[House Report 104-144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-144
_______________________________________________________________________


 
ESTABLISHING A ``CORRECTIONS CALENDAR'' IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

_______________________________________________________________________


   June 16, 1995.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 168]
    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 168, amending clause 4 of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House to abolish the Consent Calendar and to 
establish in its place a Corrections Calendar, by a record vote 
report the same to the House with the recommendation that the 
resolution be adopted.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    The purpose of this resolution is to modernize an existing, 
under-utilized, and obsolete calendar (the Consent Calendar), 
which has not been used since the 101st Congress. The Consent 
Calendar will be transformed into a Corrections Calendar, on 
which the Speaker of the House may, after consultation with the 
Minority Leader, place bipartisan and narrowly targeted bills 
designed to address specific problems with federal rules, 
regulations, statutory laws, and court decisions which are 
ambiguous, arbitrary, or ludicrous, or impose a severe 
financial burden on Americans.

                       Summary of the Legislation

    The resolution transforms the Consent Calendar (clause 4 of 
rule XIII) into a Corrections Calendar.
    The Speaker may, after consultation with the Minority 
Leader, place bills on the Corrections Calendar only after they 
have been reported by committees and placed on either the House 
or Union Calendar.
    Bills must be on the calendar for at least three 
legislative days before being called up, at the discretion of 
the Speaker, on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month.
    Bills called up on the Corrections Calendar would be 
considered in the House with one hour of debate, and there 
would not be consideration of amendments under the five minute 
rule (except for amendments recommended by the primary 
reporting committee or offered by the chairman).
    A motion to recommit by the minority, with or without 
instructions, is permitted.
    A three-fifths vote is required to pass a bill from the 
Corrections Calendar.

                        Committee Consideration

    On Tuesday, May 2, 1995, the Subcommittee on Rules and 
Organization of the House of the Committee on Rules and the 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and 
Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight held a joint hearing on Speaker Newt Gingrich's 
proposal to create a Corrections Day in the House of 
Representatives specifically for correcting legislative and 
regulatory mistakes. The hearing focused on the nature and 
scope of the problems to be addressed by Corrections Day, and 
examined procedural options to facilitate a Corrections Day 
process. The establishment of a Corrections Calendar was one 
such procedural option discussed at the hearing.
    Witnesses included Speaker Newt Gingrich; Majority Whip Tom 
Delay; Representative Barbara Vucanovich; Representative Brian 
Bilbray; the Hon. Roger Cornett, Mayor of Richmond, Indiana; 
Mr. James S. Herr, Chairman and CEO, Herr Foods, Inc.; Dr. Jim 
Thurber, Professor of Government, The American University; Mr. 
William Pitts, Vice President, Government Relations, Capital 
Cities/ABC, Inc.; Mr. David Mason, Director, U.S. Congress 
Assessment Project, the Heritage Foundation; and Mr. Peter 
Robinson, Attorney, Bailey & Robinson.
    On Tuesday, June 13, 1995, the Committee on Rules held an 
open hearing on H. Res. 161. The Committee heard from 
Representatives Barbara Vucanovich, William Zeliff, David 
McIntosh, John Dingell, Cardiss Collins and William Clinger. 
The Committee also heard from Dr. James Thurber of American 
University, and Dr. Roger Davidson, Department of Government 
and Politics, University of Maryland. Testimony was also 
provided by Representatives George Miller, Steny Hoyer and 
William Clay.
    On Thursday, June 15, the Committee met to mark-up H. Res. 
161. The Committee favorably reported a privileged resolution 
consisting of the text of H. Res. 161 as amended by the 
Committee by a record vote of 9 to 4, and moved that H. Res. 
161 be laid on the table. During the mark-up, three amendments 
to H. Res. 161 and drafted report language were agreed to.

                               Background

    The concept of a Corrections Day was first conceived at a 
meeting of Republican Governors and House Speaker Newt 
Gingrich. As envisioned by the Speaker, the House of 
Representatives would set aside one or two days each month to 
vote on narrowly targeted bills to repeal government actions 
``so dumb and so expensive'' they would be approved by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote. The source of corrections ideas 
is likely to be primarily constituents, small business owners, 
and state and local government officials.
    In his statement before the joint subcommittees on May 2, 
the Speaker outlined three objectives for the Corrections Day 
process: (1) to create a better balance between bureaucrats and 
citizens; (2) to set a standard of common sense by ``bringing 
up the dumbest things and repealing them''; and (3) to enhance 
Congressional oversight over federal agencies.
    Also during the May 2 hearing, several laws and regulations 
were cited as examples of misguided, onerous, and arbitrary 
government actions that should be reminded by a Corrections Day 
process. Rules Committee Chairman Jerry Solomon cited a Safe 
Drinking Water Act requirement that ``hotel and motel owners 
put up unsafe drinking water signs, killing tourism and costing 
hundreds of jobs, just because they aren't on a municipal water 
supply, and they meet all the other health regulations, all of 
them.'' He also noted that the EPA's so-called ``Cluster Rule'' 
could force the closure of 33 U.S. paper mills and the 
elimination of 21,000 jobs.
    House Majority Whip Tom Delay noted that, ``under the Clean 
Air Act one can end up in jail for filling out a form 
incorrectly. You can be forced to pay $600,000 for failing to 
fill out a Federal form even if you have complied with an 
identical State law. OSHA requires employers to provide 
detailed safety information and training regarding the use of 
such hazardous substances as diet soda, Joy dish washing 
liquid, and chalk.''
    The Mayor of Richmond, Indiana, Roger Cornett, criticized 
regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
which require that new buses purchased by the city be equipped 
with wheelchair lifts ``even though we are operating a fully 
equipped paratransit system.'' Mayor Cornett noted that, since 
the new buses started running last year, only one citizen has 
used the wheelchair lifts mandated by the ADA. ``It is an 
example of an unnecessary expenditure in our community because 
of the one-size-fits-all mentality,'' he stated.
    On March 23, 1995, the Speaker Gingrich appointed a 
Corrections Day Steering Group consisting of Representatives 
Barbara Vucanovich, Bill Zeliff, and David McIntosh to develop 
a framework for the consideration of corrections measures. The 
steering group recommended establishing a ``Corrections 
Calendar'' to facilitate the consideration of Corrections Day 
measures. On Tuesday, June 6, 1995, Representative Barbara 
Vucanovich introduced H. Res. 161, amending clause 4 of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House to abolish the Consent Calendar 
and to establish in its place a Corrections Calendar. This rule 
change seeks to modernize an existing, under-utilized, and 
obsolete calendar, known as the Consent Calendar. As 
illustrated by the following chart, the Consent Calendar has 
not been used since the 101st Congress.

                                              PROCEDURAL METHODS BY WHICH BILLS ARE CALLED UP IN THE HOUSE                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Called up                                                                                            
                                                     under      Called up    Called up                 Called up    Called up    Called up    Called up 
                    Congress                       Suspension       as           by       Called up    by Private    by D.C.     by Consent   by Special
                                                     of the     Privileged   Unanimous     by Rule      Calendar     Calendar     Calendar      Order   
                                                     Rules        Matter      Consent                                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd...........................................          483          289          160          108            6            0            0            0
102nd...........................................          613          282          265          143           45            7            0            0
101st...........................................          572          280          416          103           37            1            3            5
100th...........................................          617          270          459           97            6            0           26            4
99th............................................          428          277          546           91           50            4           34            1
98th............................................          421          296          494          136           64           14           46            4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ilona Nickels, Congressional Research Service.                                                                                                  

    The Consent Calendar, as amended, was created in 1909 as a 
means to address a progressively increasing work load in the 
House of Representatives. The procedure is based on the 
unanimous consent procedure and is designed to facilitate 
passage of non-controversial measures. As a result of the 
availability of other parliamentary vehicles to expedite the 
passage of non-controversial legislation--mainly suspension of 
the rules and the unanimous consent technique--use of the 
Consent Calendar has fallen out of favor as a useful method for 
calling up bills in the House.

                        Analysis of Legislation

    The resolution amends clause 4 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House to transform the existing Consent Calendar procedure 
into the Corrections Calendar procedure.
    The proposed Corrections Calendar procedure maintains the 
existing procedure of reporting bills from the committee of 
jurisdiction and gives authority to the Speaker to assign bills 
to the Corrections Calendar. Consideration will follow existing 
rules of debate for consideration in the House, meaning one 
hour of debate, no amendments (unless recommended by the 
primary reporting committee or by its chairman), and a motion 
to recommit with or without instructions. If a bill fails to 
achieve a 3/5ths vote but does achieve a majority, it will 
remain eligible for a special rule.
    If it so chooses, the House leadership retains the same 
flexibility to utilize any of the current procedural mechanisms 
used for calling up legislative measures for floor 
consideration in lieu of using the Corrections Calendar devise. 
They are:
    Unanimous Consent.--This allows for quick passage of non-
controversial measures, cleared in advance. In current 
practice, bills brought up by unanimous consent are not subject 
to amendment and no debate is conducted except brief exchanges 
made under ``reservation of objection.'' This was the primary 
procedure used for consideration of commemorative measures in 
previous Congresses.
    Suspension of the Rules.--This is used for passage of 
measures that enjoy substantial, but not unanimous, support. 
This procedure allows for 40 minutes of debate, permits no 
amendments, inherently waives all points of order, and requires 
a two-thirds vote for passage.
    Special Rule from the Rules Committee.--The could be 
utilized for measures that violate House rules with respect to 
the Budget Act, legislating in an appropriations bill, or 
appropriating in an authorization bill, to name a few. It could 
also accommodate limitation amendment-style bills. The House 
would adopt a rule reported by the Rules Committee to allow for 
debate and possible amendments.
    Only bills favorably reported by a committee and placed on 
the House or Union Calendar would be eligible for placement on 
the Corrections Calendar. The Speaker will be responsible for 
determining which reported bills should also be placed on the 
Corrections Calendar. This proposed rule does not specify 
either the criteria to be used for determining what bills 
should be placed on the Corrections Calendar or the mechanism 
to be used by the Speaker in making such decisions. This has 
been done out of deference to the scheduling prerogatives of 
the majority leadership and the need to retain flexibility on 
such decisions. However, the Committee hopes that the Speaker 
will pursue his originally-stated aim of seeking bipartisan 
advice on both the criteria to be used and the specific bills 
to be scheduled. The rule as amended by the Committee takes a 
step in that direction by requiring advance consultation by the 
Speaker with the Minority Leader before the bill is placed on 
the Corrections Calendar. The Committee hopes the speaker will 
build on this bipartisan spirit of cooperation in other ways to 
ensure the success of this new process.
    The resolution gives the Speaker the discretion to have the 
Corrections Calendar called on the second and fourth Tuesday of 
each month after the Pledge of Allegiance. Bills on the 
Corrections Calendar would be called in numerical order, i.e., 
in the order in which they have been placed on the Calendar. 
Bills must be on the Corrections Calendar for at least three 
legislative days; this does not supersede the existing 
requirement in House rules that a bill cannot be considered 
until the third calendar day that the report has been available 
to House Members (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays).
    Bills called up on Corrections Day would be subject to one-
hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the primary committee of jurisdiction. 
Consideration of a Corrections Day bill would be in the House 
instead of the Committee of the Whole meaning there would not 
be a consideration of amendments under the five-minute rule. 
Only amendments recommended by the reporting committee or 
offered by the chairman would be in order, and they would have 
to be discussed within the hour of general debate.
    The rule orders the previous question on passage of the 
bill and any amendments, meaning there could be no intervening 
motions or votes on the previous question (though amendments 
would be separately voted on before final passage), but there 
could be a motion to recommit by the minority, with or without 
instructions.
    A three-fifths vote of those present and voting would be 
required to pass a bill from the Corrections Calendar, and 
failure to achieve the three-fifths vote would not cause the 
measure to be removed from its original calendar. It would only 
be removed from the Corrections Calendar. This means the bill 
would still be eligible for a special rule from the Rules 
Committee that could make in order amendments, and which would 
only require passage by majority vote.
    The Corrections Day rule differs from consideration under 
suspension of the rules not only in the different super-
majority vote requirement, but also because it requires that 
bills be favorably reported and on the House or Union Calendar 
first, it does not waive any points of order against the 
measure (except that it implicitly precludes a point of order 
that the measure must be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole), and it does allow for a motion to recommit.
             Matters Required Under the Rules of the House

Committee vote

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to accompany any bill or resolution of a public character, 
ordered to be reported, to include the total number of votes 
cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. On June 
15, 1995, the Committee ordered reported a privileged 
resolution consisting of the text of H. Res. 161, as amended, 
to the House, and that H. Res. 161 be laid on the table, by a 
record vote of 9 to 4, a quorum being present.
    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House rule XI the results 
of each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and against, are 
printed below:

                    Rules Committee RollCall No. 150

    Date: June 16, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
    Summary of Motion: Amendment in nature of a substitute to 
consider corrections bills under the suspension of the rules 
procedure on two days a month designated by the Speaker.
    Results: Rejected, 3 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Hall--Yea; 
Solomon--Nay.

                    Rules Committee rollcall no. 151

    Date: June 15, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
    Summary of Motion: Strike three-fifths vote requirement for 
corrections bills and replace with a two-thirds vote 
requirement.
    Results: Rejected, 3 to 8.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; McInnis--Nay; Waldholtz--Nay; 
Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

                    Rules Committee rollcall no. 152

    Date: June 15, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
    Summary of Motion: Require the concurrence of the minority 
leader before a measure could be placed on the Corrections 
Calendar.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.
                    rules committee rollcall no. 153

    Date: June 15, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Dreier.
    Summary of Motion: Require consultation with the minority 
leader before a bill could be put on the Corrections Calendar.
    Results: Adopted, 9 to 4.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Yea; Dreier--Yea; Goss--Yea; 
Linder--Yea; Pryce--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Yea; McInnis--Yea; 
Waldholtz--Yea; Moakley--Nay; Beilenson--Nay; Frost--Nay; 
Hall--Nay; Solomon--Yea.

                    rules committee rollcall no. 154

    Date: June 15, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Moakley.
    Summary of Motion: Give Rules Committee chairman authority, 
by direction of committee, to place bills on the Corrections 
Calendar.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.
                    rules committee rollcall no. 155

    Date: June 15, 1995.
    Measure: H. Res. 161, Amending House Rules to Create a 
Corrections Calendar.
    Motion By: Mr. Quillen.
    Summary of Motion: Report a new resolution to the House 
favorably consisting of the text of H. Res. 161, as amended, 
and lay H. Res. 161 on the table.
    Results: Adopted, 9 to 4.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Yea; Dreier--Yea; Goss--Yea; 
Linder--Yea; Pryce--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Yea; McInnis--Yea; 
Waldholtz--Yea; Moakley--Nay; Beilenson--Nay; Frost--Nay; 
Hall--Nay; Solomon--Yea.

Committee cost estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority, or new credit authority or changing 
revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as 
required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, as amended and, when practicable with respect to 
estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total 
estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) 
to the appropriate levels under current law. Clause 7(a) of 
rule XIII requires committees to include their own cost 
estimates in certain committee reports, which include, when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate 
levels under current law.
    No cost estimate is required under this section because the 
resolution does not provide new budget authority, new spending 
authority, or new credit authority, nor does the resolution 
provide an increase or decrease in tax expenditures.

Congressional Budget Office estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each Committee to 
include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. No cost estimate was received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Inflation impact statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that the 
resolution has no inflationary impact on the nation's economy.

Oversight findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

Oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee on Government 
        Reform and Oversight.

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Rules has 
received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight.
                           comparative print

    Clause 4(d) of rule XI requires that, whenever the 
Committee on Rules reports a resolution amending or repealing 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the accompanying 
report must contain a comparative print showing the changes in 
existing rules proposes to be made by the resolution.
    Changes in existing Rules of the House of Representatives 
made by the resolution, as reported, are shown as follows 
(existing rules proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing rules in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

               RULE XIII OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               Rule XIII

                  calendars and reports of committees

    1. * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [4. After a bill has been favorably reported and shall be 
upon either the House or Union Calendar any Member may file 
with the Clerk a notice that he desires such bill placed upon a 
special calendar to be known as the ``Consent Calendar''. On 
the first and third Mondays of each month immediately after the 
reading of the Journal, the Speaker shall direct the Clerk to 
call the bills in numerical order which have been for three 
legislative days upon the ``Consent Calendar''. Should 
objection be made to the consideration of any bill so called it 
shall be carried over on the calendar without prejudice to the 
next day when the ``Consent Calendar'' is again called, and if 
objected to by three or more Members it shall immediately be 
stricken from the calendar, and shall not thereafter during the 
same session of that Congress be placed again thereon: 
Provided, That no bill shall be called twice on the same 
legislative day.]
    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) Bills 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 thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except on 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.
          * * * * * * *
                       Views of Committee Members

    Clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI requires each committee to afford 
a three day opportunity for members of the committee to file 
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the 
views in its report. Although neither requirement applies to 
the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort to 
provide its members of such an opportunity. The following views 
were submitted:
                             MINORITY VIEWS

    We agree that it could be useful for the House of 
Representatives to try a new way of facilitating changes in 
problematic laws, and we think that the Speaker's idea of 
establishing a ``corrections'' process has promising 
possibilities. However, we believe that the procedure that 
would be created by this new rule for Floor consideration of 
so-called corrections bills is both unfair to the minority and 
unnecessary. And, insomuch as the entire corrections process 
has not been well thought out, we think that it is premature 
for the House to act now on any rule change for this purpose.
    Proponents of the resolution have failed to make a 
convincing case for the need to establish a new and different 
legislative procedure for considering corrections bills, which 
have been described by proponents as relatively 
noncontroversial bills addressing laws and regulations that 
most people would agree do not make much sense. 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. It ensures that bills considered by that method have 
bipartisan support and are noncontroversial by requiring a two-
thirds vote for passage.
    In contrast, the reported resolution provides for a 
procedure in which only a three-fifths vote is required for 
passage, making it possible that a bill considered under this 
process will not have bipartisan support. We would point out 
that during five of the last ten Congresses, one party held 
three-fifths of the seats in the House.
    Because bills considered under the corrections procedures 
would not be subject to amendment (other than an amendment by 
the committee of jurisdiction and a motion to recommit), we 
believe strongly that they should meet the same test for 
bipartisanship imposed on bills considered under the suspension 
process, which also prohibits most amendments. The right to 
offer amendments is important to all Members, but it is 
particularly important to minority members, offering the 
opposition party its best opportunity for meaningful 
involvement during Floor consideration of a bill. We think that 
it would be a serious mistake for the House to abandon its 
longstanding protection of minority floor rights by requiring 
anything less than a two-thirds vote to waive those rights.
    We are also troubled that the Committee has voted to report 
this resolution without a clear definition of a corrections 
bill; an explanation of how the corrections process will work 
before a committee reports a bill; or what roles the 
corrections advisory group, individual Members, committees, and 
the leadership will play in the process. Until more 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 one 
that vests in one person--the Speaker--the sole authority to 
determine which bills qualify for this procedure.
    At the very least, we believe that the minority party 
should have a formal role in determining which measures may be 
brought up under correction procedures, as it does in 
determining the scheduling of measures other than those 
considered under regular order. In the case of the suspension 
process, for example, the Republican Conference rules state 
that ``the Speaker shall not schedule any bill or resolution 
for consideration under the suspension of the rules which * * * 
has not been cleared by the minority.'' With respect to the 
Consent Calendar, a bill will be struck if, on the second time 
it is called, at least three members object. In addition, the 
Speaker has announced that he will not recognize a member for a 
unanimous consent request to consider an unreported measure 
unless there is an assurance that the majority and minority 
floor and committee leadership have no objection.
    The Speaker said repeatedly in testimony before our 
Committee's Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House 
and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee's 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs that he wanted the corrections process 
to be bipartisan. Indeed, he stated emphatically that ``if this 
is going to work, it has to be bipartisan.''
    Yet despite the Speaker's exhortations, there has been 
little sign of bipartisanship in this matter. No minority 
members were involved in the development of this resolution. No 
minority amendments, other than through a motion to recommit, 
would be permitted to a corrections bill. No minority members 
have been brought into the corrections process, and the 
Minority Leader has been 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.
    We urged the majority to try using the existing suspension 
process for corrections legislation before establishing this 
new corrections 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 own leadership. And, we asked that the 
bipartisan Leadership define corrections bills, and issue 
guidelines for the corrections process, before utilizing the 
Corrections Calendar.
    All these proposals were offered 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--which is already required 
under the Rules of the House--our proposals were rejected by 
the majority members of the Committee.
    We are extremely disappointed that the majority has chosen 
to follow a path of partisanship in this matter, rather than 
accept our modest suggestions which would ensure broad--if not 
unanimous--support for the corrections process. The rejection 
of our proposals will make the corrections process the kind of 
partisan one which the Speaker himself warned will not work.
    We urge the House membership to oppose this resolution in 
the form in which it has been reported, and to work with us to 
develop a corrections process that will be embraced by members 
of both parties.

                                   Joe Moakley.
                                   Martin Frost.
                                   Anthony C. Beilenson.
                                   Tony P. Hall.