[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6104-H6116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ESTABLISHING A CORRECTIONS CALENDAR IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 168 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                              H. Res. 168

       Resolved, That clause 4 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
       ``4. (a) After a bill has been favorably reported and 
     placed on either the Union or House Calendar, the Speaker 
     may, after consultation with the Minority Leader, file with 
     the Clerk a notice requesting that such bill also be placed 
     upon a special calendar to be known as the ``Corrections 
     Calendar''. On the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, 
     after the Pledge of Allegiance, the Speaker may direct the 
     Clerk to call the bills in numerical order which have been on 
     the Corrections Calendar for three legislative days.
       ``(b) A bill so called shall be considered in the House, 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the primary committee 
     of jurisdiction reporting the bill, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except those amendments recommended by the primary 
     committee of jurisdiction or those offered by the chairman of 
     the primary committee, and the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment there to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       ``(c) A three-fifths vote of the members voting shall be 
     required to pass any bill called from the Corrections 
     Calendar but the rejection of any such bill, or the 
     sustaining of any point of order against it or its 
     consideration, shall not cause it to be removed from the 
     Calendar to which it was originally referred.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 168 is the long-awaited 
reform to create a new House Corrections Calendar for legislation that 
would repeal or correct laws, rules, and regulations that are obsolete, 
ludicrous, duplicative, burdensome, or costly.
  The idea was first proposed by our Speaker back in February of this 
year, and it has since captured the imagination and enthusiastic 
support of our colleagues and the American people alike.
  The resolution amends clause 4 of House Rule 13 by repealing the 
obsolete Consent Calendar and by replacing it with the new Corrections 
Calendar.
  The Consent Calendar has not been used since the 101st Congress and, 
even then, was only used for three bills.
  For bills to be placed on the Corrections Calendar, they must first 
be reported by the committee of jurisdiction and placed on their normal 
Calendar. The Speaker could then place the bills on the Corrections 
Calendar after consultation with the minority leader.
  The Calendar could be called on the second or fourth Tuesday of each 
month, at the discretion of the Speaker, after the Pledge of 
Allegiance. Bills would be called in the numerical order of their 
placement on the Calendar, after pending there for at least 3 
legislative days, following the existing rules of the House.
  The bills would be debated for 1 hour equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the primary committee of 
jurisdiction. No amendments would be allowed unless recommended by the 
primary committee or offered by its chairman.
  Each bill would provide for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. That means a final, alternative amendment or substitute 
could be considered, debatable for 10 minutes divided between the 
proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for a three-fifths vote to pass a bill on 
the Corrections Calendar.
  We think the three-fifths super-majority vote for Corrections 
Calendar bills is a reasonable middle ground between a two-thirds, 
which is used for suspensions when the bills are reasonably 
noncontroversial, and a simple majority vote when bills are extremely 
controversial. The bills should be relatively noncontroversial and 
bipartisan, but there is bound to be some controversy on some of these 
measures. Even so-called stupid rules will have their defenders.
  Given the prospect of some controversy on some corrections bills, we 
purposely built-in the ability of the minority to offer an amendment as 
part of a motion to recommit with instructions. This is something that 
is not available under the suspension process.
  Nor do bills have to be reported from a committee to be considered 
under suspension. It was the strong feeling of the Speaker and his 
advisory group that drafted this proposal that regular process should 
be followed at the committee level for a bill to be eligible for the 
Corrections Calendar.
  Moreover, suspension bills can be in violation of House rules and 
still be considered. Corrections bills do not have such protection 
against points of order. They must be in conformity with House rules. 
The only exception is that a corrections bill will not be subject to 
the point of order that it should be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole. Instead, the bills will be considered in the House under the 1-
hour rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Speaker on originating this idea 
and on following through on it by appointing 

[[Page H 6105]]

the special advisory group that developed and drafted the rule before 
us today. That advisory group consists of Representative Barbara 
Vucanovich, its chairman, and Representatives Zeliff and McIntosh.

                              {time}  1130

  They have put in countless hours in perfecting the concept and in 
gathering support for it. We all owe them a debt of gratitude in 
bringing this to the Rules Committee and to the House floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the other concerns expressed by the minority is 
that this process may not have sufficient input from the minority. To 
address that concern, we adopted the amendment requiring the Speaker to 
consult with the minority leader before placing any bill on the 
Corrections Calendar. The minority would have preferred giving the 
minority leader veto power over placing bills on the Corrections 
Calendar, but we felt that went too far in interfering with the 
scheduling prerogatives of the majority leadership.
  Moreover, we included report language at the suggestion of the 
minority, urging the Speaker to follow through on his stated aim of 
having a bipartisan group of Members to help develop criteria for 
corrections bills and in recommending which bills should go on the 
calendar.
  I am pleased to report that today the Speaker will act on his 
original intention to have a bipartisan advisory group--even without 
the benefit of our report language. In addition to the initial three-
member group, the Speaker has named four additional Republicans and 
five Democrats recommended by the minority leader. So this should go a 
long way toward meeting the major concerns expressed by the minority.
  It is our hope that we will see bills by Members of both parties 
considered under this process.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the work of the Speaker's advisory group 
and the further amendments adopted by the Rules Committee, help to 
ensure that this will follow the normal committee process and will 
allow for minority participation and input at every step of the 
process--including the right of the minority to offer a final floor 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Corrections Day resolution before us is another 
positive step forward by this House in relieving our constituents, 
local governments and small businesses of the needless, and costly red 
tape that has hampered their ability to fully and freely contribute to 
the betterment of their communities and to the creation of new job 
opportunities, economic growth, and prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very, very excited about this new Corrections 
Calendar because we really are going to take the burden off of small 
business in particular, which creates 75 percent of all the new jobs in 
America every single year. If you don't think that is important, look 
at all the graduating seniors from college today, look at all the 
graduating seniors from high school today, and look at the lack of job 
opportunity out there. We need this kind of Corrections Calendar, and I 
hope it passes unanimously today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 19, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 29                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 11                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 40                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 19, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: v.v. (2/2?/95). 
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1158...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  ...................
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 233-183 (6/13/ 
                                                                   1996.                      95)               
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    ...................
 95).                                                              1996.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           


[[Page H 6106]]

  For example, let me point out some of the very serious problems I 
have in my own congressional district and even my own home town of 
Glens Falls in upstate New York.
  As you might expect, nestled in the middle of the Adirondack 
mountains and on the shore of Lake George, tourism and forestry are the 
major industries in my home town. Both of these industries are 
threatened by extreme environmental regulations. Another industry which 
has sprung up in the region during the past 10 years, three major 
medical device companies, are now moving off shore because of 
restrictive and senseless Food and Drug Administration regulations.
  Most recently, a 100-year-old cement company may be forced to close 
their doors because of a new interpretation of Clean Air regulations by 
the EPA.
   Mr. Speaker, Glens Falls, NY, is small town U.S.A. and just look at 
what the Federal Government is doing to it. Let me give you specific 
examples of the devastation misguided Government regulations have 
caused in my home town.
  The Cluster Rule caused Scott Paper to lay off 400 people.
  The Cluster Rule may force Finch, Pruyn paper company to lay off 
1,000 workers.
  The safe drinking water act requires the hotel and motel owners to 
put up unsafe drinking water warning signs--killing tourism and costing 
hundreds of jobs.
  New EPA kiln emissions standards could put Glens Falls cement out of 
business--another 130 people unemployed.
  In 1994, Mallinckrodt Medical announced plans to relocate its 
manufacturing operations to Ireland and Mexico where they can market 
their products directly to the EEC without waiting 5 to 10 years for 
F.D.A. approval. This cost 450 jobs.
  A similar medical device company, Angio Dynamics, is also considering 
closing its doors and moving to Ireland for the same reason. This could 
cost another 400 jobs.
  Additionally, allow me to outline the traumatic effect of the Cluster 
Rule on the paper industry, not only in my district, but in the Nation.
   Mr. Speaker, the Cluster Rule is the biggest and most costly rule 
ever proposed by the EPA for a single industry. Because of the 
inflexibility and tremendous costs involved, 33 U.S. paper mills could 
be forced to close, eliminating 21,000 jobs.
  For Finch, Pruyn paper mill in Glens Falls, the effect is even more 
damaging. That is because the most stringent aspect of the EPA's 
Cluster Rule applies solely to the small category of papergrade sulfite 
mills they belong to. This is the aspect which requires totally 
chlorine-free bleaching. While EPA intended to eliminate the discharge 
of chlorinated compounds into waterways, they determined technology did 
not exist to permit the larger category of kraft mills to adopt totally 
chlorine-free paper bleaching. Thus only papergrade sulfite mills would 
have to comply.
  This regulation undermines the economy of upstate New York. It is not 
based on good science, it upsets the competitive balance of the open 
market and threatens the very existence of a 130-year-old company. This 
is a prime example of the type of damaging regulations we need to 
remedy through Corrections Day.
  All in all, the small Glens Falls area in upstate New York is subject 
to losing upwards of 2,500 jobs as a direct result of excessive 
Government regulation. Mr. Speaker, Corrections Day would provide the 
ideal forum to rectify these grave ills facing the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this resolution, and we urge Members 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on the resolution. 
We need to go back to the drawing board and develop a corrections 
process that if fair and bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many of us agree that it could be useful 
for the House of Representatives to try a new way of facilitating 
changes in laws and regulations that are not working well. The reason 
that the Corrections Day idea resonates is that all of us can give 
examples of regulations that seem to defy common sense, and all of us 
have probably experienced the frustration of getting nowhere with 
changes we suggest to certain laws.
  From time to time, constituents bring thoughtful ideas to me about 
changes they think should be made in a law, and I send their ideas over 
to the appropriate committees, but we do not always get a response--not 
even the assurance that the committee is looking into the matter. Being 
able to submit ideas to an advisory panel that carries more weight with 
committees--as proponents of Corrections Day envision--might give us a 
more effective avenue to pursue such changes.
  What many of us find appealing about the proposed corrections process 
is the idea that our committees would, presumably, receive strong 
messages about problems with laws under their jurisdiction. As a 
result, they would likely do a better job of finding out exactly what 
agencies are doing, and figuring out how the implementation of the laws 
under their jurisdiction can be improved. This process has the 
potential to greatly improve congressional oversight and, if it does, 
it will have turned out to be a useful and constructive tool.
  What concerns us, however, about the Corrections Day idea is the 
specific rule change before us today. We believe that this new and 
unusual procedure is both unfair to the minority, and unnecessary. In 
fact, the entire corrections process has not been well thought out, so 
it is premature for the House to act on any rule change for this 
purpose.
  Proponents of House Resolution 168 have failed to make a convincing 
case for the need to establish a floor procedure for considering so-
called corrections bills that differ from existing procedures. As 
Members know, the House already has a procedure--suspension of the 
rules--that permits the expedited consideration of relatively 
noncontroversial bills. This procedure has been a feature of the House 
since 1822, and is well accepted by both minority and majority members. 
The requirement of a two-thirds vote ensures that bills considered by 
this method have bipartisan support and are noncontroversial.
  In contrast, the procedure provided by House Resolution 168, in which 
only a three-fifths vote is required for passage, means that bills will 
not necessarily require bipartisan support. Members should be reminded 
that, during 4 of the last 10 Congresses, one party held three-fifths 
of the seats in the House.
  If bills considered under the corrections procedure are not allowed 
to be amended--other than by an amendment by the committee of 
jurisdiction and through a motion to recommit--then they should meet 
the same test for bipartisanship, and lack of controversy, that is 
imposed on bills considered under the suspension process.
  The right to offer amendments is important to all Members, but it is 
particularly significant to minority members because it provides the 
opposition party its best opportunity for meaningful involvement during 
floor consideration of a bill. I would hope that our colleagues on the 
other side--most of whom had the opportunity to serve here in the 
minority--would give serious thought to this matter. Those who do will 
surely agree that it would be a mistake for the House to abandon its 
longstanding protection of minority floor rights by requiring anything 
less than the approval of two-thirds of the House to waive those 
rights.
  We also find it troubling that Members are being asked to approve a 
change in the rules of the House for a class of legislation before we 
have a clear understanding of what corrections bills are, and why they 
require a separate and distinct floor procedure for consideration. 
Neither the resolution itself, nor the accompanying report, defines a 
corrections bill; there has been no explanation of how the correction 
process will work before a committee reports a bill; and we have yet to 
receive an explanation of what roles the leadership, the corrections 
advisory group, committees and individual Members will play in this 
process.
  [[Page H 6107]] Until information on those matters is provided, we 
believe it is unwise for the House to act on any measure establishing 
an unusual legislative procedure for considering corrections bills, 
particularly when the procedure vests all authority to determine which 
bills qualify for it in one person, the Speaker.
  We believe that if the House is going to establish a new expedited 
procedure, then the minority party should have a formal role in 
determining which measures may be brought up under it, as it does in 
determining the scheduling of bills under suspension of the rules. In 
such cases, the Republican conference rules themselves require the 
approval of the minority.
  When the Speaker testified before a joint hearing of the Rules 
Committee and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, he said--
repeatedly--that he wanted the corrections process to be bipartisan. In 
fact, he stated emphatically that ``if this is going to work, it has to 
be bipartisan.''
  That was on May 2. Some time between that date and June 6, when this 
resolution was introduced, the Corrections Day proposal took a wrong 
turn. Despite the Speaker's strong bid for a bipartisan process, 
Corrections Day became a highly partisan matter. No minority members 
were involved in the development of the proposed procedure or any 
aspect of the corrections process; no minority members were added to 
the initial corrections steering group; and the minority leader was--
until just today as we understand it--unable to secure assurances that 
the minority party will be able to select its own members for the 
corrections advisory group, as has been the longstanding tradition in 
the House for appointments to committees and all other formal 
bipartisan panels.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has just said that 
the minority leader has had no input. I do believe that Speaker 
Gingrich has received a letter appointing those Members from your side 
of the aisle. The gentleman really should correct his statement to that 
effect.
  Mr. BEILENSON. The gentleman, reclaiming his time, has corrected his 
statement. The gentleman has said, and I will quote him:

       No minority Members were involved in the development of the 
     proposed procedure or any aspect of the corrections process; 
     no minority Members were added to the initial corrections 
     steering group; and the minority leader was--until just today 
     as we understand it--unable to secure assurances that the 
     minority party will be able to select its own Members for the 
     corrections advisory group.

  I think what the gentleman from California said was absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Just for clarification, the minority leader has 
appointed the minority members.
  Mr. BEILENSON. As of today, we understand that is correct. But we 
have had no part to play in the development of this process from the 
beginning.
  We think that the existing suspension process would be sufficient for 
the consideration of corrections bills, and we urge the majority to try 
using this process before establishing this new procedure.
  Alternatively, we proposed changing the three-fifths margin for 
passage of corrections bills to two-thirds. We also asked that a motion 
to recommit be permitted during consideration of corrections bills. 
And, we proposed requiring the minority leader's concurrence to place 
bills on the Corrections Calendar.
  We also asked that appointments to the corrections advisory group--
which is expected to play a pivotal role in the corrections process--be 
made in the same manner as appointments are made to other formal 
bipartisan panels, with the minority members chosen by their 
leadership. And, we asked that the bipartisan leadership define 
corrections bills, and issue guidelines for the corrections process, 
before using the Corrections Calendar.
  We offered these proposals not only to safeguard minority rights, but 
also to protect the integrity of the legislative process in the House. 
Unfortunately, except for the inclusion of a motion to recommit, and 
now the acquiescence and the approval of the minority leader in 
appointing Members to the advisory committee, our proposals were 
rejected by the majority members of the committee. Actually, a 
provision for a motion to recommit had to be added, because otherwise 
the resolution would have violated the Rules of the House.
  It is unfortunate that the proponents of this rule change decided to 
follow a path of partisanship in this matter, rather than accept our 
modest suggestions which would have ensured broad--if not unanimous--
support for the corrections process, and which would have kept the 
process in the same bipartisan spirit in which the Speaker first 
offered it.
  However, it is not too late to turn this proposal into a
   procedure that will be embraced by Members of both parties. If the 
previous question is defeated, we shall offer an amendment to change 
the three-fifths vote requirement for corrections bills to two-thirds. 
With a two-thirds vote requirement, we will have the assurance that, 
regardless of which party is in power, the rights of the minority will 
be as well protected for purposes of considering corrections bills--
however they turn out to be defined--as they are for any other 
legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, we urge our colleagues to oppose House Resolution 168 in 
its current form.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman's 
comments regarding the amendment we offered and adopted to permit a 
motion to recommit with instructions on corrections bills.
  The fact is that it was only after we decided to offer this amendment 
that it came to our attention that House rules prohibit the Rules 
Committee from denying a motion to recommit--even in a House rule 
change such as this. We had thought it only applied to special order 
resolutions.
  However, we did not have to include the language ``with or without 
instructions.'' We included that language voluntarily to guarantee the 
minority's right to offer a final amendment in a motion to recommit, 
even if a committee substitute has been adopted.
  Ordinarily, such a substitute would block further amendments in a 
motion to recommit.
  So, my only point is that we overcame a problem even before we knew 
it was a problem; and we solved it by going further than we had to do 
to protect the minority's rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], one of the most important Members of this Congress in bringing 
about reform, and vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, which I have 
the privilege of chairing.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Glens 
Falls, distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent that we have an opportunity to deal 
with what the Speaker has accurately described as a corrections day, to 
face some of the most ridiculous, preposterous regulations the Federal 
Government has imposed on the American people and get rid of them. But 
the Speaker was right when he, on May 2, testified before the joint 
hearing that was held by the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of 
the House Committee on Rules, and the subcommittee of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight that dealt with this issue, when he 
said it should be done in a bipartisan way.
  Let me say to my friend from Woodland Hills and to others on the 
other side of the aisle that, as we have gone through this process, I 
have been working very closely with my colleagues to ensure that 
minority rights are not ignored. Let me underscore that again. Minority 
rights are very important.
  I have served in this House as a Member of the minority. I am much 
happier serving as a Member of the majority but I think, having served 
as a Member of the minority, I am very sensitive to the concerns the 
minority has raised, and I believe the Speaker was very sincere when he 
said we should do this in a bipartisan way.
  So what have we done? Well, the Corrections Calendar procedure does 
call for, as my friend said just a few moments ago, the minority leader 
to appoint the minority members, and he is right, it was just done 
recently, but the fact of the matter is those Members have been 
appointed by the minority leader.
  This measure requires a three-fifths vote for passage. It requires 
the Speaker to consult with the minority leader [[Page H 6108]] before 
placing bills on the Corrections Calendar. It requires that all 
measures placed on the Corrections Calendar be favorably reported by a 
committee and placed on the House or Union Calendar. It does not waive 
points of order against measures called up on the Corrections Calendar, 
and as my friend knows, I offered an amendment in the Committee on 
Rules which was adopted in a bipartisan way which allows minority 
amendments through a motion to recommit with amendatory instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure is going to deal with these onerous 
regulations and at the same time recognize minority rights. We should 
have support all the way across the board.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret to express my opposition 
to the proposed Corrections Day Calendar.
  I strongly support the idea of correcting truly silly regulations. 
But I fear that the new corrections procedure we are considering will 
become a fast track for special interests to stop regulations that 
protect public health and the environment.
  My concern is not hypothetical. We have already seen many examples 
this Congress of special interest fixes being described as 
``corrections.''
  Consider the recent actions of the House Budget Committee report. 
Last month, the Budget Committee identified over 50 regulations in its 
budget report that it said are ``the most expensive and onerous and 
appear ripe for termination or reform.'' Unfortunately, the Budget 
Committee's list wasn't limited to expensive and onerous regulations 
that truly need correction. Instead, it included many regulations whose 
correction would enrich special interests at the expense of public 
health.
  One example involves the tobacco industry. This industry is the 
Nation's biggest special interest. During the last election cycle 
alone, the tobacco industry gave $2 million in soft money to the 
Republican Party.
  This powerful special interest is an enormous beneficiary of the 
corrections proposed by the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee 
recommends that Congress--and I quote--``rescind enforcement of laws 
regarding cigarette sales to minors''--Budget Report at page 171. The 
committee also recommends that Congress prevent OSHA from regulating 
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke--a known human lung carcinogen.
  I cannot support a new corrections process that could be used by the 
tobacco industry to increase their cigarette sales to children.
  The tobacco companies are by no means the only special interest that 
is likely to benefit from the new process. The Budget Committee also 
recommends that we stop the Department of Agriculture from finalizing 
its regulations to modernize meat inspections. These regulations are 
estimated to save thousands of lives and prevent millions of illnesses 
each year. Yet they are put in jeopardy by the rule changes we are 
considering today.
  Other examples of regulations that the Budget Committee wants to 
correct include:
  The Clean Air Act requirements that sources of toxic emissions 
monitor and report their emissions.
  The requirements that cars meet minimum fuel-efficiency standards.
  Key requirements to clean up drinking water.
  The regulations implementing the motor-voter law.
  We must not adopt a corrections process that would make it easier for 
special interests to subvert the legislative process and achieve goals 
like those proposed by the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, I am afraid 
that the proposal before us will have exactly this result.
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just have to point out, and I would point 
out to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], we just heard the 
previous speaker. Now, I understand that the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt] is going to appoint the previous speaker to this task 
force. You have heard his attitude. The gentleman thinks this whole 
corrections concept is silly and absurd.
  Can you imagine how constructive the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Waxman] is going to be in trying to get corrections bills for 
regulations that I consider silly and ludicrous? The gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, has been denied the right to have these 
votes on the floor in the past.
  That is why the minority leader cannot be given a veto right. We 
would never get any of these silly and dumb rules out onto the floor 
for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Reno, NV, Mrs. 
Barbara Vucanovich, the chairwoman of the task force, who has done such 
an outstanding job of putting together this corrections calendar 
concept.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman 
Solomon for his invaluable help in putting together this historic rules 
change we are considering today. Without his support and guidance this 
House would not be about to launch this important initiative.
  I also want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to chair the 
steering committee on Corrections Day. It has been an honor to work on 
this important project.
  This is a historic day. For the first time the Congress is going to 
implement a plan for eliminating ridiculous Federal rules and 
regulations. For the first time this House is going to make it a 
priority to relieve average citizens of regulatory excess.
  There are 100 million words of Federal regulations on the books 
today, and it is growing by the thousands each and every day.
  The truth of the matter is--no one can possibly comply with all these 
rules and no one can possibly enforce them all. We have to do something 
to turn the tide.
  This is not an attempt at wholesale repeal of health and safety laws, 
or environmental regulation.
  We all agree, some regulation is necessary. But you can't tell me 
that there aren't just a few of those 100 million words of regulation 
that we can live without.
  During this debate we are going to hear a lot about the corrections 
process being unnecessary or unfair to the minority.
  These issues are minor when compared to the important task we are 
undertaking.
  We have come up with the most fair and workable plan to handle 
corrections. I urge Members to support this resolution and strike the 
first blow against stupid regulations.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
change in the House rules to establish special new procedures for a 
Corrections Day, which has been billed as an opportunity to pass simple 
bills that correct mistakes in laws, or correct regulations that go far 
beyond what Congress intended.
  The Speaker has indicated that these bills should enjoy bipartisan 
support, and that they would correct silly results of previous laws.
  At a joint hearing of subcommittees of the Rules Committee and the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on which I serve as 
ranking minority member, there was bipartisan agreement that 
corrections bills could serve a useful purpose, if handled properly. No 
one should believe, therefore, that any Member opposes efforts to 
establish a corrections day to modify laws that don't make sense.
  Unfortunately, House Resolution 168 would rig the playing field to 
the advantage of the majority for these supposedly noncontroversial 
bills. This resolution would allow corrections bills to go to the floor 
at the sole discretion of the Speaker under rules that permit no 
amendments and require just a three-fifths vote.
  The common procedure of the House for noncontroversial bills is the 
Suspension Calendar. Those bills require a two-thirds vote for passage. 
Many bills that were passed with a two-thirds vote will not require 
just a three-fifths vote for correcting. This is illogical. If we 
require a two-thirds vote to pass a bill [[Page H 6109]] under 
suspension of the rules, it should take a two-thirds vote to correct 
it.
  The question is why are the Republicans not comfortable using the 
two-thirds majority already established for suspension votes. The 
obvious answer is that they feel quite certain that they can muster 261 
votes, but are not certain that they can get the 290 votes that would 
be needed if two-thirds were required.
  Since the difference between the proposed procedure for a correction 
bill and a bill brought up under a rule is the ban on amendments, it 
appears that the Republican majority is reneging on its pledge of fewer 
rules that prohibit amendments. Corrections bills under House 
Resolution 168 would not be amendable, and unlike suspension 
procedures, require just a three-fifths vote. There is an inconsistency 
here.
  The other problem presented by the proposed Corrections Day procedure 
is the lack of any definition of a correction. Under the proposed 
change of the House rules, the Speaker would be the sole arbiter. At 
our hearing regarding the establishment of Corrections Day, we got a 
glimpse into the Republicans' view of mistakes that need corrections.
  The list ranged from EPA monitoring requirements under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act to the Federal trade Commission review of the Nestle 
purchase of Alpo Pet Food.

                          Correction Inventory

       1. FAA landfills and airports.
       2. Fish and wildlife, Back Bay wildlife access.
       3. Defense logistics surplus DOD property, humanitarian 
     assist. program, foreign military sales.
       4. Federal Trade Commission, Nestle purchase of Alpo Pet 
     Food.
       5. Federal Highway Admin., P.L. 100-418, metric 
     measurements.
       6. Dept. of Education 1992 Higher Educ. Act State 
     Postsecondary review entities.
       7. Private pension law reform, IRS Code revisions to 
     provide designed base safeharbors.
       8. EPA, rainfall overflow of sanitary sewer systems.
       9. State covert auditing of emission test vendors, 40 CFR 
     51.363(a)(4).
       10. Individuals With Disabilities Act revisions: 1. Apply 
     Federal Administrative Procedures Act; 2. State option to 
     combine idea fund with other Fed. funds; 3. Authority for 
     States to use 10 percent of idea funds for non-categorical 
     supports and services for children with disabilities; 4. 
     State ability to use simplified application for local 
     education agencies.
       11. Clean Air Act, employee commute options State 
     compliance.
       12. ISTEA requirement of recycled rubber for paving.
       13. EPA penalties for standards not yet announced.
       14. Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA requirement for State 
     monitoring of 25 contaminants.
       15. Title V permit fees under Clean Air Act not counted as 
     match for Federal grants.
       16. IRS and SSA requirement that States verify asset-income 
     information.
       17. Home and community-based services eligibility for 
     employment services.
       18. State supplementary payments for SSI recipients.
       19. Federal community mental health services block grant 
     planning requirements.
       20. Justice Dept. substance abuse RFP's require notice of 
     funds available.
       21. Title IV-E client eligibility requirements for AFDC.
       22. Religious Freedom Restoration Act required religious 
     services for any and all religions in State prisons.
       23. CDBG requirements too burdensome for small communities.
       24. Federal Management Improvement Act requirement that 
     States pay interest on Federal funds.
       25. Dept. of Labor should not prohibit coverage bank costs 
     related to unemployment insurance taxes.
       26. FUTA and SSA require State to withhold tax from 
     unemployment.
       27. Take Federal unemployment trust fund off budget.
       28. Amend Fair Employment Standards Act to prevent absurd 
     rulings for law enforcement agencies.
       29. Streamline data collection for Federal education 
     programs.
       30. Amend Single Audit Act to require audits for grants in 
     greater amounts.
       31. 50 CFR 930, requires agencies to review competence and 
     physical qualifications of all employees who operate 
     vehicles.
       32. OSHA requirement of four member firefighting crews.

  Corrections Day could very easily become Special Interest Protection 
Day. The voices of those special interests are far more likely to 
propose the opening of regulatory and tax loopholes than closing them.
  In order to set the Corrections Day Calendar, the Speaker has 
established yet another task force--this one to review corrections 
legislation.
  When the House voted in January to eliminate three committees, and to 
reduce committee staffs by a third, surely it was not intended that 
their work be done by task forces. We do not need more task forces any 
more than we need new Government agencies.
  These partisan task forces are not governed by any rules. In this 
particular case, the Corrections Day task force could become a group 
before which special interests will come to plead their case out of the 
view of the public. We saw a similar problem with the Competitiveness 
Council chaired by Vice President Quayle, where big businesses that 
failed before agencies went to the Council to plead their cases in 
private. It is wrong for the party that proclaimed its new Sunshine in 
Committee rules on the first day of Congress to be using task forces 
that operate in the dark behind closed doors.
  Despite the call in Contract With America for fewer closed rules and 
fewer House committees, this proposal would result in more closed rules 
and more House committees, renamed task forces.
  Just last week I was successful in offering an important amendment to 
retain full and open competition in procurement. It was a close vote, 
but after the vote the House passed the underlying procurement 
amendment by a near unanimous vote. However, if the Speaker decided 
that Chairman Clinger's procurement bill were a correction of previous 
procurement laws, I would not have been able to offer the amendment, 
and small businesses and the taxpayers would have suffered. This is 
wrong.
  There is a simple solution that Members of both sides of the aisle 
could easily endorse: Require a two-thirds vote for a correction bill 
rather than the proposed three-fifths vote. That would be consistent 
with the vote required for a bill on the Suspension Calendar. If a bill 
is unlikely to get a two-thirds vote, then bring it up under normal 
procedures, where a simple majority is required, but amendments are 
permitted. Unfortunately, the only way we can amend these proposed 
procedures is to defeat the previous question on this resolution. Then, 
in a bipartisan manner, we can adopt the Corrections Day procedures. 
Let me remind my colleagues, if the House could pass the Contract With 
America in 100 days, there is no need to rig the playing field for the 
benefit of noncontroversial bills.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was really out of place and I 
resented the fact that there was a personal attack on me by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. The gentleman did not address 
the issues I raised on why this bill is going to be a vehicle for 
special interest.
  I would like to have a corrections day to correct silly regulations, 
but I do not want a vehicle, which I fear this will be, to give special 
interests an opportunity to get a return on their investment in the 
candidacies of a lot of people that are in power in this institution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just assure the previous speaker that because of the deep 
respect I have for the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] I would 
never personally attack him. And I am sorry if the gentleman thought I 
did.
  Nevertheless, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], one of the most outstanding members of the Committee on Rules, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation and Budget Process of 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY 
[Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 168, 
legislation which is designed to respond to the plea of the American 
people that the Federal Government become more responsive and more 
attuned to common sense.
  One of the worst byproducts of our overblown Government and the 
cumbersome bureaucracy that it has [[Page H 6110]] spawned over the 
years is hat often good intentions lead to bad, or just plain dumb, 
rules or regulations upon implementation. That is what happens, 
unfortunately, when you try to enforce too many centralized, one-size-
fits-all requirements on the diverse communities and individuals that 
make up this great country.
  Government is not the answer to every problem that comes along and it 
never was intended to be so. Like so many good and creative ideas, the 
proposal for corrections day arose because of discussions with ordinary 
citizens and with State and local officials who for years have labored 
under the rigid, onerous, and at times downright absurd requirements of 
the Federal Government.
  It is our intent, through this procedural change, to find a way to 
cut through the redtape and inertia and allow for speedy, narrowly 
focused action in addressing those problems. It is the old principle of 
feedback, some call it representative government, when the Federal 
Government hands down an ill-advised or misdirected requirement and the 
folks at the other end of the mandate cry out for relief. The 
corrections day procedure provides for a rapid-response means to 
receive that message through the static and tune out the problem 
quickly.
  There were concerns raised by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that this proposal could be abused and would not protect the 
rights of the minority. I shared that concern on the Committee on Rules 
and was pleased that our Committee on Rules, under Chairman Solomon's 
leadership, adopted an amendment by my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] to afford the minority its traditional right to 
a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I think that, coupled with the Speaker's public pledge to seek 
bipartisan corrections proposals, should allay those concerns of the 
minority. The abuse that we should be most worried about is the abuse 
that for years has allowed unnecessary, burdensome and 
counterproductive rules to weigh down the productivity and the 
individual freedoms of Americans and American institutions.
                              {time}  1200

  That is the relief we are after here today, and while some in 
opposition have questioned whether Republicans have got exactly the 
right formula, I think we do have a formula that will get the job done, 
and I am delighted to urge support for approval of this effort. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote as we go into this.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House 
Resolution 168.
  I am a cosponsor of this resolution, in spite of the fact that it is 
not everything that some of us wanted. Some of us actually wanted a 
tougher process than we have got in this resolution. But I do think it 
moves us in the right direction.
  There is bipartisan support for this process, and I am glad to be 
able to serve as part of this corrections day task force that is being 
set up.
  As I say, there are a number of Democrats on our side that think that 
we need to do something about overly burdensome Federal regulations. I 
was not really too involved in all of this regulatory process until I 
got looking at this moratorium bill that was introduced early on this 
session and got to reading some of the regulations that were 
promulgated and were of concern in this moratorium. What I found out is 
there were 615 regulations adopted in just a month and a half, and I 
sat down and read all of those 615, and if every Member of Congress 
would sit down and read every regulation, we would be in a lot better 
shape in this Congress, and we maybe would not need bills like this.
  But the other thing that I found is that there are 204 volumes of 
Federal regulations, and if you sat down and read those regulations 40 
hours a week, it would take you 8 years to read all of the Federal 
regulations that we have promulgated over the last number of years.
  I do not think that there is anybody that understands everything that 
is in all of these regulations. I really think that what we need is a 
requirement that every Member of Congress read every rule and every 
regulation, and that would be the best thing that we could do.
  We are working on some other bills. We have a sunset bill which will 
help, if we could get that passed, that would say we are going to look 
at every regulation, and we are going to sunset those that are no 
longer necessary.
  We thought in the House that the moratorium would help, that we would 
have a timeout on regulations to look at the process. I think the 45-
day legislative veto that the Senate is proposing will help. Again, I 
am not sure how much good it will do, but it will clearly put more 
focus.
  I think this Corrections Day process will clearly help us in changing 
this regulatory process, because what it will do, in my opinion, it 
will focus Members and focus the public's attention on this regulatory 
process which, in my judgment, has really gotten out of hand.
  I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh], and the subcommittee that I serve on for kind of making it a 
priority of that subcommittee to do oversight on the regulatory 
process. We have traveled to a number of areas in the country and 
listened to ordinary citizens and their reactions to some of the 
regulatory overburden. And as I understand it, the chairman is going to 
continue that process so that we are going to have oversight on the 
regulatory process, and that is going to help, as well.
  I also want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for being with us on these 
issues, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], and others.
  So I just want to say that there are a number of Democrats that are 
concerned about the regulatory process. We have been working where we 
can to have a reasonable response to the overregulation that we have 
seen in this country, and the truth is that we should write, in my 
judgment, legislation more specifically so we would not have so much 
rulemaking, that we should read every rule that comes out, and, lastly, 
that we should pass this Corrections Day bill because it will move us 
in the right direction.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Warren, PA [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, who has been very much involved in this.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  At the outset, I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota for his 
courage and his tenacity in reading 615 regulations. I think that is 
some sort of a Guinness world record I suspect he should be submitted 
for.
  I take your point if we read more of these things, we might be a 
little more sensitive to the fact that we are overburdening vast 
portions of our economy with needless regulations. So I would rise in 
support of the resolution. It is well thought out, I think, and it 
provides a deliberative means to implement Corrections Days as 
suggested by our Speaker.
  Corrections Day is a new and innovative approach to fixing 
longstanding Washington problems, and by establishing a Corrections Day 
calendar we have an opportunity to highlight and fix in an expedited 
manner laws, policies or regulations that simply do not make much 
sense, that are unnecessary, outdated, or over reaching. We will really 
have a chance in this exercise to reinvent Government, not just by 
talking about it but by taking concrete steps to make it more 
reasonable and efficient.
  It is also an opportunity for us to put a call out to all Americans 
that not only are we serious about changing Government but to enlist 
their help in identifying corrections.
  We need to start down this road as quickly as possible because there 
is clearly a lot in this city that needs correcting.
  I would also state that I know the concerns of the minority about the 
possible abuse of this proposed new process, and I would hope that that 
would [[Page H 6111]] not be the case. My sense of Corrections Day is 
that these are going to be items that we can universally agree on in a 
bipartisan manner, that these are stupid and these are things that 
should be corrected. I do not anticipate that this is going to be used 
as a partisan club to accomplish things but, rather, it will be done in 
a very bipartisan and cooperative effort to ensure that only those 
things that are clearly egregious and clearly outrageous will be 
affected.
  We did have in the joint hearing held by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight and the Committee on Rules in May, at that time 
both members
 and witnesses had the opportunity to share their thoughts about how we 
should be establishing Corrections Day, and it was a very bipartisan 
effort, and I think there is a general agreement that this is something 
that is needed in this climate.

  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, as a committee chairman, one of the concerns 
that I expressed at that time was how these legislative proposals would 
fit into the committee structure and whether committees would be 
bypassed in the process, and in many cases, use of the committee 
provides the opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the 
process.
  House Resolution 168 addresses this concern by providing for 
committee consideration of all Corrections Day legislation and that 
allays the concerns I had about shortcircuiting the committee process. 
At the same time, many of us do appreciate the expedited floor 
procedures provided in this resolution. House rules, as we all know, 
can be cumbersome.
  This is a sound, balanced, very well thought-out means to implement 
Corrections Day. The new calender affords us the opportunity to rid 
ourselves of Washington policies, regulations and procedures, that just 
do not make sense, in many cases are just plain dumb.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this procedure 
for Corrections Day.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is going to sanction the creation of 
the mother and the father of all closed rules.
  Very frankly, there is a mechanism to bring matters of this kind to 
the floor quickly. It is called suspension of the rules. It requires a 
two-thirds vote. Virtually nothing else is present in this legislation 
which is not available to the leadership at this time under the process 
known as suspension of the rules.
  All of us favor the idea that something should be done about dumb 
regulations and, like others, I have been extremely critical of 
legislation and regulation which has not worked in the broad public 
interest and which has, in fact, been counterproductive because it did 
not address the problems with which we are properly concerned.
  The practical effect of the rule change which we are undergoing at 
this particular minute is to confer on the Speaker the ability to put a 
piece of legislation on the floor which will be considered under 1 
hour's time, with no amendments permitted except that which either the 
chairman or the
 leadership wants to take place. It will foreclose thereby all 
meaningful amendments which are not concurred in by the leadership, 
foreclose all meaningful debate because clearly any piece of 
legislation can be brought to the floor under this rule change. It can 
involve massive termination of programs. It can involve termination of 
agencies in Government such as the Department of Commerce, Department 
of Education, Department of Defense, Department of Energy. It can 
involve termination of programs such as welfare or air pollution or 
water pollution or the Food and Drug Administration or legislation 
which would protect the consumers or the Federal Trade Commission or 
any other piece of legislation which could probably be brought here 
under an open rule, affording more adequate and proper debate and 
affording adequate opportunity to amend and to discuss amendments.

  In short, as I have indicated, this is the mother and the father of 
all closed rules. It confers on the Speaker the opportunity to pass 
legislation without consideration of amendments and without more than 1 
hour's debate on something like 261 Members of this body. This is not 
something which is going to lead to good legislative practice. It is 
not something which is significantly expanding the authority of the 
leadership to do anything other than one thing, and that is to curb 
debate, to curb amendments, and to do so with less than two-thirds now 
required, only requiring three-fifths.
  Now, it should be noted in the 5 of the previous 10 Congresses, 10 
out of the previous 20 years, from 1975 to 1994, one party controlled 
over 60 percent of the seats. This is clearly a bad proposal, and no 
fancy language or discussion of wrongdoing is going to change that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Jackson, NM [Mr. Zeliff], another member of the task force 
appointed by Speaker Gingrich, a very valuable Member of this body.
  Mr. ZELIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in the strongest support for this change to the House 
rules. Corrections Day is a revolutionary idea for this Congress, and 
it deserves a special place, along with the Contract With America, in 
changing the way we do business. Back in November the voters made their 
feelings clear about their dissatisfaction with the way this House of 
Representatives operates. Republicans came to the majority as part of a 
revolution for change. These old ways of doing business are over.
  In just the past 6 months we have changed the way Washington works. 
Corrections Day is a natural step in this Republican revolution for 
change.
  There is just no way that we can continue to operate under the 
systems of the 1950's. This is 1995, and we live in a society which 
demands immediate action to correct the onslaught of Federal 
regulations which enter into every American's everyday life.
  Corrections Day serves as one way for this Congress to begin to 
relieve those threats to liberty, clean out some of the legislative 
deadwood that has accumulated around here for the last 40 years, and to 
do it quickly and effectively, and it all comes with change.
  Today we are hearing argument after argument from the other side 
about fairness to the minority and how Corrections Day will trample 
their rights. What we hear, ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of the 
status quo and the voice of denial. They are not concerned with 
minority rights. We have gone to great lengths to insure the rights of 
the minority by allowing motions to recommit, requiring consultation 
with the minority on all corrections requiring a three-fifths' vote to 
assure these bills pass on a bipartisan basis, which, by the way, will 
require strong Democratic support.
  Corrections Day allows us to finally have an effective tool to get 
rid of the most ridiculous, outrageous, dumb ideas, laws, rules, 
regulations which now plague the future of our country. With 
Corrections Day, we can make these changes without having to go through 
an entire reauthorization of legislation which will take months.
  We have been very deliberate to assure nothing could reach the floor 
as a correction without first going through the committee process, 
since their Members are the experts on these subjects. Corrections Day 
is a new idea with a strong potential to change the way that this 
Congress does business.
  I thank the Speaker for coming up with a great idea. I commend the 
Committee on Rules for their fine work, and I look forward to this 
Congress becoming more efficient in the way we run our country's 
business.
  This is a private sector idea. It is a time where we start looking at 
more efficient ways to do our business.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, one of the responsibilities of any 
legislature has [[Page H 6112]] always been to correct features of 
previously enacted bills when appropriated to do so, and to correct 
actions taken by the executive pursuant to legislative authority when 
the legislature believes that the executive action is unwise or 
unwarranted. Such legislative corrections have been part of this 
Congress' activity for almost as long as there has been a Congress.
  What has been proposed more recently is that we have a special 
Corrections Calendar, to highlight and expedite the corrections 
legislating that we have long done. House Resolution 168 would amend 
the Rules of the House of Representatives to create such a calendar, to 
empower the Speaker to decide which of all the bills placed on the 
other calendars of the House should be placed also on the new 
Corrections Calendar, and to allow the bills on the new Correction 
Calendar to be considered without amendment and to pass by a three-
fifths vote.
  There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating a separate 
Corrections Calendar, and there is nothing wrong with trying to 
expedite Congress' longstanding efforts to correct what needs to be 
corrected in existing law or in executive branch action.
  The Speaker testified before the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee that the purpose of a new legislative procedure for 
corrections should be to deal with issues which obviously warrant 
corrections and for which the correction enjoys broad bipartisan 
support and is not controversial. That is exactly the kind of 
corrections legislation which should have an expedited procedure so the 
correction can be accomplished quickly.
  I, therefore, support, and I believe most Members would support, an 
expedited Corrections Calendar for corrections bills which enjoy broad 
bipartisan support and which are not controversial.
  Unfortunately, that is not what House Resolution 168 would do. The 
effect of this resolution would be to allow any bill, whether it was a 
corrections bill or any other bill, to be taken up under procedures 
which would bar amendments from the floor of the House, and it would 
make it easier than it has ever been to do that.
  Nothing in this resolution would prevent this or any future Speaker 
from putting a bill which was not a corrections bill at all on the 
Corrections Calendar.
  At present we have a Suspension Calendar, designed to expedite 
consideration of smaller, noncontroversial bills. A bill on the 
Suspension Calendar may be considered without amendments from the 
floor, but it must achieve a two-thirds vote in order to pass. That 
two-thirds vote has been the high standard for routinely barring 
amendments--a bill had to be sufficiently noncontroversial that it 
could pass by a two-thirds vote in order to be considered under 
procedures. which barred amendments. What House Resolution 168 would 
do, for the first time, is create a procedure by which amendments could 
be routinely barred for bills which could only get a three-fifths vote.
  In other words, the sole effect of this resolution would be to make 
it easier to bar amendments to bills which are not sufficiently 
noncontroversial and bipartisan to get the two-thirds vote.
  The sole power to decide what would be placed on the Corrections 
calendar would be in the hands of one person--the Speaker of the House. 
By virtue of being on that calendar all unfriendly amendments would be 
barred. It would thus be the power of the Speaker alone to decide 
whether a bill being considered under procedures barring all amendments 
would have to meet the two-thirds test or the three-fifths test. The 
Speaker alone would have the power to adjust for each bill the standard 
of what it takes to pass a bill while preventing amendments from being 
offered.
  The difference between two-thirds and three fifths in the House is 
the difference between 290 votes and 261 votes. What this resolution is 
all about is giving the Speaker the sole power to decide whether any 
bill needs 290 votes to be considered under provisions barring 
amendments, or whether it needs only 261 votes to be considered under 
those procedures.
  That is a lot of power to give any individual. It is the power for 1 
Member to negate the votes of 29 other Members. It is a degree of power 
that we should not give to any one Member of this House, whether 
Speaker or not, whether a Member of one party or the other, whether a 
past, present, or future Member.
  This is not a power anyone needs who simply wants to pass bills which 
are broadly bipartisan and noncontroversial.
  This is a device for stifling alternative points of view, for 
preventing full and open consideration of alternatives, for keeping 
opposing ideas out of the public debate, for making it easier for some 
Members to avoid votes and public accountability on tough issues.
  If what we wanted was a Corrections Calendar which offered an 
expedited procedure for noncontroversial bills, we would use the same 
two-thirds requirement we have always had for the Suspension Calendar.
  I would urge Members to oppose the previous question so that an 
amendment can be offered which would keep the idea of a Corrections 
Calendar, but would also retain the present practice of requiring a 
two-thirds vote to pass bills under procedures barring all amendments. 
Let us make Corrections Day what the Speaker said he wanted, an 
opportunity to pass broadly bipartisan and noncontroversial bills, not 
an opportunity to make it easier to exclude amendments from bills which 
are controversial.
                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Dan Quayle came under a lot 
of criticism for speaking up for family values. It turns out he was so 
right; was he not?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh].
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me say I think this change in the 
rules today is one of the critically important reforms that we are 
making in this House of Representatives not to cater to special 
interests, but to actually cater to what the American people want us to 
do, and that is to correct the problems that have grown up over 25 
years of big government, increasing regulation and burdens that in many 
cases just simply do not make any sense. The gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Peterson], the ranking member on my subcommittee, indicated that 
we had traveled to many places and held field hearings where we 
actually listened to people and the problems that they have with the 
Federal Government. Let me report to my colleagues some of the things 
we heard.
  In Muncie, Kay Whitehead, who is a farmer who has a pork production 
facility, has to get rid of the waste product of that pork production 
facility. She needs to spread it on her fields as manure. One agency 
tells her to spread it on top of the fields. Another agency tells her, 
no, to plow it into the fields. She does not care what she does, but 
she needs to have guidance from the Government. We need to correct that 
so she knows one way or the other she is following the law.
  The city of Richmond came in and testified they have a paraplegic van 
to help people who are handicapped in their transportation network. 
They also have eight city buses. They are now required under the 
Americans With Disabilities Act to expend over $100,000 in changing 
those buses to make them handicapped accessible. The problem is in the 
last 3 years they have only had one person who would need that new 
facility. Everybody else uses the vans that they make available to 
them.
  In Maine we heard from the city that had to spend millions of dollars 
in correcting their sewage treatment facility. They have an excellent 
record of protecting the environment there. This money was not needed. 
They could have done it in a much cheaper way, but Federal regulations 
were imposing those costs.
  Firefighters wrote to me and said, ``You know, in a small town we 
have difficulty getting four firefighters to the fire at the same time, 
but OSHA has a regulation saying that we can't go in and start fighting 
the fire until all four of us are there. What do you [[Page H 
6113]] want us to do? Stand on the sides letting the building burn.'' 
Another stupid regulation that needs to be corrected.
  Finally we heard about a new guideline came out from a Federal agency 
to builders saying in new homes we have to have a different type of 
toilet. It cannot be the regular toilet with a full tank of water to 
flush. It has to be a smaller tank so that one would only use a small 
amount of water. The problem is the way the Federal Government designs 
these toilets, they do not have enough water to flush the drain. 
Everybody flushes twice and ends up using more water and undermining 
the whole goal of this regulation. This is a rule that should just be 
flushed down the toilet. Let people know what they need to do, and let 
them design the solution for themselves.
  Let me close by saying that I think the genius of Speaker Gingrich's 
proposal here is that he has reversed the incentives. As Members of 
Congress we can now come forward with solutions to correct these 
problems, have a calendar that will let us do it. It is a bipartisan 
initiative. It will let us have a process that will let us flush these 
old rules down the drain.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House, there was a time 
once upon a time when committees of Congress had the power to veto 
stupid regulations. That power was taken away from us by the Supreme 
Court when it ruled that the right to regulate under any statute we 
create belonged to the agency, the executive agency. We can no longer 
veto regulations that we have authorized in legislation. The President 
of the United States can veto bills, but he cannot veto regulations, 
and, worse than that, the Supreme Court ruled, that if an agency wanted 
to change a regulation, get rid of a regulation, it has to go through 
the same process it used to create that regulation in order to get rid 
of it.
  What we have got in America is a situation where the bureaucrats have 
more power than the legislature and more power than the President 
himself under our Constitution. A day like Corrections Day makes sense. 
It is a day when we in Congress can do what the Supreme Court says we 
ought to do, be a little more careful when we write laws, what we allow 
people to regulate, a day for us to correct those mistakes in a legal, 
constitutional way.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 168 
that would establish the Correction Calendar to expedite the repeal of 
outdated, unnecessary, and ridiculous laws and regulations. The need 
for such a Correction Calendar is readily apparent, has been for some 
time. Whether it is a rule that was irrational and unnecessarily 
burdensome to begin with or a law that has outlived whatever usefulness 
it may have had, the time has come to provide a mechanism to correct 
these regulatory and statutory errors.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that not only is this an opportunity for us to 
repeal regulations that fit that characterization, but it will also 
have a very salutary effect upon the agencies that write the 
regulations in the first part, and, second, I think it is likely to 
cause our constituents to give us their ideas repeatedly about 
regulations that do not seem to be too rational in their effect, and I 
think we are going to hear from our constituents, and they are going to 
have greater hope that we in the Government, the legislative branch, 
will be able to do something about inappropriate regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of House Resolution 168, 
which would establish a Corrections Calendar to expedite the repeal of 
outdated, unnecessary and ridiculous laws and regulations. The need for 
such a Corrections Calendar is readily apparent. Whether it is a rule 
that was irrational and unnecessarily burdensome to begin with or a law 
that has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had, the time has 
come to provide a mechanism to correct these regulatory and statutory 
errors.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to highlight two examples of 
regulations which cry out for inclusion on the Corrections Calendar. 
The first is the DOT hours-of-service regulation as it applies to 
farmers and farm suppliers. The need to repeal this regulation is 
obvious--each
 year farmers and their suppliers must be prepared to move quickly and 
work long hours at planting and harvest time when the weather permits. 
During certain weeks of the year, there is a small window of 
opportunity in the crop-planting and harvesting season when the demand 
for farm supplies escalates. Unfortunately, this demand runs headlong 
into the Department of Transportation's regulations for the number of 
hours a driver can be on duty.

  DOT's hours-of-service regulations are highly impractical, 
burdensome, and costly for farmers and farm suppliers because the law 
can require them to take 3 days off--at the peak of agricultural 
production--and wait in order to accumulate enough off-duty time to 
resume driving. This is because DOT regulations define on duty time as 
``all time from the time a driver begins work or is required to be in 
readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work.'' Of 
course DOT could correct this problem by a change in regulations but 
they are performing like an unyielding, arrogant bureaucracy 
unsympathetic to the necessary problems their regulations create for 
the farm community.
  The hours-of-service regulations are directed toward long distance 
truck drivers. However, they also apply to the local distribution of 
farm input materials even though driving is incidental to the farm 
supplier's principal work function of servicing farmers.
  Last year, working with farm State colleagues in the House and the 
other body, this Member sought regulatory relief for farmers and farm 
suppliers from the DOT's unfair on-duty hours of service restrictions 
on this class of drivers and joined many Members in a letter to the DOT 
on this matter. Unfortunately, last year's legislative effort to 
provide an agricultural exemption was reduced to a mandated rulemaking 
which has now become a bureaucratic nightmare with no hope of 
regulatory relief in sight. The DOT proposed rulemaking includes a 
number of hurdles which will further burden farmers. This Member 
introduced legislation earlier this year along with the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to address this issue. Such a bill 
would be a perfect candidate for the first Corrections Calendar.
  Second, this Member has introduced legislation to correct a badly 
flawed interpretation of the law by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development [HUD]. That department has willfully flaunted congressional 
intent to promulgate a final regulation which burdens homeowners 
unnecessarily and undermines the intent of this Member to bring common 
sense to HUD's requirements for water purification devices in rural FHA 
insured properties.
  This Member's legislation, H.R. 69, is identical to legislation 
passed by the House in the 103d Congress as section 410 of H.R. 3838, 
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, passed July 22, 
1994. The need for this provision arose when HUD promulgated extremely 
unsatisfactory regulations to implement section 424 of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1987. The 1987 provision is one this 
Member introduced to provide for either point-of-use or point-of-entry 
water purification equipment in FHA insured housing. HUD's initial 
regulations did not allow point-of-use systems.
  Despite passage of section 424 in 1987, HUD took until 1991 to 
promulgate an inadequate proposed rule, and the final rule was not 
promulgated until March 19, 1992. After taking an outrageous period of 
time--nearly five years--to develop a new rule, the rule that was 
finalized is seriously flawed. That rule requires a point-of-use system 
on every faucet in an FHA insured house which has a water supply not 
meeting HUD's water purity standards, whether the faucet is used for 
human consumption or for showers, washing machines, and so forth.
  This Member's legislation provides that a point-of-use system is 
required on every faucet used primarily for human consumption thereby 
protecting the safety of the dweller without irrationally over-
regulating at a great cost to the homeowner.
  The legislation also requires that for
   testing water purification devices, HUD use water-purification 
industry accepted protocols or protocols using technically valid 
testing methods of the Environmental Protection Agency. This take HUD 
out of the business of creating environmental standards and leaves 
those standards to those with expertise in the area.

  HUD has show complete intractability in meeting the original intent 
of this Member's legislation. This is a problem which should have been 
solved in 1987, but instead has lingered on for over 7 years. If ever 
there was a candidate for a correction of bureaucratic mismanagement, 
this foolish regulation is it. This Member hopes that his colleagues 
will [[Page H 6114]] lend their support to finally resolve this 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, these are only two examples, but they highlight the 
much larger problems associated with a bureaucratic Federal Government 
which has grown too big. This Member urges his colleagues to strike a 
blow for common sense and vote for the Corrections Calendar to be 
established by House Resolution 168.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I think what we saw on November 8 of last year was the 
American people saying, ``Let us open the windows of this Congress, let 
us reform this Congress; yes, perhaps in revolutionary style, but also 
in a rational style. Let us have common sense returned to Government.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this legislation will do. By innovation we 
will be able to streamline and correct problems, outmoded regulations, 
outmoded laws, find a vehicle to restore rationality, and that is why I 
am proud, Mr. Speaker, to stand here in strong support of the 
legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Waldholtz), a new Member of this House.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support Corrections 
Day of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This bill gives 
Congress a sensible approach to eliminating irresponsible, nonsensical 
Federal regulations. Overreaching regulations impose a heavy cost on 
our economy and are killing small business which creates the majority 
of new jobs throughout our country and particularly in my home State of 
Utah. Each new mandate means higher costs, increased litigations, more 
failed businesses and fewer jobs. Government administrators currently 
face no explicit requirement to consider the effects of the rules that 
they have developed, nor have lawmakers done so in the past. Even when 
agencies or congressional committees have considered the effects of 
proposed regulations, policymakers often did so in ways that were 
simplistic or relied on faulty assumptions or models, and nowhere in 
the entire regulatory processes did anyone consider the cumulative 
effects of proposed and existing regulations. As part of the Contract 
With America we passed important regulatory reform to help Federal 
bureaucrats prioritize regulatory decisions ensuring that limited 
resources have targeted to the greatest needs, but while this was a 
positive step for future regulations, we still have not addressed the 
problems that we have with current Federal regulations.
  That is why I support Corrections Day. It is not enough for us to 
ensure that future regulations are controlled. We need to reform the 
current regulatory maze. Inefficient regulation costs the American 
economy $600 billion each year or more than $5,900 per family, and 
Congress has been too slow to fix the problems we have inadvertently 
created. Corrections Day will give us the flexibility to respond 
quickly to correct our obvious errors and mistakes while still having 
the benefit of review by the committee of jurisdiction and the 
consensus reflected by the three-fifths requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous question 
and to support this bill so that we can work to free Americans from 
bureaucratic redtape and help to remake our economy into the greatest 
job making machine in the world.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say this. The gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. McIntosh] and others have spoken of regulations and laws that need 
changing. May I gently point out that nothing is stopping us from 
changing those laws and regulations right now. Nobody really has 
explained why we need a new procedure.
  The truth of the matter is that none of this is necessary. The 
Speaker or anyone else can gather together any bills that he or others 
deem corrections bills and put them on the calendar right now and call 
it a corrections calendar. In fact, presumably every bill we pass 
around here is a correction of one sort or another, or an improvement 
of one kind or another on existing laws or regulations.
  For the many reasons previously given, perhaps most cogently most 
recently by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta] and others, we do oppose the proposed 
rules change.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to Members that the first vote will 
be on the previous question on the Corrections Day resolution. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If it is defeated, I 
shall offer an amendment to change the three-fifths vote requirement to 
two-thirds. With a two-thirds vote requirement, we will have the 
assurance, regardless of the party in power, that the minority is as 
well protected in the corrections process as on all other legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment I propose to offer, should the previous 
question not be ordered, simply reads: ``On page 3, line 1, strike 
`three-fifths' and insert `two-thirds.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, again I urge a ``no'' vote on this proposed 
rules change.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the Members of this body that 
this country had a great President not too many years ago, and his name 
was Ronald Reagan. He had a unique ability to focus this entire Nation 
in the direction that he wanted to move it. I guess we are so very 
fortunate today to have a Speaker of this House who has that same 
unique ability to keep this Congress focused.
  The big difference between the old majority controlled by the 
Democrats and the new majority controlled now by the Republicans is 
that we try to focus this Nation on the problems that have literally 
brought this country to a halt and that have threatened generations to 
come with huge deficits and huge burdens of overregulation that are 
heaped on not only local government but on small business in 
particular.
  This particular resolution, by creating a corrections calendar, is 
going to focus the entire bureaucracy of this Government on the 
problems that really are facing business and industry today. By our 
bringing these corrections up one by one in a separate calendar, every 
bureaucrat inside this Beltway is going to take notice. That is the 
real reason for this.
  So when we bring these corrections bills before the Congress, they 
will be relatively noncontroversial, but there will be some 
controversy. They will be confined to a single subject. They will not 
involve the expenditure of additional money or the raising of 
additional revenues. That is very important. These are the criteria for 
these kinds of legislation. They will deal with the silly, dumb, and 
ludicrous rules that have literally just about brought business and 
industry to a point where they cannot be profitable anymore. If you 
cannot be profitable, you cannot create a new job for all of the high 
school seniors, as I said before, or for the college seniors who are 
graduating today. This is what we are doing.
  I am so excited about this. When we bring this first corrections bill 
to the floor, every bureaucrat in this Government is going to pay 
attention to what is happening and they are going to think twice before 
they promulgate the kinds of rules and regulations that go far beyond 
what the legislative intent of Congress is.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I hope every Member will vote for the 
previous question and will vote for this change of the rules, which is 
going to really make a difference in this country.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of creating a calendar for 
the purpose of Corrections Day legislation. From the start, I've 
thought having regular Corrections Days would be the perfect way to 
deal with the myriad of rules and regulations that are unduly costly or 
simply make no sense.
  It is particularly timely for us to be doing this now because July 9, 
just a couple of weeks away, is Cost of Government Day. This is the day 
when Americans will have earned enough money to pay off the total 
financial burden of government at all levels, including taxes, 
mandates, borrowing, and regulations. This means [[Page H 6115]] that 
52 cents out of every hard earned dollar are going to the government 
either directly or indirectly this year.
  Cost of Government Day is a sad reminder that the size of government 
has reached unbelievable proportions.
  But the 104th Congress is very different from past Congresses. 
Earlier this year, the House began to shrink the burden of government 
by passing a number of regulatory reform bills, and the Senate will 
soon bring similar legislation to the floor for a vote.
  However, while we are making significant changes to the process by 
which regulations are promulgated, there is still the arguably even 
bigger problem of ridiculous regulations that are currently on the 
books and are encroaching on people's lives every day. Many of these 
are hard to believe:
  Last year, a Houston roofing company was cited by OSHA 23 times for a 
grand total of $13,200 in fines for such transgressions as a bent rung 
on the bottom of a ladder and a splintered handle on a broken shovel 
placed in the back of a truck after it had been broken.
  Also last year, a 14-year-old Boy Scout was left stranded in new 
Mexico's Santa Fe National Forest after being lost for 2 days because 
the Forest Service would not allow a police helicopter to land and pick 
him up. It seems the boy was in a ``wilderness area'' in which 
``mechanized vehicles'' are banned.
  And many of you have heard of OSHA's rule requiring employers to 
provide detailed safety information and training regarding the use of 
such hazardous substances as diet soda, Joy dishwashing liquid, and 
chalk.
  I assume the Federal Government is not intentionally trying to wreak 
havoc on people's lives. Nonetheless, the American people shouldn't 
have to continue to suffer the consequences of poorly written or poorly 
implemented rules and regulations.
  Mr. Speaker. I say to my colleagues, Corrections Day is a real 
opportunity to right wrongs. All across the country, Americans are fed 
up with a system that is overly intrusive, unreasonable, and 
excessively costly.
  This rules change will address one aspect of the problem and create a 
process by which we can repeal the most egregious, oppressive, and 
ridiculous regulations that this Government has promulgated.
  I urge support of the Members for House Resolution 168 to create a 
Corrections Calendar.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I live by the old adage: If it ain't broke 
don't fix it. We have spent a whole lot of time and energy coming up 
with a way to fix a legislative process that is not the least bit 
broken.
  I might remind my Republican colleagues that we already have a 
procedure for bipartisan, noncontroversial bills, it is called 
suspension of the rules and it would take care of everything you want 
to go after and allow the Democrats to join you.
  But, we are not leaving well enough alone; for some reason we are 
changing the rules.
  Mr. Republican colleagues say we need this rules change to get rid of 
unnecessary regulations. Although this version of the resolution is an 
improvement over the last version--it is still a long way from being 
fair to the Democrats.
  If these regulations we will be ending are so silly, then why lower 
the vote margin from two-thirds to three-fifths?
  Democrats want to get rid of silly regulations and unnecessary laws 
just as much as anyone else but this process will not give us much say.
  We firmly believe that there are far too many wasteful, useless 
provisions and it is time to eliminate them. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that Democrats can join in the 
corrections process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               YEAS--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Bliley
     Brown (CA)
     Deal
     Edwards
     Flake
     Jefferson [[Page H 6116]] 
     McCollum
     McDade
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Schumer
     Stark

                              {time}  1254

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bliley for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Mr. MINGE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. STENHOLM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 271, 
noes 146, not voting 17, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 390]

                               AYES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bliley
     Buyer
     Edwards
     Farr
     Flake
     Jefferson
     Jones
     Maloney
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     Moakley
     Obey
     Peterson (FL)
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Williams

                              {time}  1303

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bliley for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________