISCUSS
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS. THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO GET THE REGULATORY PROCESS MOVING IS TO ENLIST
THE AID OF CONGRESSMAN LIGHTFOOT AND HIS AIDES IN
BURLINGTON AND TO HIRE A LAWYER TO DEAL WITH THESE
REGULATORY AGENCIES. THIS IS UNNECESSARY, TIME
CONSUMING, AND EXPENSIVE. AND THE BURDEN OF ALL THIS
FALLS ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE TAXPAYERS OF THE
PUBLIC BODIES THAT WE REPRESENT, WHO CONTINUALLY
EXPRESS THEIR FRUSTRATION TO US AS THEIR ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. THE PROCESS WE HAVE BEEN
FORCED TO GO THROUGH IN GETTING A PERMIT TO CLEAN OUT
OUR DRAINAGE DITCHES IS FAR TOO COMPLICATED, THERE ARE
TOO MANY AGENCIES INVOLVED, THE RESULTS ARE TOO.
UNCERTAIN, AND IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING.
IT SHOULDN'T TAKE OVER ONE YEAR TO GET A PERMIT TO DO
THE WORK NECESSARY TO REPAIR DAMAGE DONE IN 1993. WE
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF A BUREAUCRAT
WHO SEEMINGLY IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE. SOME
FORM OF ACCOUNTABILITY NEEDS TO BE PUT INTO THE
REGULATORY PROCESS FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT OR
WILL NOT DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY OR EFFICIENTLY. WE HAVE
FOUND THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE THAT WE CAN DO IF ONE
OF THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DO THEIR JOBS PROPERLY BECAUSE
THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM AND
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND OTHER PERSONS WHO WILL
TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEM. THUS IT BECOMES A FRUSTRATING PROCESS.

WE HOPE THAT OUR DISTRICT WILL GET FINAL
REGULATORY CLEARANCE THIS SPRING TO COMPLETE OUR
DITCH CLEAN-OUT, BUT WITHIN THE LAST WEEK ANOTHER


95

Page2

Unfortunately, the ADA regulations are so inflexible that
compliance of design standards are sometimes impossible.
Standards call for ramps to be constructed at a slope of 12:1
or 8.33% grade. The City of Council Bluffs has over 75 miles
of streets that exceed this minimal grade requirement with
several streets having grades double the 8.33%.

Public Buildings

The City has evaluated it public buildings and is actively
pursuing a program to make them handicapped accessible.
Examples of this work is the construction of a unisex
handicapped restroom in City Hall. It was determined that the
existing restrooms could not be retrofitted. Doorways and
stalls were too narrow. The cost was prohibited. Therefore, a
new restroom was constructed at a cost of $3,000. To date, the
restroom is not utilized.

Another example is the construction of ramp, restrooms and
doors for a community meeting place. The building was
constructed in 1973. It was considered to be handicapped
accessible. However, it did not meet ADA design criteria and
the City spent over $31,000 to bring the meeting room into
compliance.

Parks and Recreation facilities

Constructing park and recreation facilities to meet ADA
requirements is difficult. Part of the problem is the lack of
design standards. Examples of the effect of ADA on future
programs include:

Playground Equipment

The City has identified a playground replacement program
for its existing 25 parks. $150,000/year for the next 5 years
has been allocated for this program. Approximately 30% of the
cost of each unit is estimated for handicapped accessibility.

Swimming Pools

The city has two outdoor swimming pools. one needs to be
accessible. Estimated cost is $15,000 to meet accessibility
standards.

Portable Restrooms

The City utilizes portable restrooms at many of the parks.
A handicapped accessible portable restroom costs $130/month
more than the "standard" portable restroom. We currently place
14 restrooms in our parks between April and November.


33

So I appreciate you all coming here and why do we not start with
Mr. Johnson, if you could lead off our testimony today on this
panel.

STATEMENTS OF HARVEY JOHNSON, FARMER; DAVID WHITON,
OWNER, WHITON FEED AND MILLING CO.; RICHARD SIEGLE,
FARMER; HOWARD ALFF, FARMER; BILL WILLIS, SOIL CON-
SERVATION CONSULTANT; AND ROYAL “CURLY” HOLTZ,
FARMER

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning.

Mr. McINTosH. Good morning, welcome.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am Harvey D. Johnson of Forest City, IA. 1 am
grateful for the opportunity to testify on behalf of our situation and
all the farmers of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. I wish
I could have brought all my neighbors along with me this morning,
many of whom could also tell you horror stories of their coercion
and harassment with the SCS and their conservationists.

Ihave in my hand 1,000 signatures on petitions stating that they
want this wetland nonsense stopped immediately.

This wetland confiscation by designation without compensation is
the most ruthless, vicious, coercing, harassing assault on private
property rights of the 20th century. It is also the most unfair, un-
just and unconstitutional governmental land-grab theft of a mag-
nitude that has ever occurred since the founding of America. It is
not about saving wetlands, it is about destroying people’s lives.

I never thought we would ever see the day when we would have
to fight the Federal Government in court to protect our private
property, when the fifth amendment to the Constitution is sup-
posed to do that for us.

It is pure blackmail and fascism when the regulators, which in-
clude the SCS, Corps of Engineers, EPA and the Fish and Wildlife,
can apply an eternal—and I emphasize eternal—designation to pri-
vate property without the owner's consent—and I emphasize again,
without the owner’s consent—and then take your Government pay-
ments away.

We have also been accused of violating the 404 Clean Water Act,
which is also very unfair. The Government will pay farmers in
southern Iowa to build terraces which create wetlands and then
pay them to drain them.

Our neighbors can all tile without permits. The water is all the
same, and it all goes into the same ditch, so why are we as individ-
uals in violation of the Clean Water Act when these other farmers
are not. This is not fair.

Our fiasco started 3 years ago when our son purchased 82 acres
of property which the xcs had placed a 49-acre wetland designa-
tion on. It is nothing more than an absolutely level piece of prime
northern Iowa soil. I do not know why we have wetlands when
none of our neighbors have any. We have appealed the unjust des-
ignation to the State level. It is very hypocritical to have to appeal
to the thieves to get your property back. They only reduced the
wetland designation by 10 acres.

Mr. Dan Sulky, the Hancock County conservationist, trespassed
twice on our property and proceeded to turn us in to the Corps of
Engineers. We have received two registered cease and desist orders


133

cupational injuries and deaths but in the nineties they have come
to a plateau and in fact they are starting to increase again. Some-
thing needs to change.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Keith.

Chip Eagle.

STATEMENT OF CHIP EAGLE

Mr. EAGLE. Thank you. My name is Chip Eagle. I am with Budg-
et Marketing here in Des Moines. I would like to thank the com-
mittee for making this forum available to us and J would like to
thank Congressman Ganske for hosting this, bringing this to Iowa
and giving us a chance to speak, and making this truly a rep-
resentative democracy.

My father started selling magazines door-to-door in the fifties,
was one of the innovators of telemarketing in the fifties, and today
Budget Marketing is celebrating its 25th year with customers in
every State and every jurisdiction and we work hard to keep those
customers for their whole lives and take care of that little part of
their lives that is magazines.

I would like to explain some of the laws that we have to comply
with. Of course, we have to comply with every consumer law in
every jurisdiction, which would include the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and any place where there is military personnel. Just
that file, as you might guess, is impossible to keep up with. We are
almost constantly out of compliance with say exactly how a con-
tract would look because one State may require it be 10-point print,
another require that it be 6-point print—they are very specific. We
are working very hard to do that, we try very hard to be in compli-
ance with local regulations.

On the Federal level, the latest regulation is from the FTC, that
is the telemarketing sales rule that has now empowered all of the
attorney generals in every jurisdiction to enforce that rule. ] expect
I will see at least 20 to 30 different versions of what that rule is
then, by the way the various attorney generals enforce that. This
is a burden and it is going to be tough. We are going to have to
deal with it and learn how it is interpreted in every jurisdiction.

What I would like to do is urge the committee to support a bill,
the Nickles bill or something like it, where we can review and con-
sider some of the cost-benefit analysis and the risk to businesses.
We are not a Third World country, we are trying to create jobs for
people, for Iowans, so they can move forward and make our State
a better and richer place to live. We do not need more regulation.
If you could help us with that, I would sure appreciate that. And
if Congress just reviewed the regulations as they are enacted and
made sure that there is a good reason for them and that what you
wanted done by the agencies was indeed done, I think that would
help all of us.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Chip.

Jerome Skeers, James R. O'Neill, and Vic Aprahamian—I am not
sure I said Vic’s name right, but if you want to get lined up here.

Mr. Skeers, welcome to the committee.


17

Mr. McINTOsH. And now for the third witness in this panel, Mr.
Loren—am I pronouncing it right, Dutchman?

Mr. DucHMaN. Duchman.

Mr. McINTosH. Duchman. Welcome, Mr. Duchman. Share with
us your testimony.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]


61

3

the Administrative Procedures Act. Then all of the policies and procedures
concerning farmed wetland should not be valid until the N.R.C.S. complies with
the Administrative Procedures Act.

Other ridiculous policies applied to farmed wetlands are calling velvet
leaf, smart weed , and foxtail wetland vegatation, when any farmer knows they
grow prolifically anywhere. Another is not recognizing that pressurized tile
lines from miles away are making some areas much wetter than they naturally
would be.

I could go on for a long time about the illegal and insane practices of the
NLR.C.S. in taking our lands’ productivity. Not just farmers, but all Ameri-
cans are the losers as we cut productivity and lose our Constitutional free-
dons, We have been praying to our Almighty God for justice. Hopefully,

‘those prayers are being answered.


130

T would like to talk specifically about section 313, the Toxic Re-
lease Inventory. This is an example of an unnecessary regulation.
This was part of an expansion of the list of 286 chemicals, approxi-
mately doubling the number of chemicals listed. In addition to list-
ing additional chemicals, including pesticide active ingredients, the
EPA Administrator is considering expanding the reporting require-
ments and additional standards, bringing additional industries into
the process, which would be all the dealers and distributors in the
State of Iowa. Reports must be submitted accounting for releases
of any of these chemicals into the environment during the manu-
facture.

While sensible efforts to ensure a clean environment are impor-
tant, listing pesticide active ingredients on TRI serves no useful
purpose. Under FIFRA and State regulations, pesticides are among
the most regulated chemicals in the country. More than 120 dif-
ferent types of tests are required before a product can be registered
for use. These tests include determination of toxicological activity
and ecological effects. Thus, the further regulations of pesticide ac-
tive ingredients on TRIs seems unnecessary.

Perhaps more to the point, pesticides are specifically designed
and registered to be released into the environment in normal use
and the EPA has determined that their release poses no unreason-
able effects on the environment. These chemicals are released into
the environment in quantities of tens to hundreds of tons per year,
to protect crops, control pests such as termites, rats, ants, flies and
roaches. By contrast, manufacturing releases are likely to be in the
range of a few pounds to a few hundred pounds.

The regulation places an onerous burden on industry. There are
more chemicals for plants to monitor and report. MSDS and prod-
uct labels must be modified to reflect the current regulatory status
of the chemicals. In some cases, there is a knock-on effect; for ex-
ample, products placed on 313 would make it easier to go on Cali-
fornia’s Proposition 65. The public may be unnecessarily alarmed,
the information provided by TRI is not risk-based and the public
will be unable to distinguish chemicals that really potentially cause
harm from those that pose no real threat.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

No. 29, Amy Christensen. And then on deck, Keith Kuennen,
Chip Eagle, if you want to take your spots, please.

Welcome to the committee, Amy.

STATEMENT OF AMY CHRISTENSEN

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

I am Amy Christensen. I work with a rural electric cooperative
and other businesses when they are trying to comply with environ-
mental and OSHA law.

I know that 25 years ago, it was important to pass major envi-
ronmental legislation. I know that it served a lot of worthwhile
purposes. But the problem is we have created a system of laws that
is so complicated, so detailed, so ever-changing, that it is impos-
sible to tell what those laws require, much less comply with them.

The solution to the problem is not to gut environmental and safe-
ty law, it is to fundamentally change the way that the regulatory
agencies function and their relationship with the business commu-


114

sort of regulations to go through. And what it will successfully do
is stall any sort of very needed and necessary regulatory reforms.

We talk about cost analysis, risk benefit. I defy anyone, anyone
in this room, to put a price of what their child’s life is worth.

{Applause.]

Ms. DONLEY. I cannot put a price on my son’s head and I cannot
imagine anyone else telling me what his life would have been
worth. My son wanted to be a paramedic to help others and he can-
not do that. So society has lost by the death of my son. Put a price
on the—

[Bell rings.]

Ms. DONLEY. May I just kind of wrap up here?

Mr. McINTosH. Sure.

Ms. DoNLEY. Put a price on what I have had to go through these
past 2% years, the grief, my lost productivity. Get all of those into
statistics, and it just makes analysis impossible.

Again, let us use common sense in this, let us look at some in-
dustries as needing more regulation, not less. There are some—I
look at government, and please if you have heard this before, you
people are in such a huge, huge seat of responsibility, you are the
parents, industries are the children. You cannot treat all your chil-
dren the same. You have got the child who is the grade A student
who comes home every night right on time and returns the car
filled with gas. The other one is out drinking all night long. You
have to regulate your children differently.

But when it comes to something, and particularly in my own
area here with meat and poultry, something that goes back to
1906, we need more, not less. So yes, let us use common sense.

Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you, Ms. Donley.

Your testimony earlier this year in our subcommittee was very,
very forceful and I appreciate you coming forward again. I know
you are dedicating your own time to bring these issues forward,
and in some cases it is not even a case of more or less, just frankly
better or updated regulations. As you point out, meat and poultry
dates back to 1906. We have had a lot of scientific breakthroughs
since then.

Your point is very well taken and very much appreciated. Thank
you.

Our next witness is—oh, I have got to call out some names. No.
15, Mr. Chet Redman, No. 16, Mr. Ralph Christiansen, No. 17,
Dick Rice.

And let me just ask you to go ahead and line up by numbers if
you feel so inclined, that would be great.

Mr. Redman. -

STATEMENT OF CHET REDMAN

Mr. REDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen. I want to
take this opportunity to thank you for giving us a few minutes to
voice our opinions and our concern about government rules and
regulations.

My name is Chet Redman and I represent three banks about an
hour and a half south of here. We are small country banks, $32 to
$78 million in assets.


116

I really does my heart good to know that people are this knowl-
edgeable.

lost of my comments have been said already, so I am just goin;
to shorten my presentation. I have forwarded 15 copies to your of-
fice, Mr. McIntosh.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. The Iowa Drainage District Association was
organized in 1990 in reaction to the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture regulatory abuses of Iowa’s drainage district laws and land-
owner property rights. We represent the interest of more than
3,000 Iowa drainage districts which serve the owners of more than
6 million acres of prime Iowa farmland.

Like I said, most of my thoughts have already been stated, so I
will not go over that again.

I would just like to take this opportunity to volunteer any hel,
our organization or information that we can give to you folks. We
have a very, very competent drainage engineer on our staff, one of
the best in Iowa, and I am sure he can give you some down-to-
Earth help.

Also, I have kind of a homespun rule of thumb on identifying
wetlands. In north central Iowa where I come from, Pocahontas
County is probably 95 percent drained wetlands, which now they
call farmed wetlands. Ox. the way I would identify a wetland is
it would be a wetland if it is not being farmed now because this
land has been drained in the past and so that would—I know there
are very scientific explanations, but this is my thought.

Mr. McINTOSH. Commonsense rule.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. So anything that I can do, I would sure be
glad to help. Thank you much.

Mr. McIntosu. Thank you, Mr. Christiansen, we will take you
up on that offer and work with Mr. Ganske’s office in facilitating
that.

STATEMENT OF DICK RICE

Mr. Rice. Yes. My name is Dick Rice and I am a small independ-
ent wholesale petroleum distributor here in central Iowa. I do ap-
preciate the opportunity to be here today and I am going to speak
on behalf of the Petroleum Marketers of lowa and the betro leum
Marketers Association of America. The Petroleum Marketers of
Jowa have approximately 1,500 members here in the State of lowa
and the PMAA represents about 11,000 marketers across the Na-
tion. Nearly all of these businesses are small businesses using the
SBA Administration definition.

Because many of the marketers that I represent face regulatory
excesses every day, I am here to present two of the examples of
troubling regulatory issues that marketers face in Iowa with regard
to overregulation. I commend you, Congressman Ganske, and your
fellow Congressmen, for your efforts in gathering information to
help propel the regulatory reform agenda.

The first issue that I would like to discuss is the burden of pa-
perwork required by the Government. My small business was re-
quired to submit 14 information surveys and reports just this last
year, each requiring a substantial commitment of time and labor
to complete. I might add, one of those reports had 14 pages of in-


4

Towa DNR insisted they use an 8-inch pipe which could service 400
homes. Now, if they could have been allowed to use the new design
standards which other States including Nebraska, the two small
cities could have saved up to $200,000.

Now on a positive note, DNR has set up a pilot system to explore
alternative designs in 13 communities that are members of the
rural water system. Now, DNR has not agreed yet to allow towns
outside that system, like Rome and Hillsboro, to use these designs
and there are over 220 communities without sewers that could save
substantial money. This is an area where we at the State level
want to work with them to try to get that accomplished. The Fed-
eral Government has done the Tight thing. We need to deal with
our part of the challenge.

Now some have criticized my efforts in the regulatory reform at
the State level. They said that if a business operated honestly the
owner has nothing to fear. Well, I have met with hundreds of hon-
est business owners. These are stalwarts in their communities.
These are the business owners that want clean air because they
breathe the same air as their employees. They want clean water
because they drink the same water as their employees. They do not
want to hurt their employees. Their children pay together; they go
to the same schools and attend the same churches and in many
cases, these owners work right alongside their employees under the
same conditions.

What can government do to become more user friendly? That is
part of this process here today. Let me share a few suggestions
that Iowans have expressed tome. ~

One, consult with business owners before administrative rule-
making.

Two, establish a rules review process 5 years or sooner after im-
plemented.

b Three, with industry review the Federal rules already on the
ook.

And four, which I think is of particular interest from my back-
ground of business—customer service training for bureaucrats. Let
them see how their regulations affect business. Have them view a
part of their jobs as growing the economy.

Five, lowa Department of Natural Resources and Department of
Economic Development have started to work together to assist new
Towa businesses with environmental regulatory hurdles. We have
also gone to accelerated permitting process for basic air quality per-
mits and more general permitting. Please continue to let States de-
velop these innovative programs. These are working. Our State
government has partnered. They are wearing the white hat to try
to be the good guy in this case and I think they ought to be recog-
nized for that and encouraged to keep doing those things.

Six, while I am not an advocate for increasing government pro-
grams, in Iowa, we do have two very successful programs that work
with small business. The first helps a business fill out air permits.
The second works with businesses to cut down their waste. Both
of these successful programs are not run out of a bureaucratic gov-
ernment agency. "They are run out of a State university. They are
not threatening to business and they are designed to work with the
businesses. They cannot fine or penalize. I think we should con-


93

Neyorton Hanae

On February 19, 1995, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Garcia vs. San
Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, made the body of law known as the Fair Labor
‘Standards Act of 1938 applicable to state and local governments. At face, the immediate
ramifications to Council Bluffs did not appear overwhelming since we already were paying
‘Tminimum wage, overtime, and complied with all child labor regulations contamed within
‘the act. Nevertheless, the problems associated with taking legislation originally intended
for the private sector and applying it to governmental functions were quick to surface. ©

Because the application of the law was new to state and local governments,
problems began to arise immediately in the public safety sector that required varying work
schedules. One problem that Council Bluffs is currently dealing with is the issue of the

application of section 7(K) as set out in 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
3. 215{a). It is this section of the law that recognizes the different work schedules
tequired of law enforcement and firefighter personncl Unfortunately, the treatment of
ambulance personnel who work at the same fire station during the same work schedules
was left open to interpretation.

“Section 7(K) allows cities to pay overtime after 53 hours of work rather than the
40 hours specified for non 7(K) jobs. Most cities, including Council Bluffs have paid
Ambulance personnel under the 7K exemption. Numerous Federal District Court
decisions have attempted to further clarify application of this section, with the end result
of a miyriad of conflicting results. Despite the fact that this law has been applicable to
state and local governments since 1986, it was not until the Supreme Court case of
December 1994 that this was resolved. In the case of Chicago vs. Alex the Supreme
Court let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that found that paramedics are not
subject to the 7(K) exemption because their duties are not related to fire protection or law
enforcement activities.

‘What does this mean to Council Blutts? Our City will be subjected to. paying
current and past ambulance cmployces two years of back wages for overtime after 40
hours rather than 53. This is estimated to cost the city in excess of $ 65,000. We will now
have to begin paying ambulance personnel who work 24 hour shifts overtime after 40
hours. This means they will be paid more than the firefighters they work with.

As a result of this decision, as well as the inability of Congress to provide
corrective legislation to this issue, we must now reassess the manner in which we provide
this service; if, we are to continue providing the service. This is yet another example of
well intended legislation evolving into an uncontrollable myriad of regulations that
eventually results in a detrimental effect on the very services that benefit the citizens we
represent.


38

Mr. MCINTOSH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. It is
a tragedy when our Government inflicts that kind of pain on a fam-
ily and thank you for coming here today and sharing with us, I
know it takes a lot to do that.

We will do something about this in this Congress. Mr. Latham
mentioned earlier this new Congress is dedicated to restoring the
Constitutional right to your property and redressing those wrongs.
We are not quite a majority in all of the bodies to get that done,
but we will get it done for you and your family. So thank you very
much for coming today and sharing with us.

Mr. JOHNSON. I guess if I may make one statement, I wish some-
thing could be done because it is going to cause death in our family
if this thing is not stopped immediately. It has got to be stopped
and stopped immediately.

Mr. McINTosH. Thank you, and thank you for bringing forth
your testimony in a very powerful way.

Let me turn now to Mr. Whiton, who is the owner of Whiton
Feed and Milling Co.

Mr. WuIToN. Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to be
able to speak. I can start out, when they first contacted me to
speak, they said Dave, do you mind getting in a room and talkin,
to a few guys about some of the things that are bothering you, and
pretty soon I get a formal fax from Washington, DC explaining ex-
actly what we are going to do and the magnitude of it. So again,
I thank you.

What I would like to do is give you a little history of myself—
T guess what I am trying to get across, and I think a few other peo-
ple can go along with me. I just consider myself pretty much an
average U.S. citizen and average Iowan that has worked hard.

In the mid-1950’s, my father Jack, and Uncle Bill and my grand-
father George started a small feed store called Whiton Feed. At
this time, Dad only sold bag feed for another large manufacturer.
They also continued to raise corn, beans, swine and cattle on the
family farm located 4 miles north of Perry.

In the early 1960's, my father, and grandfather purchased the
Perry mill and from here is the real beginning of Whiton Feed. The
business grew, my uncle decided to stay and run the farm and my
father Jack wanted to operate the feed mill. My grandfather spent
his later years helping us out at both places and from that point
until now, Whiton Feed has updated and added new manufacturing
equipment.

This is how I fit in the picture. I was born in 1951, I graduated
from Perry High School in 1970, graduated from Iowa State in
1974. After Iowa State, I took a job with a large bank in Atlanta,
GA. After 2 years there, the midwest and Whiton Feed beckoned
me to return and I became involved with the business. About this
same time, my younger brother Marc also became involved in the
business. Like me, he graduated from Perry, and he graduated
from the other university, the University of Iowa.

Dad kept working with us until the mid-1980’s, then he retired.
He was honest, fair, had strict business attitude and practices and
these are still the foundations of Whiton Feed and they are still
deeply ingrained in my business values.


125

Whitons as well as for the fly by-night businesses that Mr. Pate is
familiar with, there is one set of practices which must be followed,
and that failure to follow those will mean weighty, severe and cer-
tain penalties.

Thank you.

Mr. GANSKE. Let me make a comment. Your testimony just now
reminded me an awful lot of what goes on on the floor of Congress.
To infer that this hearing would—that anyone on the panel or up
here would like to take us to the conditions in a Third World coun-
try is simply an exaggeration and not the truth. I do not know how

fou can listen to the testimony that was here today where you
ave a grown man break down and cry because his property and
his livelihood is being taken away by an arbitrary decision and not
have some sympathy. I do not know how you can listen to some-
body who has lost a child because of an outdated regulation and
not have some sympathy.

If what you are saying is that the status quo is perfect, then I
am sorry. What I have gathered from the testimony today is that
there needs to be some reasonable, rational, scientific change in the
way that government interacts with the private citizens. That is
simply what this hearing is about today.

ank you.

[Applause.]

Ms. TILL-RETZ. Could I respond?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Sure.

Ms. TILL-RETZ. Let me suggest that perhaps it is important—I
am certainly not in favor of the status quo. I think we need strong-
er OSHA, I think we need new updated standards, for example an
ergonomic standard. I certainly think we need many more inspec-
tors out there and workers empowered to inspect their own work-
places. I am not in favor of the status quo.

Let me suggest that you check into the incidence rate of Iowa
workers injured on the job and see how that compares to the na-
tional incidence rate over the past 2 years. Do either of you or Mr.
Latham know that number? Do you think it is higher or do you
think it is lower? It is obviously higher or I would not have men-
tioned it. And I think we need to do something about that.

Let me also suggest that you look at a scientifically validated
survey conducted by IOSHA by legislative mandate that found that
most of these employers that were inspected approved of the OSHA
inspection process and actually felt that it helped them build a
stronger safety and healthy workplace and that helped their pro-

luctivity.

Mr. GANSKE. I would agree with you 100 percent that we need
to improve the communications between OS! inspectors, so that
they can work with the employers, and use some common sense in
improving the workplace. What clearly we have and what has been
demonstrated today—this is not my opinion, this is what I have
heard from the majority of the people at this hearing today, is that
there is an adversarial relationship in many cases, not in all. I
think that we are trying to do something to improve that.

Ms. TILL-RETZ. Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Next, we have No. 24, Maria Groenendyk, is that right?


100

I do want to ask you, Mr. McMullen, one question, because just
about everything you said was in plain English and I understood
it completely, but when you said the amino subgroup of the popu-
lation, would you please tell me what you meant? (Laughter.]

Mr. McMULLEN. I meant amino-compromised subgroup of the
population.

ir, GUTKNECHT. OK, whatever it is.

Mr. McMULLEN. This is a subgroup that the amino system has
been compromised to the point that the natural antibodies will not
counter the microbiological contaminant Cryptosporidium. And at
least to the best of my knowledge at this moment in time, I still
do not think that we have a drug to get rid of the critter. You just
have to wear it out by natural immunities.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So what you are saying is there is a certain ele-
ment of the population that is much more susceptible or this is a
more dangerous bacteria.

Mr. MCMULLEN. Cryptosporidium, to a sensitive subpopulation,
could mean death.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. OK. Well listen, again I want to thank you. But
1 think the overriding point, and 1 particularly liked the Jeffer-
sonian comments, Mayor Reel, that you made, because it just
struck me how far we have come from the vision of Thomas Jeffer-
son and the observations of de Tocqueville about what really makes
this country work, its communities like Missouri Valley and all the
other communities that you represent, where I think people in
those communities and I suspect, Mr. McMullen, you probably care
more about the health and safety of the water supply in Des
Moines, IA than most of the Federal bureaucrats in Washington,
DC, even though sometimes that is not the attitude that is taken.
And it really is about communities caring more about what is hap-
pening in their communities than the compassion that is doled
out—or at least the regulations which are doled out in the name
of compassion. And it struck me how far we have come from those
days when we really believed that the best government was that
government which governed least.

Listen, thank you so much, you were great.

Mr. McIntosu. Thank you, Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. Latham, any questions for this panel?

Mr. LaTHAM. Just very briefly.

And you should probably be aware, Mr. Chairman, and Gil, that
in 1993, Mr. McMullen was probably the most famous person in
Iowa and there are probably some candidates out there running in
the caucus next week that are very fortunate he is not in the field,
because he would probably take the Iowa caucus next Monday.

I just want to briefly—Mayor Gray, I just did some math here
and the facility is about $368 for every man, woman and child
when you built it and ongoing costs would be somewhere around
$28 or something like that for every man, woman and child in
Manson. What, in addition, as far as the testing cost that you have
to go through in addition to this, do you know what the number
is as far as what it costs you? You probably have quarterly——

Mr. Gray. I think it runs us about $1,200 a year in additional
costs.

Mr. LATHAM. Do you have just one well?


41

Testimony: February 9, 1996
Dave Whiton, Perry, Iowa

In the mid 1950's, my father Jack, Uncle Bil, and Grandfather George started a small feed
‘store-Whiton Feed. At this time Dad only sold bag feed for another large manufacturer.
They also continued to raise com, beans, swine, and cattle on the family farm located 4
miles north of Perry.

In the early 1960's my father and grandfather purchased the “Perry Mill” and from here the
real beginning of Whiton Feed. The business grew. Uncle Bill decided to stay and run the
farm and my father, Jack, wanted to operate the mill. My grandfather spent his later years
helping out at both places of business. From that point until vow, Whiten Feed has
updated and sdded new feed manufacturing equipment. .

This is how I §t into the picture. 1 was bom in 1951, graduated from Perry High School
in 1970 and from Towa State University in 1974. After Iowa State, I took a job with Trust
Bank of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia, the nations 63rd largest benk After two years of
banking, the Midwest and Whiton Feed beckoned me to return and I became involved
with the business. About this same time, my younger brother Marc, also became involved.
Like me, be graduated from Perry and went on the graduate from the “other university”
the University of lowa.

Dad kept working with us until the mid 1980's and then retired. His honest, fair, and strict
business attitude and practices are stil the foundation of Whiton Feed Co. and still deeply

‘What and who is Whiton Feed & Milling Company? We are 8 (and one of the few left)
family owned, independent feed manufacturer. Simply put - we buy feed ingredients from
local farmers and processors and put these ingredients together in meal-pellet-crumble
form to make complete and balanced feed for all types of livestock, but mostly for swine
and poultry.

‘We have (7) seven i brother and myself. We take care of our
wet we poles md praesent ha through Blue Cross and Blue Shield st
‘Whiton's expense (inchuding dental). We also contribute 15% to their Whiton Feed Profit
Stusing Pisa - not any matching - not a 401K - but we put the full 15% in for their
retirement. We also provide paid vacation and a loose atmosphere of letting the
employees be able to be involved with their families. (Le. time off for school conferences,
aligammes, otc.)