[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.