Ask the Scholar

Page 77 of 77

I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

OCR

FOIA Number: 2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13641
FolderID:
Folder Title:
[Government Reform and Lobbyists] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
3
2
3
DRAFT
STAT FACT
SOURCE
1. Number of Lobbyists:
8,531 lobbyists registered with the Senate in March 1992
Demosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch
- In 1976, there were 3,000 registered. An increase of 184%.
Equal to 85 lobbyists for every Senator.
6,085 lobbyists registered with House in 1993.
NY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)
- Equal to 14 for every member.
40,000 lobbyists
NY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)
- Estimate by Charles Peters, editor of Washington Monthly.
6,000-20,000 lobbyists
NY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)
- Most estimates put the number of lobbyists between 6,000-20,000.
GAO report found that 90% of lobbying disclosures filrd were incomplete
"Lobbying Bill Would Plug Holes..' CQ
1/22/94
2. Number Associated with Lobbying:
80,000 people associated with lobbying activity in Washington.
NY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)
- Number is from American Univ. Professor James Thurber.
The President referred to this figure in May 1993. Thurber later
stated the number was "off the top of his head" and included everyone
associated with lobbying all branches of government.
91,000 people associated with lobbying activity in and around Washington
NY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)
- Professor Thurber conducted a study after his 80,000 number and
revised the number to 91,000. This number includes lobbyists,
support staff, secretaries, etc.
- We should use this number in comparison to other numbers
(i.e. size of gov't in DC, other industries in DC)
DRAFT
STAT FACT
SOURCE
3. Number of Professional/Trade Associations in Washington:
32% of professional and trade associations were headquartered in DC in 1990
"The Parasite Economy" by Jonathan Rauch
- compared to 19% in DC in 1971. Represents an increase of 68%.
National Journal (4/25/92)
741 health care groups represented or headquartered in DC in 1992
"The Parasite Economy" by Jonathan Rauch
- compared with 117 in 1979. An increase of 533%. Might want to
National Journal (4/25/92)
tie in amounts contributed by health care PAC's to Congressional
campaigns or amount of money spent to defeat health care.
3,000 professional/trade associations had offices in DC in 1989.
The Lobbyists by Jeff Birnbaum
4. Corporations Represented in Washington:
500 US corporations had offices in DC in 1990
Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips
- compared with less than 100 in 1950. An increase of 400%.
2/3 of world's largest foreign multinationals have offices in DC.
Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips
5. Number of PAC's:
4,210 PAC's in 1993
Interest Group Politics published by CQ
- compared to 608 in 1974. An increase of 592%.
Press
DRAFT
STAT FACT
SOURCE
6. Contributions by PAC's:
PAC's contributed $178 mil. to Congressional campaigns in 1992
Interest Group Politics published by CQ
- compared to $23 mil. in 1976. An increase of 674%.
Press
PAC contributions accounted for 36% of House and 21% of Senate
contributions in 1992.
- represents over a 20% increase since 1982
Vital Statistics on Congress
7. Total Campaign Spending:
FEC estimated $500 million (i.e one-half billion dollars) would be spent on the
LA Times, 11/5/94
1994 Congressional elections.
- Represents an increase of 410% since 1976
8. Trust of Congress:
Only 19% of those surveyed trust Congress.
Arrogant Capital citing Jan. 1994 Gallup Poll
Only 9% of those surveyed believed House members had high honesty
USA Today, 9/29/94
and ethical standards
- A record low. Only car slaesman ranked lower.
29% approval rating in March 1994
CQ, 4/2/94
- A decrease of 38% since August 1974
9. Influence of Special Interest:
84% surveyed believe special interests have more influence than voters.
Gordon Black May 1993 poll
10. Government Waste:
75% surveyed believe the government wastes money.
Demosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch
DRAFT
STAT FACT
SOURCE
Additional Stat Facts:
Revolving Door - 40% of House members who left office in Jan. 1993 became
Demosclerosis and Arrogant Capital
lobbyists. Per a Public Citizen study, 59% of 300 former House members,
Congressional staffers and former executive branch members became lobbyists.
Tax Changes - 5,400 changes to tax laws through 27 pieces of legislation
Demosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch
between 1989-91.
Bills Passed - 10,510 bills were introduced in 102d Congress and only 605
Vital Statistics on American Politics
were passed representing a passage of less than 6%.
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 104th Congress
Thu, June 1, 1995 11:14am (EST
QUICK BILL
S. 10 by Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
Title, Overview, Outlook:
S. 10 by Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995; Congressional Campaign Spending
Limit and Election Reform Act of 1995
Official Title (Caption):
A bill to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government, to reform lobbying registration and disclosure
requirements, to amend the gift rules of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and to reform the Federal election laws applicable to the
Congress.
Introduced on Wednesday, January 4, 1995
Narrative Description:
Description and Status of S. 10,
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995; Congressional Campaign Spending
Limit
and Election Reform Act of 1995,
as of Thursday, June 1, 1995
The bill was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, January 4, 1995 by
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD). At the present time there are 9 cosponsors of
this bill, 9 Democrats.
The bill's official title stated its purpose as follows:
"A bill to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government, to reform lobbying registration and disclosure
requirements, to amend the gift rules of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and to reform the Federal election laws applicable to the
Congress."
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
The most recent action on the bill was on Wednesday, January 4, 1995:
Referred to Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
There is currently no committee action scheduled on this bill.
CRS Abstract and Digest:
Digest
(from Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Division A: Extension of Rights and Protections, and
Associated Procedures
Title I: Extension of Rights and Protections, and
Associated Procedures
Title II: Office of Congressional Fair Employment
Practices--Establishment and Operations
Title III: Administrative and Judicial
Dispute-Resolution Procedures
Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
Division B: Lobbying and Gift Reform
Title I: Lobbying Reform
Title II: Congressional Gift Reform
Division C: Campaign Finance Reform
Title I Practices (the Office).
Provides that any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any covered
employee because of the exercise of a right under this Act constitutes an
unlawful employment practice.
Makes available the relief awarded under the Civil Righcellaneous
Subtitle F: Effective Dates, Authorizations
Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act of 1995
Division A: Extension of Rights and Protections, and Associated Procedures
Title I: Extension of Rights and Protections, and Associated Procedures
Requires all personnel actions affecting covered employees to be made
free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or handicap or disability.
Defines a "covered employee" as an employee of the House of
Representatives, the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), or the
Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices (the Office).
Provides that any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any covered
employee because of the exercise of a right under this Act constitutes an
unlawful employment practice.
Makes available the relief awarded under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, or a specified section of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), as appropriate, for discrimination violations affecting
covered employees. Prohibits punitive damages for such violations. Bars a
covered employee from commencing an administrative or judicial proceeding to
seek a remedy for prohibited practices, except as provided under this Act.
Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADEA to apply their
protection and remedies to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and the
General Accounting Office (GAO). Extends coverage under the ADA to GPO and
GAO as well.
(Sec. 102) Applies the rights, protections, and relief of the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the Employee Polygraph Protection Act
of 1988 (EPPA), the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN), and veterans' employment and reemployment rights to covered
employees, GAO, and the Library of Congress. Applies the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to covered employees and GPO.
(Sec. 107) Establishes the following exclusive procedures for remedy of
violations of the laws described above: (1) employee counseling; (2)
mediation; (3) filing of a formal complaint with the Office or filing of a
civil action in the U.S. district court; and (4) appealing to the Board of
Directors of the Office if aggrieved by a decision or to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for review, subject to certain conditions.
(Sec. 108) Applies the rights and protections against discrimination in
the provision of public services under the ADA to the Senate, the House,
congressional joint committees, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol
Guide Service, the Capitol Police, cBo, OTA, and the Office. Applies such
rights and protections to any qualified individual with a disability, except
that, with respect to claims of employment discrimination asserted by a
covered employee, the exclusive remedies described above shall apply.
Makes relief under such Act available for such violations and describes
procedures to remedy such violations, including filing a charge with the
General Counsel of the Office, mediation, and judicial review.
Makes specified remedies and procedures under the Civil Rights Act of
1964 available to disabled visitors, guests, or patrons of instrumentalities
of the Congress (GAO, GPO, and the family and medical leave) of employees an
access to
public B by this section.
(Sec. 109) Directs each employing office (including GAO and the
Library) and covered employee to comply with the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) and applies such Act's duties, rights,
protections, and remedies (except penalties) to such offices and employees.
Establishes procedures for such remedies, including granting the General
Counsel and the Board certain authorities exercised by the Secretary of
Labor under such Act.
(Sec. 110) Applies the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute to employing offices and covered employees. Grants the Board and the
General Counsel specified authorities under the Statute.
(Sec. 111) Requires the Board of the Office to: (1) review provisions
of Federal laws and regulations relating to the terms and conditions of
employment (including protection from discrimination in personnel actions,
health and safety, and family and medical leave) of employees and access to
public services and accommodations; and (2) report on December 31, 1996, and
biennially thereafter, on whether or to what degree such provisions are
applicable or inapplicable to the legislative branch and, if inapplicable,
whether they should be made applicable.
Requires each report of a congressional committee accompanying any bill
or joint resolution to: (1) describe the manner in which the provisions of
the bill or joint resolution apply to the Congress and congressional
instrumentalities; or (2) if the provisions do not apply, include a
statement of the reasons why.
(Sec. 112) Directs the Board to study the application of the following
laws to GAO, GPO, the Library and other entities in the legislative branch
not covered by all the sections of this title: (1) Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; (2) the ADEA; (3) the ADA; (4) the FMLA; (5) the FLSA;
(6) the OSHA; (7) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (8) the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute; (9) the General Accounting Office
Personnel Act of 1980; (10) the EPPA; (11) the WARN; and (12) provisions
relating to veterans' employment and reemployment rights.
Title II: Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices-Establishment
and Operations
Establishes the Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices
within the legislative branch.
(Sec. 207) Authorizes appropriations.
Title III: Administrative and Judicial Dispute-Resolution Procedures
Sets forth procedures for counseling, mediation, hearings, appeals to
the Board, judicial review of Board decisions, and civil actions relating to
violations described under title I.
(Sec. 307) Sets deadlines for: (1) making counseling requests; and (2)
charging discrimination in public services or discrimination in exercising
rights relating to occupational safety and health.
Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
Establishes Settlements and Awards Reserve appropriation accounts in
the Contingent Funds of the House and the Senate. Makes amounts in such
accounts available for the payment of awards for settlements made under this
Act.
Authorizes appropriations.
isions with respect to certain
existing claims.
Division B: Lobbying and Gift Reform
Title I: Lobbying Reform
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - Requires registration with the Office
of Lobbying Regtibility,
with respect to employment decisions, of employees who are: (1) on the staff
of the House or Senate leadership; (2) on the staff of congressional
committees, joint committees, or subcommittees; (3) on the staff of Members
of the House or Senators; (4) officers of the House or the Senate or elected
or appointed congressional staff; or (5) applicants for any such positions.
(Sec. 407) Directs the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to retain full power with respect
to the discipline of Members, officers, and employees for violating rules of
the Senate and the House on nondiscrimination in employment.
(Sec. 410) Sets forth transitional provisions with respect to certain
existing claims.
Division B: Lobbying and Gift Reform
Title I: Lobbying Reform
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - Requires registration with the Office
of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure (Office) established by this
Act by any individual lobbyist (or the individual's employer, if it employs
one or more lobbyists) within 30 days after the individual first makes, or
is employed or retained to make, a lobbying contact with either the
President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or any other specified
Federal officer or employee. Defines a lobbyist as any individual employed
or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services
that include one or more lobbying contacts (but not an individual whose
lobbying activities constitute less than ten percent of the time engaged in
the services provided to that client). Provides for: (1) special
registration filing rules in cases involving multiple clients and contacts;
and (2) registration termination in cases where a registrant is no longer
employed or retained by a client to conduct lobbying activities, and does
not anticipate any additional lobbying activities for such client.
(Sec. 1104) Specifies the contents of such registration and reports.
(Sec. 1105) Requires registrants to file semiannual lobbying activity
reports with the Office. Provides for: (1) exemptions from such registration
and reporting requirements in cases involving lobbying income of $2,500 or
less (for a particular client) or total expenses of $5,000 or less (for all
lobbying activities of a registrant whose employees lobby on its own behalf)
for the semiannual period. Requires periodic adjustment of such dollar
amounts for inflation.
(Sec. 1106) Provides for special rules generally prohibiting
registrants under this Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act from
providing gifts (including meals, lodging, transportation, entertainment,
reimbursements, loans, or forbearance) to any covered legislative branch
official, or to the spouse, dependent, friend, or relative of such an
official if it is given with the knowledge and acquiescence of such official
and is given because of his or her position. Permits certain such items
under prescribed circumstances, such as lawful political contributions and
informational materials sent to the official's office, and gifts given for a
nonbusiness purpose and motivated by family relationship or close personal
friendship.
behalf of the person with
respect to that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and
(2) certification that the declarant has not made, and will not make, any
prohibited payment.
(Sec. rmining and resolving
alleged violations of this Act; and (2) judicial review of Office decisions.
(Sec. 1113) Amends the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to:
(1) eliminate references to political propaganda and, in certain
cases, replace them with references to informational materials; and (2)
modify registration exemption provisions.
(Sec. 1114) Revises (Byrd Amendment) requirements for a declaration by
persons requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement with respect to any payments made in connection with
it which would be prohibited if made with appropriated funds. Requires, in
lieu of information currently required, the: (1) name of any registrant
under this Act who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person with
respect to that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and
(2) certification that the declarant has not made, and will not make, any
prohibited payment.
(Sec. 1115) Repeals: (1) the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act; and
(2) provisions on lobbyist activities of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act and the Housing Act of 1949.
(Sec. 1118) Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 1119) Sets forth special rules for the identification of: (1)
foreign and other clients on whose behalf lobbying contacts are made with a
covered legislative or executive branch official; and (2) such covered
officials.
(Sec. 1121) Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to the
Congress on differences in meaning between this Act and the Internal Revenue
Code of "lobbying activities," "lobbying expenditures," "influencing
legislation," and related terms.
(Sec. 1122) Requires the President to appoint an interim Director of
the Office within 30 days after enactment of this Act.
Title II: Congressional Gift Reform
Amends Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit any
Member, officer, or employee of the Senate from knowingly accepting a gift
from: (1) a registered lobbyist, lobbying firm, or agent of a foreign
principal in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994; or (2) any
person, subject to exceptions listed in this Act. (Currently, such
individuals and their spouses are allowed to accept gifts totalling up to
$250 from any one person.)
Considers a gift to a spouse or dependent of a Member, officer, or
employee to be a gift to the Member, officer, or employee if given with
their knowledge and acquiescence and if there is reason to believe that the
gift was given because of their official positions.
Lists items exempt from the restriction on gifts from persons other
than lobbyists, lobbying firms, or agents of foreign principals, including:
(1) anything provided on the basis of a personal or family relationship
unless the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe that the gift
was provided because of his or her official position; (2) unused items that
are promptly returned to the donor; (3) food or refreshments believed to
have a value of less than $20; (4) food, lodging, and other benefits
resulting from the outside business or employment activities of a Member,
officer, or employee or their spouses if such benefits have not been offered
or enhanced because of the recipfree attendance at a convention, dinner, or
milar event.
Prohibits the acceptance of a gift exceeding $250 on the basis of the
personal relationship or friendship exception unless the Select Committee on
campaign event; (6) certain awards or prizes given in
contests open to the public; (7) certain honorary degrees and other awards;
(8) donations of products from the Member's State that are intended for
promotional purposes and are of minimal value as well as food, refreshments,
and entertainment provided in the home State, subject to reasonable
limitations; (9) certain training; (10) bequests and inheritances; (11)
anything paid for by the Government or by a State or local government or
secured under a Government contract; (12) a gift of personal hospitality;
(13) free attendance at an event, as permitted by this Act; and (14) certain
other opportunities and benefits.
Establishes conditions under which a Member, officer, or employee may
accept an offer of free attendance at a convention, dinner, or similar event
Prohibits the acceptance of a gift exceeding $250 on the basis of the
personal relationship or friendship exception unless the Select Committee on
Ethics determines that such exception applies.
Provides that certain reimbursements to a Member, officer, or employee
for travel expenses to an event in connection with official duties shall not
be considered as gifts if advance authorization to accept reimbursement is
received and the reimbursement and authorization are disclosed within a
specified time period.
(Sec. 1202) Makes parallel amendments to the Rules of the House of
Representatives to reflect conforming gift restrictions.
(Sec. 1203) Amends the Ethics in Government Act to provide that
reimbursements deemed accepted by the Senate or the House and reported as
required under such rules need not be reported under such Act. Authorizes
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to accept gifts provided
they do not involve any duty, burden, or condition, or are not made
dependent upon some future performance by the United States.
Division C: Campaign Finance Reform
Title I: Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform
Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1995
Subtitle A: Control of Congressional Campaign Spending Part
1: Senate Election Campaign Spending Limits and Benefits
Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to make Senate
candidates who meet certain filing requirements and contribution and
expenditure limits eligible for FECA benefits.
Limits Senate primary expenditures for a candidate (or his or her
authorized committees) to: (1) 67 percent of the general election
expenditure limit; or (2) $2.75 million. Limits runoff expenditures.
Sets a threshold contribution amount which triggers application of such
primary and runoff limits.
Limits the use by a Senate candidate (or authorized committees), during
an entire election cycle, of the candidate's personal (or family) funds
(including debt).
Limits aggregate general election expenditures by an eligible Senate
candidate (or authorized committees) to the lesser of: (1) $5.5 million; or
(2) the greater of $1,200,000, or $4,000,000 plus 30 cents times the voting
age population up to 4,000,000 and 25 cents times the voting age population
over 4,000,000.
Exempts from tlosed captioning for eligible Senate candidates' televisi
commercials.
Authorizes reduced candidate payments under circumstances of
insufficient funds.
(Sec. 10002) Prohibits Senate election activities by political action
committees (PACs).
Reduces from $5,000 to $1,000 the maximum aggregate contributions of
any PAC to a Senate candidate (or authorized committees). Makes it unlawful
for aggregate PACs to contribute to any Senate candidate of the Senate.
Requires the Commission to examine and audit, for FECA compliance, the
campaign accounts of five percent of all Senate and House of Representatives
candidates, and the campaign accounts of all opponents of such candidates as
well. Requires candidates to refund to the commission any excess payments or
expenditures. Sets civil penalties for excess expenditures and contributions
Provides for judicial review of Commission actions and require
Commission report to the Senate.
Requires closed captioning for eligible Senate candidates' television
commercials.
Authorizes reduced candidate payments under circumstances of
insufficient funds.
(Sec. 10002) Prohibits Senate election activities by political action
committees (PACs).
Reduces from $5,000 to $1,000 the maximum aggregate contributions of
any PAC to a Senate candidate (or authorized committees). Makes it unlawful
for aggregate PACs to contribute to any Senate candidate (or authorized
committees) more than the lesser of: (1) $825,000; or (2) 20 percent of the
aggregate Federal election spending limit. Requires annual adjustments of
such dollar amounts according to a specified price index.
(Sec. 10003) Sets forth reporting requirements for Senate candidates
not eligible for FECA benefits. Requires reports to the Secretary within two
days of any contributions raised and expenditures made in excess of FECA
limits.
Requires any candidate for the Senate who, during the election cycle,
exceeds limits on the use of personal and immediate family funds, and on
personal loans incurred by the candidate and the candidate's immediate
family, to report to the Secretary of the Senate within two days after such
expenditures have been made or loans incurred.
Requires certain expenditure reports from any Senate candidate who held
Federal, State, or local office during the same election cycle, and made any
expenditures, before becoming a Senate candidate, which would have been
treated as Senate candidate expenditures.
(Sec. 10004) Requires Senate candidates ineligible for FECA benefits to
place on every paid or authorized political commercial or communication the
declaration: "This candidate has not agreed to voluntary campaign spending
limits."
Part II: General Provisions
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require a broadcast station to
make broadcast time available to all House and Senate candidates in the last
30 (currently 45) days before a primary at the lowest unit charge of the
station for the same amount of time (currently, the same class and amount of
time) for the same period on the same date. Allows Senate candidates to
purchase broadcast time at 50 percent of the lowest unit rate for the 60
days before a general election.
Prohibits broadcasters from preempting advertisements sold to political
candidates at the lowest unit rate, unless the preemption is beyo specifiedb
adcaster's control.
(Sec. 10012) Amends FECA to set forth reporting requirements for
certain independent expenditures.
(Sec. 10015) Amends Federal law to prohibit a Senator who is a
candidate for election to any public office from making a mass mailing under
the frank during the calendar year of any primary or general election for
such office.
Subtitle B: Independent Expenditures
Amends FECA to define "independent expenditure" as an expenditures for
an advertisement or other communication that: (1) contains
express advocacy; and (2) is made without the participation or
cooperation of a candidate or a candidate's representative. Excludes from
the meaning of "independent expenditure" any expenditure by: (1) a political
committee of a political party; (2) persons who communicate or receive
information about activities that have a purpose of influencing a
candidate's election; and (3) persons with other specified relationships
with a candidate or candidate's agents in the same election cycle.
Defines "express advocacy" as any communication that when taken as a
whole: (1) expresses support for or opposition to a specific candidates, a
specific group of candidates, or candidates of a particular political party;
or (2) suggests taking action with respect to an election, such as voting
for or against, contributing to, or participating in campaign activity.
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for equal broadcast
time, including notification and opportunity to purchase equal time on an
independent expenditure basis.
Subtitle C: Expenditures
Part I: Personal Loans; Credit
Amends FECA to prohibit the use of contributions after the date of a
general election to repay loans to a candidate (or authorized committee) by
the candidate himself or herself or by members of the candidate's family.
Treats as a contribution any extension of credit of more than $1,000
for more than 60 days to candidates for Federal office (or authorized
committees) by political advisers.
Part II: Provisions Relating to Soft Money of Political Parties
Amends FECA to define: (1) "generic campaign activity" as a campaign
activity" as a campaign activity on behalf of a party rather than a
candidate; and (2) "State Party Grass Roots Fund" as a segregated State fund
on behalf of a federal candidate.
(Sec. 10034) Permits maximum contributions to a State Party Grassroots
Fund of: (1) $20,000 by an individual; and (2) $15,000 from a multicandidate
committee. Establishes an overall $60,000 annual limit on individual
contributions, including specified limits for: (1) candidates and their
political committees; and (2) State committees.
(Sec. 10035) Subjects to certain limitations, prohibitions and
reporting requirements any amount ("soft money") solicited, received, or
expended directly or indirectly by a national, State, district, or local
committee of a political party (including any subordinate committee) with
respect to an activity (such as voter registration and get-out-the vote
activities among others) which, in whole or in part, is in connection with
an election to Federal office.
Limits the expenditures for which a State cor conduit). Requires an int
mediary or conduit to report the
original source, contributor, and intended recipient of each forwarded
contribution.
Prohto FECA, including restrictions on
solicitations from tax-exempt organizations.
(Sec. 10037) Requires: (1) a national committee and a congressional
campaign committee to report all receipts and disbursements whether or not
in connection with a Federal election; and (2) other specified political
committees to report all receipts and disbursements in connection with a
Federal election.
Subtitle D: Contributions
Specifies circumstances in which contributions made or arranged to be
made directly or indirectly by a person to or on behalf of a particular
candidate through an intermediary or conduit shall be treated as
contributions from such intermediary or conduit to the candidate (thus
subjecting them to the FECA limitations otherwise applicable to that
intermediary or conduit). Requires an intermediary or conduit to report the
original source, contributor, and intended recipient of each forwarded
contribution.
Prohibits certain lobbyist contributions.
(Sec. 10042) Treats contributions by a dependent not of voting age as
having been made by the individual on whom that dependent is a dependent.
(Sec. 10043) Prohibits a candidate for Federal office from accepting,
with respect to any election, any contribution from a State or local
political party committee (or subordinate committee) if such contribution,
when added to the total of contribution previously accepted from all such
committees of that political party, exceeds the relevant contribution
limitation.
(Sec. 10044) Makes it unlawful to coerce contributions or expenditures
by physical threat or other intimidation.
(Sec. 10045) Prohibit acceptance by a candidate of cash contributions
from any one person aggregating more than $100.
Subtitle E: Miscellaneous
Prohibits Federal candidates and officeholders from establishing,
maintaining, or controlling any political committee (such as a "leadership
committee") other than a principal campaign committee of the candidate,
authorized committee, party committee, or other political committee
designated as an authorized committee.
(Sec. 10052) Directs the Commission to study and report to the Congress
on the feasibility of developing telephonic voting for person with
disabilities.
(Sec. 10053) Exempts certain tax-exempt organizations from specified
corporate expenditure limits.
(Sec. 10055) Requires exact copies of campaign advertising that refers
to a candidate's opponent to be filed with the Commission and the Secretary
of State or the candidate's State.
(Sec. 10056) Amends Federal law to prohibit a Member of Congress,
during an election year, from using the franking privilege for a mass
mailing from January 1 until the general election date.
Subtitle F: Effective Dates; Authorizations
Sets forth the general effective date of this Act.
Provides for direct, expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from
any court rulings on the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or
amendment by it.
Report is Completed
Turn off your software print command
Press ENTER to continue:
PAGE
1
LEVEL { --- 1 or i STORY
Copyright 1995 Gannett Company, Inc.
USA TODAY
February 22, 1995, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A
LENGTH: 406 words
HEADLINE: Clinton: Regulatory ban 'costly'
BYLINE: Judy Keen
BODY:
President Clinton, working to define his differences with Republicans,
Tuesday attacked a GOP plan to freeze government regulations.
He said the GOP moratorium "would cost lives and dollars" and announced his
GWN ideas for junking federal rules.
Clinton asked government agencies to identify obsolete rules by June :. He
also asked regulators to find ways to negotiate rules with the public and to
meet with people affected by their rules.
His audience included Rainer Mueller of Oceanside, Calif., whose SOB died
from E. coll bacteria "that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had
been in effect when his 500 ate the contaminated food," Clinton said.
The House is expected to vote this week on the GOP plan, which would halt
implementation of federal regulations proposed since Nov. 20 and bar new ones
until Dec. 31.
Clinton, whose scheduled event was designed to show he can match Republicans
when it COMES to whittling the size of government, also is eager to offer
alternatives in the 608 agenda on crime, education and other issues.
Clinton said his administration has "a serious obligation" to work with
congress to reduce regulations "without literally taking leave of our senses and
doing things that drive people up the wall, but don't make them safer."
He did not threaten to veta the moratorium, but said it "is not acceptable."
HOUSE Speaker Newt Singrich said Clinton is trying to block SOP progress.
"His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to B whole range of other issues,"
Gingrich said. Clinton "is locked into sort of a left-wing, big-government
approach that we are convinced will not work."
The White House released examples of regulations that would be unnecessarily
suspended under the 60P plan:
Trade senctions against some Chinese products in retaliation for Chinese
pirating of U.S. products like videos and computer software.
R
LEXIS·NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
LEXS·NEXIS®
PAGE
IN
USA TODAY, February 22, 1995
---- Standards for bottled water.
-- Tougher standards for commuter airlines, including more pilot training,
---- Safety labels on tays.
-- Bag limits for duck hunters. "It would even cancel the duck hunting
season," Clinton said. "That gives me some hope that it will not prevail."
"If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the
foreseeable future," Clinton said.
Republicans say their plan allows exemptions for safety and health matters.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO, b/w, Wilfredo Lee, AP
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE-MDC: February 23, 1995
LEXIS·NEXIS® ®
LEXIS·NEX.S®
LEX NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Central Inc
RESIDENT DENOUNCES GOP PLAN TO CURB FEDERAL REGULATIONS
By TODD S. PURDUM
1995 N.Y. Times News Service
WASHINGTON - President Clinton on Tuesday attacked Republican proposals
or limits on new federal regulations as an extreme idea that 'would cost
ives and dollars. But in an effort to show his own commitment to cutting
ed tape, he ordered federal agencies to weed out unnecessary rules and report
he results to him by June 1.
Clinton did not specifically VOW to veto a bill on regulations that is due
or a vote in the House this week. The legislation would suspend federal
egulations imposed since the November elections until the new Republican
ajority in Congress could pass new laws governing future rule-making.
But the president insisted that ''a moratorium is not acceptable, and
aid it could interfere with activities as varied as an orderly duck hunting
eason, burials at Arlington National Cemetery or the imposition of trade
anctions on China.
''It sounds good, Clinton said at a meeting with agency officials. ''But
his stops in its track federal action that protects the environment, protects
onsumers and protects workers.
Contending that a moratorium could jeopardize regulations governing
verything from the safety of food and drinking water to commuter airlines and
utomobiles, Clinton added: ''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations,
-between regulations - all regulations. No judgment. Sounds good, but no
adgment.
Clinton's objections are more than philosophical. With the Republicans in
irm control of Congress, executive rule-making authority is one of the main
bols remaining at the administration's disposal, and the White House would be
bath to lose it.
The president also criticized other Republican proposals that would
equire the government to satisfy a complex series of cost-benefit tests
efore imposing new regulations in fields ranging from the environment to
ealth and safety, and require the government to compensate property owners
en regulations have the effect of reducing their property value by 10
ercent or more.
'`These are extreme proposals, Clinton said. 'They go too far. They
buld cost lives and dollars. A small army of special-interest lobbyists knows
ey could never get away with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental
rotection, but why bother if you can paralyze the government by process?''
Clinton's remarks were his latest effort to draw contrasts between himself
id congressional Republicans, even as he insists that he, too, is moving to
arink and reshape the government.
Accordingly, as part of Vice President Al Gore's continuing review of the
ireaucracy, Clinton ordered all federal regulators to make a page-by-page
eview of their rules to scrap obsolete ones or determine if there is a
rivate sector alternative.
In addition, Clinton pledged to work with Congress to simplify regulatory
IWS where appropriate.
But House Speaker Newt Gingrich shot back: ''His administration is now
ctively opposing us, from crime bills to regulatory reform to capital gains
1X cuts to a whole range of other issues. The president is locked into sort
: a left-wing, big government approach that we are convinced will not work
When Clinton was asked later whether he was now contributing to the sort
: gridlock between Congress and White House that he had once deplored, he
aid of the Republicans:
' ' I am not trying to thwart them. I'm trying to give them an opportunity
) know exactly where I stand and to work with them.
00:52 EST
FEBRUARY 22, 1995
filed by: NYT-
on 02/22/95 at 01:01EST
printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:25EST
TH COUNTY
The North County
Blade- itizen
No. 53
Wednesday, February 22, 1995
President meets with local E. coli activists
By Jing Vida
soning caused by the leadly E. coli
most new meat-inspection regulations.
Staff Writer
0157 H7 bacteria, which is sometimes
Clinton, Gingrich clash over regulatory
Clinton announced the administration's
found in the nation's meat supply.
reform. Nation, Page A-3.
effort to cut bureaucracy but vowed is
President Clinton listened Tuesday to
Since then, Mueller became involved
keep family protection a top priority in his
an Oceanside resident and others who
with Safe Tables Our Priority, a national
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
told him agonizing stories of losing lover
safe-food coaltion formed after a 1993 E
phone interview in Washington. D.C. after
In his speech, Clinton stressed that "we
ones to vernment inaction or irrespon
coli-spawned series of deaths and ill
talking to Clinton and Vice President AI
can bring back common sense and reduce
sibility
nesses.
Gore "He feels we're dolug a great job.'
hassle without stripping away safeguards
Oceanside 2/22/95
Rainer Mueller of Oceanside lcst his
"He seeins to be extremely sympa
The President attacked the Republi
13 year old son Eric in 1993 to food pol
thelic to our cause," Mueller said during a
cans' proposal to put a moratorium on
See F. coli, Page A-7
ronmental protections that work
laws designed to clean up the food
advocates mandatory testing for
E. coli
and to propose needed leg.slation.
supply But the new Republican
food pathogens as well as recalling
"In case of food safety. there are
controlled Congress' anti-regula-
laws that allow bad food products to
regulations that need to be fixed,"
tory mood could set back some of
reach the public.
From Page A 1
Mueller said. "A lot of people work
STOP's progress.
"The Republicans have this
for our children. our workers, our
hard to have these laws in place.
A Republican, Mueller now finds
Contract With America' but it
Look at our organization. It's
hinself in the Democrats' camp as
seems like a contract against
families."
Mueller reviewed the prest.
making an impact.
This country
he aims to help prevent food-borne
America," Mueller said.
illnesses and dealhs. Mueller sup-
Mueller said he's scheduled to
dent's intentions Cut obsolete regu.
needs to eat food The food needs to
lations reward results. not red
be safe
ports the proposed Family Food
meet today with 51st District Rep.
Mueller and STOP have a mis-
Protection Act of 1095, which calls
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R
tape: and create partnerships
between volunteers and regulators
ston: to save lives through educa
for tougher meat regulations and
Escondido: and 48th District Rep
tion and to attenipt toget new safety
food protection. With STOP. he
Roo Packard. R-Oceanside.
to preserve health safety and envi-
P.03
New orleans
Times - Picayune
2/22/95
75%
NATIONAL NEWS
Clinton fights GOP assault on federal rules
By JOHN MOQUAID
lic Social Services in Houms who
lea," one that would require the
Cosstal Louisiana, & Daton
cause of the way wattends laws
Species Act, until the regulations
Washington bureou
works with fleherment.
federal government to pay prop-
Rouge-based environmental
are written."
can be revised
The While House targeted lev.
esty owners if regulations reduce
group that has helped cot up was.
Many environmentalista, In.
He said the morsterium would
WASHINGTON President
eral Republican proposals now
the value of their land by at least
(ands restoration projects.
cluding Gorman, agree that the
not affect the governbent's abil-
Clinion Tuesday launched 0
moving through the House the
10 percent,
Republican proposals would
wetlends permitting process
ity to regulate commercial flabing
counteratteck on congressional
moretorium, espanded property
He said that if it passed, even
limit the federal government's
needs overhout But they any that
as the president charged and be
Republicans bent on scaling back
slatits for private landownere,
In e form proposed by Louisiane
ability to contribute to those of.
the property rights bille now In
dismissed Clinton's remark as
federal regulations, calling atten.
and rules that would require the
Reps. Billy Tausin and Jimmy
forts, he said, as well as resulting
Congress are radical In scope and
"ware factics.'
tion to the efforts of 6 Hourns so.
government to do rink. and cost-
Heyes that would require com.
In scaling back regulations that
will have many unprodictable
Elaine Kamarck, the White
5048767751
cial worker and invironmentalist
benefit analyses of all new regula.
pensation If land values (all by at
currently protect wetlands.
consequences as the government
House official overseeing the Re.
to support his arguments.
tione.
least on percent, il would par.
"How can you "By, 'Cive us
is forced to pay landowners, set
inventing Government program,
"It sounds good," Clinton said
"These BIO extreme propos-
alyne the wethends restoration
money to protect wetlands,' but
up the bureaurratic mechanleme
neverthelors suggested that Clin
of a Republican proposal to de-
als," Clinton said. "They so too
process now under way in the
al the same time 'Give us money
to do 10 and scale back regula-
ton raight velo the moratorium if
clare a moretorium on all new
far. They would cost hver and
state.
to pay landownow who might be
tions 50 11 doesn't have to pay 80
the bill is peased in lbs current
federal rules. "But this stops in
dollars."
allocted"? Corman sald.
much.
form.
It takes federal money, Gor.
its tracks federal action that pro-
Tauxin; a Democrat who has
Clinton said the moratorium
While tsking a toush line
men sald, money already being
Tausin, who represents
Lects the environment, protecia
funnaled to the state under a lew
been working with Republicans
against Republican propossis,
"would stop the government
Houms and much of the Meta's
consumers and protecte work.
to pass measures in the "Con.
Clinton also rook care not to de
from allocating rights to commer-
passed several years ago, plus
ere."
wetland areas, disagreed, saying
cial flaberraen.'
tract," said he expected to on.
fond All aspects of the current
complex nagotialions among fed-
the regulatory process for getting
dorse the moratorium Idea. He
regulatory system. Determined to
To show that federal regula.
Gorman said afterward that he
eral, sists, local and private
permits to alter welkinds is itself
sald the moretorium is not In-
chect a middle course, he daid
None beve a positive offect, the
also was brought up to Washing-
landowners to net up coastal rd.
slowing efforts to restore Uwm.
tended to apply across the board
many regulations are indeed arbl
White House brought in eight
ton to highlight the potential
storation projects.
"He's exectly wrong," Taurin
but rather to large-acels regula-
trary and restrictive, and ordered
people, Including Robert Cor.
dangers of another proposal In
Gorman is A member of the
said. "The 198100 you can't ro-
tory Issues such at wallands 18.
8 comprehensive review of all
man, e social worker with Catho.
the COP's "Contract with Accor.
board of the Coalition to Restore
store in wetlands today is be.
storation or the Endangered
federal regulations.
FEB-23-1995 23:24
REFORM
Continued from IA
U.S. health
While other more conservative
recource that 15 already provided L/
members of Congress 310 pushing for
the From Amerdment of the Consume
may be
J migger is low as 10 percent, Tauzin
bon. Because Americans who have
hg: argued that one lower than 50
property (3kcn by the federal govern.
percent i; not likely to pass.
ment on challenge 11 in federal cauc,
threatened,
Gorman, who IS the assistant direc.
Tauzin said his legislation would offer
ini of Catholic Social Services at the
them J local remedy
diocese of Houma. Thibodaux, was in
The regulatory reform proposals are
Washington representing the Coalition
being misinterpreted, said,
Clinton says
to Restore Coastal Louisiana. He said
adding that "not unusual when the
the reform plan would require in.
While House 1, potting on one ok
creased taxes in fund compensation
these shows to scare neople."
for "takings," that would "effectively
Because the legislation 15 being
They (Republicans)
k:ll coastal restoration.
adapted, Tauzin sand : is too carly to
don't want reform, they
"Mom and Pop are 20mg 10 pay
make such claims He added that ke
Through the nose on this bill." said
believes 90 percent of federal regula-
really want rigormortis,'
Gorman, adding that the COP propos.
tions would be exempted from the
the president said.
ats are redical and Sail to meet the
by the time " becomes
most important needs of Americans.
law.
Gorman said that the takings provi.
"These bills BIC in formation." Tau.
By A.B. STODDARD
Houma's Rob German
sion would require Caxpayers to loot
zin said, "and when they are passed
01993 Stores News Service
the bill for people 10 obey the law. It 3
think these horror stories that people
WASHINGTON Regulatory re-
large corporation born on property in.
350 leveling a: them world apply."
form now proposed in the House GOP
federal government has acted. or
cluding wetlands, individual Laxpayers
might have acted.
would have to finance the federal "tak-
Contract with America." could harm
public health and safety by rolling back
Citing the examples of those people
ing" of such land.
crucial regulations. President Clinton
whose lives were saved by airbags IN
"How can you ask the people of this
automobile accidents, Clinton said
country 10 give Louistana money 10
said Tuesday.
"let's not lorgel them as we cut red
restore the coast, but Jon't try to en-
"They don't want reform, they real-
Wrangler
tape."
force any protection programs" Gor.
ly want rigormortis," Clinton said of
Clinton said the proposed moratori-
man asked.
Republicans 11 a White House event,
um on new federal regulations. that
Truzin said his will would merely
adding that the proposals would "cost
passed a House subcommittee last
give private property owners another
Jeans
lives and dollars."
week, is unacceptable. "It sounds
Regulatory relief legislation now be-
good but it's no judgment." he said.
Buy One
ing considered in the House would
Rob Gorman of Houma traveled 10
place 3 moratorium on all new regula-
Washington to appear at the event be-
Gel One
tions, while requiring cost-benefit
cause he said the "Takings" provision
analysis and risk assessment for fu-
in the regulatory relorm package
Free
ture ones.
would threaten jobs, homes and health
While supporting the concept of
in Louisiana.
regulatory reform, the White House IS
Houma Daily Couvier
Rep. Billy Tauzin, D-La., has gained
attempting to distinguish itsell from
substantial support for private proper
Republican leaders in Congress who
ty rights legislation be has reintro.
2/22/95
Ity Shoe Service
have introduced broad regulatory re
dueed in this Congress that I'm included
tein Wear 372 1843
hel legislation. Touting the efforts of
in the Contract.
the Reinventing Government initia-
0 West Park Ave., curno
Under the provisions J! Tauzin's
live his administration began in 1992.
n.sal.
Private Property Owners Bill of
Clinton said he wants reform that will
Rights. which applies 10 the federal
bring common sense back 10 the regu-
wetlands policy and the Endangered
lation culture of Washington.
Species Act, the lederal government
At a press briefing with Vice Presi-
would pay when it "look" more than
dent AI Gore, Clinton introduced sev-
50 percent of a piece of private land.
oral "real people" on whose behalf the
REFORM, continue on IA
(Ed: 2grafinsert6thgraf: XXX he said; pickup7thgraf: But to hutchison
comment)
Clinton questions GOP regulatory reforms
By KENNETH R. BAZINET=
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) Strongly suggesting he is prepared to veto
Republican legislation that would freeze federal regulations, President
Clinton said Tuesday the GOP proposals hurt consumers, workers, the
environment and business, while only protecting special interests.
''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself.
They don't want reform, they really want rigor mortis,' Clinton said.
The House is expected to consider the moratorium on federal regulations
later this week.
``If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, to me a moratorium is not acceptable,' Clinton
said, suggesting he would veto the measure if it is approved.
The president lashed out at the GOP while announcing his own series of
steps aimed at reforming government regulations to better protect the health
and safety of people while cutting wasteful or overly burdensome rules that
stiffle American business.
''Some in Congress are pushing a collection of proposals that, taken
together, would bring federal protection of public health and safety to
a halt, he said.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, defended the regulatory moratorium,
saying ' 'the public's interest would be best served'' if the measure were to
be approved by the Congress.
''Excessive, ill-conceived regulation curbs growth and curtails
productivity at a significant cost to taxpayers, but provides few real
benefits to health and safety, Hutchison said.
But to help make his case, Clinton had with him but did not introduce
several citizens who said demonstrate the need for certain regulations.
''There's a father in this audience whose son died from E. coli bacteria
in food that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had been in
effect when his son ate the contaminated food, Clinton said.
'`There are people here whose lives were saved by airbags
There's
a
woman here who is a breast cancer survivor who lost a child to cancer, who
lives in an area unusually high in the density of people who suffer from
cancer.''
In addition to the House Republican's regulatory legislation, Sen. William
Roth, R-Del., has proposed a bill that would require a cost- benefit analysis
and a detailed regulatory analysis for any new rule costing more than $100
million. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole has proposed a similar bill that
would set the level at $50 million.
Meanwhile, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who oversees the
administration's effort to reinvent government, ordered the following steps
to be taken immediately:
Regulators must conduct by June 1 a page-by-page review of rules to
determine which are obsolete.
Regulators must develop ways judge performance by results in this case
the ability to improve health and safety.
Regulators must convene relevant experts and citizens to guide them in
making decisions on what works and what doesn't.
Gore will conduct a review of all of the above and submit a series of
regulatory reform proposals in the coming months.
"II still believe that, working together with Congress, we can achieve
real and balanced regulatory reform, but we shouldn't go too far,'' Clinton
said.
AM-Gingrich-Clinton, 1st Ld-Writethru, 790
Clinton: GOP Attack on Federal Regulations 'Would Cost Lives'
EDs: SUBS 2nd graf pvs bgng, 'Clinton said, with 2 grafs to UPDATE with new
remarks; EDITS to conform; ADDS 2 grafs with Muskie and Stafford
By TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=
WASHINGTON (AP) Picking a new fight with House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
President Clinton attacked a Republican proposal for a moratorium on most
government regulations, saying it was too extreme and 'would cost lives and
dollars.
Despite devastating Democratic losses in the November elections, Clinton
said that Americans '`did not in my judgment ratify every extreme element' of
the GOP ''Contract with America.
' ' I am not trying to thwart them, Clinton said of the Republicans.
``I'm trying to give them an opportunity to know exactly where I stand and to
work with them.
Gingrich, driving ahead with the proposals in the GOP manifesto, accused
Clinton of being an obstructionist.
'`His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said on Capitol Hill. '`The president is locked into sort
of a left-wing, big-government approach that we are convinced will not
work.'
The president and the speaker traded charges on the eve of day 50 in a
promised 100-day Republican countdown of votes on issues ranging from welfare
reform and term limits to tax cuts and a balanced-budget amendment.
``If the president vetoes them,' Gingrich said, ''it will frame the '96
presidential campaign. These are things the American people have said they
want
The White House argued that the Republican march to enact their contract
is faltering as lawmakers confront the details. Clinton believes that
congressional Republicans are ''finding tough going and they' re having a
little rendezvous with reality now, said White House press secretary Mike
McCurry.
Still struggling to regain his footing after the Democrats' devastating
election setbacks, Clinton has been trying to define sharp differences with
Republicans on issues such as national security, crime and education. He will
go to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to rally House Democrats.
Seizing on the regulatory moratorium, Clinton said the measure would
eliminate federal protection of the environment, consumers and workers.
''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,
stop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars, stop final implementation of the
law that lets parents take leave to care for a sick child,' the president
said.
''It would undermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter
airlines. If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for
the foreseeable future. Therefore, to me, a moratorium is not acceptable.
Republicans complain that Clinton is overstating the impact of the
moratorium, arguing that it allows specific exemptions for safety and health
matters. In general, if passed by Congress and signed into law, the measure
would prohibit any attempt to create new regulations until Dec. 31 and would
suspend any regulations that have been issued since last Nov. 20.
Brushing aside the GOP case, Clinton said, '`These are extreme proposals.
They go too far. They would cost lives and dollars.
'A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get away
with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection, but why
bother if you can paralyze the government by process?'' the president asked.
In place of the proposed moratorium, Clinton offered a handful of
regulatory reforms, similar to those he imposed in an executive order in
1993.
He ordered federal regulators to examine all the rules they administer to
see if they are obsolete or if state or local government could do a better
job. He set a June 1 deadline for completing the review.
Clinton also instructed regulators to judge rules by their ability to
improve the health and safety of Americans and to convene meetings nationwide
with industries they cover to see how the government could do a better job.
Meanwhile, former Sen. Edmund Muskie, a Maine Democrat who was an
architect of laws passed in the 1970s to protect water and air quality,
accused House Republicans at a news conference of trying to ''turn the clock
back to the days when the special interests made the rules and the people
absorbed the risks.
Muskie was joined by two Republicans: Robert Stafford, the former
Republican senator from Vermont who chaired the Senate Environment Committee
in the early 1980s when the GOP last had a majority, and Russell Train, who
headed the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon and Ford
administrations in the 1970s. The conference was arranged by the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
**** filed by: APW- (GA) on 02/21/95 at 18:33EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:24EST ****
BC-HO-REGS
Clinton Says He'll Fight Government Regulation Moratorium
3y Greg McDonald, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
WASHINGTON--Feb. 22- President Clinton said Tuesday he'll fight Republican
attempts to impose a moratorium on all new government regulations because this
nove would have disastrous consequences.
'`These are extreme proposals. They would cost lives and dollars, the
president said in a speech at the White House criticizing a GOP proposal
scheduled for a vote this week.
The proposal blocking the release of rules would put an end to many
government regulations and make the enforcement of others nearly impossible.
It would require the government to weigh the benefits of regulations against
the cost to taxpayers of enforcing them.
Many trade groups representing U.S. industry have strongly backed the
regulatory moratorium, as well as broader Republican-led efforts to revise
government environmental, health and safety rules.
American Petroleum Institute President Charles DiBona said regulatory
reform is the major oil companies' top legislative priority.
However, Clinton warned of the consequences of hasty action. ''It sounds
good. But this stops in its tracks federal action that protects the
environment, protects consumers, that protects workers, Clinton said.
Clinton's comments came during an event celebrating White House efforts to
cut government spending by streamlining or consolidating many departments and
eliminating bureaucracy.
Clinton acknowledged the need for regulatory reform, adding that he feels
ne has a ''serious obligation' to work with the Republicans in trying to
' 'reduce the burden of regulation. But he warned that some lawmakers are
using ''the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer, worker,
environmental protections - even ones that protect business.
But House Minority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, one of the authors of the
regulatory moratorium, blamed Clinton for the explosion of new rules during
1994.
This year - one election and several public opinion polls later - he is
transformed into an anti-regulatory president.
Clinton stopped short of saying he would veto a moratorium measure if
passed by Congress. But Elaine Kamarck, an aide to Vice President Al Gore who
is heading up the administration's effort to "reinvent government,'
suggested that Clinton would veto the bill as it stands now.
``In its current form, it's not acceptable, she said. ''They don't want
reform; they really want rigor mortis, Clinton said. Clinton said the
proposals currently being floated, while they may sound good, would likely
bring federal protection of public health and safety to a halt.
''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between regulations
- all regulations, he said.
''There is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it, he said. ' 'We
can agree on many things. But I am convinced that a moratorium would hurt the
broad interests of the American people and would benefit only certain narrow
interests.
A vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected in the House later this
week, according to Reuters. If passed by the House and Senate and signed into
law, it would last until Dec. 31, by which time the Republicans in Congress
want to pass permanent regulatory reform.
The Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk
assessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and
to require compensation of private property holders when regulations have the
effect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., accused Clinton of trying to
perpetuate what he called the old liberal view that more regulation and more
government adds up to a better life for Americans.
''His administration is now actively opposing us - from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said. "The president is locked into sort of
a left-wing,
big government approach that we are convinced will not work.
Gingrich predicted that ''significant changes'' would be made in
government regulations with or without the president on board. He also
threatened to make regulatory reform a campaign issue in 1996 if the
president vetoes the measure Congress sends him.
In an effort to one-up the Republicans, Clinton announced that he was
ordering a top-to-bottom review of all federal regulations to determine which
ones are obsolete or out of step with today's economic realities. He wants the
recommendations for change on his desk by June 1.
He also ordered government regulators to begin holding meetings around the
country aimed at determining how federal rules and regulations affect
communities and businesses. END!I&2?HO-REGS
**** filed by: KR-F(--) on 02/21/95 at 23:04EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:17EST ****
GOP ATTACK ON U.S. REGULATIONS COULD AFFECT ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
c.1995 N.Y. Times News Service
WASHINGTON - Republicans plan to escalate their war on federal regulations
this week as House debate begins on a series of bills that, taken together,
would fundamentally affect the enforcement of every existing environmental
law.
The measures would temporarily freeze the government's powers to make
rules in virtually every area of federal authority and strictly limit those
powers in the future. But nowhere would they have greater effect than in
environmental regulation, where about 20 major laws generate a steady stream
of rules intended to protect health, safety and natural resources.
The Republican proposals include a moratorium on new regulations,
compensation for landowners when regulations hurt their property values and a
requirement that new rules be subjected to elaborate risk assessments and
cost-benefit analysis.
President Clinton hinted Tuesday that he might veto so far-reaching a
package. '`The environment is still not able to protect itself, he said in a
speech announcing his own package of measures that he said would make
regulations less burdensome without rolling back existing laws.
The coming votes will signal how determined the Republicans (and some
Democrats) are to rethink a whole generation of environmental laws. Senior
administration officials expect most, and perhaps all, of the package to pass
the House, although there are signs that the Senate might modify it.
Even in the House, however, a number of Republicans are hesitant about
some of the package's provisions. While the majority party has so far
maintained virtually flawless unity in pushing its Contract With America, 15
House Republicans last week wrote to Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, saying they opposed one bill in the
package.
Republican leaders in Congress say they intend to rewrite several
environmental laws later this year, including the Superfund law, on cleaning
up toxic waste dumps; the Clean Water Act, controlling pollution of rivers,
lakes and oceans; the Safe Drinking Water Act, governing municipal water
supplies, and the Endangered Species Act, protecting the habitat of
threatened plants and animals.
There are also proposals to repeal parts of the 1990 Clean Air Act and to
increase logging in publicly owned forests. And an industry-backed bill to
rewrite tolerances for pesticides in food is also likely to move forward,
along with farm-bill provisions involving conservation.
In a speech last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the policies of
the past 20 years or more ' have been absurdly expensive, created far more
resistance than was necessary and misallocated resources on emotional and
public relations grounds without regard to either scientific, engineering or
economic rationality.
' 'And that, he said, ''requires very profound rethinking of what we want
to do collectively as a species in order to save the environment
For the moment, though, the proposals before the House take an indirect
route, dramatically restricting the effects of environmental laws without
actually rewriting any of them.
''Every person in this administration is greatly alarmed,' said Carol M.
Browner, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, discussing the bills
coming to the House floor this month as part of the Contract with America.
She said the proposals would fundamentally undermine existing laws by.
replacing health protection with economic considerations as the determining
factor in setting environmental standards.
'`The administration is not going to be a party to that, she said.
''Absolutely, positively not. I do know that the administration will not allow
these laws to be dismantled.
At least three bills are ready for action on the House floor, having been
approved by House committees in the last two weeks:
- Title III of HR 9, called the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act,
requires elaborate risk assessments to be conducted for any new rules and
prohibits regulations unless their economic costs are justified by a
cost-benefit measurement.
- A stopgap anti-regulation measure known as the Regulatory Transition Ac
would halt the imposition of most new federal regulations dating back to
November, and would remain in effect until broader regulatory changes of HR
were enacted.
- A bill called the Private Property Protection Act would compensate
landowners when the value of their property declined because its use had beei
restricted by federal regulations.
Although the regulatory moratorium probably will be debated first, it is
so likely to be vetoed - with little chance of an override - that its
importance could be mainly symbolic. As a result, the two other bills will
probably be argued over more fiercely.
The bill on private property rights was cleared by the House Judiciary
Committee last week. It would require the federal government to compensate ai
property owner whose land values declined by at least one-tenth because of
rules restricting how the property could be developed.
That bill is the one that has sparked open dissent among some Republican
lawmakers, and prompted them to write Hyde declaring their opposition.
``If this legislation were to become law, the federal government could be
required to compensate a landowner who is denied a permit to site a hazardous
waste facility over an aquifer that supplies drinking water to a nearby
community, they said.
The committee voted down a proposal to limit the bill to cases in which
land values were reduced because of regulations protecting wetlands or
endangered species, but such an amendment is likely to be offered on the
House floor. By focusing on two laws that many property owners oppose, it
would strengthen the bill's chance of passage.
The biggest fight of all may be over the risk-assessment and cost-benefit
provisions, because they would replace health-based environmental standards i
existing laws with standards based primarily on economic calculations.
The complex package is likely to get prolonged scrutiny in the Senate,
where the votes might not divide entirely on party lines.
''Some of the regulatory reform measures that have been introduced this
year go way too far,'' said Sen. John H. Chafee, R-R.I., chairman of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He singled out the
risk-assessment provisions proposed in the House, saying, ''If there ever was
a prescription for gridlock, that's it.'
Other influential senators, however, are supporting risk-assessment
legislation that could be brought to the Senate floor without passing through
Chafee's committee.
Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., has a proposal that would affect only the
Energy Department, and Sen. Bob Dole, the majority leader, has a version of
his own that would affect all federal agencies.
-END-OF-AUTOBREAK (1) -
-AUTOBREAK (2) -FOLLOWS
****
filed by: NYT- (--) on 02/22/95 at 01:03EST ****
****
printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:26EST
****
1
52 No 002 P.02
LIVING
HORNS
APLENE
Washington schools
shot in world of jazz/C
Meat-safety
plan appears
headed for fight
USDA seeks tighter
illnoss or death and bits colldren
the hardest
rules; industry, GOP
But the food, Industry in com
plaining of bureaucratic overkill
want less regulation
and the program is likely to be
scaled back In Congress, where
anti-regulatory sentiment runs
By Christopher Hanson
strong
traving
HEARST NEWSPAPER
FEBRUARY 21, 1995
pl Washington Correspondent
While consumer advoeates say
more regulations are needed to
WASHINGTON - The Clinton
ensure supply the
administration's program to bol-
food industry maintains that the
ster meat safety following 8 dead-
most effective way to produce safe
by food poisoning outbreak in
food at low cost 10 the consumer. 16
Washington state le on a collision
to allow the industry to Imple-
course with the new Republican
ment 115 own safety system. elimit
Congress
nating. requirements It believers
The Agriculture Department
are unnecessary.
last month proposed 300 pages of
"We think the time 10 right 10
regulations to make inspection
reform the outdated meat and
more scientific and root out ml-
poultry: inspection system." said
erobes such as E coll 0157:H7.
Sara Clark of the American Heat
The Washington state outbreak
Institute. "There are two parts -
two years ago was caused by
one is regulatory reform,
the
undercooked Jack in the Box
second is legislative reform to
hamburgers bilnted with the bac-
teria, which can cause agonizing
See MEAT, Page A10
Index
Books
c2
Editorial
ASS
Mike Maliway
CS
Bridge
C6
Entertainment
C4
Oblivaries
B4
Business
88-8
Bily Graham
D7
Pd Phones
A2
Classified
D7-16
Horoscope
r
People
N
Classified Index
07
Ann Landers
C2
Scrabble
3
Coffee Break
C5,6
LMing
Section c
Sports
D1-5
Comics
C5,6
Local/Region
B1-8
Television
D6
Crosswords
C6.09
Lottery
B1 Art This
01
Weather
lecisted morning showers becoming partly sunny
later, Higha lower to mid-50d Lows. lower to mid-
40k Details on Page 54.
59423
99999
5
PORTS
DAY MORNING
No 03
10 Seettle Post-Ints genca February 21. 1995
Meat: Industry wants government to focus on preventing contamination
om Page 1
old are first GOP staffers say
they are, they orght to replace
of beeL
positry. The senior GOP staffer
Despite obstacios, FORM a
Congress is likely to consider
and not be added to the ones
"Zoro tolerance has been a
said a bill may be drafted to
sumer advocates hope meat .
write the law to focus on food
legislations to scrap or scale back
there," said Sem Stade Gorton, PV
dismal and miserable failure,"
prevent the Agriculture Depart
poultry safety reform will be a
Fety from farm to table"
one part of the current system:
Wash
said the senior congressional
ment from doing this The food
Paged, in part because of I
The American Meal Institute
visual Inspection in most and
Washington GOP Repa Doc
staffer, citing industry studies that
industry is strongly apposed to
practical considerations of prod
gues that the government
postry plants Consumer advo-
Hastings, George Nethercad and
found that bacteria on meat had
setting new standards for bacto
and votes.
could focus on preventing mest
cates sky visual impections to
Linds Smith agreed.
in Dact increased after the pro-
ria, in part because such stan-
Tom Devine or Use Gove
becoming contaminated
spot feces must continue until
"Wo need 309 pages of new
grass was implemented. Be said
dards could result in beavy com-
ment Accountability Proje
ther than policing phats and
stientific bacteria tests prove of
regulations? That's what spurred
that when guvernment Inspectors
pliance costs.
which compaigns for food safe
mishing them for regulatory
fective, which may take years.
the movement to put a morateri-
ordered Locos to be removed by
Agriculture Department -
said that If the system -
-
"Layering is the biggest single
WE on new regulations by the
trimming careasses, the trimmers
dals say they don't currently have
deregulated to the point whe
"Producers should be excour
problem" Mid A senior congres-
Cougress," Nethercalt said
often inadvertently spread the
the data to set sclestific health
many more people start dying
red, though not required. to
signal staffer, who argued that
Smith, noting that the Jack B
contamination.
standards for such contaminants
would devastate FOR
tablish voluntary programs to
visual inspections MV question-
the Box hatsburgers had been
Twice, the food safety chief,
u saimonella but would want to
dence and cut Into industry pr
entify and control public health
able because "you can't see a
cooked or too low a temperature,
questioned the Industry studios
retain the authority to do so later.
its. Be suggested the profit
its presented by production
microbe."
said: "Mare rules won't make Ht
and said: "Striet enforcement of
Under the new program, the
would temper industry's derega
"actices," according to an Last
"TI's more bareakeracy at a
work. H they were not following
zero colerance is valuable. Remov
department would not require E
tory seal
to memo.
high cost with listle public health
the old rules, why would they
lug local contamination is a very
coll sampling la the plants be
Foreman said the new G
The Aprirulture Department
improvenent," said Jeff Nedel-
follow more rules!"
important public health objec-
cause a rapid, effective test is not
majority abould realize that
world no longer be responsible
mas, spokecase for the Grobery
Congressional aides say snoth-
Live" He said that trimming could
yet available It would set targets
you gut meat and poultry Insp-
, the hands-on review of prod-
Manufacturers of America.
or part of the program that will be
be effective if done properly.
for the amount or seimonells ON
tion, you have people getting -
ts, nor for the evaluation for
"I guess H is typical to page
serutionshed for possible climina-
GOP staffers are also com-
meal and positry sed mandate
and dying on your watch a in
sease or esthetic deforts; this
new regulations without taking
tion is "sero tolerance" - the
cerned that Taylor's program
that delly readom assuples be
pens before the wast election
wold by the facilities' responsi-
any old ones at The new ones
campaign set UP by former April-
moves toward setting stringest
taken in each plant and that the
I don't think anyone at the polls
lity." the memo said
may be much better - I hope
culture Secretary Vike Ever to
stendards for how much bacteris
plants meet contactination guide-
1994 voted in Lavor of dirty a
These views are being TO
they're a great deal better - but if
eradicate all fecal contamination
will be tolerated in new and
lines set by the government.
and poultry."
wred favorably CEM Capitol Hill,
epublican comgressional staffers
o.
the
Olven the mood, Carol Tucker
Foreman, a leador of the Bule
Food Coalidos consumer group,
on
sald. "If vote ware held today.
think they would just gut meal
and poultry inspection."
And Sen Patty Murray, D-
Wash. said, "My concorn le that
overybody says they don't want
regulation, but if you take regula-
tions away. It mils people's health
COP staffers and Industry
groups said that such concerns
are alarroist and that public supoly
would be protected under a small-
or system focusing on lesting can
cam samples at critical control
points" In the *laughter process to
curb contamination.
The administration's new pro-
gram, which would affect 0,200
federally Inspected meal and
poultry plants and cost about $800
million a year. would force Indus-
try to set VD A system of lab tests
to discover and stop microscopic
contamination. use disinfoctant
sprays and adhers to unifurm
standards for sabjection and mest
AI the same time the now
program would retain the old
system of visual inspection In
which Agriculture Department of-
ficials monitor slughter lines and
wotch for meat that is splattered
with such contaminants 26 faces, a
currier of K coll. salmonells and
other microber The hope la to
significantly reduce the number
of deaths caused by Cond-borne
Illnoss now running at 4,000 a
year in the United States
But the Agriculture Depart-
ment and consumer advocates are
assult
an
20
proposal. or immediate concern
to them Is the anti-regulatory
plank of the GOP "Contract With
America." The proposed Ingisin-
tion would force government to do
Icuethy cost-benaft tests before
issuing regulations on such mat-
tors as food Rainly, and Rive foos
of regulation tooway to bottle UD
proposed rules In court possibly
for years, critics say.
the bill bocame law, it could
"stake " virtually Impossible our
public health agencios to do their
Job." said Mike Taylor, chief of
at risk"
the Agriculture Department's
Food Safety Inspection Service
The 6111 la to come up for a House
rute this month
MeanWhile, specific features
or the most-sility program are
bracing
also under fire.'
Industry and GOP critics.
while supporting M more scientific
approach don't want to add a new
system without retlide rid of the
SIERRA CLUB NW
chilline
Clinton raps GOP regulation proposal
'Lives and dollars' would be lost under moratorium, president says
Washington, D.C. -AP-
good, bu: no Judgment."
llcon countdown of votes on 18
Milwaukee Sentinel
Picking a new fight with House
Gingrich (R-Ga.), driving
Speaker Newt Gingrich, Prest-
ahead with the proposuls In the
9A
Crypto warning
sues ranging from: welfare
form and term limits to tax:cuts
dent Clinton attacked a Republi-
GOP "Contract With America,"
Doctor fears reforms
and a balanced budget amend
can proposal for a moratorium on
accused Clinton of being an ob-
threaten water purity
ment
most government regulations,
structionist.
"If the president VA OES them,
saying It Was too extreme and
He predicted "flroworks all
summer" in Congress.
dent is locked Into sqrt of a
Gingrich sald, "1: will frame the
would cost lives and dollars."
Ellinton sold Tuesday that the
"His administration is now ac-
left-wing big-government ap-
'96 presidential campaign These
proach that we are convinced
are things the American people
GOP idea sounded good on Its
tively opposing us from crime
will not work
have said they want.
face, but "It would stop good
bills to regulatory reform to capi-
The president and the speaker
The White, House argued, that
regulations, bad regulations, In-
tal gains tax cuts to a whole
between regulations, all regula-
range of other Issues," Gingrich
traded charges on the ave of Day
the Republican drive to onact the
56/22/2
tions. No judgment - sounds
said on Capitol HII. "The presi-
50 in a promised 100-day Repub-
See Regulations y 9A
Clinton raps GOP's proposal
for moratorium on regulation
Regulations
drinking water, stop safer meat
would cost lives and dollars.
and poultry. stop safer cars, stop
"A small army of special inter-
From 1A
final implementation of the law
est Jobbyists knows they can nev-
that lets parents take leave to
"Contract With America" propos-
er get away with an outright
als is faltering as lawmakers con-
care for a sick child," the presi-
repeal of consumer or environ-
dent said.
front the details. Clinton believes
mental protection, but why both-
that congressional Republicans
"It would undermine what
er if you can paralyze the govern-
are "finding tough going and
we're trying to do to promote
ment by process?" the president
they're having a little rendczvous
safety in commuter airlines. If a
asked.
with reality now," said White
moratorium takes effect, all these
benefits will be on hold for the
In place of the proposed mora-
House press secretary Mike
torium, Clinton offered a handful
McCurry.
foreseeable future. Therefore, to
me, a moratorium is not accept-
of regulatory reforms; similar to
Still struggling to regain his
able."
those he imposed in an executive
footing after the Democrats' dev-
order in 1993:
astating election setbacks, Clin-
Republicans complain that
ton has been trying to define
Clinton is overstating the impact
He ordered federal regulators
sharp differences with Republi-
of the moratorium, arguing that it
to examine all the rules they ad-
cans on Issues such as national
allows specific exemptions for
minister to see if they are obso-
esfety and health matter In gen-
lete or: if state or local govern-
security, crime and education. He
will go to Capitol Hill Wednesday
eral, if passed by Congress and
ment could do a better job. He set
to rally House Democrata
signed into. law. the measure
a June 1 deadline for completing
would prohibit anv attenipt to
the review.
Seizing on the regulatory mor-
create new regulations until Dec.
Clinton also Instructed regula
atorium. Clinton said the ineasure
3L and would suspend any regu-
tors to judge rules by their ability
would eliminate federal protec-
lations that have been issued
tion of the environment, consum-
to improve the health and safety
since last Nov. 20.
of Ameticans and to convene
CIS and workers.
Brushing aside the GOP case,
meetings nationwide with indus-
"It would stop new protection
Clinton said, These are extreme
tries they cover to see how the
from deadly bacteria in our
proposals They go too far They
government could do a better job.
PAGE
1
LEVEL 1 - ? OF 3 STORIES
Copyright 1995 Gannett Company, Inc.
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
February 23, 1995, Thursday
LENGTH: 547 words
HEADLINE: HOUSE REJECTS SLAUGHTER AMENDMENT ON RULES DELAY
BYLINE: JOHN MACHACEK; Gannett News Service
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
The House Republican majority, beginning efforts to scale back federal
regulations castly to business, on Thursday rejected efforts to exempt tougher
rules for food inspections and water safety from a proposed one-year moratorium
on new regulations.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. (Fairport, Monroe County), said thousands of
deaths annually from meat and poultry contamination justified her amendment for
"ironclad" assurances the GOP initiative wouldn't delay enactment of newly
proposed inspection rules.
On a 249-199 vote largely along party lines, the House defeated her amendment
after Republicans said their legislation wouldn't apply to regulatory actions
needed to deal with "imminent threats" to health and safety.
The moratorium would suspend any federal rule issued since NOV. 20 and bar
federal agencies from making additional rules until Dec. 31. Though not part of
the GOP's "Contract With America," it is a first step in a Republican drive for
permanent regulatory reform.
Next week, the House will take up legislation that requires federal agencies
to conduct cost-benefit analyses and extensive risk assessments when drafting
regulations. A cost-benefit analysis would be done on any proposed regulation
costing business or industry more than $ 25 million.
The meat and poultry inspection rulemaking Slaughter wants protected was
launched by the Agriculture Department this month. The proposed rules would
replace the 89-year-old system of visual inspections with scientific-based
tests. The agency is allowing 120 days for public comment before making 3
decision on new rules.
"The passage of this bill would stop that model process right in its tracks,"
Slaughter said, citing a letter she received this week from Michael Taylor, USDA
undersecretary for food safety.
Slaughter's amendment also would have exempted two other proposed
regulations. One would stop food from being imported in lead cans. The other
allows the Environmental Protection Agency to continue research on the
cryptosporidium parasite that Infected Milwaukee's drinking water two years ago,
making 400,000 people sick.
LEX.S.NEX
LEXIS·NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
PAGE
2
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE, February 23, 1995
Holding up poster-sized blowups of language in their moratorium bill,
Republicans noted that their legislation allows the president to exempt
regulations once federal agencies certify that health and safety would DE
endangered without them.
Slaughter said definitions of "imminent threat to health and safety" are "SO
ambiguous that the bill's authors can't adequately explain which regulations are
covered and which ones aren't."
Even if the food inspection rules were exempted, they would not be immune
from civil lawsuits under the GOP bill, she noted.
Republicans accused Slaughter of using "scare tactics" by suggesting the
moratorium could lead to a loss of life and undo two decades of rules affecting
health and safety.
Earlier in the day, Slaughter and other Democrats held a press conference on
the Capitol lawn with the parents of Rainer Mueller, a 13-year-old Oceanside,
Calif., boy who died of food poisoning after eating contaminated meat at a
fast-food restaurant.
"Nearly 5 million illnesses and 4,000 deaths each year result from meat and
poultry products contaminated by micro-organisms such as salmonella and E.
coli," Slaughter said.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE-MDC2 February 28, 1995
LEXIS·NEX
SOL
EX.S.NEXIS
LEXIS·NEX
SOL
Clinton Directs Agencies To Identify Burdensome Rules
By Rick Wartzman
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Vowing to "bring back common sense" to government
regulations, President Clinton directed federal agencies to review all of
their rules over the next three months and identify those that are obsolete
or overly burdensome.
In unveiling the new initiative, Mr. Clinton painted a sharp contrast
between his approach and that of House Republicans. They are pushing a bill
that would impose a moratorium on virtually all federal regulations until the
end of the year, or until the passage of a separate bill requiring an
extensive cost-benefit analysis of all regulation that costs the economy more
than $25 million. The moratorium would be retroactive to Nov. 20, 1994.
While the president didn't say explicitly that he would veto the Republicar
bill, as he has threatened to do with a GOP rewrite of crime legislation, he
asserted that a moratorium is "extreme," would "cost lives and dollars" and,
therefore, "is not acceptable."
The rhetoric marked another attempt by Mr. Clinton, who heads to Capitol
Hill today for a pep talk with House Democrats, to make clear the differences
he has with the Republican majority in Congress.
The president contended that the Republicans' regulatory moratorium
proposal, which the House is scheduled to take up later this week, would halt
everything from air-safety and clean-drinking-water regulations to burials at
Arlington Cemetery and even the start of the duck-hunting season.
"We do need to change this system," Mr. Clinton said. "But there is a right
way to do it and a wrong way to do it."
Administration officials had said previously that they were looking at
streamlining regulations as part of the broader "reinventing government"
program led by Vice President Al Gore. But the plan Mr. Clinton unveiled
yesterday marked the first time the specifics were spelled out.
The plan calls for all federal agencies to conduct a page-by-page review of
regulations to determine which rules are simply outmoded and which should giv
way to local regulation or a private-sector alternative. The results are
supposed to reach the president's desk by June 1.
The president also ordered agencies to revamp how they assess the
performance of their regulators, so, for example, safety inspectors would be
judged by how many companies on their watch comply with standards, not by how
many citations they issue. Mr. Clinton also directed front-line regulators to
meet with the people affected by their regulations. And he asked each agency
to submit to the White House a list of pending regulatory procedures that
could be better dealt with through consensual negotiations.
In addition, Mr. Gore in coming months is supposed to present to the
president a series of recommendations for regulatory reform on the
environment, health, food, financial institutions and worker safety.
(END) DOW JONES NEWS 02-22-95
6 00 AM
****
filed by: TAPE (--) on 02/22/95 at 06:27EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:27EST ****
bc-clinton - a1759
(ndy) (ATTN: National editors) (Includes optional trims)
Clinton Wants to Overhaul U.S. Regulation Process (Washn)
3y Martin Kasindorf= (c) 1995, Newsday=
WASHINGTON President Clinton Tuesday ordered a stepped-up overhaul of the
overnment's much-reviled regulation process, while blasting congressional
epublicans' reform bills as extreme ideas that could imperil health and
tymie federal rulemaking.
Declaring himself committed to changing how government sets and enforces
nvironmental, health and safety protections, Clinton commanded agency heads
) comb the 150, 000-page Code of Federal Regulations and send him a list of
needed rules by June 1. He also asked regulators to form grassroots
artnerships with business to negotiate rather than dictate and to stop
easuring inspectors by how many citations they write.
The president's actions bolstered an executive order he signed in November
993. It has produced streamlining in banking oversight and other areas.
Clinton, saying that government should not be a ''national nanny,''
ontrasted his ''common sense'' reforming approach with a proposed
cross-the-board freeze, for as much as 10 months, on all regulatory actions,
bonsored by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and scheduled for a
use vote Thursday.
Coming close to warning that he would veto the freeze if the House and
enate pass it, Clinton attacked other Republican House legislation that would
equire regulators to weigh risks, costs and benefits before making rules. The
ost-benefit requirements, contained in House Republicans' ''Contract With
herica, face a vote next week.
'`These are extreme proposals," Clinton told a White House audience of
ederal officials and people whose experiences the adminstration said
emonstrated the benefits of federal regulations. '`They go too far. They
ould cost lives and dollars.
small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get away with
1 outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection. But why bother if
ou can paralyze the government by process?''
A moratorium sounds good, Clinton said, but he gibed that the freeze would
en cancel the duck-hunting season because the Interior Department couldn't
et annual bird-kill limits.
(Optional add end)
On a more somber note, he singled out breast cancer survivor and activist
eri Barish of Baldwin, N.Y., who was invited to the event because she fears
at lengthy litigation could enmesh mammography standards.
Barish, who met with Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, said the
resident did not specifically threaten to veto the Republican measures,
'but I think he's pretty close 'cause he said, 'This is not going to
appen,' " she said.
Clinton's criticism incensed House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. ''His
iministration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to regulatory
form to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other issues, Gingrich
aid. Clinton's ''locked into sort of a left-wing, biggovernment approach.
Distributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service=
****
filed by: LAWP (--) on 02/22/95 at 03:33EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:17EST ****
bc-regulate - a1729
(ATTN: National editors) (Includes optional trims)
Clinton Vows to Veto GOP Plan to Freeze Federal Regulations (Washn)
By John M. Broder and Kelly Owen= (c) 1995, Los Angeles Times=
WASHINGTON President Clinton, in another attempt to put distance between
administration policy and the Republican legislative agenda, on Tuesday
portrayed a GOP proposal to freeze federal regulations as extreme' and implie
he will veto it if it reaches his desk.
Defending federal rules he said save lives and protect the environment,
Clinton said the Republican regulatory reform plan would jeopardize the publi
in order to shield narrow special interests from government oversight.
''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself,'
Clinton said before an audience of federal officials and a number of citizens
who have benefited from federal health and auto safety rules. '`They don't
want reform, they really want rigor mortis.'
The House is scheduled Wednesday to act on a measure contained in the GOP
'Contract With America'' that would impose an immediate moratorium on new
federal regulations and require federal agencies to perform a cost-benefit
analysis on all future federal rules.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., responded that Clinton was trying to
stymie the Republican agenda on crime, taxes, education and government reform
'`The president is locked into sort of a left-wing, big government approach
that we are convinced will not work, Gingrich said.
Although Clinton and his aides stopped short of an explicit threat to veto
the Republican reform bill, his language left little doubt that he considered
the regulatory moratorium irresponsible and would refuse to sign it if he
could do so without imperiling legislation he wants.
''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,
stop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars, stop final implementation of th
law that lets parents take a leave to care for a sick child. It would
undermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines,
Clinton said.
''These are extreme proposals. They go too far. They would cost lives and
dollars, he added.
(Optional add end)
Clinton said he has ordered all federal agencies to report by June 1 on
ways to eliminate or simplify burdensome regulations. Vice President Al Gore
is in charge of the effort, which is the second phase of the administration's
'reinventing government'' initiative.
Meanwhile, several architects of the nation's clean air and water laws
warned that the GOP regulatory approach would gut existing environmental laws
such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
The bill would require the government to determine whether a proposed
regulation's costs to government and private parties is ''reasonably related'
to its benefits, including health and safety. It would also place a cap on th
annual economic costs of all regulations.
**** filed by: LAWP (--) on 02/22/95 at 03:29EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:27EST ****
BC-CLINTON national: WA
Clinton threatens to veto GOP bill to block recent federal regulations
(HAS TRIM)
By Robert A. Rankin
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON President Clinton threatened Tuesday to veto a Republican bill
to temporarily stop all federal regulations, calling it an ''extreme'' measure
that would endanger public health and safety.
House Republicans plan to vote this week on a proposal in their ''Contract
with America'' that would put a hold on most regulations issued since Nov. 20
New regulations would have to pass extensive economic and scientific tests.
"These are extreme proposals. They go too far. They would cost lives and
dollars, Clinton told an audience of federal regulators, whom he gathered to
kick off his own drive to reform, but not repeal, the regulatory process.
The president used the event to contrast his philosophy of government with
that of the Republicans, who made opposition to big government a theme of
their successful campaign last fall to capture control of Congress.
Clinton's tactic increasingly is to suggest that while he and the GOP
share many broad goals such as cutting taxes or fighting crime the
Republicans are often radical extremists while he is a moderate, common-sense
reformer.
In that vein, the president conceded that the GOP call to freeze federal
regulations ''sounds good, but he insisted it would do great harm.
''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,
stop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars
It would undermine what
we' re trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines
Therefore to me
a moratorium is not acceptable, Clinton said.
Senior administration officials confirmed that was a direct veto threat,
much like Clinton's recent warning that he would veto the GOP effort to amend
last year's crime bill by deleting its promise to finance 100,000 more police
for the United States' streets. Republicans prefer giving crime-fighting fund
as no-strings-attached block grants to cities and states.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., lashed out at Clinton's new turn
toward partisan confrontation in remarks earlier Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
'`His administration is now actively opposing us, from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said. '`The president is locked into a sort of left-wing,
big-government approach that we are convinced will not work.
Clinton tried to deflect that kind of attack by stressing his zeal to
reform the way federal regulatory agencies work, even as he insisted that
effective regulation was still necessary to protect public health and safety.
He directed federal regulators to review every rule in their purview and
report back by June 1 on which ones were obsolete. Vice President Al Gore als
is to give Clinton a series of recommended reforms of regulations affecting
the environment, health, food, financial institutions and worker safety over
the next few months. Gore's ''Reinventing Government" campaign has focused O
overhauling regulations since December.
Gore said his goal was not only to chop out unnecessary regulations and
simplify the rest, but also to replace the ''adversarial culture'' that
typically characterizes regulators' attitudes toward private industry.
(EDITORS: NEXT 4 GRAFS OPTIONAL TRIM)
Gore hailed the U.S. Customs Service in Miami as an example of the kind of
'partnership'' that regulators should build with those they regulate. He rea
aloud from a letter written by Raul Pedraza, president of Eagle Companies,
praising Miami Customs officers for ``cutting mountains of red tape'' that
Pedraza said 'will save our company more than 8,300 man-hours in 1995.
In an interview Pedraza credited D. Lynn Gordon, director of the Miami
Customs office, for cooperating with trade-oriented business leaders in South
Florida.
'Customs is really listening to the trade community now, trying to
eliminate unnecessary procedures and rules, Pedraza said.
Gordon, the Miami Customs director, said she feared the GOP moratorium
could block her from modernizing procedures further.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
Clinton said Washington regulators too often act as the ''national nanny''
and ''drive people crazy'' with excessive rules.
'We all know the regulatory system needs repair, the president said,
vowing reforms.
Nevertheless, Clinton stressed that federal health and safety regulations
also had helped achieve much that is good. Over the past 30 years, he said,
toxic factory emissions have dropped more than 50 percent, lead levels in
children's blood have dropped 70 percent, Lake Erie's once-dead waters now
teem with fish, and workplace deaths have been cut in half.
''These protections are still needed, Clinton said. ''There's not too
little consumer fraud. Toys are not too safe. The environment is still not
able to protect itself.
**** filed by: KR-F (--) on 02/21/95 at 18:44EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:19EST ****
February 22, 1995
Radio Interviews
REGULATORY REFORM INITIATIVE
Diane Clodfelter (Bazine, KS)
1.
Kansas Information Network
2.
KZLS, Great Bend, KS
Rainer Mueller (Oceanside, CA)
1.
The Michael Jackson Show, KABC, Los Angeles
2.
KNX, Los Angeles
3.
KFMB, San Diego
4.
KSDO, San Diego
Rob Gorman (Houma, LA)
1.
Louisiana Network
2.
KTIB, Thibodaux, LA
Dr. Robert Morris (Milwaukee, WI)
1.
Wisconsin Radio Network
2.
WISN, Milwaukee
William Hines, Michael Hines
1.
Virginia News Network
Geri Barish
1.
WCBS, New York City LIVE
2.
Alan Colmes Show, Nationally syndicated LIVE
3.
Ellen Ratrner, Nationally syndicated LIVE
4.
Joan Hamburg Show, WOR, New York LIVE
PM-Clinton Regulations, 1st Ld-Writethru, a0557, 320
Clinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations
EDs: INSERTS new 5th graf, Elaine Kamarck
to
UPDATE
with
veto
suggestion
By TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=
WASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for
a moratorium on new government regulations, saying ''they go too far'' and
would endanger public health.
''These are extreme proposals,' the president said. '`They would cost
lives and dollars.
The target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP proposal scheduled for a vote
in the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government
regulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of
new regulations.
Clinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks
federal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that
protects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to
commercial fishermen.'
Elaine Kamarck, the White House official heading up the White House drive
to streamline the government, suggested afterward that Clinton would veto the
GOP bill if it's not changed. ''In its current form, it's not acceptable,'
she said.
His remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast
with the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has
drawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.
''His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said. "The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,
big government approach that we are convinced will not work.'
Proposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal
regulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.
The president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the
country of regulators and the people affected by their rules.
While saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, "Protections are still
needed. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the
environment is still not able to protect itself.
' 'Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.
They don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.
**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 14:02EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****
BC-CLINTON REGULATION 1STLD
Clinton asks some rules scrapped but rejects freeze
(Corrects length of moratorium in 7th graf)
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Tuesday set a June 1 deadline for
scrapping unneeded federal regulations but said a Republican effort to freeze
all rulemaking would paralyze the government.
Clinton, appearing with Vice President Al Gore before an assembly of
government regulators, said he did not want the government to be the
''national nanny. He said he favored throwing out rules, even entire
agencies, that are obsolete, but he said, ''We shouldn't go too far.
Clinton said government regulation had saved lives through dramatic
improvements in public health and worker safety and he opposed ''extreme''
Republican proposals to stop all rulemaking. ''I am convinced a moratorium
would hurt the broad interests of the American people, he said. ''A
moratorium is not acceptable.
''A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get
away with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection,'
Clinton said. ''But why bother if you can paralyze the government by
process?''
The White House aranged the event to let Clinton show he too favored
regulatory reform while declaring his opposition to the Republican proposals
now working their way through the House. But the president stopped short of a
veto threat.
As part of their domestic policy agenda, the Republican majority on
Capitol Hill wants to impose a regulatory moratorium, a move that would end a
wide range of government action from investigating the tobacco industry to
regulating seafood and meat. A vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected
in the House this week.
If passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, it would last
until Dec. 31, by which time the Republicans in Congress want to pass
permanent regulatory reform.
The Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk
assessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and
require compensation of private property holders when regulations have the
effect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.
Emphasizing that he, like the Republicans, wanted reform, Clinton asked
federal agencies to come up with a list of rules that can be discarded by June
1. He also asked federal regulators to look for rulemaking that can be
''negotiated'' with the public; to start measuring their own performance by
successes, not how many punishments they mete out to the public; and to meet
with people affected by their rules.
Clinton said as governor of Arkansas he used to eliminate agencies just
''to see if anybody would notice. Normally, he said, no one did. But he said
federal regulations were responsible for cutting auto fatalities, making meat,
poultry and drugs safer and helping to rid the environment of toxic pollutants
such as lead.
In a swipe at Republicans, Clinton said their ''Contract with America''
legislative agenda also had the effect of piling new regulations on
government. '`The Contract with America, literally read, would pile SO many
new requirements on government that nothing would ever get done,' he said.
REUTER
**** filed by: RB (--) on 02/21/95 at 16:33EST ****
**** printed by WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****
BC-REGULATE national TB
Clinton threatens to veto GOP proposal to freeze recent federal regulations
By Holly E. Stepp
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON President Clinton on Tuesday threatened to veto a Republican
proposal that would freeze all federal regulations issued since last November.
Clinton called the measure ''extreme'' and said it would jeopardize the
health and safety of Americans and cause economic harm. 'They go too far,
he said of the effects of the regulation freeze. '`They would cost lives and
dollars.
Clinton's opposition to the GOP proposal, contained in a House bill set
for a vote on Thursday, fits a recent pattern of more active presidential
challenges to the new Republican majority in Congress.
'We have to recognize that, done right, regulation gives our children
safer toys and food, protects our workers from injury, protects families from
pollution; and that when we fail, it can have diastrous consequences,
Clinton said at a news conference.
Republican supporters of the bill, which would place a moratorium on all
regulatory policy enacted between Nov. 20, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1995, say the
bill exempts necessary regulations, such as those for health and safety.
Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., one of the sponsors of the bill, said he was
confident the measure would pass despite Clinton's objections. ' 'We are not
going to attack regulations that provide for the health and safety of
Americans or those that help business in the (foreign) trade markets, he
said.
McIntosh also said the bill would target regulations that add more paper
work to business and do little to meet the goals of the rule.
Despite McIntosh's assurances, Democrats said the GOP exemptions for
health and safety regulations are insufficient. Any new regulations would be
subject to economic and scientific tests that would be too difficult to meet,
they say.
Clinton cited examples of people who would benefit from tougher health and
safety regulations that he said would be threatened by the freeze.
''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,
stop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars,'' the president said. ''It would
undermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines.
In addition, the administration said that some communities would lose
revenue and businesses would not be protected in international markets.
A hallmark of the Clinton administration, the Family and Medical Leave
Act, also may be affected by the proposed moratorium, the White House said.
Regulations carrying out the act were approved in January and take effect in
April.
The law provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a birth of a child, adoption
or to care for a seriously ill relative.
Rep. Cardiss Collins, D-Ill who has pushed for stronger food-safety
regulations, said in a statement that the proposed GOP regulatory freeze seems
to put a higher priority on property than human life.
'`The regulations that could be affected by this moratorium are designed
to provide for the safety of Americans, Collins said.
Clinton's opposition to the bill came as he unveiled new administration
efforts to overhaul and downsize the federal government.
The president called for a review of all federal rules and regulations by
June 1, 1995, to identify those that are obsolete. Vice President Al Gore is
in charge of the ''Reinventing Government" campaign, which has been reviewing
regulations for several months
**** filed by: (--) on 02/21/95 at 21:03EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:18EST ****
PAGE
}
LEVEL 1 - 23 OF 36 STORIES
Copyright 1995 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
February 14, 1995, Tuesday, THREE STAR Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 671 words
HEADLINE: BOND TRYING TO DRAIN DRINKING WATER RULES
BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Terry Ganey, chief of the
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau, contributed information for this article.
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
When Congress moves to the topic of safe drinking water, Sen. Christopher S.
Bond, R-Mo., wants a new law enacted with fewer requirements on local
governments to test for contamination.
Bond, co-chairman of the Senate Regulatory Relief Task Force, argued an
Monday that the nation's Safe Drinking Water Act had grown too costly for cities
and towns to enforce.
The law, Bond said, has become "a symbol of the growing frustration over
prescriptive, often arbitrary federal regulations imposed on communities without
sufficient funds to finance them."
In a letter to Sen. John H. Chafee, R-R.I., chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Bond and nine of the 15 members of his task force
spelled out requirements they want in a new drinking water law:
More analyses of costs of regulations and their public health benefits.
New and 1255 rigorous schedules for monitoring water.
An end to testing deemed unnecessary and more time to comply with federal
rules.
Bond urged "bold reforms" in the drinking water law while Republicans have
the opportunity. He observed in the letter to Chafee that his regulatory task
force had identified drinking water rules among the 10 most excessive sets of
regulations in the country.
Many of the nation's environmental laws could be weakened if Congress
succeeds this year in a broad effort to trim the frequency and the reach of
federal regulations. In addition, Congress plans to redraw a handful of specific
laws, the First being the 21-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Democratic-held Senate and the House each passed bills last year that
would have softened the burdens on local governments to monitor for
contam mants. Senate and House leaders nevel reached agreement in precisely what
to do, SO federal drinking water regulations remain the same.
EX.S.NEXIS
LEX.S.NEXIS
LEXIS·NEXIS®
PAGE
2
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 14, 1995
Local officials complain especially about water monitoring costs under an
Environmental Protection Agency schedule that requires checking for 25
contaminants every three years beyond those contaminants sought in regular
checks. This rigorous testing schedule was ordered by Congress in 1986 because
50 many localities were ignoring federal rules.
Many public health advocates concede that the time has come to move to a
system in which cities and towns spend their money looking for the riskiest
contaminants. But they worry that the anti-regulatory climate in Congress is
such that health will De threatened.
Dr. Robert Morris of Milwaukee, a member of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, observed on Monday that performing studies of the costs and
benefits of safe water regulations was not SO easy as Bond and others suggested.
"The benefits of safe drinking water involve sickness that doesn't happen,
and it's hard to quantify something that doesn't happen. You only see problems
after you remove the safeguards," said Morris, who is an epidemiologist at the
Medical College of Wisconsin.
Health and environmental advocates point to the dangers of relaxing water
standards. The drinking water problems in Milwaukee that killed 104 people in
1993 is one of many serious outbreaks of contamination, they said.
Two towns in Missouri have been struck by fatal outbreaks of contamination
since 1989, according to a list compiled by the Physicians for Social
Responsibility and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In Gideon in 1993, salmonella in drinking water is Delieved to have been
responsible for the deaths of four people and the illnesses of 486. In Cabool in
1989, four people died and and 243 became ill from contamination.
Erik Olson, a spakesman in Washington for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, argued that the approach offered by Bond "would add new layers of
bureaucracy and red tape that would roll back or weaken current protections."
Catherine Kaliniak, a spokeswoman for Bond, asserted that rather than trying
to relax the law, "we're looking to find a balance. (Bond) is concerned like
everyone else about having safe and uncontaminated water."
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE-MDC: February 15, 1995
LEXIS
NEXIS
LEXIS-NEXIS
LEXIS·NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central Inc
BC-Clinton-Launches-Program-to-Eliminate
Clinton Launches Program to Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations
Washington, Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton launched
a second search for unnecessary government regulations while warning against
Republican proposals that he said would "gut" consumer, worker, and
environmental protections.
Clinton said the administration will spend the next few months finding
ways to improve regulations governing financial institutions, the environment,
health, food, and worker safety and to cut unnecessary rules. He set a June 1
deadline for submitting reviews of federal regulations to him.
Vice President Al Gore, who oversaw the administration's first round of
government overhaul, will be in charge of the project.
Clinton, however, warned against a House Republican proposal to place a
moratorium on creating new government regulations.
"It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between
regulations, he said at the Old Executive Office Building. ''It would even
cancel the duck hunting season.
Duck hunting regulations are rewritten every year by the federal
government.
The administration argues that the Republican proposal would hurt the
middle class while helping business interests.
'We cannot strip away safeguards for families," he said.
Clinton and Gore outlined areas where regulations had been streamlined by
the administration to the benefit of businesses. Among them, for example, were
reducing limitations on exports.
Today, Clinton called on government regulators to:
--Check rules to see if they are obsolete and whether they could be better
enforced by state and local governments.
--Negotiate solutions with people who would be subject to a regulation
rather than dictate a new rule.
'We have to move beyond the point where Washington is a sort of national
nanny, Clinton said. ''We want a system that will reward results, not red
tape. --Paul Heldman at the White House (202) 434-1884 /ba
(Story illustration: for a graph of the federal budget deficit: FDBEST
Index GP and change the ending range date to 12/31/99. See story: NI EXE; on
Congress: NI CNG) 13:45 -0- (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:45 EOS (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:46 86
**** filed by: BB-F(--) on 02/21/95 at 13:58EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****
_10
Daily Comet. Lafourche Parish, La./ Wednesday, February 22, 1995 3A
Contract reforms harmful
By A.B. Stoddard
bags in automobile accidents,
ernment would pay when it "took"
States News Service
Clinton said "let's not forget them
more than 50 percent of a piece of
WASHINGTON - Regulatory re-
as we cut red tape."
private land
form now propased in the House
Clinton said the proposed mor-
While other more conservative
GOP "Contract with America,"
atorium on new federal regulations,
members of Congress are pushing
could harm public health and safety
that passed a House subcommittee
for a trigger 25 low as 10 percent,
by rolling back crucial regulations,
last week. is unacceptable. "It
Tauzin has argued that one lower
President Clinton said Tuesday.
sounds good but it's no judgement."
than 50 percent is not likely to pass
"They don't want reform, they
he said.
really want rigormortis," Clinton
Rob Gorman of Houma travelled
Gorman, who is the assistant
said of Republicans at 8 White
to Washington to appear at the
director of Catholic Social Services
House event, adding that the pro-
event because he said the "Lakings"
at the diocese of Houma-Thibodaux
posals would "cost lives and dol-
provision in the regulatory reform
was in Washington representing the
lars."
package would threaten jobs.
Coalition to Restore Coastal
Regulatory relief legislation now
homes and health in Louisiana.
Louisiana He said the reform plan
being considered in the House
Rep. Billy Tauzin, D-La., has
would require increased taxes to
would place a moratorium on all
gained substantial support for pri-
fund compensation for "takings,"
new regulations, while requiring
vate property rights legislation he
that would "effectively kill coastal
cost-benefit analysis and risk as-
bas reintroduced in this Congress
restoration."
sessment for future does.
that is included in the Contract.
"Mam and Pop are going to pay
While supporting the concept of
Under the provisions of Tauzin's
through the nose on this bill." said
regulatory reform. the White House
Private Property Owners Bill of
Gorman, adding that the GOP pro-
is attempting to distinguish itself
Rights. which applies to the federal
posals are radical and fail to meet
from Republican leaders in Con-
wellands policy and the Endan-
the most important needs of Amer-
gress who have introduced broad
gered Species Act, the federal gov.
icans.
regulatory relief legislation. Tout.
ing the efforts of the Reinventing
Government initiative his adminis-
TIRED LIVING WITH BACK PAIN?
tration began in 1992, Clinton said
NECK PAIN? HEADACHES?
he wants reform that will bring
common sense back to the regu-
NUMBNESS? SHOULDER/
lation culture of Washington.
At a press briefing with Vice
ARM OR LEG PAIN?
President Al Gare, Clinton in-
troduced several "real people' on
If So, It's Time To See
whose behalf the federal govern-
If A Chiropractor
ment has acted. or might have
Can Help!
acted.
Citing the examples of those peo-
Call Today! 447-2630
ple whose lives were saved by air.
CHIROPRACTOR
5048767751
P.04
FEB-23-1995 23:24
Reforms called threat to water quality
Regulatory changes may increase danger of Cryptosporidium, doctor says
By KAREN e COHEN
pleaning," sald MO:TIS. who was
they are outdated.
People lent to :ske manchted
*In Milwaukee, in particular.
313188 News Service
Involved in research during the
Many environme loar
SENSTY incastres IS alvens, Monts
we will meet 1. tougher standard
1992 outbresk that sickened
the b... would reuter measures
spld.
than the EPA TN matter WHAT
Washington, D.C. - If House
thousands and Is blained 127 at
BEEN E3 the
health and the E:1-
they do,° Norquist said. 'WE have
Republicans past their regulatory
least 100 deaths.
Clean Water,
reforms, it could strongle efforts
vircoment has to be a govern-
oarned use hard way federal and
The mezage the people who
Clean Air and
most responsibility, said Morris
state resulations were not strong
to contain future Cryptospori-
dlum outbreaks 9 Milwaukee
are drafting tis logislation P.C
Endangered
whose specialty focuses on the
enough."
sending to Milwa:kee :2 that this
Species Acts.
origin and patiern of Infections
The trouble with sweeping
doctor sald Tuesday.
is sometow coceptable," he said.
Labor groups
diseases.
regulatory referr. is that il pre-
Robert Morris. an epidemic.
are concerned
The tublic MEY not realize
tends there a a magic solution
gist at the Medical College of
The House is preparing to vote
Milwaukee Sentinel
about work.
the while E regulatory freeze
and there is not, said Norquist.
Wisconsin, joined President Clin-
this weak on a measure that
place cond:
and analysis sound
Getting (Id of bad regulations
tor. at the White House to watn
would tent corrilly 1.0022 all new
Licns. and con-
200d. their Imp ementation could
takes effort, he sold, citize the
Congress to go slow on registration
federal regulations, plus make its
sumer groups
:0 hurd
work of Rep. Gorald Kleczka (D:
ry.reform.
Government weigh the costs Y9.
morry the bill
the benefits of health, Refery and
For example, doing a cost-ben-
V/is.) In getting rales changed to
Morris said, that under the Re-
would ailow
efft analysis could CBP crying CO-
allow elderly-coly public hous-
publican proposal. the Environ-
other regulations.
harmful prid-
const how many people will die
Ing.
mental Protection Agency's plans,
At the White House, Clinton
ucts Into the Norquist
withion aregilation
Republicing could, be In for 6
to research and gather deir on.
criticized the plan, saying Ameri-
market-lace.
"The only WEY to do accu-
surprise 11 they Chink Amoricans
Crypresportdlum could be In icop-
CETS would pay for It with both
Joining Mor.is at the White
rately is 10 no: put the regula-
want. clean water regulations
ardy.
lives and dollars. Instead, Clintor.
House were people from around
dons In place and court the nunt-
rolled back, he added
"That would lest 16 killed Ln-
said he would order agencies D
the nation who WO.D helped av
ber of people 44.10 get rich and
a Is important for the Ameri-
der WhE: the Republic are
re-examine regulations to see If
dederal regulations
die. And that is not what 1 want,*
CC:1 people 30 have some confi-
he stid,
dener In he water supply
But LAilwanke Mayor John C.
throughout the country," Nor-
Norquist sald that no motter
quist sald ": think It is all area
what Congress does, the water in
where the Republicans may find
2/22/95
MILWE kee will remain under
the doing annething Is very un.
scrutiny
pepular."
Clinton questions GOP regulatory reforms
By KENNETH R. BAZINET=
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) Strongly suggesting he is prepared to veto
Republican legislation to freeze federal regulations, President Clinton said
Tuesday the GOP proposals would hurt consumers, workers, the environment and
business, while only protecting special interests.
''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself.
They don't want reform, they really want rigor mortis, Clinton said.
The House is expected to consider the moratorium on federal ragulations
later this week.
''If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, to me a moratorium is not acceptable," Clinton
said, suggesting he would veto the measure if it is approved.
The president lashed out at the GOP while announcing his own series of
steps aimed at reforming government regulations to better protect the health
and safety of people while cutting wasteful or overly burdensome rules that
stiffle American business.
''Some in Congress are pushing a collection of proposals that, taken
together, would bring federal protection of public health and safety to
a halt,' he said.
To help make his case, Clinton had with him but did not introduce several
citizens who said demonstrate the need for certain regulations.
'There's a father in this audience whose son died from E. coli bacteria
in food that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had been in
effect when his son ate the contaminated food, Clinton said.
''There are people here whose lives were saved by airbags There's a
woman here who is a breast cancer survivor who lost a child to cancer, who
lives in an area unusually high in the density of people who suffer from
cancer.
In addition to the House Republican's regulatory legislation, Sen. William
Roth, R-Del., has proposed a bill that would require a cost- benefit analysis
and a detailed regulatory analysis for any new rule costing more than $100
million. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole has proposed a similar bill that
would set the level at $50 million.
Meanwhile, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who oversees the
administration's effort to reinvent government, ordered the following steps
to be taken immediately:
Regulators must conduct by June 1 a page-by-page review of rules to
determine which are obsolete.
Regulators must develop ways judge performance by results in this case
the ability to improve health and safety.
Regulators must convene relevant experts and citizens to guide them in
making decisions on what works and what doesn't.
Gore will conduct a review of all of the above and submit a series of
regulatory reform proposals in the coming months.
''I still believe that, working together with Congress, we can achieve
real and balanced regulatory reform, but we shouldn't go too far,'' Clinton
said.
****
filed by: UPI- (us) on 02/21/95 at 15:33EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:36EST ****
BC-CLINTON REGULATION
Clinton asks some rules scrapped but rejects freeze
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Tuesday set a June 1 deadline for
scrapping unneeded federal regulations but said a Republican effort to freeze
all rulemaking would paralyze the government.
Clinton, appearing with Vice President Al Gore before an assembly of
government regulators, said he did not want the government to be the
'national nanny He said he favored throwing out rules, even entire
agencies, that are obsolete, but he said, ''We shouldn't go too far.
Clinton said government regulation had saved lives through dramatic
improvements in public health and worker safety and he opposed ''extreme''
Republican proposals to stop all rulemaking. ''I am convinced a moratorium
would hurt the broad interests of the American people, he said. ''A
moratorium is not acceptable.
''A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get
away with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection,'
Clinton said. ''But why bother if you can paralyze the government by
process?''
The White House aranged the event to let Clinton show he too favored
regulatory reform while declaring his opposition to the Republican proposals
now working their way through the House. But the president stopped short of a
veto threat.
As part of their domestic policy agenda, the Republican majority on
Capitol Hill wants to impose a regulatory moratorium, a move that would end a
wide range of government action from investigating the tobacco industry to
regulating seafood and meat. A vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected
in the House this week.
If passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, it would last
indefinitely, or until Congress passes permanent regulatory reform.
The Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk
assessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and
require compensation of private property holders when regulations have the
effect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.
Emphasizing that he, like the Republicans, wanted reform, Clinton asked
federal agencies to come up with a list of rules that can be discarded by June
1. He also asked federal regulators to look for rulemaking that can be
`negotiated'' with the public; to start measuring their own performance by
successes, not how many punishments they mete out to the public; and to meet
with people affected by their rules.
Clinton said as governor of Arkansas he used to eliminate agencies just
''tó see if anybody would notice. Normally, he said, no one did. But he said
federal regulations were responsible for cutting auto fatalities, making meat,
poultry and drugs safer and helping to rid the environment of toxic pollutants
such as lead.
In a swipe at Republicans; Clinton said their ''Contract with America''
legislative agenda also had the effect of piling new regulations on
government. '`The Contract with America, literally read, would pile so many
new requirements on government that nothing would ever get done, he said.
REUTER
**** filed by: RB (--) on 02/21/95 at 15:21EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:36EST ****
PM-Clinton Regulations, 1st Ld-Writethru, a0557, 320
Clinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations
EDs: INSERTS new 5th graf, Elaine Kamarck
to
UPDATE
with
veto
suggestion
By TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=
WASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for
a moratorium on new government regulations, saying 'they ,go too far' and
would endanger public health.
'`These are extreme proposals, the president said. '`They would cost
lives and dollars.
The target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP. proposal scheduled for a vote
in the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government
regulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of
new regulations.
Clinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks
federal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that
protects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to
commercial fishermen.'
Elaine Kamarck, the White House official heading up the White House drive
to streamline the government, suggested afterward that Clinton would veto the
GOP bill if it's not changed. ''In its current form, it's not acceptable, ,
she said.
His remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast
with the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has
drawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.
''His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said. '`The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,
big government approach that we are convinced will not work.''
Proposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal
regulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.
The president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the
country of regulators and the people affected by their rules.
While saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, "Protections are still
needed. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the
environment is still not able to protect itself.
''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.
They don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.
**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 14:02EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:05EST ****
PM-Clinton Regulations, 320
Clinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations
EDs: Includes Gingrich comments from PM-Gingrich-Clinton
By TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=
WASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for
a moratorium on new government regulations, saying 'they go too far'' and
would endanger public health.
''These are extreme proposals, the president said. ''They would cost
lives and dollars.
The target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP proposal scheduled for a vote
in the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government
regulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of
new regulations.
Clinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks
federal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that
protects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to
commercial fishermen.
His remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast
with the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has
drawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.
'`His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to
regulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other
issues, Gingrich said. "The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,
big government approach that we are convinced will not work.
Proposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal
regulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.
The president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the
country of regulators and the people affected by their rules.
While saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, "'Protections are still
needed. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the
environment is still not able to protect itself.
''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,
worker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.
They don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.
**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 13:41EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:04EST ****
BC-Clinton-Launches-Program-to-Eliminate
Clinton Launches Program to Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations
Washington, Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton launched
a second search for unnecessary government regulations while warning against
Republican proposals that he said would "gut" consumer, worker, and
environmental protections.
Clinton said the administration will spend the next few months finding
ways to improve regulations governing financial institutions, the environment,
health, food, and worker safety and to cut unnecessary rules. He set a June 1
deadline for submitting reviews of federal regulations to him.
Vice President Al Gore, who oversaw the administration's first round of
government overhaul, will be in charge of the project.
Clinton, however, warned against a House Republican proposal to place a
moratorium on creating new government regulations.
''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between
regulations, he said at the Old Executive Office Building. "It would even
cancel the duck hunting season.
Duck hunting regulations are rewritten every year by the federal
government.
The administration argues that the Republican proposal would hurt the
middle class while helping business interests.
' 'We cannot strip away safeguards for families, he said.
Clinton and Gore outlined areas where regulations had been streamlined by
the administration to the benefit of businesses. Among them, for example, were
reducing limitations on exports.
Today, Clinton called on government regulators to:
Check rules to see if they are obsolete and whether they could be better
enforced by state and local governments.
--Negotiate solutions with people who would be subject to a regulation
rather than dictate a new rule.
' 'We have to move beyond the point where Washington is a sort of national
nanny, Clinton said. ' 'We want a system that will reward results, not red
tape --Paul Heldman at the White House (202) 434-1884 /ba
(Story illustration: for a graph of the federal budget deficit: FDBEST
Index GP and change the ending range date to 12/31/99. See story: NI EXE; on
Congress: NI CNG) 13:45 -0- (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:45 EOS (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:46 86
**** filed by: BB-F (--) on 02/21/95 at 13:58EST ****
**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:04EST ****
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mica-Chapman Plan Would Target Existing Regulations
As the House leadership prepares to move regulatory reform
bills to the floor next week, Reps. John Mica, R-Fla., and Jim
Chapman, D-Texas, are preparing an amendment targeting existing
rules that would require agencies to review all existing federal
legislation. The proposal, drawn from legislation previously
introduced by Chapman, would put a seven-year sunset on all
existing rules unless they are reviewed and continued by the
agencies, and would require each new federal rule to undergo a
sunset review after three years. The House Commerce Committee's
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis legislation already has
a provision to get at existing rules -- a petition process to
allow for reopening of rules likely to fail to meet the bill's
new tests. But an aide to Mica said the amendment would be
broader in scope and put the onus on government, rather than on
business, to review the regulations.
On a related matter, Rep. James Hayes, D-La., today suggested
the fast pace of action on property takings and risk and cost-
benefit bills to meet the 100-day "Contract with America"
deadline threatened to result in legislation with "drafting
errors, and unintended "poor choices.' The House will be
abdicating its legislative responsibility to the Senate, he
argued, which will then become the forum for writing laws. While
supporting in principle the risk-cost benefit bill, Hayes
questioned its details, arguing, "Nothing works across the
board. He gave as an example a bill requiring a risk analysis
before issuing water permits. "That's idiotic for that program,"
he said. Asked about Hayes' concern, an aide to Rep. Lamar Smith,
R-Texas, a proponent of the contract's takings provision, said
there is a desire to move carefully, but that the House is moving
rapidly because 2.0 years of abuse by regulators has been largely
ignored.
Meanwhile, as property rights provisions move toward a markup
in the House Judiciary Committee, House aides said discussion is
ongoing about whether the current 10 percent trigger-level will
be modified. Under the existing bill, property owners would have
to be compensated if federal regulation reduced private property
values by 10 percent or more. There is strong debate even among
property rights groups and proponents of compensation measures
over whether that number is too low. There is work under way to
revise the legislation so it is pay-go neutral, aides said. One
option, sources said, is to take spending for compensation out of
an agency's budget. The goal, according to the Smith aide, is "to
reduce the amount the government regulates," rather than to pay
people for speculative uses of the land.
The Congress Daily --- Monday --- February 14, 1995
Date: 02/15/95 Time: 11:05
Gingrich Predicts 'Real Brawl' In Litigation Reform Battle
WASHINGTON (AP) The House faces a real brawl' in the next
two months as trial lawyers try to block a Republican move to limit
damages in lawsuits, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today.
''I believe this is going to be the biggest fight of the next 60
days, Gingrich told a group of insurance executives this morning
at a Washington hotel. ''It's the one I'm most worried about
losing, frankly."
Gingrich was referring to the impending House debate over the
provision of the Republican 'Contract With America'' that would
impose limits on lawsuits, particularly on the damages that can be
awarded.
The original contract proposal would limit punitive damages in
lawsuits, and let judges order losers to pay both sides' litigation
costs. Businesses, complaining they are victims of frivolous and
costly lawsuits, urged House leaders to include the provision in
their legislative blueprint.
The proposal threatens a major revenue source for trial lawyers.
Gingrich specifically attacked the American Bar Association for
fighting the legislation "to defend their right to gouge the
country. He said lobbies for the lawyers are planning to spend
$20 million to fight the bill and to threaten lawmakers who support
it.
'This is going to be real brawl and I'll just tell you flatly,
everybody who's griped about too many lawsuits, you'd better be
prepared to throw every ounce of your muscle into this fight
because they will," Gingrich said. ''They're going to run every
ad, they're going to pull out every stop, they're going to use
every trick, they're going to make every threat to every member.
Specifically, Gingrich said the lawyers' lobby will tell members
it will field and finance primary and general election candidates
against members who support litigation reform.
''That's how bad it's going to be. It's going to be
unbelievable, bitter, in the trenches, just fighting it out, he
said.
A spokesperson for the American Bar Association did not
immediately return a call seeking comment.
The legislation is working its way through committee. So far,
other provisions of the ''Contract''' that have come up for a House
vote have passed.
On Tuesday, the 'Common Sense Legal Reform'' bill, a plank of
the ''Contract, emerged from the House telecommunication and
finance subcommittee after a lengthy and technical session in which
Democrats unsuccessfully attempted to modify the bill.
The bill, reflecting a compromise announced last week, now goes
to the House Commerce Committee, where it is scheduled for a vote
Thursday.
The legislation would amend the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to
raise the standard for private investors to sue in securities fraud
cases. It would impose a modified ''loser pays'' rule which would
permit judges, in cases where a securities fraud lawsuit was deemed
without merit, to have the plaintiff pay the winning side's legal
fees and expenses.
APNP-02-15-95 1108EST
possible now that the House has voted it down? It doesn't look
good, but the bottom line is Senator Gramm may try to go ahead and
get a vote on it. Gramm may use the vote to gauge support for a
change in Senate rules, according to the aide. "There may be an
effort down the road to come back and look at this. The House
already kind of did the 3/5, you see, when they voted on a rule
change on the first day.
They didn't do it in the
constitutional amendment, but they did do it in the rule change."
Added the source: "It's not just a symbolic vote; it's also seeing
if there's any support for a rule change to lock this into law.
Perry testifies against national security bill. Defense Secretary
William Perry offered the House National Security Committee sharp
criticism of the National Security Revitalization Act, H.R. 7,
today. "I find it disturbing on several counts, not the least of
which is the assertion at the front end of this H.R. 7 that we have
a hollow force, which is not only wrong but I think is a dangerous
statement, misleads the American people, and it may confuse
potential aggressors of the United States." Perry also objected to
the bill's call for an independent oversight commission. "You are
my commission," he told the committee. "I don't need an independent
commission interposing itself between myself and you, and you do not
need an independent commission interposing itself."
White House believes public was more supportive of State of the
Union than the press. "The speech proved to be highly effective,"
argued a White House official this morning. "We are seeing public
opinion data from polls and focus groups indicating that from every
perspective the public thought the speech was a success. The
official added that "all of the President's numbers went up across
the board" and "we're pleased" with the results. Asked why the
press reports and columnists' commentary reported a different
result, the official commented: "It always helps to have the people
who interpret the presidency for the public to be on your side, but
it helps more to have the people on your side. And there is a
disjunction between the press reaction the public reaction."
Concluded the official: "It just shows the quality of the speech
was being evaluated on very different terms by the people, as
opposed to the press, and if you have to choose, we will take the
public reaction anytime."
Both sides in regulatory relief battle gearing up. Advocates and
opponents of "Contract With America" inspired regulatory reform
legislation that is brewing in Congress are gearing up for a
lobbying donnybrook. At issue are proposals in Congress to place a
moratorium on regulations that were proposed by the Clinton
Administration after November 9th and two elements of the Contract
With America that would impose a cap on Federal Government
regulatory activities and make it harder to promulgate future
regulations by requiring the government to compensate private
property holders whose property values diminish greater than 10
percent as a result of government regulation.
Project Relief, a group formed to support the congressional
Republicans' regulatory reform agenda, is unlike past broad-based
business coalitions on regulatory issues in that its membership also
includes representatives of think tanks such as the Heritage
Foundation and conservative organizations such as the Christian
Coalition and Concerned Women for America. According to sources in
the Project Relief coalition, Citizens For a Sound Economy (CSE)
will head up the coalition's communications effort. CSE, a
Washington-based advocacy group headed by former White House Counsel
Boyden Gray, is already running advertisements on local radio
stations decrying an incident where a worker who "jumped into a
collapsing ditch to rescue his buddy" was fined by the government.
A second ad criticizes the Food and Drug Administration's rules
which "prohibit" an aspirin maker from discussing the ability of its
product to prevent a second heart attack. The Competitive
Enterprise Institute, another conservative organization, is running
a similar ad attacking "delays" in FDA approval processes for new
drugs. CSE spokesman Brent Bahler told the Bulletin that in 1994,
his organization spent $10 million on its advocacy efforts, and this
year will spend an equivalent total amount on such priority issues
as regulatory relief, tort reform, welfare reform and advocacy of a
flat tax. CSE has already conducted focus groups and polling to
fine tune its message and is expected to continue tapping an
effective grass roots network to help pressure Congress. According
to Bahler, one of the major targets of the CSE communications
efforts to spotlight examples of regulatory overkill will be the
Food and Drug Administration, which they accuse of restricting the
ability of drug manufacturers to discuss the secondary benefits of
their products, attempting to impose "unnecessary" user fees on
manufacturers of medical devices and imposing a $350 million
regulatory burden on the producers of new drugs. Another target of
this campaign will be a new FDA building being constructed in
Clarksburgh, Maryland, whose cost CSE says has escalated well beyond
a projected $600 million to over $1 billion. FDA spokesman Jim
O'Hara told the Bulletin that the cost of the building will be
around $800 million and that the project has been thoroughly
reviewed and approved by Congress.
Meanwhile, there are indications that the regulatory relief
effort will move at an increased pace. According to Bruce Gates
head of Project Relief, "The Senate is moving a pace on regulatory
reform. There is some indication we may be settling on moving the
big reform package soon. Senator Dole is close to finalizing his
package and the House is moving on its package, so we could be in
the thick of it in the next few weeks. Gates added, "We may be the
victim of our own success in getting the reform agenda energized.
If we move sooner on the larger agenda it may eclipse the moratorium
effort."
Opponents of the Republicans' regulatory relief agenda are also
organizing around a new coalition, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards
(CSS). According to Gary Bass of OMB Watch, one of the main
organizers of CSS, the coalition of some 200 labor, environmental,
civil rights, disability, education, health, consumer and religious
groups (American Jewish Committee and various Protestant lay
organizations) is "the broadest based coalition I've ever seen."
Bass said he prefers to think of CSS's task as not turning the issue
into one of "liberals and conservatives" but instead to break it
down "to a David versus Goliath, meaning individuals versus the
powerful special interests." Bass said initially CSS will focus on
direct lobbying of members of Congress and grass roots lobbying. He
said a coalition television and radio strategy has yet to be
determined and claimed CSS will be vastly outspent by Project
Relief. One of CSS's first actions will be to present at a yet to
be scheduled press conference people who will dramatize the
regulatory issue. "There will be a woman from Chicago whose child
died from food poisoning, a worker who lost an arm in an industrial
accident," said Bass. "It wasn't hard to find people at all."
Meanwhile, the Administration has been slow to get directly
involved in the regulatory battle. President Clinton told the
Congress in the State of the Union Address, "I applaud your desire
to get rid of costly and unnecessary regulations, but when we
deregulate, let's remember what national action in the national
interest has given us: safer food for our families, safer toys for
our children, safer nursing homes for our parents, safer cars and
highways, and safer workplaces, cleaner air and cleaner water.
Do we need common sense and fairness in our regulations? You bet we
do. But we can have common sense and still provide for safe
drinking water. We can have fairness and still clean up toxic
dumps, and we ought to do it." When the Administration does weigh
in on the specifics of the GOP's Contract proposal, which are
embodied in H.R. 9, "The Jobs Creation and Wage Enhancement Act," it
will be armed with an extensive agency review of the legislation.
This review points out that if enacted, H.R. 9 could "be enormously
expensive to the treasury" according to one of the people working on
the analysis. According to this source, the private property rights
portion of the legislation "has perverse incentives. It encourages
the property owner to propose things they have no intention of doing
and then say, "You've denied my permit, pay up." A Republican staff
member involved in the drafting of H.R. 9 said, however, that the
legislation has safeguards against such nuisance claims. And
according to a White House source, "There is a strategy hatching on
picking up [the argument] on any number of [regulatory] issues in
the Contract." The source, added however, that the White House has
delayed implementing the strategy because "every time we try to do
this the agencies get all scattershot, and this hurts us more than
helps us." The source added, "The President has said that there are
some areas where we are not going to back off. And the environment
is one area where we are not going to roll over and play dead.
People think the environment and a good economy go hand in hand.
Congressman Miller fires balanced budget amendment shot at resource
subsidies. Rep. George Miller, the ranking minority member on the
House Resource Committee, fired a shot at the Republican majority
this morning by introducing legislation to "bring to fair market
value the sale or distribution of natural resources by the Federal
Government" that he said would result in at least $3 billion dollars
in annual savings to the treasury. "You cannot scour the Federal
budget and ignore natural resource subsidies," said Miller. "It
would be completely irresponsible." Miller's legislation has only
one Republican co-sponsor, Porter Goss of Florida, and definitely
faces an uphill battle. The legislation would attack timber,
grazing and irrigation subsidies. It would also require an eight
percent royalty on hard rock mining, increase oil and gas rental
fees, eliminate the Federal helium program and a program that
provides free feed to livestock producers and increase the fees
charged to communications companies such as MCI that rent microwave
stations on Federal lands. Rep. Miller labeled his proposal, "140
years and you're off." This is a reference to both current welfare
reform proposals and the length of time that some of the subsidies
he is attacking have been in place.
Senate Republicans Convene Health Care Task Force. The Senate
Republican Health Care Task Force yesterday held its first meeting
this session, led by its chairman, Sen. Robert Bennett. "All the
members in attendance were unanimous in their commitment that this
is still a major issue and we need to do something," according to a
Bennett aide, "And they were happy that the President has finally
come around to what they've been saying for two years -- we can't do
this all at once, it's too big. A step by step incremental approach
is the way to get this accomplished." Following the meeting,
Bennett announced that the group would look for ways to assure
access to health care and address the costs of providing that care
while taking the Federal deficit into consideration. Bennett added
that "everything is on the table," including Medicare reform and
changes in the Internal Revenue Code. However, according to
Bennett's staffer, the senator "recognizes that this task force
isn't a legislation-writing body. The forum in which a bill will be
written will be the finance and labor committees, and the job of the
task force is to provide recommendations."
The task force meetings, scheduled every Thursday morning, are
open to any Republican senator wishing to attend. Participants in
yesterday's meeting included: Sens. Chafee, Packwood, Bond, Frist,
Gorton, Grassley, Jeffords and Stevens.
Gephardt addresses mayors, raps GOP Contract. House Minority Leader
Richard Gephardt appeared before the US Conference of Mayors this
morning, where he criticized the GOP Contract with America. "I
think my greatest concern about the so-called 'Contract' is that if
you add it all up it causes a further huge hole in our national
budget,' Gephardt said, adding: "I hope that my sources are
correct, and I'm willing for them to be checked, but the way the
Treasury Department and other sources add everything, their
conclusion is that if you did all the things the way they're said,
you're going to blow a big trillion dollar hole in the budget, and
I don't think that's what we want to do."
THE ROAD AHEAD:
This morning the Bulletin invites Gary Blumenthal, Vice President of
Policy at World Perspectives Inc., a market and policy analysis consulting
firm, and formerly Special Assistant to President Bush for Agricultural
Trade and Food Assistance, to discuss the outlook for the 1995 farm bill.
BULLETIN: of the two Agriculture Committee chairmen, Senator Lugar seems
inclined to end farm subsidies as we know them, and Representative Roberts
Michel Weldin
214
OEOB
Political Advantage: Japan's
Campaign for America
by Pat Choate
Imagine a foreign country
running an ongoing political campaign in the United
States, as though it were a third major political party.
Imagine it spending more than $100 million each
effective than either U.S. political party or any U.S.
year to hire 1,000 Washington, D.C. lobbyists, super-
industry, union, or special interest group, Japan's
lawyers, former high-ranking public officials. public
campaign for the United States is designed to serve
relations specialists, political advisers-even former
one very important purpose: to influence the out-
presidents. Imagine it spending another $300 million
come of political decisions in Washington, D.C. that
each year to build a nationwide grass roots political
directly affect Japanese corporate and economic in-
nerwork to influence public opinion. Imagine that its
$400 million per year political campaign sought to
Pat Choate is an aconomist, author, and lectures in Wash-
advance its economic interests, influence U.S. trade
ington, D.C. His books on U.S. competitiveness include
policy, and win market share in the United States for
Being Number One: Rebuilding the U.S. Economy (wich
Gail Garfield Schwartz, D.C. Heath. 1980), America in
its target industries.
Ruins (with Susan Walter Duke University Press, 1982),
None of this is imaginary; none of it is illegal. The
and The High-Flez Society (with I.K. Linger, Knopf. 1986).
country that is actually undertaking this political
This is his second HBR article; the first. "Tailared Trade:
campaign is Japan. Today Japan controls the most so-
Dealing With the World as It Is," appeared in January-
phisticated and successful political-economic ma-
February 198R This article draws from his new book,
chine in the United States. More extensive and
Agents of Influence (Knopf. 1990).
DRAMINGS BY KURT VARGO
87
computers, machine tools, hall and roller bearings,
The Scarlet M
optical fibers, satellites, biotechnology, air transport,
telecommunications, semiconductors, legal and fi-
In the spring of 1990, Japanese officials, commen-
nancial services-one recent example illustrates the
rators, and several of their U.S. allies simultane-
power and importance of Japan's growing political
ously began to link criticism of the Japan Lobby and
influence in the United States: trucks and tariffs. It
Washington's revolving door with McCarthyism
is a victory in which Japanese organizations success-
But then, America's all-purpose political slur has
fully outmaneuvered General Motors, Ford, Chrys-
long been used to fight other political battles. In
ler, and the United Auto Workers and, in the process,
1981. for example. Lawyers who represented terrorist
organizations like the Baader-Meinhof Gang called
deprived the U.S. Treasury of more than $500 million
the formation of a Senate Subcommittee on Secu-
per year in duties.
rity and Terrorism McCarthyism. In 1989, critics of
Since 1981, the Japanese government has set a "vol-
the federal Drug Enforcement Agency called its new
untary export restraint" on the number of passenger
program to stop indoor marijuana production mari-
cars it would send to the United States. No such re-
juana McCarthyism
straint existed for light trucks. There is, however, a
substantial difference in the tariff levied by the
United States on cars versus light trucks: for passen-
M
ger cars it is 2.5%, for light trucks, 25%. During the
early and mid-1980s, the Japanese paid the difference
in duties without raising any issue; but in 1987, the
situation changed. The large number of new Japanese
auto plants in the United States, combined with a
Peter Collier and David Horowitz write in their
growing demand for light trucks as a family vehicle,
1989 book, Destructive Generation, that the term
meant that the passenger-car quota was going un-
McCarthyism in "a spell that creates self-cen-
filled. To fill the limit, the Japanese sent more light
sorship." Because it is a synonym for sinister au-
thority, they write, individuals and parties "com-
trucks. To avoid paying the higher tariff, they began
pete to brand each other with the Scarlet M, using
to reclassify light trucks as passenger cars.
the term as the moral trump card which automati-
In the spring of 1988, the U.S. Customs Service be-
cally terminates arguments."
came aware of Japan's abuse of tariff regulations and
Acrually, the issue about Japan's growing political
initiated a review process, inviting comments from
influence in the United States and the rapid move-
interested parties. The Japan Lobby went to work.
ment of dozens of our top former federal officials
Japanese interests responded by expanding their lob-
onto their payrolls as lobbyists and political advis-
bying team. In October 1988, for instance, Suzuki
em is not about patriotism or idealogy. It is about
Motor Company hired Robert Thompson, a well-
systemic, identifiable public corruption-all of it
connected Republican lobbyist who had been an aide
entirely legal and widely tolerated, at least in offi-
to Vice President George Bush in the 1980s.
cial Washington
The Japanese campaign began in the summer of
1988 with a letter from Congressman James Inhofe,
cosigned by 30 representatives and 11 senators, urg-
terests, decisions in which every day hundreds of
ing Commissioner of Customs William von Raab to
millions of dollars-and cumulatively billions of
classify light trucks as cars. Inhofe followed up his
dollars-are on the line
letter by summoning von Raab to his office to ex-
By knowing about these decisions ahead of the
plain why the review process had been initiated.
competition, by using its network of well-connected
When von Raab got to the congressman's office, he
insiders and lobbyists in Washington, D.C., by ac-
found Inhofe-and John Rehm, who had been gen-
tivating its broad-based nerwork in local communi-
eral counsel in the White House Office of the Special
ties across the country, by shaping American
Representative for Trade Negotiations during the
journalists' coverage of economic issues, and by pro-
Johnson administration. Rehm's law firm repre-
moring its opinion leaders in universities and think
sented Japanese and other foreign automotive inter-
tanks, Japanese companies and the Japanese govern-
ests, plus American automobile importers. With
ment are able to transform political strategy into a
Inhofe's blessing Rehm sat in on the entire meet-
critical element of corporate and national strategy.
ing. Both Inhofe and Rehm urged von Raab not to
This political game is going on every day, as it was
pursue the reclassification issue, but von Raab re-
for most of the 1980s. Among the victories scared by
fused to preempt the Customs Service's decision-
Japanese interests during the last decade-in super-
making process.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Septeu
October 1990
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
On January 4, 1989, Customs ruled that light
the vehicles as trucks for sale once they were inside
trucks could not be classified as cars. In an interview
the United States. This bureaucratic two-step al-
later, von Rasb said of the decision, "These vehicles
lowed the Japanese to enjoy the best of both worlds:
are built on truck hodies. They have truck character-
first, to reduce the tariff, which is lower for cars than
istics. Most are built in truck divisions. They are ad-
for trucks; and second, to reduce the requirements
vertised as rucks, off-road vehicles, vans, or vehicles
for fuel efficiency, safety, and emissions, which are
that can carry cargo For years, the Japanese have cer-
lower for trucks than for cars.
tified them as trucks when importing them into the
In the end, for an estimated $3 million invest-
United States. Even my grandmother can go into a
ment in lobbyists, public relations advisers, and po-
parking lot and tell the difference between a passen-
litical consultants, the Japanese avoided more than
ger car and a truck. These are trucks."
$500 million per year in import duties-withour
Japanese interests reacted swiftly. At a meeting of
making a single concession or agreeing to a single
the world's finance ministers, the Japanese minister
U.S. demand.
of finance persuaded his German and British coun-
terparts-each of whom had a small number of ve-
hicles that would be affected to approach U.S.
Japan's Campaign for America
Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, von Raab's
boss, and ask for an official reconsideration of the de-
cision. Brady agreed; within nine days of the Cus-
Lobbying seeking political influence, using infor-
toms Service decision, the ruling was suspended.
mation to advance economic interests-none of this
Japan's next move was to seek to kill the ruling per-
is unique to Japan or to Washington, D.C. in 1990. Ex-
manently. In Washington, D.C., Japan's American
amples abound across the pages of history. Japan's
lobbyists and representatives of the Japanese govern-
campaign is the most recent and most extensive ef-
ment met with officials from the Office of the U.S.
fort along these lines-and as such raises important
Trade Representative, the White House, and the Trea-
questions about how the United States wishes to
sury. Japanese automakers financed a public relations
conduct its democratic practices. Japan's govern-
campaign built on the theme that von Raab's ruling
ment and leading companies together spend $400
would harm U.S. consumers by increasing prices on
million annually running an ongoing political cam-
light trucks. Auto importers flooded Congress with
paign in the United States. This figure represents an
letters. The government of Japan implied that an un-
amount equal to the expenditures of both the Re-
favorable decision could do great harm to the U.S.-
publicans and Democrats in both the House and
Japan relationship.
Senate elections of 1988, combined. Japan spends
In a rare show of political unity, Roger Smith of
more on its 1,000-person lobby in Washington, D.C.
General Motors, Donald Petersen of Ford, and Lee
than the five most influential American business
lacocca of Chrysler sent a joint letter to the president
organizations-the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
and Congress urging that Customs's original ruling
National Association of Manufacturers, the Busi-
stand. But in a fierce political contest on the Big
ness Rounduable, the Committee for Economic De-
velopment, and the American Business Council-
combined. In fact, Japan spends more in America in
Light trucks became cars for
lobbying, politicking, and propagandizing than the 12
purposes of the tariff, then
nations of the European Community combined. The
went back to trucks for
people whom it hires as its representatives, lobbyists,
and spokespersons come from the highest levels of
purposes of environmental
American public the best and the brightest poli-
cymakers, political strategists, legal experts, elected
regulations.
and appointed officials.
Like any high-quality political campaign, the Japa-
Three's home court, the Japanese trounced their U.S.
nese program in the United States depends on a
rivals. Within 45 days of von Raab's original ruling
tested formula for its success: keep your message
the Treasury Department overturned the Customs
simple, use a variety of credible messengers, and let
Service decision: it was official U.S. policy that light
the echo effect drown out your opponents. The Japa-
trucks were passenger cars for purposes of the tariff.
nese have crafted six basic messages that they seek to
Then in a remarkable twist, the U.S. government
deliver (see the insert "Japan's Six Excuses") and five
made Japan's victory even more complete: the lapa-
techniques for delivering them. The components of
nese convinced the Bush administration to reclassify
their ongoing campaign are:
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
89
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
Japan's Six Excuses
Through propaganda, Japan has been able to ward
homegrown-poor quality, lazy workers, 2 high
off American criticism of its protectionist eco-
budget deficit, among dozens of other variations. If
nomic policies. Using six simple excuses and then
this were true, America would be hard put to blame
repeating them cndlessly in countless variations, 1a-
the Japanese for any hilateral trade frictions. To be
pan has crafted an effective public relations cam-
sure, the United States has many shortcomings.
paign. Japan's six excuses are:
Still, these inadequacies do not explain why U.S.
products that are fully competitive are kept out
EXCUSE 1: Japan Creates Jobs for Americans
of Japan's market. Hundreds of U.S. companies
In the late 1980s, when Japan began to be criti-
produce goods and services that are the best in the
cized for its rapidly expanding investment in the
world by any measure-price, quality, service, inno-
United States, the propaganda theme most widely
vation, and marketing. These companies hire sales-
disseminated by its spokespersons was that Japa-
people who speak Japanese. They make a long-term
nese investment created new jobs for Americans.
commitment to their Japanese customers. Yet most
The theme worked to defuse the criticism-bur it is
make only a token penetration into the Japanese
berrayed by the facts. Of the 677,000 jobs that all for-
market. By contrast, these products compete with
eign investors, including Japan, claim to have
great success against Japanese goods in Europe and
created in 1988, only 34,000- a mere 5% were
other markets. This defies all economic lagic-
created by the establishment of new foreign-owned
unless we consider one critical factor: Japan's mar-
operations in the United States. The other 95%
kets are far more closed than are America's or
were made up of existing jobs in U.S. companies
Europe's And thar's Japan's fault.
that were taken over by foreign investors. Moreover,
when we take into consideration the liquidation-
EXCUSE 4: Globalization
or curback-related layoffs in foreign companies'
The message of globalization is that national bor-
newly acquired U.S. affiliates, the net number of
ders are disappearing along with such outdated con-
new jobs created by all foreign investment is nomi-
cepts as national pride and national security In their
nal at best and may actually be negative.
place is emerging & single world economy, where de-
pendence and national allegiance have no place and
EXCUSE 2: Japan's Critics Are Racists
corporations are no longer Japanese, American, or
"Criticiam of Japan is racism" has long been a
European but entities separate from nations. The
mainstay of Japanese propaganda. With no apparent
underlying message: policy sophisticates shouldn't
hesitation, Japanese propagandists automatically
worry about the Japanese purchases of U.S. assets or
label critics as racists. Variations include calling
about Japan's quest for global domination of key in-
critics "Japan bashers," "Tap bashers," or CVCD "Ta-
dustries. What is ignored, of course, is that by selling
panophobes." Of course, some Americans are racist
its appreciating capital stock (real estate and com-
and some bashing of Japan does occur But the vast
panies) to buy depreciable foreign-made consum-
majority of accusations of racism and Japan bashing
er goods (VCRs, cars, and electronic gadgets), the
is little more than a cynical gambit by the Japanese
United States is sure to be a poorer nation in the
and those in their pay to silence Japan's critics and
long run. For after the consumsbles are gone, Japa-
discredit legitimate American debate
nese and other foreign investors will still be taking
profits and rents from cheir ownership at equiry
EXCUSE 3: It's America's Fault
For all of Japan's arguments that national borders
The "It's America's fault" excuse promotes the
are evaporating its own borders remain substan-
perception that U.S. trade problems are entirely
rially closed. As a consequence, American and other
Intelligence gathering,
corrodes the integrity of the economic and political
Lobbying and influencing policy,
system of the United States.
Politicking at the grass roots level,
To the Japanese, a political strategy in the United
Dispersing propaganda, and
States-indeed, in every major market of the world-
Influencing U.S. education and classroom
is a critical element of business strategy (see the in-
instruction.
sert "Japan in Europe"). In fact, what an in-depth
This is, of course, completely legal. It all falls
analysis of Japan's systemaric political strategy in the
within Washington, D.C.'s often self-serving defini-
United States teaches is the dominant role of politics
tion of ethics-which one powerful lawyer-lobbyist
in the global economy. According to an A.T. Kearney
described as, "If it's legal, it's ok." And it all deeply
survey, fewer than 30% of America's top 150 CEOs
90
HARVARD BU
$ REVIEW September-O
1990
In politics, as in manufactured products, Japanese
strategy follows a simple and predictable partern:
protect your own domestic market from foreign
foreign investors own fewer than 1% of Japan's na-
penetration, capture as much of your competitor's
tional assets-a stark contrast to the United States
market share as possible. In Japan, it is unthinkable
(9%) and West Germany (17%). Equally important,
that a top government official would become a top
in the 1980s, the ratio of manufactured imports to
lobbyist for a U.S. corporation, that a candidate for
GNP was less than 3% in Japan, compared with
high office would accept a campaign contribution
roughly 7% in the United States and more than 10%
for most European countries.
from a U.S. corporation, that a foreign government
would stage-manage a grass roots political cam-
EXCUSE 5: Japan Is Unique
paign among its people, or that foreign companies
Japan has long sought unequal and nonreciprocal
or governments would establish think tanks to
relationships with the United States by arguing that
feed ideas into the government. In all these ways,
it is "unique" and thus requires special treatment.
Japan is a closed political market.
The United States, for instance, is urged to accept Ja-
Yet, in all these ways, Japan is gaining political
pan's closed rice market and discriminatory dis-
market share in the United States, spending hun-
tribution system because they are part of Japan's
dreds of millions of dollars for competitive advan-
unique culture, even as Japanese companies have
tage. To the Japanese, politics is another legitimate
full access to the rich U.S. market. Ironically, the
business expense.
heart of the revisionists' argument is that Japan is
indeed different from other nations and should be
It is a business expense that the Japanese incur
treated differently. When the revisionists argue that
with remarkable consistency, coherence, and coordi-
Japan is unique, however, the Japanese reject the
nation. As with their larger business strategies, when
argument.
it comes to global politics Japanese business and gov-
emment interests work together, practicing a unique
EXCUSE 6: Japan Is Changing
brand of "economic diplomacy" that puts the instru-
Japan forestalls rough American action to open its
ments of state to use for economic purposes. For ex-
closed markets by holding out the prospect that
ample, a representative of the Keidanren, the Japan
"change is imminent." In the 1960s, Japan was sup-
Federation of Economic Organizations, is stationed
posed to change once its youth came into positions
in Japan's Washington, D.C. embassy, and the consul
of influence. In the 1970s, Japan was supposed to
general in Japan's nine consulates across the United
change once enough Japanese tourists and business-
States functions first and foremost as a chief eco-
men had been exposed to other nations. In the early
1980s, Japan was supposed to change because of the
nomic officer. Moreover, the Japanese are prepared to
"intermationalization" of Japan's financial market.
spend whatever it takes on politics to secure their
In the late 1980s, Japan was supposed to change be-
economic goals-recognizing that $400 million per
cause political reforms created by the Recruit scan-
year is a bargain if it safeguards a $50 billion per year
dal would produce a Japanese government far less
bilateral trade surplus.
beholden to its corporations and more concerned
Japan's political machine in the United States is
about consumers.
designed to serve six national and corporate goals:
For all of the American and European anticipation
1. To keep the U.S. market open for exports from
of change, Japan remains by far the most closed
Japan.
industrial markes in the world. Thus is is reason-
2. To smooth the way for additional purchases of
able to ask: Do Japan's policymakers really want
key assets in the United States.
to change?
3. To blunt criticism of Japan's adversarial trade
practices.
4. To neutralize or, even better, to capture the polit-
even try to influence the policies of their own govern-
ical influence of the U.S. companies that compete
ment. Japanese business leaders, in contrast, have ea-
with Japan.
gerly embraced the notion that politics is a critical
5. To influence U.S. trade policies toward Japan, Eu-
source of advantage in glohal competition. Ameri-
rope, and all other markets where Japan has signifi-
cans have become accustomed to high-quality, low-
cant economic interests.
COST, innovative Japanese products in the marker-
6. To create an integrated U.S.-Japan economy that
place. Now the Japanese are bringing the same high
prevents the United States from confronting Japan
level of performance to a political product offered in
economically and politically.
the corridors of Congress and the back halls of the
Other nations lobby on behalf of their economic
White House.
interests in the United States; in fact, South Korea,
91
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
POLII ADIAN IAGE
United States. In February 1990. the Foreign Minis-
try summoned 300 of Japan's business leaders to a
meeting in Tokyo and instructed them to increase
their local donations in the United States. As an
Japan In Europe
added inducement, the government announced that
it would give them benefits on their taxes in Japan
In the fall of 1988, Cores, a Japanese consulting
for such contributions.
firm that specializes in foreign marketing, pre-
sented 20 of Japan's largest electronics manufac-
The Japanese help finance both the Republican and
turers with a detailed blueprint for lobbying,
Democratic parties, make major contributions to po-
poliricking and propagandizing in Europe. The goal:
litical action committees, and count on their payrolls
influence the rules that the European Community
top political advisers to the president, to members of
is adopting to create a single market in 1992.
Congress, to governors, and to mayors. Charles
Japanese companies were advised to: join every
Manatt. for example, who headed the Democratic
local industry association they could; hire lobbyists
National Committee in the mid-1980s, is now a
and public relations personnel in each of the EC's 12
Washington, D.C. political adviser to NEC America.
nations; establish an intelligence-gathering net-
Frank Fahrenkopf, who chaired the Republican Na-
work in each country; spread their facilities across
tional Committee from 1983 to 1989, while in office
the EC; hire European Lawyers and financial experts
who could monitor local developments, invite in-
arranged meetings with top U.S. government offi-
fluential European academics, journalists, and poli-
cials for his client, Toyota Motor of North America.
ticians to Japan; and appoint a local political
Moreover, the Japanese are willing to be explicit
personality as a figurchead chsirman for Japan's Eu-
about their political goals in the United States. Ac-
ropean operations-someone who would be willing
cording to Akio Morita-chairman of Sony, vice
to open doors and Lay the groundwork for the sys-
chairman of the Keidanren, and chairman of the
tematic lobbying of national officials and politi-
Keidanren-created Council for Better Corporate Citi-
clans, In short, every element of the political
zenship in the United States-Japan's investments in
strategy that was first employed by the Japanese in
the United States have a specific political purpose.
the United States is now being deployed in Europe
"What we mean by 'better investment," Morita
wrote in The Japan That Can Say 'No', "is the type of
investment which will get Americans on Japan's
side." Getting "Americans on Japan's side" means
changing how Americans vote. The goal set by
Morita: "make politicians stop bashing Japan."
Taiwan, and several European nations are now set-
The Japanese political strategy in the United States
ting up their own political machines in the United
replicates the political mind-set in Japan in some
States. But there are important differences, both in
fundamental respects. In Japan, money polities is an
approach and amount. For the most part, Canada and
established fact. A golden triangle, consisting of the
the nations of Western Europe still rely on traditional
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), elite bureaucrats in
diplomacy to influence U.S. policies; companies
government ministries, and established corporate
from these countries tend to retain representatives
leaders from business, dominates Japan's domestic
only when they need help to fight a specific decision
political machinery in a way designed to serve the
that would affect their ability to compete.
country's economic interests. Money and the ex-
Japan, by contrast, has sought to establish an inte-
change of political favors make the system go: the
grated political strategy. Moreover, the scale of the Ja-
Keidanren alone provides the LDP with $100 million
pan Lobby in Washington is unprecedented: the
each year. In 1990, with the LDP's 35-year uninter-
government of Japan and Japanese companies em-
rupted reign in jeopardy because of money politics
ploy 92 law, public relations, and lobbying firms on
and the stain of the Recruit scandal, the Keidanren
their behalf, compared with Canada's 55, Britain's 42,
and other Japanese business interests contributed
and the Netherlands's the 3 other largest inves-
more than $1 billion to keep the party in power.
tors in the United States. Japanese corporations and
It is a world of very tight political, economic, and
governmental agencies have relationships with the
personal relationships. Take the construction indus-
ten largest law firms in Washington, D.C. that spe-
try, where politics is everything, public spending
cialize in trade matters.
critical, and bid-rigging or dango, all too common-
Among the nations of the world, only the Japanese
place. The youngest daughter of former Prime Minis-
government offers a tax break to its companies that
ter Noboro Takeshita, who was forced to resign in
make corporate contributions to civic affairs-in the
1989 in the wake of the Recruit scandal, is married to
92
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
the son of the president of one of lapan's "Big Six"
assistants to the president, 1 presidential counselor, a
construction companies. Takeshita's eldest daughter
deputy White House press secretary, a chief of staff to
is married to the son of the leader of the construction
the vice president, a chairman and vice chairman of
zoku-the LDP policy group covering that particular
the U.S. International Trade Commission, ? deputy
industry. Takeshita's half-brother is married to the
U.S. trade representatives, 6 senators, 0 representa-
daughter of the founder of Fukuda Construction
tives, 12 senior Senate staff. 5 senior House staff, and
Company, one of Japan's largest contractors. Former
4 retired generals. Together these 76 former top-
Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone's daughter is
ranking U.S. officials represented 166 foreign clients
married to the heir apparent of Kajima Construction,
from S2 countries and 2 international organizations-
Japan's largest construction company.
20 of them went to work for Japan.
In Japanese politics, moreover, the line between
Japan's political campaign in the United States,
gifts and bribes is hard to discem. In the Recruit scan-
and the eager willingness of American insiders to
represent Japanese economic interests in this coun-
Between 1980 and 1985,
try, have scrious implications for U.S. companies and
the American public. In one critical industry after an-
76 top-ranking U.S. officials
other, U.S. companies, originally challenged by Japa-
left office and became
nese manufacturing prowess, now run the added risk
of losing our to the Japanese competition because of
registered foreign agents.
Japan's well-managed political strategy. American
companies, pressed in the market for the consumer's
dal, for example, former Prime Minister Nakasone
favor, may now face the defection of their own gov-
admitted that he had received $300,000 from Re-
emment as an ally in global competition. For the
cruit; his successor, Noboro Takeshita, admitted that
American public, the issue is even more stark. With
he had received more than $1.5 million. Neither man
so much Japanese money influencing so many offi-
was arrested or indicted; the money was classified as
cials in government, the question for the American
political contributions.
people is, "Who do you trust?"
In Japan, there is a name for this approach to poli-
tics: "structural corruption." It is the same approach
to politics that the Japanese are now vigorously prac-
Japan's Intelligence Gathering
ticing in the United States-with the active partici-
parion and eager complicity of American lobbyists,
power brokers, and government officials.
In late 1988, the Washington, D.C. trade policy
It is, after all, greed and self-interest in Washington,
community speculated over who would be named by
D.C. that makes it all possible, the "revolving door"
newly elected President George Bush to the post of
of government at the highest levels that confuses
U.S. trade representative. During this period, Carla
"public service" with "personal advancement" and
Hills's name never appeared in the American press.
mistakes "legal" for "ethical" For many, a top job in
But in Tokyo, the insiders already knew. One week
the cabinet is merely a sabbatical from a more perma-
before the appointment was announced, a Japanese
nent career as a registered agent lobbying for a foreign
official bragged to an American friend that "the lady"
corporation. For example, herween 1973 and 1990,
who would be named was "most acceptable" to la-
one-third of the principal trade officials in the Office
pan. Two days before the appointment was an-
of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) left to be-
nounced, a Japanese newspaper, the Nihon Keizai
come registered foreign agents, most did work for Ja-
Shimbun, broke the story in Tokyo.
pan. Fully one-half of those who held the position as
Today Japan can boast the best political intelli-
the nation's top trade negotiator later became lobby-
gence system in the United States. One of the most
ists for foreign businesses; three of those were subse-
important functions of the lobbyists and public rela-
quently hired to work for Japanese corporations.
tions firms hired by the Japanese is to keep a steady
This pattern of economic relationship between Ja-
flow of current information streaming back to To-
pan and top U.S. officials includes other key agencies
kyo. According to Herbert E. Meyer, vice chairman of
as well. A 1986 General Accounting Office survey
the National Intelligence Council during the Reagan
identified 76 former federal officials who left office
administration, "Every branch office of every trad-
between 1980 and 1985 and then became registered
ing company operates like an information vacuum
foreign agents. The list-which the GAO acknowl-
cleaner, sucking in information." Normally, the Japa-
edges is only partial-includes 8 special assistants to
nese will assign three or more companies to the task
the president, S assistants to the president, 2 deputy
of analyzing the-same problem or issue. The redun-
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
93
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
dancy allows them to discem the difference between
gence, the study is a remarkable chronicle of Japanese
tatemae - the official story - and honne the real
political strategy.
truth. It also guarantees that they will know more
Commissioned in 1982 and published in 1984, the
than any individual lobbyist and permits them to tai-
study, "Role of the Congressional Staff in the U.S.
lor cheir response to the political circumstances, uti-
Decision Making Process" was prepared by Japan's
lizing the firm or individual whose background,
National Institute for Research Advancement. An
skills, or personal relationship best fits the needs of
example of Japanese choroughness and detail, it not
the situation.
only analyzes the operation of staff but also spells out
Japan's intelligence operation extends, as well, to
individuals' educational backgrounds, age distribu-
one of the most important and least visible parts of
tion, and levels of influence. It flags the "key watch-
Washington, D.C.'s policy arena-the staff. In the
ing points" that require parricular attention from the
1980s, as the economic stakes of political decisions
Japanese and the importance of identifying "floating
escalared, the Japanese grew to appreciate the influ-
ideas" that are most likely to capture staff support.
ence of congressional and administration staff. Aides
Most important, the study emphasizes the need for
do research, draft legislation. negotiate with constit-
Japan to win over those staff members who presently
uents, contributors, and special interests, and cut
are powerful and most likely will become even more
deals with their counterparts in Congress and the ex-
powerful. In particular, the study targets young law-
ecutive branch. To come to terms with congressional
yers on the Senate Finance Committee as likely pros-
staff, the Japanese commissioned a major study of the
pects to move into influential trade posts.
role and career patterns of the 30,000 people who fill
To implement the study's findings, the Japanese
these critical slots. As a piece of political intelli-
began to court congressional staff systematically
The Japanese embassy assigned
four officials to get close to key
congressional staff members-to
learn about their backgrounds,
personal ambitions, connections,
and positions on important is-
sues. The Japanese also made a
point of wining and dining these
staff members, each year inviting
staff-level trade specialists to par-
ties, lunches, dinners, and, in-
creasingly, to all-expenses-paid
fact-finding trips to Tokyo. While
these trips and other contacts un-
doubredly serve useful purposes
for staff, they serve other purposes
as well. After congressional staff
members leave service in the U.S.
government, they are increas-
ingly going to work for Japanese
clients and Japanese companies.
Because Japanese businesses
hire so many senior insiders and
coordinate their collection of
information so effectively, the
Japanese actually have a better
overview of what is happening in
the federal government than all
but a handful of those who serve
in the administration. And by
having more and better informa-
tion on the inside workings of
After congressional staff members leave the government,
the government, the Japanese are
they are increasingly going to work for Japanese clients and companies.
able to affect a decision before
94
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
most people even know that there is a decision to
sultant" or "member of an advisory board" of an
be made.
agency or company. As the economic stakes have
In 1988, for example, during the final negotiations
grown, the Japanese have added yet another lure to
of the Omnibus Trade Act, a member of the House
attract U.S. government officials-an equity position
Ways and Means Committee received a call from an
in a business deal, with the prospect of substantial
official in the Japanese embassy, lobbying him over a
and ongoing returns. The transaction is a simple
provision of the just-passed Senate version of the
equation: equity for influence.
measure, which the committee would take up the
The sums of money from Japan are so large and the
next day. None of the members of the committee had
absence of ideals in Washington, D.C. so complete
yet obtained a copy of the Senate draft-as a courtesy
that a substantial number of U.S. public officials are
and to facilitare its lobbying, the Japanese embassy
dramatically altering their career paths in the federal
had a copy hand delivered to the congressman.
government-as well as their decisions while in of-
fice. One former U.S. trade negoriator puts it bluntly:
Lobbying and Influencing Policy
"When people in government get ready to leave, they
know where the money is. It's with the Japanese.
Nobody who's looking at an opportunity to make
$200,000 or more a year representing a Japanese
To put the intelligence they gather to good use, Jap-
company is going to go out of the way to hurt them
anese companies excel at the next phase of politics,
while in office."
gaining access to the policymakers. In Washington,
The influence of Japanese money is so pervasive
D.C., access and influence go hand in hand; they are
that there is even a name for it: the demonstration
the srock in trade of the lobbyist, the lawyer, and the
effect. The huge sums of money made available to Ja-
political adviser. They are, as well, the one "skill"
pan's friends once they leave office "demonstrate"
that current office holders and staff members can
the value of a friendly Japan policy to officials still
take with them when they leave the government (see
in office. Some Americans even try to prequalify for
the insert "How a Make an American Governor a
a position as a lobbyist for Japan by offering "gold-
Japanese Lobbyist").
en nuggets" of inside information to Japanese corpo-
Consider a recent case involving the 1990 U.S.-
rate or government officials as evidence of their
Japan Super 301 talks on bilateral made in high tech-
future value.
nology. During the negotiations, Fujitsu Ltd., one of
When it comes to the demonstration effect, noth-
Japan's largest electronics companies, hired David
ing rivals the example set by Japan's most recent po-
Olive, one of the State Department's principal ex-
litical coup: the hiring of former President Ronald
perts on the substance of the talks, to be a senior rep-
Reagan as a Japanese public relations shill. In Octo-
resentative in its Washington, D.C. office. Olive had
ber 1989, former President Reagan hired himself out
helped draft State Department position papers, at-
to Pujisankei Communications Group, a $5.5 billion
tended interagency meetings, had access to confiden-
conglomerate then headed by its founder, Nobutaka
tial information shared by U.S. companies, and knew
Shikanai, a right-wing, controversial tycoon who
the U.S. negoriating strategy for such critical high-
technology industries as semiconductors, telecom-
munications, and supercomputers. The U.S. State
Says one former trade official,
Department defended Olive's job change as in ac-
"When people in government
cord with applicable U.S. laws and regulations." Nev-
ertheless, whether intended or not, the Japanese
get ready to leave, they
gained two important advantages over their U.S. ri-
know where the money is.
vals by this one hire: they secured the services of an
individual with a finely honed sense of political pos-
It's with the Japanese."
sibilities, and they sowed distrust among American
companies about whether to share information with
owned Japan's largest radio network, a national
their own government.
newspaper, and the country's most successful televi-
The easiest way for Japanese and other foreign in-
sion chain.
terests to gain access and establish influence is sim-
For $2 million, America's former chief of state
ply to pay for it. Generally, an insider is hired as a
went to work for Pujisankei for one week. He made
lobbyist. If the former official wants to avoid the em-
two 20-minute speeches, gave exclusive interviews
barrassment of having to register as a "foreign agent,"
to Fujisankci's newspaper and television stations,
the arrangement can be changed to that of "con-
and, in the process, parroted the Japanese line about
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October
95
U.S.-Japan trade frictions. The bilateral trade friction,
How to Make an American Governor
Reagan told the Japanese, was America's fault. caused
a Japanese Lobbyist
by "trade protectionists" in Washington-whom he
"had to fight every day."
That was the message of Reagan's trip to the lapa-
When Governor Victor Atiyeh of Oregan left of
nese; the message to public officials back in Wash-
fice in 1987, he became a registered lobbyist for
Seiko Epson Corporation and Fujitsu America, Inc.
ingron was different. To them Reagan's $2 million
Acqually, the Japanese have little need to hire former
trip was the pinnacle of the demonstration effect-
governors as lobbyists since incumbents now de-
proof that anyone can be bought by the Japanese if
vote much of their energies to wooing the Japanese.
the price is right and permission for others to do the
More states now have offices in Tokyo than in
same. After all, if a former president can go to work
Washington. D.C. One of the biggest lures is their
for the Japanese, why not a lower level bureaucrat?
state's congressional clout in Washington
That, despire the fact that it would be inconceivable
In 1986, Eddie Mahe. Ir., a leading Republican
for Yasuhiro Nakasone, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut
political consultant and a paid adviser to the Japa-
Kohl, or François Mitterand, after retiring from pub-
nese embassy in Washington, addressed Japanese
lic office, to accept money from a U.S. company to
businesspeople on how to transform governors who
seek new Japanese investment for their states into
do a public endorsement or to advance its nation-
lobbyists for Japan. "Simply stated," Mahe said,
al standing.
"Each and every one of you who has a business, or
Funneling money to politicians after they leave of-
influences a business, has the opportunity to come
fice works at one end of the political value-added
to the United States and be a star"
chain. An even more important activity is to funnel
Mabe recommends that the Japanese follow three
money to them at the front end, to help them get
simple principles.
elected in the first place. While U.S. election law
The first principle: The U.S. economy is driven
prohibits a foreign national from making a direct or
by politics. Most polities are local. And the most
indirect contribution in any local, state, or federal
important local issue is always jobs. Thus couch
all issues in terms of jobs. Said Mahe, "If you were
going into Iowa and opening up a plant with 250
To influence politicians,
jobs, 1 guarantee you could get in to see the governor
of Iowa if you wanted a do that If at that time Con-
funnel money to them at the
greas was considering some kind of trade bill that
front end of the
would affect you as a businessman opening up that
plant and creating those 250 jobs, the governor of
political value-added chain.
lowa would lobby for you"
The second principle: Just as politics is local, so
election, foreign-owned companies in the United
are matters of trade. Pew Americans understand
States are allowed to operate political action com-
the pros and cons of the abstract theories of "free
mittees (PACs) and to make political contributions
trade" versus "protectionism" In practice, North
as if they were U.S. corporations. In the 1980s, more
Camlinians shink that made policy means textiles.
Iowans think it means beef or com. In Michigan,-
than 100 foreign companies-primarily from Europe
it means automobiles. Couch trade issues in real
and Canada-used this legal loophole to play a direct
rather than theorerical terms
and influential role in American politics. The Japa-
The third principle: When choosing a plant site,
nese use a more subtle technique, they encourage
meet with as many governors and other elected offi-
Americans with whom they have important busi-
cials from as many states and communities as possi-
ness links to make political contributions to pursue
ble. Why! Because even those officials whose
their shared political interests.
communities are not selected will remain friendly
The most visible, successful, and controversial ex-
and hope to have better luck next time. Mahe told
ample is the Auto Dealers and Drivers for Free Trade
the Japanese businesspeople, "If you understand and
PAC-AUTOPAC. As an industry, automobiles today
accept how open the American political system is
account for $28 billion of the $49 billion bilateral
and how accessible our elected public officials are,
you really have a great opportunity if you are think-
U.S.-Japan trade deficit, therefore, it is an econom-
ing of investing in or opening up a plant in the
ic issue worthy of strong political involvement by
United States"
the Japanese and other auto-exporting nations. Just
how strong was vividly demonstrated in the 1988
elections. Using a fund-raising formula of $2 per
every car sold or $5,000 per year, the foreign auto
dealers of AUTOPAC raised $4.5 million, making
"6
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990
AUTOPAC one of the top PACs in the United States.
Packard and one of America's most respected se-
Of that $4.5 million, AUTOPAC dumped $1.4 mil-
nior managers, makes the point. In 1983, the Rea-
lion into just seven congressional races, elections
gan administration created the President's Commis-
where AUTOPAC picked a candidate who favored an
sion on Industrial Competitiveness and named
open American market-the single issue of critical
John Young to be its head. Given the Reagan admin-
importance to the industry
istration's unyielding laissez-faire ideological bent,
One such race was the Senate contest in Florida be.
most Washington, D.C. insiders considered the com-
tween Democrat Buddy McKay and Republican Con-
mission to be little more than a political fig leaf
nie Mack. In a statewide election decided by only
31,000 votes, McKay lost-in large part because of
$326,000 spent by AUTOPAC on negative television
Toshiba used its leverage to
commercials in the last days of the campaign. Look-
force John Young to use his
ing back on the election, McKay says, "In the final
analysis, I was not beaten by Connie Mack. I was
lobbyists on its behalf.
beaten by Tokyo."
Political action committees like AUTOPAC are
a protective cover for the 1984 election in case
only one device for influencing U.S. politics. Another
Walter Mondale were somehow able to make the
favorite Japanese technique is the use of an existing
issue of competitiveness come alive. Predictably,
organization or the creation of an ad hoc coalition-
after the election, the Reagan administration tried
an association of U.S. members that allows Japanese
to vanish the commission and its report, releasing
interests to put an American face on their politick-
it in an obscure Commerce Department office rath-
ing. One example of this approach is a Washington,
eT than the White House and printing the absolute
D.C.-based public interest group, Consumers for
minimum number of copies.
World Trade (CWT). Since the early 1980s, CWT has
But John Young was not so easily dismissed. While
been one of Washington, D.C.'s most avid advocates
insiders might have written off the commission,
of unrestricted free trade; its arguments focus on the
Young took the issue seriously. He saw to it that the
benefits free rrade affords the American consumer.
commission issued a first-class piece of work; its
The organization has steadfastly opposed any recip-
findings and recommendations have subsequently
rocal trade law that would threaten Japan with re-
framed much of the ongoing debate on the issue. And
strictions on access to the U.S. market as a way to pry
when the report died within the administration,
open the Japanese market. In 1987, CWT organized a
Young championed the issue on his OWN. In 1987, he
grass roots campaign against what it labeled the "pro-
supported sympathetic members of Congress who
tectionist" features of the pending Omnibus Trade
set up the Congressional Competitiveness Caucus;
Act of 1988, CWT testified in front of congressional
working with other corporate leaders, he spear-
committees six times, each time arguing the case for
headed the creation of the Council on Competitive-
U.S. consumers and against tough trade sanctions
ness, which he currently heads.
aimed at the closed foreign markets, most notably
But in 1987, another event occurred: the Toshiba
the Japanese.
Machine Company, which is 50% owned by the
Starting in 1980, the Japanese began to take a deep
Toshiba Corporation, was found to have sold sensi-
interest in CWT. Again, the Japanese automakers led
tive technology to the Soviet Union-technology
the way. Subaru, for example, paid the initial dues for
that would allow Soviet submarines to escape detec-
1,500 of its employees to become members, in No.
tion by the United States Navy. Congressional re-
vember of 1980, Subaru employees represented more
action was swift and fierce: in June 1987, the Sen-
than half of CWT's 2,700 members. Toyota and other
ate voted 92 to 5 to impose sanctions on Toshiba,
Japanese companies made direct corporate contri-
the House was prepared to vote to ban the sale of
butions. By staying in the background, they did not
all Toshiba components in the United States for
jeopardize the American face of CWT. Neverthe-
two years.
less, when the Japanese infiltration of CWT came to
And suddenly John Young champion of U.S. com-
light, U.S. Senator John Heinz termed it "an under-
petitiveness, found himself forced to use his Wash-
handed and dishonorable way for the Japanese to try
ington lobbyists on behalf of Toshiba-because
to influence public opinion."
Hewlett-Packard, like so many American high-tech
But the most effective lobbying technique re-
companies, simply could not do business without
flects the current tangle of global politics and eco-
Toshiba's components. In a textbook example of
nomics. It is the high art of creating a captive com-
"leverage lobbying," Toshiha, the Japanese supplier,
peritor. The story of John Young, CEO of Hewlett-
used the leverage of its strategic components to get
HARVARD BUSI
RE
W
September-Ocrober
97
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
its U.S. customers, including Hewlett-Packard, to
established 47 facilities, employing 10,000 Ten-
lobby Congress an its behalf. The U.S. companies
nesseeans, a full 10% of Japan's total U.S. manufac-
had become Toshiba's captive competitors.
turing investment. And in the early 1980s, Japan had
already begun public relations and educational ef-
Grass Roots Politicking
forts in Tennessee, leading to university-based Japan
centers, special programs in the school districts of
the state's four major cities, and the formation of a
Japan-Tennessee Society.
It is a guiding principle of American political life
Once the Japanese had targeted Tennessee, the
that all politics is local. It is a principle that the Japa-
campaign swung into motion. A new local organiza-
nese have been quick to grasp, building an extensive
tion was created, the Tennessee-Japan Friends in
coast-to-coast nerwork of polities at the grass roots
Commerce (TIFC). The organizers recruited three
level across America. And it is a principle best put
non-Japanese cosponsors: the state government; the
into practice by the Electronic Industries Associa-
Japan Center of Tennessee, located at Middle Tennes-
rion of Japan (ELAJ) and Sony's Akio Morita.
see State University in Murfreesboro: and the Japan-
In a June 1985 presentation to the members of
Tennessee Sociery For the most part, however, all the
ELAJ, which is made up of Japan's 600 largest elec-
cosponsors put up was their names; two-thirds of the
tronics companies, Morita explained that U.S. criti-
budget for the organization came from the ELAI and
cism of Japan "is not due to a misunderstanding of
its member companies, particularly Toshiba, Sharp,
and prejudice against Japan, but rather to certain po-
and Matsushita.
litical intentions." In response, Morits said, Japan
To add legitimacy and an American face to the or-
needed to mount a grass roots political campaign in
ganization, former Lt. Governor Frank Gorrell was
the United States, a campaign that "should not stop
hired to take the position of chairman. To create
with PR within the electronics industry but should
membership, Mart Reese & Associates identified
expand PR activities to the mass media, consumer
several thousand Tennessee opinion leaders, who
groups, and political groups on the state level"
were then invited to join.
Going further, Morita next laid out an extensive
As an initial test, TJFC sponsored three forums in
list of political activities for ELAJ's grass roots cam-
Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis. In attendance
paign The program would consist of:
were Tennessee Governor Ned McWherter, other
Managing debates and seminars at the state and
state elected officials, business executives, and aca-
local level,
demic leaders. The message: the importance to the
Staging local events with Japanese plants and
Tennessee economy of the "friendship" between the
factories,
people of Tennessee and Japanese companies. The
Publishing local newsletters and magazines,
keynote speaker: Alcio Morita
Creating exchange programs with state universi-
In his speech, Morita lamented the fact that poli-
ries and think tanks,
tics was responsible for disturbing the otherwise su-
Establishing links with state economic develop-
perbly functioning economic relationship between
ment offices, local chambers of commerce, and the
Japan and the United States. He told the crowd, "At a
local offices of federal elected officials,
time when the relationship between our two nations
Organizing exchanges with consumer groups at
has become inextricably intertwined, it is most un-
the local level; and
fortunate that things that bear on the relation-
Operating student exchanges.
ship have become so politicized."
To weld the campaign into a coherent whole,
Things were about to become even more po-
Morita proposed a unified message that would be re-
liticized-and the pilot project was about to be put
peated in every locality: Japanese investment cre-
to a test. The Toshiba controversy broke out in the
ates jobs, Japanese companies rebuild depressed
middle of the series of public forums, creating a real
U.S. communities, lapanese companies satisfy U.S.
political emergency. Tennessee responded. Toshiba
consumers, the Japanese and U.S. economies are
supporters across the state and state-level elected
intertwined
officials led by Governor McWherter pressured the
Before launching the campaign on a national basis,
Tennessee congressional delegation not to impose
ELAJ decided on a pilot project. It hired the Washing-
sanctions on the Japanese company-which hap-
ton, D.C.-based political consulting firm of Matt
pened to be a major Tennessee employer and con-
Reese & Associates to help test the program in a sin-
tributor to TJFC. Remembering the episode, one
gle state: Tennessee. Tennessee was an attractive test
Tennessee congressman said, "My arm was twisted
site for several reasons. By 1987, Japanese companies
so hard that 1 feel lucky to have it."
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September4
In the end, the ELAJ deemed the experiment a suc-
perts on Japan, dubbed the Chrysanthemum Club by
cess. The forums served to establish useful contacts
their critics; others are academics, members of think
for ELAI with state opinion leaders; ELAJ's message of
tanks, and journalists, often with a free-trade ideolog-
the benefits of Japanese investment had been con-
ical bent. While most of them hold their views hon-
veyed in a credible fashion; and the forums had given
estly, almost all are stroked, supported, and promoted
Toshiba an opportunity to communicate its impor-
by the Japanese, who recognize the enormous value
tance to the people and economy of Tennessee. In
of having earnest American defenders who will make
the wake of the Tennessee test, the Japanese made
Japan's case.
the determination to take the campaign national.
The Chrysanthemum Club, named after the floral
In 1988, the Keidanren, with Morita again in the
symbol of Japan's imperial family, draws its member-
lead, formed the Council for Better Investment in the
ship from Americans with an intellecrual, personal,
United States-later renamed the Council for Better
or business stake in Japan. Most prestigious and in-
Corporate Citizenship in the United States, an orga-
fluential are the long-standing members of the U.S.
nization with the avowed purpose of helping Japanese
foreign policy establishment, the diplomats who, in
companies become fully integrated "into American
many cases, helped forge the post-World War II U.S.-
society." The nationwide effort aims to win public fa-
Japan relationship. Now these same individuals are
vor and goodwill through a massive program of chari-
hard at work trying to defend Japan to Americans and
table donations and highly visible public relations
to preserve "the relationship"-and the work of their
activities. What makes the donations croubling how-
careers (see the insert "The Relationship").
ever, is the fact that Japanese companies have no tradi-
tion of charitable giving, either at home or abroad.
They generally combine charity and political contri-
Chrysanthemum Club
butions into one accounting line on the balance sheet.
members put "the relationship"
Now the Japanese government is pressuring them to
make large, public contributions to defuse the mount-
ahead of economic issues.
ing hostility in the United States toward Japan's eco-
nomic strategy
Also in the foreign policy category of Chrysanthe-
At the same time, Japanese companies have care-
mum Club members are entrenched Defense De-
fully spread their investments in new plants and facil-
partment officials, unreconstructed cold warriors
ities for maximum political advantage with the U.S.
who give little weight to geoeconomics and continue
Congress. To muzzle congressional critics, the Japa-
to place enormous emphasis on the importance of
nese sited plants in targeted districts; seven facilities
maintaining American military bases in Japan. To
have gone into the district of Georgia Congressman Ed
them, national security is defined only in military
Jenkins, a persistent critic of Japan's closed markers.
terms; economic friction should not be permitted to
Japanese plants have also been placed in the same dis-
jeopardize the geopolitics of the U.S.-Japan relation-
trict as U.S. competitors in an effort to "share" the
ship. Other members of the Club are free-trade
elected official and neutralize the rival's political influ-
ideologues and U.S. corporate leaders who do not
ence. By 1990, the Japanese had successfully estab-
want to see criticism of Japan change the existing
lished a formidable, fully functioning grass roots
rules of commerce between the two nations.
political infrastructure throughout the United States.
It is this defense of the economic status quo that
marks the members of the Club. Kevin Kearns, a for-
Japan's Propaganda
mer U.S. diplomat who served in Tokyo during the
late 1980s, wrote in the Foreign Service Journal, the
professional journal for foreign service officers, that
Chrysanthemum Club members "somehow fail to
The mission of Japanese propaganda is simple: to
see the trail from predatory Japanese policies to lost
persuade Americans to adopt favorable views toward
markets, to destroyed industries, to large outflows of
Japan. Through propagands, the endless reperition of
wealth in the form of trade deficits, and finally to
their six messages, the Japanese have successfully
the resultant decline of American power and influ-
stifled criticism of their own nationalistic approach
ence Chrysanthemum members seem to see their
to economics and shaped the prevailing U.S. view of
function not as representing U.S. interests but as bal-
Japan and global economics.
ancing the demands of both sides to make the in-
Japanese propaganda is effective primarily because
creasing Japanese domination of the U.S. economy
it is delivered by highly credible spokespersons-
as painless a process as possible for our institutions
most of them Americans. Some are long-standing ex-
and the American people."
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-Ocrober 1990
99
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
traordinarily tight control over access to information
"The Relationship"
within Japan. In more than one case, U.S. scholars, ac-
ademics, and students who have been critical of Ja-
Japan's diplomatic trump card is America's obses-
pan have found their research efforts jeopardized or
sive concern with the U.S.-Japan "relationship." Re-
made more difficult. Conversely, friends of Japan can
peatedly, the Japanese have elevated contentious
find that most obstacles are swiftly removed. An-
bilateral issues into tests of the soundness of "the
other consideration is money. It takes a great deal of
relationship." When American rice millers sought
money to run a major Japan studies program - and
help from the U.S. government to open Japan's
the Japanese are much more inclined to contribute
closed market, both governments warned that
substantial sums to those whose academic research
American pressures threatened "the relationship."
Critics of the FSX agreement were accused of threat-
supports their interests and substantiates their
coing "the relationship." Efforts to open Japan's
propaganda.
closed construction market were sidetracked be-
American academics have also emerged as the
cause they might harm "the relationship."
leading critics of the "revisionists"-particularly
Repeatedly the United States has made politi-
Karel Van Wolferen, Clyde Prestowitz, Chalmers
cal and economic concessions to preserve "the re-
Johnson, and James Fallows-who advocate changes
lationship." It is a uniquely Japanese form of
in the U.S.-Japan relationship. For example, George
brinkmanship. And, invariably, when America goes
R. Packard, who is the dean of the School of Ad-
"eyeball to eyeball" with the Japanese, it is America
vanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins
that blinks. By contrast, there is no evidence that
University, has publicly labeled van Wolferen "a
the Ispanese have ever made more than a symbol-
hoax" and attacked the writing of Prestowitz and
ic economic concession for the sake of "the
relationship."
Fallows as threats to the U.S.-Japan relationship.
The U.S. State Department, which has assumed
Packard's program at SAIS is one of the leading aca-
the role of guardian of the relationship, regularly
demic centers for U.S.-Japan studies; it has been a
takes Japan's side in unde and economic disagree-
regular recipient of Japanese funding
ments berween the two nations. And just as regu-
Undoubtedly, Packard comes to his views honestly.
larly, U.S. economic interests are sacrificed on
And the Japanese come to them eagerly, ready to
"foreign policy" grounds-"the relationship,"
broadcast them to gain political advantage. For exam-
ple, the February 1989 issue of The Atlantic carried a
16-page special advertising supplement paid for by
major Japanese companies. Called "Partners in Pros-
A second major instrument for Japanese propa-
perity," the supplement contained advertorial mes-
ganda dissemination is U.S. universities and think
sages from Mitsubishi, Brother, Canon, Ricoh, and
tanks, a majority of which depend on significant Japa-
other Japanese companies, featuring titles such as
nese funding and Japanese access to operate their
"Toyota USA: An American Phenomenon." But the
Japanese studies programs. In turn, the Japanese
major element was an essay by George Packard,
recognize that these institutions craft many of the
which argued that the United States and Japanese
ideas and conduct many of the studies that shape
economies and cultures have been transformed "into
American opinion on trade and economic policy. Al-
one nearly seamless web of interdependence."
most without exception, Japanese contributions sup-
In the area of trade, Packard concluded, any differ-
port the work of those who advocate neoclassical
ences between the two nations are "more than com-
laissez-faire trade policies. These views are genu-
pensated for by the clear and well-recognized
inely held, the Americans who argue for this ap-
benefits that each nation draws from the partner-
proach would make the same arguments with or
ship." On the Japanese side, Packard chalked up ac-
without Japanese financial assistance. What the Japa-
cess to the wealthiest market in the world, to which
nese hope to accomplish through their support of
Japan sends 40% of its exports; access to U.S. scien-
these people's work is to amplify it, sustain it, and
tific and technological advances "through various
give it added influence in the highly competitive
arrangements", ability to rely on the United States
markerplace of ideas. Moreover, since ties to and sup-
for defense-which means a lower level of mili-
port from Japan are often obscured or left unreported,
tary and defense expenditures and benefits such as
the question of objectivity goes unasked.
an uninterrupted oil supply from the Middle East.
American academics typically line up on every
On the U.S. side, Packard listed: access to military
side of every issue. But in the case of the U.S.-Japan
bases in Japan; $7 billion in annual agricultural ex-
relationship, more than simple intellectual disagree-
ports to Japan; access to Japanese management tech-
ment has come into play. The Japanese exercise ex-
niques and technological innovations, and U.S. con-
1
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October
sumers' access to Japanese products. Pared to
The program collapsed when Congress learned of
its essentials, the list represents the U.S.-Japan
it. Senators John Heinz, Donald Riegle, and Frank
trade relationship: Japan gets to send its products
Markowski wrote angry letters to the U.S. secretary
to the U.S. market; Americans get to buy them.
of state, the U.S. attorney general, Japan's prime min-
Nowhere does Packard mention Japan's $50 bil-
ister, and the Japanese ambassador in Washington,
lion annual balance of trade surplus. Rather, his addi-
D.C. Riegle denounced the program as "particularly
rion of the benefits enjoyed by each side leads him to
insidious because it is designed to contract with in-
conclude: "Thus the partnership has been firmly
fluential Americans so the Japanese can make use of
rooted in mutual interests"-the kind of conclusion
their personal contacts, reputations, and positions in
that the lapanese argue repeatedly and are only too
local communities MITI's plan shows that the Jap-
happy to have Americans make for them.
anese government, despite its promises to correct
The third channel for carrying Japanese propa-
sources of trade tension between the two countries,
ganda is the U.S. media, which Japan affects in two
continues its strategy of temporizing and distracting
ways: financing programs that are presented over the
American public opinion while actively worsening
airwaves and influencing the content of journalists'
the already dangerous bilateral trade imbalance."
reporting on Japan. Since the early 1980s, Telejapan
and the Japan Center for Information and Cultural
Affairs (JCICA) have sponsored television and radio
Japan Educates the United States
programs in the United States, producing shows for
the Christian Broadcasting Network, the USA Cable
Network, the Cable News Network, and public tele-
Japan's most forward-reaching political program is
vision stations. Borh Telejapan and JCICA are di-
aimed at U.S. educators and students. Its goal is to
rectly linked to the Japanese government. Telejapan
shape what future generations of Americans think
is affiliated with the Ministry of International Trade
and know about Japan-including rewriting the his-
and Industry. JCICA works with the Foreign Ministry,
tory of World War II to omit Japan's arrocities against
which has had to approve the re-
lease of funds for at least one of
the JCICA's television projects.
In 1986, MITI went even fur-
ther in its attempt to influence
the American public's view of Ja-
pan: it established the Moon-
lighter Project, a $200,000 fund to
pay moonlighting U.S. reporters
directly. As reported in the
Mainichi Shimbun, MITI's initial
plan was to put on the Japanese
payroll one reporter, editor, or lo-
cal chamber of commerce direc-
tor in each of 10 states. Missouri
and Michigan, home to three of
Japan's leading critics-Congress
men Richard Gephardt and John
Dingell and Senator Donald
Riegle were among the test
sites chosen. If the test worked,
MITI would extend the program
to include more journalists and
states. The purpose of the project,
as defined by MITI, was to have
journalists collect information
that would help Japanese compa-
nies expand in the United States
and to "conduct PR on Japan's
Washington, D.C.'s revolving door: for many, a top job in the cabinet
market-opening measures."
is a subbatical from 2 more permanent career as a registered foreign agent
101
HARVARD BUSD
REVIEW September-October
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
When the teachers return to the United States,
Japan Is Different
they are expected to write trip reports and are en-
couraged to give talks in their local communities to
In international discussions, at different times
"explain" Japan back home. An aide to van Loewen-
and in different industries, the Japanese have argued
feldt describes the real purpose of the program: "One
that they are "different" as a way to maintain their
teacher who has visited Japan can infect hundreds,
protected domestic market. Here are some of the
even thousands, of other reachers with his or her
ways in which Japan is different:
enthusiasm."
In 1978, the Japanese government refused to per-
To help spread the "infection" even further, the
mit imports of American-made blood analyzers be-
Japanese have financed the production and distribu-
cause, it asserted, the Japanese have different blood.
tion of teaching materials: handbooks, lesson plans,
In 1986, foreign companies were not allowed to
participate in the land reclamation work of the Kan-
videotapes, and other instructional supplies. Of
sai Airport construction project because, the Japa-
course, these teaching materials present history and
nese argued, they have different dirt.
economics from Japan's point of view. For example,
In 1986, MITI attempted to prevent U.S. and Euro-
according to one workbook, Japan invaded China be-
pean ski manufacturers from offering their products
cause of American and European racist insults di-
in Japan because Japan has different snow.
rected toward Japan after World War I. Another text
In 1987, U.S. garhage disposels were kept out of
explains in great detail the U.S. role in causing the
the Japanese market because Japan has a different
war in the Pacific, including U.S. actions that drew
sewage system.
Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.
In 1987, U.S. beef imports to Japan were limited
In economics as well, Japanese-sponsored material
because the Japanese have intestines that are a dif-
carries familiar Japanese propaganda as if it were es-
ferent length from other people's.
In 1990, the Japanese tried to keep out U.S. lumber
tablished academic fact. Teaching guides either dis-
exports, because the wood wouldn't withstand Japa-
miss the U.S.-Japan bilateral trade imbalance as a
nese earthquakes, which are different from those in
matter of little consequence at, alternatively, blame
the United States.
it on U.S. business, workers, and government. One
text teaches, "According to cconomic theory, we do
not need to worry about trade imbalances because
market forces cause them to disappear." The guides
occupied nations and prisoners of war and to explain
explain away Japan's protected markets as necessary:
the was in the Pacific as a consequence of the U.S.
since "Japan is a small island country with no natural
decision to cut off Japan's supply of steel and ail.
resources," it must have a trade policy that will guar-
The Japanese government began its effort to influ-
antee supplies of food and energy and cash reserves
ence America's educational system in 1978, when it
with which to buy necessities on the world market
commissioned West Coast-based consultant Charles
(see the insert "Japan is Different"). Why the United
von Loewenfeldt to develop a strategy to shape what
States and other nations have no similar need is not
elementary and high school students in the United
mentioned or discussed.
States are taught about Japan. Von Loewenfeldr's ad-
vice: the best way for Japan to reach the students was
first to teach the teachers.
According to one textbook,
Soon the government of Japan Launched its educa-
Japan invaded China
tion program by offering elementary and secondary
because of American and
school social-studies teachers all-expenses-paid
tours of lapan-"invitational diplomacy" designed to
European racist insults after
give the teachers a carefully prepared, stage-managed
World War I.
impression of Japan. These tours are almost always
the same: they begin with a visit to historic, charm-
ing Kyoto; next they go to Shikoku, one of the main
In the 1980s, the Japanese extended their educa-
islands, where teachers stay with selected families
tional effort through a $2 million per year "Program
for several nights, then they go to Hiroshima Peace
for Teaching About Japan." The program concen-
Park, which retells the history of World War Il and
trated on social studies-economics, history, trade,
America's dropping of the atomic bomb from the
and U.S.-Japan relations-and was designed to make
Japanese perspective, then to Ossks to see modern
it easy for teachers to offer prepackaged lessons on Ja-
Japanese industry; and finally, to Tokyo to see the
pan; videotapes, sample lessons, student handouts
famous Japanese juku, or cram schools.
were all provided. As one high-ranking official in the
102
HARVARD BUSI
REVIEW September-October 1990
TOTAL P.18
Japanese Foreign Ministry said in an interview, "I'm
participating in and contributing to U.S. elections.
not worried about U.S.-Japan relations in a decade. By
Money politics is bad enough; foreign money politics
then, the next generation of Americans will think
is out of the question.
differently about Japan."
Moreover, where it is legal and ethical for compa-
nies to hire former elected officials, U.S. corporations
America's Politics, America's Future
should recognize the new reality of global comperi-
rion: politics is a source of competitive advantage.
U.S. companies must accept and participate in both
the reforms of the corrupt practices that now go on
Japan's campaign for the United States is com-
-recognizing that domestic corruption is every bit
plerely legal. It plays the American economic game
as destructive as foreign corruption is-and the le-
by American rules. It uses the campaign tactics and
gitimate pursuit of political advantages.
merhods of American politics. It hires Americans to
Japan's campaign for America should serve 29 a
lobby, educate, and influence other Americans. It is
powerful wake-up call to U.S. business leaders that
the highest stakes political-economic game in the
politics is a critical component of corporate strategy.
world today, affecting whole industries, billions of
dollars, millions of jobs, and, ultimately, the wealth
and power of nations.
The Japanese campaign for
It is also deeply corrosive of the U.S. political and
America should be a
economic system. The revolving door of Washington,
wake-up call for American
D.C. breeds cynicism and mistrust. It ultimately rep-
resents A form of political cormuption-completely
business leaders.
legal, completely unethical The problem, of course,
is not in Tokyo, but in Washington, D.C.
In Washington, D.C., in state and local governments,
Americans have all but lost sight of some of the
in school districts across the country, politics not
most basic lessons of civics-chief among them the
only shapes public opinion and perception but also
guiding concept of civic virtue. The value of national
drives outcomes in terms of real products and ser-
service-for an individual to be of service to the coun-
vices in the marketplace. Significantly, this holds
try and to work on behalf of the country's interests-
true in Tokyo as much as in Washington, D.C. And
has been cheapened by a more mundane coin of the
yet in the home market of American companies, the
realm: personal advancement, self-interest, big
Japanese have proven more effective than their
money. As a consequence, the United States is not
American rivals in seizing the political advantage.
only selling corporate assets and real estate to for-
Moreover, most U.S. companies, if they do business
eign bidders, also for sale is U.S. integrity and na-
in Japan, regard the Japanese government as an alien
tional honor.
and external entity and depend almost solely on the
The revolving door must stop. Those who hold top
American embassy for political advice and counsel.
federal positions, such as director of the Central In-
Whether in Tokyo or Washington, the lesson is the
telligence Agency, U.S. trade representative, and
same: companies can create political advantage that
secretary of state, should be permanently prohibited
goes beyond the conventional boundaries of com-
from becoming foreign agents or paid lobbyists for
pany strategy. Indeed, the political and economic di-
any corporation-foreign or domestic. For lower lev-
mensions are inseparable.
el federal office holders, there should be a longer
Finally, it is up to American business leaders and
"cooling off" period between their departure from
the American people to demand a higher standard of
government service and their availability to lobby,
conduct from their elected and appointed representa-
counsel, or advise on trade matters. As of January
ríves. Companies that are accustomed to the require-
1991, federal law will require a one-year waiting pe-
ments and strictures of the Corrupt Foreign Practices
riod; five to ten years would represent a more sub-
Act should now demand a U.S. version-a Corrupt
stantial safeguard of the public interest.
Domestic Practices Act. The manipulation of the
In a democracy, the best disinfectant for corruption
U.S. political and economic system by foreign inter-
is sunshine. All foreign agents-those who represent
ests with the willing and eager participation of
foreign clients, whether lobbyists, journalists, aca-
Americans-for-hire threatens America's national
demics, public relations advisers, political strate-
sovereignty. It threatens America's future. It goes on
gists, lawyers, or foundations-should provide full
only because Americans tolerate it. Americans are
disclosure to the fustice Department. No exceptions.
the only ones who can stop it.
D
Foreign companies should be flatly prohibited from
Reprint 90503
HARVARD BL
in
# September-Ocrober
103

Page data

Page: 77
Source index: 0
Type: document
Media ID: 21a802ee596eb64e
Size: unknown

Document data

ID: 18513421
Core: doc
Type: document

DTO data

{
    "id": "18513421",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Government Reform and Lobbyist] [2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)",
        "Michael Waldman's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "imageCount": 77,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity

{
    "localId": "18513421",
    "label": "Government Reform and Lobbyist] [2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421"
}

Document source metadata

{
    "id": "18513421",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Government Reform and Lobbyist] [2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)",
        "Michael Waldman's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-JPG/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015/42_t_7763296_20060469F_Seg1_002_003_2015_Page_001.JPG",
    "imageCount": 77,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Document source extras

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18513421",
    "naId": 18513421,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

Page context

{
    "seq": 77,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/21/5134/18513421/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006-0469-F-Seg-1/2006-0469-F-Seg-1-PDF/Box_002/42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-002-003-2015.pdf",
    "mediaId": "21a802ee596eb64e",
    "ocrText": "FOIA Number: 2006-0469-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the William J. Clinton\nPresidential Library Staff.\nCollection/Record Group:\nClinton Presidential Records\nSubgroup/Office of Origin:\nSpeechwriting\nSeries/Staff Member:\nMichael Waldman\nSubseries:\nOA/ID Number:\n13641\nFolderID:\nFolder Title:\n[Government Reform and Lobbyists] [2]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nS\n92\n3\n2\n3\nDRAFT\nSTAT FACT\nSOURCE\n1. Number of Lobbyists:\n8,531 lobbyists registered with the Senate in March 1992\nDemosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch\n- In 1976, there were 3,000 registered. An increase of 184%.\nEqual to 85 lobbyists for every Senator.\n6,085 lobbyists registered with House in 1993.\nNY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)\n- Equal to 14 for every member.\n40,000 lobbyists\nNY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)\n- Estimate by Charles Peters, editor of Washington Monthly.\n6,000-20,000 lobbyists\nNY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)\n- Most estimates put the number of lobbyists between 6,000-20,000.\nGAO report found that 90% of lobbying disclosures filrd were incomplete\n\"Lobbying Bill Would Plug Holes..' CQ\n1/22/94\n2. Number Associated with Lobbying:\n80,000 people associated with lobbying activity in Washington.\nNY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)\n- Number is from American Univ. Professor James Thurber.\nThe President referred to this figure in May 1993. Thurber later\nstated the number was \"off the top of his head\" and included everyone\nassociated with lobbying all branches of government.\n91,000 people associated with lobbying activity in and around Washington\nNY Times National Desk article (5/12/93)\n- Professor Thurber conducted a study after his 80,000 number and\nrevised the number to 91,000. This number includes lobbyists,\nsupport staff, secretaries, etc.\n- We should use this number in comparison to other numbers\n(i.e. size of gov't in DC, other industries in DC)\nDRAFT\nSTAT FACT\nSOURCE\n3. Number of Professional/Trade Associations in Washington:\n32% of professional and trade associations were headquartered in DC in 1990\n\"The Parasite Economy\" by Jonathan Rauch\n- compared to 19% in DC in 1971. Represents an increase of 68%.\nNational Journal (4/25/92)\n741 health care groups represented or headquartered in DC in 1992\n\"The Parasite Economy\" by Jonathan Rauch\n- compared with 117 in 1979. An increase of 533%. Might want to\nNational Journal (4/25/92)\ntie in amounts contributed by health care PAC's to Congressional\ncampaigns or amount of money spent to defeat health care.\n3,000 professional/trade associations had offices in DC in 1989.\nThe Lobbyists by Jeff Birnbaum\n4. Corporations Represented in Washington:\n500 US corporations had offices in DC in 1990\nArrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips\n- compared with less than 100 in 1950. An increase of 400%.\n2/3 of world's largest foreign multinationals have offices in DC.\nArrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips\n5. Number of PAC's:\n4,210 PAC's in 1993\nInterest Group Politics published by CQ\n- compared to 608 in 1974. An increase of 592%.\nPress\nDRAFT\nSTAT FACT\nSOURCE\n6. Contributions by PAC's:\nPAC's contributed $178 mil. to Congressional campaigns in 1992\nInterest Group Politics published by CQ\n- compared to $23 mil. in 1976. An increase of 674%.\nPress\nPAC contributions accounted for 36% of House and 21% of Senate\ncontributions in 1992.\n- represents over a 20% increase since 1982\nVital Statistics on Congress\n7. Total Campaign Spending:\nFEC estimated $500 million (i.e one-half billion dollars) would be spent on the\nLA Times, 11/5/94\n1994 Congressional elections.\n- Represents an increase of 410% since 1976\n8. Trust of Congress:\nOnly 19% of those surveyed trust Congress.\nArrogant Capital citing Jan. 1994 Gallup Poll\nOnly 9% of those surveyed believed House members had high honesty\nUSA Today, 9/29/94\nand ethical standards\n- A record low. Only car slaesman ranked lower.\n29% approval rating in March 1994\nCQ, 4/2/94\n- A decrease of 38% since August 1974\n9. Influence of Special Interest:\n84% surveyed believe special interests have more influence than voters.\nGordon Black May 1993 poll\n10. Government Waste:\n75% surveyed believe the government wastes money.\nDemosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch\nDRAFT\nSTAT FACT\nSOURCE\nAdditional Stat Facts:\nRevolving Door - 40% of House members who left office in Jan. 1993 became\nDemosclerosis and Arrogant Capital\nlobbyists. Per a Public Citizen study, 59% of 300 former House members,\nCongressional staffers and former executive branch members became lobbyists.\nTax Changes - 5,400 changes to tax laws through 27 pieces of legislation\nDemosclerosis by Jonathan Rauch\nbetween 1989-91.\nBills Passed - 10,510 bills were introduced in 102d Congress and only 605\nVital Statistics on American Politics\nwere passed representing a passage of less than 6%.\nLEGI-SLATE Report for the 104th Congress\nThu, June 1, 1995 11:14am (EST\nQUICK BILL\nS. 10 by Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)\nCongressional Accountability Act of 1995\nTitle, Overview, Outlook:\nS. 10 by Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)\nCongressional Accountability Act of 1995; Congressional Campaign Spending\nLimit and Election Reform Act of 1995\nOfficial Title (Caption):\nA bill to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the\nFederal Government, to reform lobbying registration and disclosure\nrequirements, to amend the gift rules of the Senate and the House of\nRepresentatives, and to reform the Federal election laws applicable to the\nCongress.\nIntroduced on Wednesday, January 4, 1995\nNarrative Description:\nDescription and Status of S. 10,\nCongressional Accountability Act of 1995; Congressional Campaign Spending\nLimit\nand Election Reform Act of 1995,\nas of Thursday, June 1, 1995\nThe bill was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, January 4, 1995 by\nSen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD). At the present time there are 9 cosponsors of\nthis bill, 9 Democrats.\nThe bill's official title stated its purpose as follows:\n\"A bill to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the\nFederal Government, to reform lobbying registration and disclosure\nrequirements, to amend the gift rules of the Senate and the House of\nRepresentatives, and to reform the Federal election laws applicable to the\nCongress.\"\nThe bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.\nThe most recent action on the bill was on Wednesday, January 4, 1995:\nReferred to Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.\nThere is currently no committee action scheduled on this bill.\nCRS Abstract and Digest:\nDigest\n(from Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress)\nTABLE OF CONTENTS:\nDivision A: Extension of Rights and Protections, and\nAssociated Procedures\nTitle I: Extension of Rights and Protections, and\nAssociated Procedures\nTitle II: Office of Congressional Fair Employment\nPractices--Establishment and Operations\nTitle III: Administrative and Judicial\nDispute-Resolution Procedures\nTitle IV: Miscellaneous Provisions\nDivision B: Lobbying and Gift Reform\nTitle I: Lobbying Reform\nTitle II: Congressional Gift Reform\nDivision C: Campaign Finance Reform\nTitle I Practices (the Office).\nProvides that any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any covered\nemployee because of the exercise of a right under this Act constitutes an\nunlawful employment practice.\nMakes available the relief awarded under the Civil Righcellaneous\nSubtitle F: Effective Dates, Authorizations\nComprehensive Congressional Reform Act of 1995\nDivision A: Extension of Rights and Protections, and Associated Procedures\nTitle I: Extension of Rights and Protections, and Associated Procedures\nRequires all personnel actions affecting covered employees to be made\nfree from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national\norigin, age, or handicap or disability.\nDefines a \"covered employee\" as an employee of the House of\nRepresentatives, the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional\nBudget Office (CBO), the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), or the\nOffice of Congressional Fair Employment Practices (the Office).\nProvides that any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any covered\nemployee because of the exercise of a right under this Act constitutes an\nunlawful employment practice.\nMakes available the relief awarded under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,\nthe Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Rehabilitation\nAct of 1973, or a specified section of the Americans with Disabilities Act\nof 1990 (ADA), as appropriate, for discrimination violations affecting\ncovered employees. Prohibits punitive damages for such violations. Bars a\ncovered employee from commencing an administrative or judicial proceeding to\nseek a remedy for prohibited practices, except as provided under this Act.\nAmends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADEA to apply their\nprotection and remedies to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and the\nGeneral Accounting Office (GAO). Extends coverage under the ADA to GPO and\nGAO as well.\n(Sec. 102) Applies the rights, protections, and relief of the Family\nand Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the Employee Polygraph Protection Act\nof 1988 (EPPA), the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act\n(WARN), and veterans' employment and reemployment rights to covered\nemployees, GAO, and the Library of Congress. Applies the Fair Labor\nStandards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to covered employees and GPO.\n(Sec. 107) Establishes the following exclusive procedures for remedy of\nviolations of the laws described above: (1) employee counseling; (2)\nmediation; (3) filing of a formal complaint with the Office or filing of a\ncivil action in the U.S. district court; and (4) appealing to the Board of\nDirectors of the Office if aggrieved by a decision or to the U.S. Court of\nAppeals for review, subject to certain conditions.\n(Sec. 108) Applies the rights and protections against discrimination in\nthe provision of public services under the ADA to the Senate, the House,\ncongressional joint committees, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol\nGuide Service, the Capitol Police, cBo, OTA, and the Office. Applies such\nrights and protections to any qualified individual with a disability, except\nthat, with respect to claims of employment discrimination asserted by a\ncovered employee, the exclusive remedies described above shall apply.\nMakes relief under such Act available for such violations and describes\nprocedures to remedy such violations, including filing a charge with the\nGeneral Counsel of the Office, mediation, and judicial review.\nMakes specified remedies and procedures under the Civil Rights Act of\n1964 available to disabled visitors, guests, or patrons of instrumentalities\nof the Congress (GAO, GPO, and the family and medical leave) of employees an\naccess to\npublic B by this section.\n(Sec. 109) Directs each employing office (including GAO and the\nLibrary) and covered employee to comply with the Occupational Safety and\nHealth Act of 1970 (OSHA) and applies such Act's duties, rights,\nprotections, and remedies (except penalties) to such offices and employees.\nEstablishes procedures for such remedies, including granting the General\nCounsel and the Board certain authorities exercised by the Secretary of\nLabor under such Act.\n(Sec. 110) Applies the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations\nStatute to employing offices and covered employees. Grants the Board and the\nGeneral Counsel specified authorities under the Statute.\n(Sec. 111) Requires the Board of the Office to: (1) review provisions\nof Federal laws and regulations relating to the terms and conditions of\nemployment (including protection from discrimination in personnel actions,\nhealth and safety, and family and medical leave) of employees and access to\npublic services and accommodations; and (2) report on December 31, 1996, and\nbiennially thereafter, on whether or to what degree such provisions are\napplicable or inapplicable to the legislative branch and, if inapplicable,\nwhether they should be made applicable.\nRequires each report of a congressional committee accompanying any bill\nor joint resolution to: (1) describe the manner in which the provisions of\nthe bill or joint resolution apply to the Congress and congressional\ninstrumentalities; or (2) if the provisions do not apply, include a\nstatement of the reasons why.\n(Sec. 112) Directs the Board to study the application of the following\nlaws to GAO, GPO, the Library and other entities in the legislative branch\nnot covered by all the sections of this title: (1) Title VII of the Civil\nRights Act of 1964; (2) the ADEA; (3) the ADA; (4) the FMLA; (5) the FLSA;\n(6) the OSHA; (7) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (8) the Federal Service\nLabor-Management Relations Statute; (9) the General Accounting Office\nPersonnel Act of 1980; (10) the EPPA; (11) the WARN; and (12) provisions\nrelating to veterans' employment and reemployment rights.\nTitle II: Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices-Establishment\nand Operations\nEstablishes the Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices\nwithin the legislative branch.\n(Sec. 207) Authorizes appropriations.\nTitle III: Administrative and Judicial Dispute-Resolution Procedures\nSets forth procedures for counseling, mediation, hearings, appeals to\nthe Board, judicial review of Board decisions, and civil actions relating to\nviolations described under title I.\n(Sec. 307) Sets deadlines for: (1) making counseling requests; and (2)\ncharging discrimination in public services or discrimination in exercising\nrights relating to occupational safety and health.\nTitle IV: Miscellaneous Provisions\nEstablishes Settlements and Awards Reserve appropriation accounts in\nthe Contingent Funds of the House and the Senate. Makes amounts in such\naccounts available for the payment of awards for settlements made under this\nAct.\nAuthorizes appropriations.\nisions with respect to certain\nexisting claims.\nDivision B: Lobbying and Gift Reform\nTitle I: Lobbying Reform\nLobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - Requires registration with the Office\nof Lobbying Regtibility,\nwith respect to employment decisions, of employees who are: (1) on the staff\nof the House or Senate leadership; (2) on the staff of congressional\ncommittees, joint committees, or subcommittees; (3) on the staff of Members\nof the House or Senators; (4) officers of the House or the Senate or elected\nor appointed congressional staff; or (5) applicants for any such positions.\n(Sec. 407) Directs the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House\nCommittee on Standards of Official Conduct to retain full power with respect\nto the discipline of Members, officers, and employees for violating rules of\nthe Senate and the House on nondiscrimination in employment.\n(Sec. 410) Sets forth transitional provisions with respect to certain\nexisting claims.\nDivision B: Lobbying and Gift Reform\nTitle I: Lobbying Reform\nLobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 - Requires registration with the Office\nof Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure (Office) established by this\nAct by any individual lobbyist (or the individual's employer, if it employs\none or more lobbyists) within 30 days after the individual first makes, or\nis employed or retained to make, a lobbying contact with either the\nPresident, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or any other specified\nFederal officer or employee. Defines a lobbyist as any individual employed\nor retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services\nthat include one or more lobbying contacts (but not an individual whose\nlobbying activities constitute less than ten percent of the time engaged in\nthe services provided to that client). Provides for: (1) special\nregistration filing rules in cases involving multiple clients and contacts;\nand (2) registration termination in cases where a registrant is no longer\nemployed or retained by a client to conduct lobbying activities, and does\nnot anticipate any additional lobbying activities for such client.\n(Sec. 1104) Specifies the contents of such registration and reports.\n(Sec. 1105) Requires registrants to file semiannual lobbying activity\nreports with the Office. Provides for: (1) exemptions from such registration\nand reporting requirements in cases involving lobbying income of $2,500 or\nless (for a particular client) or total expenses of $5,000 or less (for all\nlobbying activities of a registrant whose employees lobby on its own behalf)\nfor the semiannual period. Requires periodic adjustment of such dollar\namounts for inflation.\n(Sec. 1106) Provides for special rules generally prohibiting\nregistrants under this Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act from\nproviding gifts (including meals, lodging, transportation, entertainment,\nreimbursements, loans, or forbearance) to any covered legislative branch\nofficial, or to the spouse, dependent, friend, or relative of such an\nofficial if it is given with the knowledge and acquiescence of such official\nand is given because of his or her position. Permits certain such items\nunder prescribed circumstances, such as lawful political contributions and\ninformational materials sent to the official's office, and gifts given for a\nnonbusiness purpose and motivated by family relationship or close personal\nfriendship.\nbehalf of the person with\nrespect to that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and\n(2) certification that the declarant has not made, and will not make, any\nprohibited payment.\n(Sec. rmining and resolving\nalleged violations of this Act; and (2) judicial review of Office decisions.\n(Sec. 1113) Amends the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to:\n(1) eliminate references to political propaganda and, in certain\ncases, replace them with references to informational materials; and (2)\nmodify registration exemption provisions.\n(Sec. 1114) Revises (Byrd Amendment) requirements for a declaration by\npersons requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or\ncooperative agreement with respect to any payments made in connection with\nit which would be prohibited if made with appropriated funds. Requires, in\nlieu of information currently required, the: (1) name of any registrant\nunder this Act who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person with\nrespect to that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and\n(2) certification that the declarant has not made, and will not make, any\nprohibited payment.\n(Sec. 1115) Repeals: (1) the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act; and\n(2) provisions on lobbyist activities of the Department of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment Act and the Housing Act of 1949.\n(Sec. 1118) Authorizes appropriations.\n(Sec. 1119) Sets forth special rules for the identification of: (1)\nforeign and other clients on whose behalf lobbying contacts are made with a\ncovered legislative or executive branch official; and (2) such covered\nofficials.\n(Sec. 1121) Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to the\nCongress on differences in meaning between this Act and the Internal Revenue\nCode of \"lobbying activities,\" \"lobbying expenditures,\" \"influencing\nlegislation,\" and related terms.\n(Sec. 1122) Requires the President to appoint an interim Director of\nthe Office within 30 days after enactment of this Act.\nTitle II: Congressional Gift Reform\nAmends Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit any\nMember, officer, or employee of the Senate from knowingly accepting a gift\nfrom: (1) a registered lobbyist, lobbying firm, or agent of a foreign\nprincipal in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1994; or (2) any\nperson, subject to exceptions listed in this Act. (Currently, such\nindividuals and their spouses are allowed to accept gifts totalling up to\n$250 from any one person.)\nConsiders a gift to a spouse or dependent of a Member, officer, or\nemployee to be a gift to the Member, officer, or employee if given with\ntheir knowledge and acquiescence and if there is reason to believe that the\ngift was given because of their official positions.\nLists items exempt from the restriction on gifts from persons other\nthan lobbyists, lobbying firms, or agents of foreign principals, including:\n(1) anything provided on the basis of a personal or family relationship\nunless the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe that the gift\nwas provided because of his or her official position; (2) unused items that\nare promptly returned to the donor; (3) food or refreshments believed to\nhave a value of less than $20; (4) food, lodging, and other benefits\nresulting from the outside business or employment activities of a Member,\nofficer, or employee or their spouses if such benefits have not been offered\nor enhanced because of the recipfree attendance at a convention, dinner, or\nmilar event.\nProhibits the acceptance of a gift exceeding $250 on the basis of the\npersonal relationship or friendship exception unless the Select Committee on\ncampaign event; (6) certain awards or prizes given in\ncontests open to the public; (7) certain honorary degrees and other awards;\n(8) donations of products from the Member's State that are intended for\npromotional purposes and are of minimal value as well as food, refreshments,\nand entertainment provided in the home State, subject to reasonable\nlimitations; (9) certain training; (10) bequests and inheritances; (11)\nanything paid for by the Government or by a State or local government or\nsecured under a Government contract; (12) a gift of personal hospitality;\n(13) free attendance at an event, as permitted by this Act; and (14) certain\nother opportunities and benefits.\nEstablishes conditions under which a Member, officer, or employee may\naccept an offer of free attendance at a convention, dinner, or similar event\nProhibits the acceptance of a gift exceeding $250 on the basis of the\npersonal relationship or friendship exception unless the Select Committee on\nEthics determines that such exception applies.\nProvides that certain reimbursements to a Member, officer, or employee\nfor travel expenses to an event in connection with official duties shall not\nbe considered as gifts if advance authorization to accept reimbursement is\nreceived and the reimbursement and authorization are disclosed within a\nspecified time period.\n(Sec. 1202) Makes parallel amendments to the Rules of the House of\nRepresentatives to reflect conforming gift restrictions.\n(Sec. 1203) Amends the Ethics in Government Act to provide that\nreimbursements deemed accepted by the Senate or the House and reported as\nrequired under such rules need not be reported under such Act. Authorizes\nthe Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to accept gifts provided\nthey do not involve any duty, burden, or condition, or are not made\ndependent upon some future performance by the United States.\nDivision C: Campaign Finance Reform\nTitle I: Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform\nCongressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1995\nSubtitle A: Control of Congressional Campaign Spending Part\n1: Senate Election Campaign Spending Limits and Benefits\nAmends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to make Senate\ncandidates who meet certain filing requirements and contribution and\nexpenditure limits eligible for FECA benefits.\nLimits Senate primary expenditures for a candidate (or his or her\nauthorized committees) to: (1) 67 percent of the general election\nexpenditure limit; or (2) $2.75 million. Limits runoff expenditures.\nSets a threshold contribution amount which triggers application of such\nprimary and runoff limits.\nLimits the use by a Senate candidate (or authorized committees), during\nan entire election cycle, of the candidate's personal (or family) funds\n(including debt).\nLimits aggregate general election expenditures by an eligible Senate\ncandidate (or authorized committees) to the lesser of: (1) $5.5 million; or\n(2) the greater of $1,200,000, or $4,000,000 plus 30 cents times the voting\nage population up to 4,000,000 and 25 cents times the voting age population\nover 4,000,000.\nExempts from tlosed captioning for eligible Senate candidates' televisi\ncommercials.\nAuthorizes reduced candidate payments under circumstances of\ninsufficient funds.\n(Sec. 10002) Prohibits Senate election activities by political action\ncommittees (PACs).\nReduces from $5,000 to $1,000 the maximum aggregate contributions of\nany PAC to a Senate candidate (or authorized committees). Makes it unlawful\nfor aggregate PACs to contribute to any Senate candidate of the Senate.\nRequires the Commission to examine and audit, for FECA compliance, the\ncampaign accounts of five percent of all Senate and House of Representatives\ncandidates, and the campaign accounts of all opponents of such candidates as\nwell. Requires candidates to refund to the commission any excess payments or\nexpenditures. Sets civil penalties for excess expenditures and contributions\nProvides for judicial review of Commission actions and require\nCommission report to the Senate.\nRequires closed captioning for eligible Senate candidates' television\ncommercials.\nAuthorizes reduced candidate payments under circumstances of\ninsufficient funds.\n(Sec. 10002) Prohibits Senate election activities by political action\ncommittees (PACs).\nReduces from $5,000 to $1,000 the maximum aggregate contributions of\nany PAC to a Senate candidate (or authorized committees). Makes it unlawful\nfor aggregate PACs to contribute to any Senate candidate (or authorized\ncommittees) more than the lesser of: (1) $825,000; or (2) 20 percent of the\naggregate Federal election spending limit. Requires annual adjustments of\nsuch dollar amounts according to a specified price index.\n(Sec. 10003) Sets forth reporting requirements for Senate candidates\nnot eligible for FECA benefits. Requires reports to the Secretary within two\ndays of any contributions raised and expenditures made in excess of FECA\nlimits.\nRequires any candidate for the Senate who, during the election cycle,\nexceeds limits on the use of personal and immediate family funds, and on\npersonal loans incurred by the candidate and the candidate's immediate\nfamily, to report to the Secretary of the Senate within two days after such\nexpenditures have been made or loans incurred.\nRequires certain expenditure reports from any Senate candidate who held\nFederal, State, or local office during the same election cycle, and made any\nexpenditures, before becoming a Senate candidate, which would have been\ntreated as Senate candidate expenditures.\n(Sec. 10004) Requires Senate candidates ineligible for FECA benefits to\nplace on every paid or authorized political commercial or communication the\ndeclaration: \"This candidate has not agreed to voluntary campaign spending\nlimits.\"\nPart II: General Provisions\nAmends the Communications Act of 1934 to require a broadcast station to\nmake broadcast time available to all House and Senate candidates in the last\n30 (currently 45) days before a primary at the lowest unit charge of the\nstation for the same amount of time (currently, the same class and amount of\ntime) for the same period on the same date. Allows Senate candidates to\npurchase broadcast time at 50 percent of the lowest unit rate for the 60\ndays before a general election.\nProhibits broadcasters from preempting advertisements sold to political\ncandidates at the lowest unit rate, unless the preemption is beyo specifiedb\nadcaster's control.\n(Sec. 10012) Amends FECA to set forth reporting requirements for\ncertain independent expenditures.\n(Sec. 10015) Amends Federal law to prohibit a Senator who is a\ncandidate for election to any public office from making a mass mailing under\nthe frank during the calendar year of any primary or general election for\nsuch office.\nSubtitle B: Independent Expenditures\nAmends FECA to define \"independent expenditure\" as an expenditures for\nan advertisement or other communication that: (1) contains\nexpress advocacy; and (2) is made without the participation or\ncooperation of a candidate or a candidate's representative. Excludes from\nthe meaning of \"independent expenditure\" any expenditure by: (1) a political\ncommittee of a political party; (2) persons who communicate or receive\ninformation about activities that have a purpose of influencing a\ncandidate's election; and (3) persons with other specified relationships\nwith a candidate or candidate's agents in the same election cycle.\nDefines \"express advocacy\" as any communication that when taken as a\nwhole: (1) expresses support for or opposition to a specific candidates, a\nspecific group of candidates, or candidates of a particular political party;\nor (2) suggests taking action with respect to an election, such as voting\nfor or against, contributing to, or participating in campaign activity.\nAmends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for equal broadcast\ntime, including notification and opportunity to purchase equal time on an\nindependent expenditure basis.\nSubtitle C: Expenditures\nPart I: Personal Loans; Credit\nAmends FECA to prohibit the use of contributions after the date of a\ngeneral election to repay loans to a candidate (or authorized committee) by\nthe candidate himself or herself or by members of the candidate's family.\nTreats as a contribution any extension of credit of more than $1,000\nfor more than 60 days to candidates for Federal office (or authorized\ncommittees) by political advisers.\nPart II: Provisions Relating to Soft Money of Political Parties\nAmends FECA to define: (1) \"generic campaign activity\" as a campaign\nactivity\" as a campaign activity on behalf of a party rather than a\ncandidate; and (2) \"State Party Grass Roots Fund\" as a segregated State fund\non behalf of a federal candidate.\n(Sec. 10034) Permits maximum contributions to a State Party Grassroots\nFund of: (1) $20,000 by an individual; and (2) $15,000 from a multicandidate\ncommittee. Establishes an overall $60,000 annual limit on individual\ncontributions, including specified limits for: (1) candidates and their\npolitical committees; and (2) State committees.\n(Sec. 10035) Subjects to certain limitations, prohibitions and\nreporting requirements any amount (\"soft money\") solicited, received, or\nexpended directly or indirectly by a national, State, district, or local\ncommittee of a political party (including any subordinate committee) with\nrespect to an activity (such as voter registration and get-out-the vote\nactivities among others) which, in whole or in part, is in connection with\nan election to Federal office.\nLimits the expenditures for which a State cor conduit). Requires an int\nmediary or conduit to report the\noriginal source, contributor, and intended recipient of each forwarded\ncontribution.\nProhto FECA, including restrictions on\nsolicitations from tax-exempt organizations.\n(Sec. 10037) Requires: (1) a national committee and a congressional\ncampaign committee to report all receipts and disbursements whether or not\nin connection with a Federal election; and (2) other specified political\ncommittees to report all receipts and disbursements in connection with a\nFederal election.\nSubtitle D: Contributions\nSpecifies circumstances in which contributions made or arranged to be\nmade directly or indirectly by a person to or on behalf of a particular\ncandidate through an intermediary or conduit shall be treated as\ncontributions from such intermediary or conduit to the candidate (thus\nsubjecting them to the FECA limitations otherwise applicable to that\nintermediary or conduit). Requires an intermediary or conduit to report the\noriginal source, contributor, and intended recipient of each forwarded\ncontribution.\nProhibits certain lobbyist contributions.\n(Sec. 10042) Treats contributions by a dependent not of voting age as\nhaving been made by the individual on whom that dependent is a dependent.\n(Sec. 10043) Prohibits a candidate for Federal office from accepting,\nwith respect to any election, any contribution from a State or local\npolitical party committee (or subordinate committee) if such contribution,\nwhen added to the total of contribution previously accepted from all such\ncommittees of that political party, exceeds the relevant contribution\nlimitation.\n(Sec. 10044) Makes it unlawful to coerce contributions or expenditures\nby physical threat or other intimidation.\n(Sec. 10045) Prohibit acceptance by a candidate of cash contributions\nfrom any one person aggregating more than $100.\nSubtitle E: Miscellaneous\nProhibits Federal candidates and officeholders from establishing,\nmaintaining, or controlling any political committee (such as a \"leadership\ncommittee\") other than a principal campaign committee of the candidate,\nauthorized committee, party committee, or other political committee\ndesignated as an authorized committee.\n(Sec. 10052) Directs the Commission to study and report to the Congress\non the feasibility of developing telephonic voting for person with\ndisabilities.\n(Sec. 10053) Exempts certain tax-exempt organizations from specified\ncorporate expenditure limits.\n(Sec. 10055) Requires exact copies of campaign advertising that refers\nto a candidate's opponent to be filed with the Commission and the Secretary\nof State or the candidate's State.\n(Sec. 10056) Amends Federal law to prohibit a Member of Congress,\nduring an election year, from using the franking privilege for a mass\nmailing from January 1 until the general election date.\nSubtitle F: Effective Dates; Authorizations\nSets forth the general effective date of this Act.\nProvides for direct, expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from\nany court rulings on the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or\namendment by it.\nReport is Completed\nTurn off your software print command\nPress ENTER to continue:\nPAGE\n1\nLEVEL { --- 1 or i STORY\nCopyright 1995 Gannett Company, Inc.\nUSA TODAY\nFebruary 22, 1995, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION\nSECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A\nLENGTH: 406 words\nHEADLINE: Clinton: Regulatory ban 'costly'\nBYLINE: Judy Keen\nBODY:\nPresident Clinton, working to define his differences with Republicans,\nTuesday attacked a GOP plan to freeze government regulations.\nHe said the GOP moratorium \"would cost lives and dollars\" and announced his\nGWN ideas for junking federal rules.\nClinton asked government agencies to identify obsolete rules by June :. He\nalso asked regulators to find ways to negotiate rules with the public and to\nmeet with people affected by their rules.\nHis audience included Rainer Mueller of Oceanside, Calif., whose SOB died\nfrom E. coll bacteria \"that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had\nbeen in effect when his 500 ate the contaminated food,\" Clinton said.\nThe House is expected to vote this week on the GOP plan, which would halt\nimplementation of federal regulations proposed since Nov. 20 and bar new ones\nuntil Dec. 31.\nClinton, whose scheduled event was designed to show he can match Republicans\nwhen it COMES to whittling the size of government, also is eager to offer\nalternatives in the 608 agenda on crime, education and other issues.\nClinton said his administration has \"a serious obligation\" to work with\ncongress to reduce regulations \"without literally taking leave of our senses and\ndoing things that drive people up the wall, but don't make them safer.\"\nHe did not threaten to veta the moratorium, but said it \"is not acceptable.\"\nHOUSE Speaker Newt Singrich said Clinton is trying to block SOP progress.\n\"His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to B whole range of other issues,\"\nGingrich said. Clinton \"is locked into sort of a left-wing, big-government\napproach that we are convinced will not work.\"\nThe White House released examples of regulations that would be unnecessarily\nsuspended under the 60P plan:\nTrade senctions against some Chinese products in retaliation for Chinese\npirating of U.S. products like videos and computer software.\nR\nLEXIS·NEXIS®\nLEXIS·NEXIS®\nLEXS·NEXIS®\nPAGE\nIN\nUSA TODAY, February 22, 1995\n---- Standards for bottled water.\n-- Tougher standards for commuter airlines, including more pilot training,\n---- Safety labels on tays.\n-- Bag limits for duck hunters. \"It would even cancel the duck hunting\nseason,\" Clinton said. \"That gives me some hope that it will not prevail.\"\n\"If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the\nforeseeable future,\" Clinton said.\nRepublicans say their plan allows exemptions for safety and health matters.\nGRAPHIC: PHOTO, b/w, Wilfredo Lee, AP\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE-MDC: February 23, 1995\nLEXIS·NEXIS® ®\nLEXIS·NEX.S®\nLEX NEXIS ®\nServices of Mead Central Inc\nRESIDENT DENOUNCES GOP PLAN TO CURB FEDERAL REGULATIONS\nBy TODD S. PURDUM\n1995 N.Y. Times News Service\nWASHINGTON - President Clinton on Tuesday attacked Republican proposals\nor limits on new federal regulations as an extreme idea that 'would cost\nives and dollars. But in an effort to show his own commitment to cutting\ned tape, he ordered federal agencies to weed out unnecessary rules and report\nhe results to him by June 1.\nClinton did not specifically VOW to veto a bill on regulations that is due\nor a vote in the House this week. The legislation would suspend federal\negulations imposed since the November elections until the new Republican\najority in Congress could pass new laws governing future rule-making.\nBut the president insisted that ''a moratorium is not acceptable, and\naid it could interfere with activities as varied as an orderly duck hunting\neason, burials at Arlington National Cemetery or the imposition of trade\nanctions on China.\n''It sounds good, Clinton said at a meeting with agency officials. ''But\nhis stops in its track federal action that protects the environment, protects\nonsumers and protects workers.\nContending that a moratorium could jeopardize regulations governing\nverything from the safety of food and drinking water to commuter airlines and\nutomobiles, Clinton added: ''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations,\n-between regulations - all regulations. No judgment. Sounds good, but no\nadgment.\nClinton's objections are more than philosophical. With the Republicans in\nirm control of Congress, executive rule-making authority is one of the main\nbols remaining at the administration's disposal, and the White House would be\nbath to lose it.\nThe president also criticized other Republican proposals that would\nequire the government to satisfy a complex series of cost-benefit tests\nefore imposing new regulations in fields ranging from the environment to\nealth and safety, and require the government to compensate property owners\nen regulations have the effect of reducing their property value by 10\nercent or more.\n'`These are extreme proposals, Clinton said. 'They go too far. They\nbuld cost lives and dollars. A small army of special-interest lobbyists knows\ney could never get away with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental\nrotection, but why bother if you can paralyze the government by process?''\nClinton's remarks were his latest effort to draw contrasts between himself\nid congressional Republicans, even as he insists that he, too, is moving to\narink and reshape the government.\nAccordingly, as part of Vice President Al Gore's continuing review of the\nireaucracy, Clinton ordered all federal regulators to make a page-by-page\neview of their rules to scrap obsolete ones or determine if there is a\nrivate sector alternative.\nIn addition, Clinton pledged to work with Congress to simplify regulatory\nIWS where appropriate.\nBut House Speaker Newt Gingrich shot back: ''His administration is now\nctively opposing us, from crime bills to regulatory reform to capital gains\n1X cuts to a whole range of other issues. The president is locked into sort\n: a left-wing, big government approach that we are convinced will not work\nWhen Clinton was asked later whether he was now contributing to the sort\n: gridlock between Congress and White House that he had once deplored, he\naid of the Republicans:\n' ' I am not trying to thwart them. I'm trying to give them an opportunity\n) know exactly where I stand and to work with them.\n00:52 EST\nFEBRUARY 22, 1995\nfiled by: NYT-\non 02/22/95 at 01:01EST\nprinted by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:25EST\nTH COUNTY\nThe North County\nBlade- itizen\nNo. 53\nWednesday, February 22, 1995\nPresident meets with local E. coli activists\nBy Jing Vida\nsoning caused by the leadly E. coli\nmost new meat-inspection regulations.\nStaff Writer\n0157 H7 bacteria, which is sometimes\nClinton, Gingrich clash over regulatory\nClinton announced the administration's\nfound in the nation's meat supply.\nreform. Nation, Page A-3.\neffort to cut bureaucracy but vowed is\nPresident Clinton listened Tuesday to\nSince then, Mueller became involved\nkeep family protection a top priority in his\nan Oceanside resident and others who\nwith Safe Tables Our Priority, a national\nRegulatory Reinvention Initiative.\ntold him agonizing stories of losing lover\nsafe-food coaltion formed after a 1993 E\nphone interview in Washington. D.C. after\nIn his speech, Clinton stressed that \"we\nones to vernment inaction or irrespon\ncoli-spawned series of deaths and ill\ntalking to Clinton and Vice President AI\ncan bring back common sense and reduce\nsibility\nnesses.\nGore \"He feels we're dolug a great job.'\nhassle without stripping away safeguards\nOceanside 2/22/95\nRainer Mueller of Oceanside lcst his\n\"He seeins to be extremely sympa\nThe President attacked the Republi\n13 year old son Eric in 1993 to food pol\nthelic to our cause,\" Mueller said during a\ncans' proposal to put a moratorium on\nSee F. coli, Page A-7\nronmental protections that work\nlaws designed to clean up the food\nadvocates mandatory testing for\nE. coli\nand to propose needed leg.slation.\nsupply But the new Republican\nfood pathogens as well as recalling\n\"In case of food safety. there are\ncontrolled Congress' anti-regula-\nlaws that allow bad food products to\nregulations that need to be fixed,\"\ntory mood could set back some of\nreach the public.\nFrom Page A 1\nMueller said. \"A lot of people work\nSTOP's progress.\n\"The Republicans have this\nfor our children. our workers, our\nhard to have these laws in place.\nA Republican, Mueller now finds\nContract With America' but it\nLook at our organization. It's\nhinself in the Democrats' camp as\nseems like a contract against\nfamilies.\"\nMueller reviewed the prest.\nmaking an impact.\nThis country\nhe aims to help prevent food-borne\nAmerica,\" Mueller said.\nillnesses and dealhs. Mueller sup-\nMueller said he's scheduled to\ndent's intentions Cut obsolete regu.\nneeds to eat food The food needs to\nlations reward results. not red\nbe safe\nports the proposed Family Food\nmeet today with 51st District Rep.\nMueller and STOP have a mis-\nProtection Act of 1095, which calls\nRandy \"Duke\" Cunningham, R\ntape: and create partnerships\nbetween volunteers and regulators\nston: to save lives through educa\nfor tougher meat regulations and\nEscondido: and 48th District Rep\ntion and to attenipt toget new safety\nfood protection. With STOP. he\nRoo Packard. R-Oceanside.\nto preserve health safety and envi-\nP.03\nNew orleans\nTimes - Picayune\n2/22/95\n75%\nNATIONAL NEWS\nClinton fights GOP assault on federal rules\nBy JOHN MOQUAID\nlic Social Services in Houms who\nlea,\" one that would require the\nCosstal Louisiana, & Daton\ncause of the way wattends laws\nSpecies Act, until the regulations\nWashington bureou\nworks with fleherment.\nfederal government to pay prop-\nRouge-based environmental\nare written.\"\ncan be revised\nThe While House targeted lev.\nesty owners if regulations reduce\ngroup that has helped cot up was.\nMany environmentalista, In.\nHe said the morsterium would\nWASHINGTON President\neral Republican proposals now\nthe value of their land by at least\n(ands restoration projects.\ncluding Gorman, agree that the\nnot affect the governbent's abil-\nClinion Tuesday launched 0\nmoving through the House the\n10 percent,\nRepublican proposals would\nwetlends permitting process\nity to regulate commercial flabing\ncounteratteck on congressional\nmoretorium, espanded property\nHe said that if it passed, even\nlimit the federal government's\nneeds overhout But they any that\nas the president charged and be\nRepublicans bent on scaling back\nslatits for private landownere,\nIn e form proposed by Louisiane\nability to contribute to those of.\nthe property rights bille now In\ndismissed Clinton's remark as\nfederal regulations, calling atten.\nand rules that would require the\nReps. Billy Tausin and Jimmy\nforts, he said, as well as resulting\nCongress are radical In scope and\n\"ware factics.'\ntion to the efforts of 6 Hourns so.\ngovernment to do rink. and cost-\nHeyes that would require com.\nIn scaling back regulations that\nwill have many unprodictable\nElaine Kamarck, the White\n5048767751\ncial worker and invironmentalist\nbenefit analyses of all new regula.\npensation If land values (all by at\ncurrently protect wetlands.\nconsequences as the government\nHouse official overseeing the Re.\nto support his arguments.\ntione.\nleast on percent, il would par.\n\"How can you \"By, 'Cive us\nis forced to pay landowners, set\ninventing Government program,\n\"It sounds good,\" Clinton said\n\"These BIO extreme propos-\nalyne the wethends restoration\nmoney to protect wetlands,' but\nup the bureaurratic mechanleme\nneverthelors suggested that Clin\nof a Republican proposal to de-\nals,\" Clinton said. \"They so too\nprocess now under way in the\nal the same time 'Give us money\nto do 10 and scale back regula-\nton raight velo the moratorium if\nclare a moretorium on all new\nfar. They would cost hver and\nstate.\nto pay landownow who might be\ntions 50 11 doesn't have to pay 80\nthe bill is peased in lbs current\nfederal rules. \"But this stops in\ndollars.\"\nallocted\"? Corman sald.\nmuch.\nform.\nIt takes federal money, Gor.\nits tracks federal action that pro-\nTauxin; a Democrat who has\nClinton said the moratorium\nWhile tsking a toush line\nmen sald, money already being\nTausin, who represents\nLects the environment, protecia\nfunnaled to the state under a lew\nbeen working with Republicans\nagainst Republican propossis,\n\"would stop the government\nHoums and much of the Meta's\nconsumers and protecte work.\nto pass measures in the \"Con.\nClinton also rook care not to de\nfrom allocating rights to commer-\npassed several years ago, plus\nere.\"\nwetland areas, disagreed, saying\ncial flaberraen.'\ntract,\" said he expected to on.\nfond All aspects of the current\ncomplex nagotialions among fed-\nthe regulatory process for getting\ndorse the moratorium Idea. He\nregulatory system. Determined to\nTo show that federal regula.\nGorman said afterward that he\neral, sists, local and private\npermits to alter welkinds is itself\nsald the moretorium is not In-\nchect a middle course, he daid\nNone beve a positive offect, the\nalso was brought up to Washing-\nlandowners to net up coastal rd.\nslowing efforts to restore Uwm.\ntended to apply across the board\nmany regulations are indeed arbl\nWhite House brought in eight\nton to highlight the potential\nstoration projects.\n\"He's exectly wrong,\" Taurin\nbut rather to large-acels regula-\ntrary and restrictive, and ordered\npeople, Including Robert Cor.\ndangers of another proposal In\nGorman is A member of the\nsaid. \"The 198100 you can't ro-\ntory Issues such at wallands 18.\n8 comprehensive review of all\nman, e social worker with Catho.\nthe COP's \"Contract with Accor.\nboard of the Coalition to Restore\nstore in wetlands today is be.\nstoration or the Endangered\nfederal regulations.\nFEB-23-1995 23:24\nREFORM\nContinued from IA\nU.S. health\nWhile other more conservative\nrecource that 15 already provided L/\nmembers of Congress 310 pushing for\nthe From Amerdment of the Consume\nmay be\nJ migger is low as 10 percent, Tauzin\nbon. Because Americans who have\nhg: argued that one lower than 50\nproperty (3kcn by the federal govern.\npercent i; not likely to pass.\nment on challenge 11 in federal cauc,\nthreatened,\nGorman, who IS the assistant direc.\nTauzin said his legislation would offer\nini of Catholic Social Services at the\nthem J local remedy\ndiocese of Houma. Thibodaux, was in\nThe regulatory reform proposals are\nWashington representing the Coalition\nbeing misinterpreted, said,\nClinton says\nto Restore Coastal Louisiana. He said\nadding that \"not unusual when the\nthe reform plan would require in.\nWhile House 1, potting on one ok\ncreased taxes in fund compensation\nthese shows to scare neople.\"\nfor \"takings,\" that would \"effectively\nBecause the legislation 15 being\nThey (Republicans)\nk:ll coastal restoration.\nadapted, Tauzin sand : is too carly to\ndon't want reform, they\n\"Mom and Pop are 20mg 10 pay\nmake such claims He added that ke\nThrough the nose on this bill.\" said\nbelieves 90 percent of federal regula-\nreally want rigormortis,'\nGorman, adding that the COP propos.\ntions would be exempted from the\nthe president said.\nats are redical and Sail to meet the\nby the time \" becomes\nmost important needs of Americans.\nlaw.\nGorman said that the takings provi.\n\"These bills BIC in formation.\" Tau.\nBy A.B. STODDARD\nHouma's Rob German\nsion would require Caxpayers to loot\nzin said, \"and when they are passed\n01993 Stores News Service\nthe bill for people 10 obey the law. It 3\nthink these horror stories that people\nWASHINGTON Regulatory re-\nlarge corporation born on property in.\n350 leveling a: them world apply.\"\nform now proposed in the House GOP\nfederal government has acted. or\ncluding wetlands, individual Laxpayers\nmight have acted.\nwould have to finance the federal \"tak-\nContract with America.\" could harm\npublic health and safety by rolling back\nCiting the examples of those people\ning\" of such land.\ncrucial regulations. President Clinton\nwhose lives were saved by airbags IN\n\"How can you ask the people of this\nautomobile accidents, Clinton said\ncountry 10 give Louistana money 10\nsaid Tuesday.\n\"let's not lorgel them as we cut red\nrestore the coast, but Jon't try to en-\n\"They don't want reform, they real-\nWrangler\ntape.\"\nforce any protection programs\" Gor.\nly want rigormortis,\" Clinton said of\nClinton said the proposed moratori-\nman asked.\nRepublicans 11 a White House event,\num on new federal regulations. that\nTruzin said his will would merely\nadding that the proposals would \"cost\npassed a House subcommittee last\ngive private property owners another\nJeans\nlives and dollars.\"\nweek, is unacceptable. \"It sounds\nRegulatory relief legislation now be-\ngood but it's no judgment.\" he said.\nBuy One\ning considered in the House would\nRob Gorman of Houma traveled 10\nplace 3 moratorium on all new regula-\nWashington to appear at the event be-\nGel One\ntions, while requiring cost-benefit\ncause he said the \"Takings\" provision\nanalysis and risk assessment for fu-\nin the regulatory relorm package\nFree\nture ones.\nwould threaten jobs, homes and health\nWhile supporting the concept of\nin Louisiana.\nregulatory reform, the White House IS\nHouma Daily Couvier\nRep. Billy Tauzin, D-La., has gained\nattempting to distinguish itsell from\nsubstantial support for private proper\nRepublican leaders in Congress who\nty rights legislation be has reintro.\n2/22/95\nIty Shoe Service\nhave introduced broad regulatory re\ndueed in this Congress that I'm included\ntein Wear 372 1843\nhel legislation. Touting the efforts of\nin the Contract.\nthe Reinventing Government initia-\n0 West Park Ave., curno\nUnder the provisions J! Tauzin's\nlive his administration began in 1992.\nn.sal.\nPrivate Property Owners Bill of\nClinton said he wants reform that will\nRights. which applies 10 the federal\nbring common sense back 10 the regu-\nwetlands policy and the Endangered\nlation culture of Washington.\nSpecies Act, the lederal government\nAt a press briefing with Vice Presi-\nwould pay when it \"look\" more than\ndent AI Gore, Clinton introduced sev-\n50 percent of a piece of private land.\noral \"real people\" on whose behalf the\nREFORM, continue on IA\n(Ed: 2grafinsert6thgraf: XXX he said; pickup7thgraf: But to hutchison\ncomment)\nClinton questions GOP regulatory reforms\nBy KENNETH R. BAZINET=\nWASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) Strongly suggesting he is prepared to veto\nRepublican legislation that would freeze federal regulations, President\nClinton said Tuesday the GOP proposals hurt consumers, workers, the\nenvironment and business, while only protecting special interests.\n''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself.\nThey don't want reform, they really want rigor mortis,' Clinton said.\nThe House is expected to consider the moratorium on federal regulations\nlater this week.\n``If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the\nforeseeable future. Therefore, to me a moratorium is not acceptable,' Clinton\nsaid, suggesting he would veto the measure if it is approved.\nThe president lashed out at the GOP while announcing his own series of\nsteps aimed at reforming government regulations to better protect the health\nand safety of people while cutting wasteful or overly burdensome rules that\nstiffle American business.\n''Some in Congress are pushing a collection of proposals that, taken\ntogether, would bring federal protection of public health and safety to\na halt, he said.\nSen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, defended the regulatory moratorium,\nsaying ' 'the public's interest would be best served'' if the measure were to\nbe approved by the Congress.\n''Excessive, ill-conceived regulation curbs growth and curtails\nproductivity at a significant cost to taxpayers, but provides few real\nbenefits to health and safety, Hutchison said.\nBut to help make his case, Clinton had with him but did not introduce\nseveral citizens who said demonstrate the need for certain regulations.\n''There's a father in this audience whose son died from E. coli bacteria\nin food that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had been in\neffect when his son ate the contaminated food, Clinton said.\n'`There are people here whose lives were saved by airbags\nThere's\na\nwoman here who is a breast cancer survivor who lost a child to cancer, who\nlives in an area unusually high in the density of people who suffer from\ncancer.''\nIn addition to the House Republican's regulatory legislation, Sen. William\nRoth, R-Del., has proposed a bill that would require a cost- benefit analysis\nand a detailed regulatory analysis for any new rule costing more than $100\nmillion. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole has proposed a similar bill that\nwould set the level at $50 million.\nMeanwhile, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who oversees the\nadministration's effort to reinvent government, ordered the following steps\nto be taken immediately:\nRegulators must conduct by June 1 a page-by-page review of rules to\ndetermine which are obsolete.\nRegulators must develop ways judge performance by results in this case\nthe ability to improve health and safety.\nRegulators must convene relevant experts and citizens to guide them in\nmaking decisions on what works and what doesn't.\nGore will conduct a review of all of the above and submit a series of\nregulatory reform proposals in the coming months.\n\"II still believe that, working together with Congress, we can achieve\nreal and balanced regulatory reform, but we shouldn't go too far,'' Clinton\nsaid.\nAM-Gingrich-Clinton, 1st Ld-Writethru, 790\nClinton: GOP Attack on Federal Regulations 'Would Cost Lives'\nEDs: SUBS 2nd graf pvs bgng, 'Clinton said, with 2 grafs to UPDATE with new\nremarks; EDITS to conform; ADDS 2 grafs with Muskie and Stafford\nBy TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=\nWASHINGTON (AP) Picking a new fight with House Speaker Newt Gingrich,\nPresident Clinton attacked a Republican proposal for a moratorium on most\ngovernment regulations, saying it was too extreme and 'would cost lives and\ndollars.\nDespite devastating Democratic losses in the November elections, Clinton\nsaid that Americans '`did not in my judgment ratify every extreme element' of\nthe GOP ''Contract with America.\n' ' I am not trying to thwart them, Clinton said of the Republicans.\n``I'm trying to give them an opportunity to know exactly where I stand and to\nwork with them.\nGingrich, driving ahead with the proposals in the GOP manifesto, accused\nClinton of being an obstructionist.\n'`His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said on Capitol Hill. '`The president is locked into sort\nof a left-wing, big-government approach that we are convinced will not\nwork.'\nThe president and the speaker traded charges on the eve of day 50 in a\npromised 100-day Republican countdown of votes on issues ranging from welfare\nreform and term limits to tax cuts and a balanced-budget amendment.\n``If the president vetoes them,' Gingrich said, ''it will frame the '96\npresidential campaign. These are things the American people have said they\nwant\nThe White House argued that the Republican march to enact their contract\nis faltering as lawmakers confront the details. Clinton believes that\ncongressional Republicans are ''finding tough going and they' re having a\nlittle rendezvous with reality now, said White House press secretary Mike\nMcCurry.\nStill struggling to regain his footing after the Democrats' devastating\nelection setbacks, Clinton has been trying to define sharp differences with\nRepublicans on issues such as national security, crime and education. He will\ngo to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to rally House Democrats.\nSeizing on the regulatory moratorium, Clinton said the measure would\neliminate federal protection of the environment, consumers and workers.\n''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,\nstop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars, stop final implementation of the\nlaw that lets parents take leave to care for a sick child,' the president\nsaid.\n''It would undermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter\nairlines. If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for\nthe foreseeable future. Therefore, to me, a moratorium is not acceptable.\nRepublicans complain that Clinton is overstating the impact of the\nmoratorium, arguing that it allows specific exemptions for safety and health\nmatters. In general, if passed by Congress and signed into law, the measure\nwould prohibit any attempt to create new regulations until Dec. 31 and would\nsuspend any regulations that have been issued since last Nov. 20.\nBrushing aside the GOP case, Clinton said, '`These are extreme proposals.\nThey go too far. They would cost lives and dollars.\n'A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get away\nwith an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection, but why\nbother if you can paralyze the government by process?'' the president asked.\nIn place of the proposed moratorium, Clinton offered a handful of\nregulatory reforms, similar to those he imposed in an executive order in\n1993.\nHe ordered federal regulators to examine all the rules they administer to\nsee if they are obsolete or if state or local government could do a better\njob. He set a June 1 deadline for completing the review.\nClinton also instructed regulators to judge rules by their ability to\nimprove the health and safety of Americans and to convene meetings nationwide\nwith industries they cover to see how the government could do a better job.\nMeanwhile, former Sen. Edmund Muskie, a Maine Democrat who was an\narchitect of laws passed in the 1970s to protect water and air quality,\naccused House Republicans at a news conference of trying to ''turn the clock\nback to the days when the special interests made the rules and the people\nabsorbed the risks.\nMuskie was joined by two Republicans: Robert Stafford, the former\nRepublican senator from Vermont who chaired the Senate Environment Committee\nin the early 1980s when the GOP last had a majority, and Russell Train, who\nheaded the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon and Ford\nadministrations in the 1970s. The conference was arranged by the Natural\nResources Defense Council.\n**** filed by: APW- (GA) on 02/21/95 at 18:33EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:24EST ****\nBC-HO-REGS\nClinton Says He'll Fight Government Regulation Moratorium\n3y Greg McDonald, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News\nWASHINGTON--Feb. 22- President Clinton said Tuesday he'll fight Republican\nattempts to impose a moratorium on all new government regulations because this\nnove would have disastrous consequences.\n'`These are extreme proposals. They would cost lives and dollars, the\npresident said in a speech at the White House criticizing a GOP proposal\nscheduled for a vote this week.\nThe proposal blocking the release of rules would put an end to many\ngovernment regulations and make the enforcement of others nearly impossible.\nIt would require the government to weigh the benefits of regulations against\nthe cost to taxpayers of enforcing them.\nMany trade groups representing U.S. industry have strongly backed the\nregulatory moratorium, as well as broader Republican-led efforts to revise\ngovernment environmental, health and safety rules.\nAmerican Petroleum Institute President Charles DiBona said regulatory\nreform is the major oil companies' top legislative priority.\nHowever, Clinton warned of the consequences of hasty action. ''It sounds\ngood. But this stops in its tracks federal action that protects the\nenvironment, protects consumers, that protects workers, Clinton said.\nClinton's comments came during an event celebrating White House efforts to\ncut government spending by streamlining or consolidating many departments and\neliminating bureaucracy.\nClinton acknowledged the need for regulatory reform, adding that he feels\nne has a ''serious obligation' to work with the Republicans in trying to\n' 'reduce the burden of regulation. But he warned that some lawmakers are\nusing ''the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer, worker,\nenvironmental protections - even ones that protect business.\nBut House Minority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, one of the authors of the\nregulatory moratorium, blamed Clinton for the explosion of new rules during\n1994.\nThis year - one election and several public opinion polls later - he is\ntransformed into an anti-regulatory president.\nClinton stopped short of saying he would veto a moratorium measure if\npassed by Congress. But Elaine Kamarck, an aide to Vice President Al Gore who\nis heading up the administration's effort to \"reinvent government,'\nsuggested that Clinton would veto the bill as it stands now.\n``In its current form, it's not acceptable, she said. ''They don't want\nreform; they really want rigor mortis, Clinton said. Clinton said the\nproposals currently being floated, while they may sound good, would likely\nbring federal protection of public health and safety to a halt.\n''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between regulations\n- all regulations, he said.\n''There is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it, he said. ' 'We\ncan agree on many things. But I am convinced that a moratorium would hurt the\nbroad interests of the American people and would benefit only certain narrow\ninterests.\nA vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected in the House later this\nweek, according to Reuters. If passed by the House and Senate and signed into\nlaw, it would last until Dec. 31, by which time the Republicans in Congress\nwant to pass permanent regulatory reform.\nThe Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk\nassessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and\nto require compensation of private property holders when regulations have the\neffect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.\nHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., accused Clinton of trying to\nperpetuate what he called the old liberal view that more regulation and more\ngovernment adds up to a better life for Americans.\n''His administration is now actively opposing us - from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said. \"The president is locked into sort of\na left-wing,\nbig government approach that we are convinced will not work.\nGingrich predicted that ''significant changes'' would be made in\ngovernment regulations with or without the president on board. He also\nthreatened to make regulatory reform a campaign issue in 1996 if the\npresident vetoes the measure Congress sends him.\nIn an effort to one-up the Republicans, Clinton announced that he was\nordering a top-to-bottom review of all federal regulations to determine which\nones are obsolete or out of step with today's economic realities. He wants the\nrecommendations for change on his desk by June 1.\nHe also ordered government regulators to begin holding meetings around the\ncountry aimed at determining how federal rules and regulations affect\ncommunities and businesses. END!I&2?HO-REGS\n**** filed by: KR-F(--) on 02/21/95 at 23:04EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:17EST ****\nGOP ATTACK ON U.S. REGULATIONS COULD AFFECT ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT\nBy JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.\nc.1995 N.Y. Times News Service\nWASHINGTON - Republicans plan to escalate their war on federal regulations\nthis week as House debate begins on a series of bills that, taken together,\nwould fundamentally affect the enforcement of every existing environmental\nlaw.\nThe measures would temporarily freeze the government's powers to make\nrules in virtually every area of federal authority and strictly limit those\npowers in the future. But nowhere would they have greater effect than in\nenvironmental regulation, where about 20 major laws generate a steady stream\nof rules intended to protect health, safety and natural resources.\nThe Republican proposals include a moratorium on new regulations,\ncompensation for landowners when regulations hurt their property values and a\nrequirement that new rules be subjected to elaborate risk assessments and\ncost-benefit analysis.\nPresident Clinton hinted Tuesday that he might veto so far-reaching a\npackage. '`The environment is still not able to protect itself, he said in a\nspeech announcing his own package of measures that he said would make\nregulations less burdensome without rolling back existing laws.\nThe coming votes will signal how determined the Republicans (and some\nDemocrats) are to rethink a whole generation of environmental laws. Senior\nadministration officials expect most, and perhaps all, of the package to pass\nthe House, although there are signs that the Senate might modify it.\nEven in the House, however, a number of Republicans are hesitant about\nsome of the package's provisions. While the majority party has so far\nmaintained virtually flawless unity in pushing its Contract With America, 15\nHouse Republicans last week wrote to Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the\nchairman of the Judiciary Committee, saying they opposed one bill in the\npackage.\nRepublican leaders in Congress say they intend to rewrite several\nenvironmental laws later this year, including the Superfund law, on cleaning\nup toxic waste dumps; the Clean Water Act, controlling pollution of rivers,\nlakes and oceans; the Safe Drinking Water Act, governing municipal water\nsupplies, and the Endangered Species Act, protecting the habitat of\nthreatened plants and animals.\nThere are also proposals to repeal parts of the 1990 Clean Air Act and to\nincrease logging in publicly owned forests. And an industry-backed bill to\nrewrite tolerances for pesticides in food is also likely to move forward,\nalong with farm-bill provisions involving conservation.\nIn a speech last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the policies of\nthe past 20 years or more ' have been absurdly expensive, created far more\nresistance than was necessary and misallocated resources on emotional and\npublic relations grounds without regard to either scientific, engineering or\neconomic rationality.\n' 'And that, he said, ''requires very profound rethinking of what we want\nto do collectively as a species in order to save the environment\nFor the moment, though, the proposals before the House take an indirect\nroute, dramatically restricting the effects of environmental laws without\nactually rewriting any of them.\n''Every person in this administration is greatly alarmed,' said Carol M.\nBrowner, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, discussing the bills\ncoming to the House floor this month as part of the Contract with America.\nShe said the proposals would fundamentally undermine existing laws by.\nreplacing health protection with economic considerations as the determining\nfactor in setting environmental standards.\n'`The administration is not going to be a party to that, she said.\n''Absolutely, positively not. I do know that the administration will not allow\nthese laws to be dismantled.\nAt least three bills are ready for action on the House floor, having been\napproved by House committees in the last two weeks:\n- Title III of HR 9, called the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act,\nrequires elaborate risk assessments to be conducted for any new rules and\nprohibits regulations unless their economic costs are justified by a\ncost-benefit measurement.\n- A stopgap anti-regulation measure known as the Regulatory Transition Ac\nwould halt the imposition of most new federal regulations dating back to\nNovember, and would remain in effect until broader regulatory changes of HR\nwere enacted.\n- A bill called the Private Property Protection Act would compensate\nlandowners when the value of their property declined because its use had beei\nrestricted by federal regulations.\nAlthough the regulatory moratorium probably will be debated first, it is\nso likely to be vetoed - with little chance of an override - that its\nimportance could be mainly symbolic. As a result, the two other bills will\nprobably be argued over more fiercely.\nThe bill on private property rights was cleared by the House Judiciary\nCommittee last week. It would require the federal government to compensate ai\nproperty owner whose land values declined by at least one-tenth because of\nrules restricting how the property could be developed.\nThat bill is the one that has sparked open dissent among some Republican\nlawmakers, and prompted them to write Hyde declaring their opposition.\n``If this legislation were to become law, the federal government could be\nrequired to compensate a landowner who is denied a permit to site a hazardous\nwaste facility over an aquifer that supplies drinking water to a nearby\ncommunity, they said.\nThe committee voted down a proposal to limit the bill to cases in which\nland values were reduced because of regulations protecting wetlands or\nendangered species, but such an amendment is likely to be offered on the\nHouse floor. By focusing on two laws that many property owners oppose, it\nwould strengthen the bill's chance of passage.\nThe biggest fight of all may be over the risk-assessment and cost-benefit\nprovisions, because they would replace health-based environmental standards i\nexisting laws with standards based primarily on economic calculations.\nThe complex package is likely to get prolonged scrutiny in the Senate,\nwhere the votes might not divide entirely on party lines.\n''Some of the regulatory reform measures that have been introduced this\nyear go way too far,'' said Sen. John H. Chafee, R-R.I., chairman of the\nSenate Environment and Public Works Committee. He singled out the\nrisk-assessment provisions proposed in the House, saying, ''If there ever was\na prescription for gridlock, that's it.'\nOther influential senators, however, are supporting risk-assessment\nlegislation that could be brought to the Senate floor without passing through\nChafee's committee.\nSen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., has a proposal that would affect only the\nEnergy Department, and Sen. Bob Dole, the majority leader, has a version of\nhis own that would affect all federal agencies.\n-END-OF-AUTOBREAK (1) -\n-AUTOBREAK (2) -FOLLOWS\n****\nfiled by: NYT- (--) on 02/22/95 at 01:03EST ****\n****\nprinted by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:26EST\n****\n1\n52 No 002 P.02\nLIVING\nHORNS\nAPLENE\nWashington schools\nshot in world of jazz/C\nMeat-safety\nplan appears\nheaded for fight\nUSDA seeks tighter\nillnoss or death and bits colldren\nthe hardest\nrules; industry, GOP\nBut the food, Industry in com\nplaining of bureaucratic overkill\nwant less regulation\nand the program is likely to be\nscaled back In Congress, where\nanti-regulatory sentiment runs\nBy Christopher Hanson\nstrong\ntraving\nHEARST NEWSPAPER\nFEBRUARY 21, 1995\npl Washington Correspondent\nWhile consumer advoeates say\nmore regulations are needed to\nWASHINGTON - The Clinton\nensure supply the\nadministration's program to bol-\nfood industry maintains that the\nster meat safety following 8 dead-\nmost effective way to produce safe\nby food poisoning outbreak in\nfood at low cost 10 the consumer. 16\nWashington state le on a collision\nto allow the industry to Imple-\ncourse with the new Republican\nment 115 own safety system. elimit\nCongress\nnating. requirements It believers\nThe Agriculture Department\nare unnecessary.\nlast month proposed 300 pages of\n\"We think the time 10 right 10\nregulations to make inspection\nreform the outdated meat and\nmore scientific and root out ml-\npoultry: inspection system.\" said\nerobes such as E coll 0157:H7.\nSara Clark of the American Heat\nThe Washington state outbreak\nInstitute. \"There are two parts -\ntwo years ago was caused by\none is regulatory reform,\nthe\nundercooked Jack in the Box\nsecond is legislative reform to\nhamburgers bilnted with the bac-\nteria, which can cause agonizing\nSee MEAT, Page A10\nIndex\nBooks\nc2\nEditorial\nASS\nMike Maliway\nCS\nBridge\nC6\nEntertainment\nC4\nOblivaries\nB4\nBusiness\n88-8\nBily Graham\nD7\nPd Phones\nA2\nClassified\nD7-16\nHoroscope\nr\nPeople\nN\nClassified Index\n07\nAnn Landers\nC2\nScrabble\n3\nCoffee Break\nC5,6\nLMing\nSection c\nSports\nD1-5\nComics\nC5,6\nLocal/Region\nB1-8\nTelevision\nD6\nCrosswords\nC6.09\nLottery\nB1 Art This\n01\nWeather\nlecisted morning showers becoming partly sunny\nlater, Higha lower to mid-50d Lows. lower to mid-\n40k Details on Page 54.\n59423\n99999\n5\nPORTS\nDAY MORNING\nNo 03\n10 Seettle Post-Ints genca February 21. 1995\nMeat: Industry wants government to focus on preventing contamination\nom Page 1\nold are first GOP staffers say\nthey are, they orght to replace\nof beeL\npositry. The senior GOP staffer\nDespite obstacios, FORM a\nCongress is likely to consider\nand not be added to the ones\n\"Zoro tolerance has been a\nsaid a bill may be drafted to\nsumer advocates hope meat .\nwrite the law to focus on food\nlegislations to scrap or scale back\nthere,\" said Sem Stade Gorton, PV\ndismal and miserable failure,\"\nprevent the Agriculture Depart\npoultry safety reform will be a\nFety from farm to table\"\none part of the current system:\nWash\nsaid the senior congressional\nment from doing this The food\nPaged, in part because of I\nThe American Meal Institute\nvisual Inspection in most and\nWashington GOP Repa Doc\nstaffer, citing industry studies that\nindustry is strongly apposed to\npractical considerations of prod\ngues that the government\npostry plants Consumer advo-\nHastings, George Nethercad and\nfound that bacteria on meat had\nsetting new standards for bacto\nand votes.\ncould focus on preventing mest\ncates sky visual impections to\nLinds Smith agreed.\nin Dact increased after the pro-\nria, in part because such stan-\nTom Devine or Use Gove\nbecoming contaminated\nspot feces must continue until\n\"Wo need 309 pages of new\ngrass was implemented. Be said\ndards could result in beavy com-\nment Accountability Proje\nther than policing phats and\nstientific bacteria tests prove of\nregulations? That's what spurred\nthat when guvernment Inspectors\npliance costs.\nwhich compaigns for food safe\nmishing them for regulatory\nfective, which may take years.\nthe movement to put a morateri-\nordered Locos to be removed by\nAgriculture Department -\nsaid that If the system -\n-\n\"Layering is the biggest single\nWE on new regulations by the\ntrimming careasses, the trimmers\ndals say they don't currently have\nderegulated to the point whe\n\"Producers should be excour\nproblem\" Mid A senior congres-\nCougress,\" Nethercalt said\noften inadvertently spread the\nthe data to set sclestific health\nmany more people start dying\nred, though not required. to\nsignal staffer, who argued that\nSmith, noting that the Jack B\ncontamination.\nstandards for such contaminants\nwould devastate FOR\ntablish voluntary programs to\nvisual inspections MV question-\nthe Box hatsburgers had been\nTwice, the food safety chief,\nu saimonella but would want to\ndence and cut Into industry pr\nentify and control public health\nable because \"you can't see a\ncooked or too low a temperature,\nquestioned the Industry studios\nretain the authority to do so later.\nits. Be suggested the profit\nits presented by production\nmicrobe.\"\nsaid: \"Mare rules won't make Ht\nand said: \"Striet enforcement of\nUnder the new program, the\nwould temper industry's derega\n\"actices,\" according to an Last\n\"TI's more bareakeracy at a\nwork. H they were not following\nzero colerance is valuable. Remov\ndepartment would not require E\ntory seal\nto memo.\nhigh cost with listle public health\nthe old rules, why would they\nlug local contamination is a very\ncoll sampling la the plants be\nForeman said the new G\nThe Aprirulture Department\nimprovenent,\" said Jeff Nedel-\nfollow more rules!\"\nimportant public health objec-\ncause a rapid, effective test is not\nmajority abould realize that\nworld no longer be responsible\nmas, spokecase for the Grobery\nCongressional aides say snoth-\nLive\" He said that trimming could\nyet available It would set targets\nyou gut meat and poultry Insp-\n, the hands-on review of prod-\nManufacturers of America.\nor part of the program that will be\nbe effective if done properly.\nfor the amount or seimonells ON\ntion, you have people getting -\nts, nor for the evaluation for\n\"I guess H is typical to page\nserutionshed for possible climina-\nGOP staffers are also com-\nmeal and positry sed mandate\nand dying on your watch a in\nsease or esthetic deforts; this\nnew regulations without taking\ntion is \"sero tolerance\" - the\ncerned that Taylor's program\nthat delly readom assuples be\npens before the wast election\nwold by the facilities' responsi-\nany old ones at The new ones\ncampaign set UP by former April-\nmoves toward setting stringest\ntaken in each plant and that the\nI don't think anyone at the polls\nlity.\" the memo said\nmay be much better - I hope\nculture Secretary Vike Ever to\nstendards for how much bacteris\nplants meet contactination guide-\n1994 voted in Lavor of dirty a\nThese views are being TO\nthey're a great deal better - but if\neradicate all fecal contamination\nwill be tolerated in new and\nlines set by the government.\nand poultry.\"\nwred favorably CEM Capitol Hill,\nepublican comgressional staffers\no.\nthe\nOlven the mood, Carol Tucker\nForeman, a leador of the Bule\nFood Coalidos consumer group,\non\nsald. \"If vote ware held today.\nthink they would just gut meal\nand poultry inspection.\"\nAnd Sen Patty Murray, D-\nWash. said, \"My concorn le that\noverybody says they don't want\nregulation, but if you take regula-\ntions away. It mils people's health\nCOP staffers and Industry\ngroups said that such concerns\nare alarroist and that public supoly\nwould be protected under a small-\nor system focusing on lesting can\ncam samples at critical control\npoints\" In the *laughter process to\ncurb contamination.\nThe administration's new pro-\ngram, which would affect 0,200\nfederally Inspected meal and\npoultry plants and cost about $800\nmillion a year. would force Indus-\ntry to set VD A system of lab tests\nto discover and stop microscopic\ncontamination. use disinfoctant\nsprays and adhers to unifurm\nstandards for sabjection and mest\nAI the same time the now\nprogram would retain the old\nsystem of visual inspection In\nwhich Agriculture Department of-\nficials monitor slughter lines and\nwotch for meat that is splattered\nwith such contaminants 26 faces, a\ncurrier of K coll. salmonells and\nother microber The hope la to\nsignificantly reduce the number\nof deaths caused by Cond-borne\nIllnoss now running at 4,000 a\nyear in the United States\nBut the Agriculture Depart-\nment and consumer advocates are\nassult\nan\n20\nproposal. or immediate concern\nto them Is the anti-regulatory\nplank of the GOP \"Contract With\nAmerica.\" The proposed Ingisin-\ntion would force government to do\nIcuethy cost-benaft tests before\nissuing regulations on such mat-\ntors as food Rainly, and Rive foos\nof regulation tooway to bottle UD\nproposed rules In court possibly\nfor years, critics say.\nthe bill bocame law, it could\n\"stake \" virtually Impossible our\npublic health agencios to do their\nJob.\" said Mike Taylor, chief of\nat risk\"\nthe Agriculture Department's\nFood Safety Inspection Service\nThe 6111 la to come up for a House\nrute this month\nMeanWhile, specific features\nor the most-sility program are\nbracing\nalso under fire.'\nIndustry and GOP critics.\nwhile supporting M more scientific\napproach don't want to add a new\nsystem without retlide rid of the\nSIERRA CLUB NW\nchilline\nClinton raps GOP regulation proposal\n'Lives and dollars' would be lost under moratorium, president says\nWashington, D.C. -AP-\ngood, bu: no Judgment.\"\nllcon countdown of votes on 18\nMilwaukee Sentinel\nPicking a new fight with House\nGingrich (R-Ga.), driving\nSpeaker Newt Gingrich, Prest-\nahead with the proposuls In the\n9A\nCrypto warning\nsues ranging from: welfare\nform and term limits to tax:cuts\ndent Clinton attacked a Republi-\nGOP \"Contract With America,\"\nDoctor fears reforms\nand a balanced budget amend\ncan proposal for a moratorium on\naccused Clinton of being an ob-\nthreaten water purity\nment\nmost government regulations,\nstructionist.\n\"If the president VA OES them,\nsaying It Was too extreme and\nHe predicted \"flroworks all\nsummer\" in Congress.\ndent is locked Into sqrt of a\nGingrich sald, \"1: will frame the\nwould cost lives and dollars.\"\nEllinton sold Tuesday that the\n\"His administration is now ac-\nleft-wing big-government ap-\n'96 presidential campaign These\nproach that we are convinced\nare things the American people\nGOP idea sounded good on Its\ntively opposing us from crime\nwill not work\nhave said they want.\nface, but \"It would stop good\nbills to regulatory reform to capi-\nThe president and the speaker\nThe White, House argued, that\nregulations, bad regulations, In-\ntal gains tax cuts to a whole\nbetween regulations, all regula-\nrange of other Issues,\" Gingrich\ntraded charges on the ave of Day\nthe Republican drive to onact the\n56/22/2\ntions. No judgment - sounds\nsaid on Capitol HII. \"The presi-\n50 in a promised 100-day Repub-\nSee Regulations y 9A\nClinton raps GOP's proposal\nfor moratorium on regulation\nRegulations\ndrinking water, stop safer meat\nwould cost lives and dollars.\nand poultry. stop safer cars, stop\n\"A small army of special inter-\nFrom 1A\nfinal implementation of the law\nest Jobbyists knows they can nev-\nthat lets parents take leave to\n\"Contract With America\" propos-\ner get away with an outright\nals is faltering as lawmakers con-\ncare for a sick child,\" the presi-\nrepeal of consumer or environ-\ndent said.\nfront the details. Clinton believes\nmental protection, but why both-\nthat congressional Republicans\n\"It would undermine what\ner if you can paralyze the govern-\nare \"finding tough going and\nwe're trying to do to promote\nment by process?\" the president\nthey're having a little rendczvous\nsafety in commuter airlines. If a\nasked.\nwith reality now,\" said White\nmoratorium takes effect, all these\nbenefits will be on hold for the\nIn place of the proposed mora-\nHouse press secretary Mike\ntorium, Clinton offered a handful\nMcCurry.\nforeseeable future. Therefore, to\nme, a moratorium is not accept-\nof regulatory reforms; similar to\nStill struggling to regain his\nable.\"\nthose he imposed in an executive\nfooting after the Democrats' dev-\norder in 1993:\nastating election setbacks, Clin-\nRepublicans complain that\nton has been trying to define\nClinton is overstating the impact\nHe ordered federal regulators\nsharp differences with Republi-\nof the moratorium, arguing that it\nto examine all the rules they ad-\ncans on Issues such as national\nallows specific exemptions for\nminister to see if they are obso-\nesfety and health matter In gen-\nlete or: if state or local govern-\nsecurity, crime and education. He\nwill go to Capitol Hill Wednesday\neral, if passed by Congress and\nment could do a better job. He set\nto rally House Democrata\nsigned into. law. the measure\na June 1 deadline for completing\nwould prohibit anv attenipt to\nthe review.\nSeizing on the regulatory mor-\ncreate new regulations until Dec.\nClinton also Instructed regula\natorium. Clinton said the ineasure\n3L and would suspend any regu-\ntors to judge rules by their ability\nwould eliminate federal protec-\nlations that have been issued\ntion of the environment, consum-\nto improve the health and safety\nsince last Nov. 20.\nof Ameticans and to convene\nCIS and workers.\nBrushing aside the GOP case,\nmeetings nationwide with indus-\n\"It would stop new protection\nClinton said, These are extreme\ntries they cover to see how the\nfrom deadly bacteria in our\nproposals They go too far They\ngovernment could do a better job.\nPAGE\n1\nLEVEL 1 - ? OF 3 STORIES\nCopyright 1995 Gannett Company, Inc.\nGANNETT NEWS SERVICE\nFebruary 23, 1995, Thursday\nLENGTH: 547 words\nHEADLINE: HOUSE REJECTS SLAUGHTER AMENDMENT ON RULES DELAY\nBYLINE: JOHN MACHACEK; Gannett News Service\nDATELINE: WASHINGTON\nBODY:\nThe House Republican majority, beginning efforts to scale back federal\nregulations castly to business, on Thursday rejected efforts to exempt tougher\nrules for food inspections and water safety from a proposed one-year moratorium\non new regulations.\nRep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. (Fairport, Monroe County), said thousands of\ndeaths annually from meat and poultry contamination justified her amendment for\n\"ironclad\" assurances the GOP initiative wouldn't delay enactment of newly\nproposed inspection rules.\nOn a 249-199 vote largely along party lines, the House defeated her amendment\nafter Republicans said their legislation wouldn't apply to regulatory actions\nneeded to deal with \"imminent threats\" to health and safety.\nThe moratorium would suspend any federal rule issued since NOV. 20 and bar\nfederal agencies from making additional rules until Dec. 31. Though not part of\nthe GOP's \"Contract With America,\" it is a first step in a Republican drive for\npermanent regulatory reform.\nNext week, the House will take up legislation that requires federal agencies\nto conduct cost-benefit analyses and extensive risk assessments when drafting\nregulations. A cost-benefit analysis would be done on any proposed regulation\ncosting business or industry more than $ 25 million.\nThe meat and poultry inspection rulemaking Slaughter wants protected was\nlaunched by the Agriculture Department this month. The proposed rules would\nreplace the 89-year-old system of visual inspections with scientific-based\ntests. The agency is allowing 120 days for public comment before making 3\ndecision on new rules.\n\"The passage of this bill would stop that model process right in its tracks,\"\nSlaughter said, citing a letter she received this week from Michael Taylor, USDA\nundersecretary for food safety.\nSlaughter's amendment also would have exempted two other proposed\nregulations. One would stop food from being imported in lead cans. The other\nallows the Environmental Protection Agency to continue research on the\ncryptosporidium parasite that Infected Milwaukee's drinking water two years ago,\nmaking 400,000 people sick.\nLEX.S.NEX\nLEXIS·NEXIS®\nLEXIS·NEXIS®\nPAGE\n2\nGANNETT NEWS SERVICE, February 23, 1995\nHolding up poster-sized blowups of language in their moratorium bill,\nRepublicans noted that their legislation allows the president to exempt\nregulations once federal agencies certify that health and safety would DE\nendangered without them.\nSlaughter said definitions of \"imminent threat to health and safety\" are \"SO\nambiguous that the bill's authors can't adequately explain which regulations are\ncovered and which ones aren't.\"\nEven if the food inspection rules were exempted, they would not be immune\nfrom civil lawsuits under the GOP bill, she noted.\nRepublicans accused Slaughter of using \"scare tactics\" by suggesting the\nmoratorium could lead to a loss of life and undo two decades of rules affecting\nhealth and safety.\nEarlier in the day, Slaughter and other Democrats held a press conference on\nthe Capitol lawn with the parents of Rainer Mueller, a 13-year-old Oceanside,\nCalif., boy who died of food poisoning after eating contaminated meat at a\nfast-food restaurant.\n\"Nearly 5 million illnesses and 4,000 deaths each year result from meat and\npoultry products contaminated by micro-organisms such as salmonella and E.\ncoli,\" Slaughter said.\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE-MDC2 February 28, 1995\nLEXIS·NEX\nSOL\nEX.S.NEXIS\nLEXIS·NEX\nSOL\nClinton Directs Agencies To Identify Burdensome Rules\nBy Rick Wartzman\nStaff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal\nWASHINGTON -- Vowing to \"bring back common sense\" to government\nregulations, President Clinton directed federal agencies to review all of\ntheir rules over the next three months and identify those that are obsolete\nor overly burdensome.\nIn unveiling the new initiative, Mr. Clinton painted a sharp contrast\nbetween his approach and that of House Republicans. They are pushing a bill\nthat would impose a moratorium on virtually all federal regulations until the\nend of the year, or until the passage of a separate bill requiring an\nextensive cost-benefit analysis of all regulation that costs the economy more\nthan $25 million. The moratorium would be retroactive to Nov. 20, 1994.\nWhile the president didn't say explicitly that he would veto the Republicar\nbill, as he has threatened to do with a GOP rewrite of crime legislation, he\nasserted that a moratorium is \"extreme,\" would \"cost lives and dollars\" and,\ntherefore, \"is not acceptable.\"\nThe rhetoric marked another attempt by Mr. Clinton, who heads to Capitol\nHill today for a pep talk with House Democrats, to make clear the differences\nhe has with the Republican majority in Congress.\nThe president contended that the Republicans' regulatory moratorium\nproposal, which the House is scheduled to take up later this week, would halt\neverything from air-safety and clean-drinking-water regulations to burials at\nArlington Cemetery and even the start of the duck-hunting season.\n\"We do need to change this system,\" Mr. Clinton said. \"But there is a right\nway to do it and a wrong way to do it.\"\nAdministration officials had said previously that they were looking at\nstreamlining regulations as part of the broader \"reinventing government\"\nprogram led by Vice President Al Gore. But the plan Mr. Clinton unveiled\nyesterday marked the first time the specifics were spelled out.\nThe plan calls for all federal agencies to conduct a page-by-page review of\nregulations to determine which rules are simply outmoded and which should giv\nway to local regulation or a private-sector alternative. The results are\nsupposed to reach the president's desk by June 1.\nThe president also ordered agencies to revamp how they assess the\nperformance of their regulators, so, for example, safety inspectors would be\njudged by how many companies on their watch comply with standards, not by how\nmany citations they issue. Mr. Clinton also directed front-line regulators to\nmeet with the people affected by their regulations. And he asked each agency\nto submit to the White House a list of pending regulatory procedures that\ncould be better dealt with through consensual negotiations.\nIn addition, Mr. Gore in coming months is supposed to present to the\npresident a series of recommendations for regulatory reform on the\nenvironment, health, food, financial institutions and worker safety.\n(END) DOW JONES NEWS 02-22-95\n6 00 AM\n****\nfiled by: TAPE (--) on 02/22/95 at 06:27EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:27EST ****\nbc-clinton - a1759\n(ndy) (ATTN: National editors) (Includes optional trims)\nClinton Wants to Overhaul U.S. Regulation Process (Washn)\n3y Martin Kasindorf= (c) 1995, Newsday=\nWASHINGTON President Clinton Tuesday ordered a stepped-up overhaul of the\novernment's much-reviled regulation process, while blasting congressional\nepublicans' reform bills as extreme ideas that could imperil health and\ntymie federal rulemaking.\nDeclaring himself committed to changing how government sets and enforces\nnvironmental, health and safety protections, Clinton commanded agency heads\n) comb the 150, 000-page Code of Federal Regulations and send him a list of\nneeded rules by June 1. He also asked regulators to form grassroots\nartnerships with business to negotiate rather than dictate and to stop\neasuring inspectors by how many citations they write.\nThe president's actions bolstered an executive order he signed in November\n993. It has produced streamlining in banking oversight and other areas.\nClinton, saying that government should not be a ''national nanny,''\nontrasted his ''common sense'' reforming approach with a proposed\ncross-the-board freeze, for as much as 10 months, on all regulatory actions,\nbonsored by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and scheduled for a\nuse vote Thursday.\nComing close to warning that he would veto the freeze if the House and\nenate pass it, Clinton attacked other Republican House legislation that would\nequire regulators to weigh risks, costs and benefits before making rules. The\nost-benefit requirements, contained in House Republicans' ''Contract With\nherica, face a vote next week.\n'`These are extreme proposals,\" Clinton told a White House audience of\nederal officials and people whose experiences the adminstration said\nemonstrated the benefits of federal regulations. '`They go too far. They\nould cost lives and dollars.\nsmall army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get away with\n1 outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection. But why bother if\nou can paralyze the government by process?''\nA moratorium sounds good, Clinton said, but he gibed that the freeze would\nen cancel the duck-hunting season because the Interior Department couldn't\net annual bird-kill limits.\n(Optional add end)\nOn a more somber note, he singled out breast cancer survivor and activist\neri Barish of Baldwin, N.Y., who was invited to the event because she fears\nat lengthy litigation could enmesh mammography standards.\nBarish, who met with Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, said the\nresident did not specifically threaten to veto the Republican measures,\n'but I think he's pretty close 'cause he said, 'This is not going to\nappen,' \" she said.\nClinton's criticism incensed House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. ''His\niministration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to regulatory\nform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other issues, Gingrich\naid. Clinton's ''locked into sort of a left-wing, biggovernment approach.\nDistributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service=\n****\nfiled by: LAWP (--) on 02/22/95 at 03:33EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:17EST ****\nbc-regulate - a1729\n(ATTN: National editors) (Includes optional trims)\nClinton Vows to Veto GOP Plan to Freeze Federal Regulations (Washn)\nBy John M. Broder and Kelly Owen= (c) 1995, Los Angeles Times=\nWASHINGTON President Clinton, in another attempt to put distance between\nadministration policy and the Republican legislative agenda, on Tuesday\nportrayed a GOP proposal to freeze federal regulations as extreme' and implie\nhe will veto it if it reaches his desk.\nDefending federal rules he said save lives and protect the environment,\nClinton said the Republican regulatory reform plan would jeopardize the publi\nin order to shield narrow special interests from government oversight.\n''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself,'\nClinton said before an audience of federal officials and a number of citizens\nwho have benefited from federal health and auto safety rules. '`They don't\nwant reform, they really want rigor mortis.'\nThe House is scheduled Wednesday to act on a measure contained in the GOP\n'Contract With America'' that would impose an immediate moratorium on new\nfederal regulations and require federal agencies to perform a cost-benefit\nanalysis on all future federal rules.\nHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., responded that Clinton was trying to\nstymie the Republican agenda on crime, taxes, education and government reform\n'`The president is locked into sort of a left-wing, big government approach\nthat we are convinced will not work, Gingrich said.\nAlthough Clinton and his aides stopped short of an explicit threat to veto\nthe Republican reform bill, his language left little doubt that he considered\nthe regulatory moratorium irresponsible and would refuse to sign it if he\ncould do so without imperiling legislation he wants.\n''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,\nstop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars, stop final implementation of th\nlaw that lets parents take a leave to care for a sick child. It would\nundermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines,\nClinton said.\n''These are extreme proposals. They go too far. They would cost lives and\ndollars, he added.\n(Optional add end)\nClinton said he has ordered all federal agencies to report by June 1 on\nways to eliminate or simplify burdensome regulations. Vice President Al Gore\nis in charge of the effort, which is the second phase of the administration's\n'reinventing government'' initiative.\nMeanwhile, several architects of the nation's clean air and water laws\nwarned that the GOP regulatory approach would gut existing environmental laws\nsuch as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.\nThe bill would require the government to determine whether a proposed\nregulation's costs to government and private parties is ''reasonably related'\nto its benefits, including health and safety. It would also place a cap on th\nannual economic costs of all regulations.\n**** filed by: LAWP (--) on 02/22/95 at 03:29EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:27EST ****\nBC-CLINTON national: WA\nClinton threatens to veto GOP bill to block recent federal regulations\n(HAS TRIM)\nBy Robert A. Rankin\nKnight-Ridder Newspapers\nWASHINGTON President Clinton threatened Tuesday to veto a Republican bill\nto temporarily stop all federal regulations, calling it an ''extreme'' measure\nthat would endanger public health and safety.\nHouse Republicans plan to vote this week on a proposal in their ''Contract\nwith America'' that would put a hold on most regulations issued since Nov. 20\nNew regulations would have to pass extensive economic and scientific tests.\n\"These are extreme proposals. They go too far. They would cost lives and\ndollars, Clinton told an audience of federal regulators, whom he gathered to\nkick off his own drive to reform, but not repeal, the regulatory process.\nThe president used the event to contrast his philosophy of government with\nthat of the Republicans, who made opposition to big government a theme of\ntheir successful campaign last fall to capture control of Congress.\nClinton's tactic increasingly is to suggest that while he and the GOP\nshare many broad goals such as cutting taxes or fighting crime the\nRepublicans are often radical extremists while he is a moderate, common-sense\nreformer.\nIn that vein, the president conceded that the GOP call to freeze federal\nregulations ''sounds good, but he insisted it would do great harm.\n''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,\nstop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars\nIt would undermine what\nwe' re trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines\nTherefore to me\na moratorium is not acceptable, Clinton said.\nSenior administration officials confirmed that was a direct veto threat,\nmuch like Clinton's recent warning that he would veto the GOP effort to amend\nlast year's crime bill by deleting its promise to finance 100,000 more police\nfor the United States' streets. Republicans prefer giving crime-fighting fund\nas no-strings-attached block grants to cities and states.\nHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., lashed out at Clinton's new turn\ntoward partisan confrontation in remarks earlier Tuesday on Capitol Hill.\n'`His administration is now actively opposing us, from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said. '`The president is locked into a sort of left-wing,\nbig-government approach that we are convinced will not work.\nClinton tried to deflect that kind of attack by stressing his zeal to\nreform the way federal regulatory agencies work, even as he insisted that\neffective regulation was still necessary to protect public health and safety.\nHe directed federal regulators to review every rule in their purview and\nreport back by June 1 on which ones were obsolete. Vice President Al Gore als\nis to give Clinton a series of recommended reforms of regulations affecting\nthe environment, health, food, financial institutions and worker safety over\nthe next few months. Gore's ''Reinventing Government\" campaign has focused O\noverhauling regulations since December.\nGore said his goal was not only to chop out unnecessary regulations and\nsimplify the rest, but also to replace the ''adversarial culture'' that\ntypically characterizes regulators' attitudes toward private industry.\n(EDITORS: NEXT 4 GRAFS OPTIONAL TRIM)\nGore hailed the U.S. Customs Service in Miami as an example of the kind of\n'partnership'' that regulators should build with those they regulate. He rea\naloud from a letter written by Raul Pedraza, president of Eagle Companies,\npraising Miami Customs officers for ``cutting mountains of red tape'' that\nPedraza said 'will save our company more than 8,300 man-hours in 1995.\nIn an interview Pedraza credited D. Lynn Gordon, director of the Miami\nCustoms office, for cooperating with trade-oriented business leaders in South\nFlorida.\n'Customs is really listening to the trade community now, trying to\neliminate unnecessary procedures and rules, Pedraza said.\nGordon, the Miami Customs director, said she feared the GOP moratorium\ncould block her from modernizing procedures further.\n(END OPTIONAL TRIM)\nClinton said Washington regulators too often act as the ''national nanny''\nand ''drive people crazy'' with excessive rules.\n'We all know the regulatory system needs repair, the president said,\nvowing reforms.\nNevertheless, Clinton stressed that federal health and safety regulations\nalso had helped achieve much that is good. Over the past 30 years, he said,\ntoxic factory emissions have dropped more than 50 percent, lead levels in\nchildren's blood have dropped 70 percent, Lake Erie's once-dead waters now\nteem with fish, and workplace deaths have been cut in half.\n''These protections are still needed, Clinton said. ''There's not too\nlittle consumer fraud. Toys are not too safe. The environment is still not\nable to protect itself.\n**** filed by: KR-F (--) on 02/21/95 at 18:44EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:19EST ****\nFebruary 22, 1995\nRadio Interviews\nREGULATORY REFORM INITIATIVE\nDiane Clodfelter (Bazine, KS)\n1.\nKansas Information Network\n2.\nKZLS, Great Bend, KS\nRainer Mueller (Oceanside, CA)\n1.\nThe Michael Jackson Show, KABC, Los Angeles\n2.\nKNX, Los Angeles\n3.\nKFMB, San Diego\n4.\nKSDO, San Diego\nRob Gorman (Houma, LA)\n1.\nLouisiana Network\n2.\nKTIB, Thibodaux, LA\nDr. Robert Morris (Milwaukee, WI)\n1.\nWisconsin Radio Network\n2.\nWISN, Milwaukee\nWilliam Hines, Michael Hines\n1.\nVirginia News Network\nGeri Barish\n1.\nWCBS, New York City LIVE\n2.\nAlan Colmes Show, Nationally syndicated LIVE\n3.\nEllen Ratrner, Nationally syndicated LIVE\n4.\nJoan Hamburg Show, WOR, New York LIVE\nPM-Clinton Regulations, 1st Ld-Writethru, a0557, 320\nClinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations\nEDs: INSERTS new 5th graf, Elaine Kamarck\nto\nUPDATE\nwith\nveto\nsuggestion\nBy TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=\nWASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for\na moratorium on new government regulations, saying ''they go too far'' and\nwould endanger public health.\n''These are extreme proposals,' the president said. '`They would cost\nlives and dollars.\nThe target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP proposal scheduled for a vote\nin the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government\nregulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of\nnew regulations.\nClinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks\nfederal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that\nprotects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to\ncommercial fishermen.'\nElaine Kamarck, the White House official heading up the White House drive\nto streamline the government, suggested afterward that Clinton would veto the\nGOP bill if it's not changed. ''In its current form, it's not acceptable,'\nshe said.\nHis remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast\nwith the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has\ndrawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.\nOn Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.\n''His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said. \"The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,\nbig government approach that we are convinced will not work.'\nProposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal\nregulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.\nThe president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the\ncountry of regulators and the people affected by their rules.\nWhile saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, \"Protections are still\nneeded. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the\nenvironment is still not able to protect itself.\n' 'Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.\nThey don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.\n**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 14:02EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****\nBC-CLINTON REGULATION 1STLD\nClinton asks some rules scrapped but rejects freeze\n(Corrects length of moratorium in 7th graf)\nBy Susan Cornwell\nWASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Tuesday set a June 1 deadline for\nscrapping unneeded federal regulations but said a Republican effort to freeze\nall rulemaking would paralyze the government.\nClinton, appearing with Vice President Al Gore before an assembly of\ngovernment regulators, said he did not want the government to be the\n''national nanny. He said he favored throwing out rules, even entire\nagencies, that are obsolete, but he said, ''We shouldn't go too far.\nClinton said government regulation had saved lives through dramatic\nimprovements in public health and worker safety and he opposed ''extreme''\nRepublican proposals to stop all rulemaking. ''I am convinced a moratorium\nwould hurt the broad interests of the American people, he said. ''A\nmoratorium is not acceptable.\n''A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get\naway with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection,'\nClinton said. ''But why bother if you can paralyze the government by\nprocess?''\nThe White House aranged the event to let Clinton show he too favored\nregulatory reform while declaring his opposition to the Republican proposals\nnow working their way through the House. But the president stopped short of a\nveto threat.\nAs part of their domestic policy agenda, the Republican majority on\nCapitol Hill wants to impose a regulatory moratorium, a move that would end a\nwide range of government action from investigating the tobacco industry to\nregulating seafood and meat. A vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected\nin the House this week.\nIf passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, it would last\nuntil Dec. 31, by which time the Republicans in Congress want to pass\npermanent regulatory reform.\nThe Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk\nassessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and\nrequire compensation of private property holders when regulations have the\neffect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.\nEmphasizing that he, like the Republicans, wanted reform, Clinton asked\nfederal agencies to come up with a list of rules that can be discarded by June\n1. He also asked federal regulators to look for rulemaking that can be\n''negotiated'' with the public; to start measuring their own performance by\nsuccesses, not how many punishments they mete out to the public; and to meet\nwith people affected by their rules.\nClinton said as governor of Arkansas he used to eliminate agencies just\n''to see if anybody would notice. Normally, he said, no one did. But he said\nfederal regulations were responsible for cutting auto fatalities, making meat,\npoultry and drugs safer and helping to rid the environment of toxic pollutants\nsuch as lead.\nIn a swipe at Republicans, Clinton said their ''Contract with America''\nlegislative agenda also had the effect of piling new regulations on\ngovernment. '`The Contract with America, literally read, would pile SO many\nnew requirements on government that nothing would ever get done,' he said.\nREUTER\n**** filed by: RB (--) on 02/21/95 at 16:33EST ****\n**** printed by WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****\nBC-REGULATE national TB\nClinton threatens to veto GOP proposal to freeze recent federal regulations\nBy Holly E. Stepp\nChicago Tribune\nWASHINGTON President Clinton on Tuesday threatened to veto a Republican\nproposal that would freeze all federal regulations issued since last November.\nClinton called the measure ''extreme'' and said it would jeopardize the\nhealth and safety of Americans and cause economic harm. 'They go too far,\nhe said of the effects of the regulation freeze. '`They would cost lives and\ndollars.\nClinton's opposition to the GOP proposal, contained in a House bill set\nfor a vote on Thursday, fits a recent pattern of more active presidential\nchallenges to the new Republican majority in Congress.\n'We have to recognize that, done right, regulation gives our children\nsafer toys and food, protects our workers from injury, protects families from\npollution; and that when we fail, it can have diastrous consequences,\nClinton said at a news conference.\nRepublican supporters of the bill, which would place a moratorium on all\nregulatory policy enacted between Nov. 20, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1995, say the\nbill exempts necessary regulations, such as those for health and safety.\nRep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., one of the sponsors of the bill, said he was\nconfident the measure would pass despite Clinton's objections. ' 'We are not\ngoing to attack regulations that provide for the health and safety of\nAmericans or those that help business in the (foreign) trade markets, he\nsaid.\nMcIntosh also said the bill would target regulations that add more paper\nwork to business and do little to meet the goals of the rule.\nDespite McIntosh's assurances, Democrats said the GOP exemptions for\nhealth and safety regulations are insufficient. Any new regulations would be\nsubject to economic and scientific tests that would be too difficult to meet,\nthey say.\nClinton cited examples of people who would benefit from tougher health and\nsafety regulations that he said would be threatened by the freeze.\n''It would stop new protection from deadly bacteria in our drinking water,\nstop safer meat and poultry, stop safer cars,'' the president said. ''It would\nundermine what we're trying to do to promote safety in commuter airlines.\nIn addition, the administration said that some communities would lose\nrevenue and businesses would not be protected in international markets.\nA hallmark of the Clinton administration, the Family and Medical Leave\nAct, also may be affected by the proposed moratorium, the White House said.\nRegulations carrying out the act were approved in January and take effect in\nApril.\nThe law provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a birth of a child, adoption\nor to care for a seriously ill relative.\nRep. Cardiss Collins, D-Ill who has pushed for stronger food-safety\nregulations, said in a statement that the proposed GOP regulatory freeze seems\nto put a higher priority on property than human life.\n'`The regulations that could be affected by this moratorium are designed\nto provide for the safety of Americans, Collins said.\nClinton's opposition to the bill came as he unveiled new administration\nefforts to overhaul and downsize the federal government.\nThe president called for a review of all federal rules and regulations by\nJune 1, 1995, to identify those that are obsolete. Vice President Al Gore is\nin charge of the ''Reinventing Government\" campaign, which has been reviewing\nregulations for several months\n**** filed by: (--) on 02/21/95 at 21:03EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:18EST ****\nPAGE\n}\nLEVEL 1 - 23 OF 36 STORIES\nCopyright 1995 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.\nSt. Louis Post-Dispatch\nFebruary 14, 1995, Tuesday, THREE STAR Edition\nSECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A\nLENGTH: 671 words\nHEADLINE: BOND TRYING TO DRAIN DRINKING WATER RULES\nBYLINE: Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Terry Ganey, chief of the\nPost-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau, contributed information for this article.\nDATELINE: WASHINGTON\nBODY:\nWhen Congress moves to the topic of safe drinking water, Sen. Christopher S.\nBond, R-Mo., wants a new law enacted with fewer requirements on local\ngovernments to test for contamination.\nBond, co-chairman of the Senate Regulatory Relief Task Force, argued an\nMonday that the nation's Safe Drinking Water Act had grown too costly for cities\nand towns to enforce.\nThe law, Bond said, has become \"a symbol of the growing frustration over\nprescriptive, often arbitrary federal regulations imposed on communities without\nsufficient funds to finance them.\"\nIn a letter to Sen. John H. Chafee, R-R.I., chairman of the Environment and\nPublic Works Committee, Bond and nine of the 15 members of his task force\nspelled out requirements they want in a new drinking water law:\nMore analyses of costs of regulations and their public health benefits.\nNew and 1255 rigorous schedules for monitoring water.\nAn end to testing deemed unnecessary and more time to comply with federal\nrules.\nBond urged \"bold reforms\" in the drinking water law while Republicans have\nthe opportunity. He observed in the letter to Chafee that his regulatory task\nforce had identified drinking water rules among the 10 most excessive sets of\nregulations in the country.\nMany of the nation's environmental laws could be weakened if Congress\nsucceeds this year in a broad effort to trim the frequency and the reach of\nfederal regulations. In addition, Congress plans to redraw a handful of specific\nlaws, the First being the 21-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act.\nThe Democratic-held Senate and the House each passed bills last year that\nwould have softened the burdens on local governments to monitor for\ncontam mants. Senate and House leaders nevel reached agreement in precisely what\nto do, SO federal drinking water regulations remain the same.\nEX.S.NEXIS\nLEX.S.NEXIS\nLEXIS·NEXIS®\nPAGE\n2\nSt. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 14, 1995\nLocal officials complain especially about water monitoring costs under an\nEnvironmental Protection Agency schedule that requires checking for 25\ncontaminants every three years beyond those contaminants sought in regular\nchecks. This rigorous testing schedule was ordered by Congress in 1986 because\n50 many localities were ignoring federal rules.\nMany public health advocates concede that the time has come to move to a\nsystem in which cities and towns spend their money looking for the riskiest\ncontaminants. But they worry that the anti-regulatory climate in Congress is\nsuch that health will De threatened.\nDr. Robert Morris of Milwaukee, a member of Physicians for Social\nResponsibility, observed on Monday that performing studies of the costs and\nbenefits of safe water regulations was not SO easy as Bond and others suggested.\n\"The benefits of safe drinking water involve sickness that doesn't happen,\nand it's hard to quantify something that doesn't happen. You only see problems\nafter you remove the safeguards,\" said Morris, who is an epidemiologist at the\nMedical College of Wisconsin.\nHealth and environmental advocates point to the dangers of relaxing water\nstandards. The drinking water problems in Milwaukee that killed 104 people in\n1993 is one of many serious outbreaks of contamination, they said.\nTwo towns in Missouri have been struck by fatal outbreaks of contamination\nsince 1989, according to a list compiled by the Physicians for Social\nResponsibility and the Natural Resources Defense Council.\nIn Gideon in 1993, salmonella in drinking water is Delieved to have been\nresponsible for the deaths of four people and the illnesses of 486. In Cabool in\n1989, four people died and and 243 became ill from contamination.\nErik Olson, a spakesman in Washington for the Natural Resources Defense\nCouncil, argued that the approach offered by Bond \"would add new layers of\nbureaucracy and red tape that would roll back or weaken current protections.\"\nCatherine Kaliniak, a spokeswoman for Bond, asserted that rather than trying\nto relax the law, \"we're looking to find a balance. (Bond) is concerned like\neveryone else about having safe and uncontaminated water.\"\nLANGUAGE: English\nLOAD-DATE-MDC: February 15, 1995\nLEXIS\nNEXIS\nLEXIS-NEXIS\nLEXIS·NEXIS\nServices of Mead Data Central Inc\nBC-Clinton-Launches-Program-to-Eliminate\nClinton Launches Program to Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations\nWashington, Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton launched\na second search for unnecessary government regulations while warning against\nRepublican proposals that he said would \"gut\" consumer, worker, and\nenvironmental protections.\nClinton said the administration will spend the next few months finding\nways to improve regulations governing financial institutions, the environment,\nhealth, food, and worker safety and to cut unnecessary rules. He set a June 1\ndeadline for submitting reviews of federal regulations to him.\nVice President Al Gore, who oversaw the administration's first round of\ngovernment overhaul, will be in charge of the project.\nClinton, however, warned against a House Republican proposal to place a\nmoratorium on creating new government regulations.\n\"It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between\nregulations, he said at the Old Executive Office Building. ''It would even\ncancel the duck hunting season.\nDuck hunting regulations are rewritten every year by the federal\ngovernment.\nThe administration argues that the Republican proposal would hurt the\nmiddle class while helping business interests.\n'We cannot strip away safeguards for families,\" he said.\nClinton and Gore outlined areas where regulations had been streamlined by\nthe administration to the benefit of businesses. Among them, for example, were\nreducing limitations on exports.\nToday, Clinton called on government regulators to:\n--Check rules to see if they are obsolete and whether they could be better\nenforced by state and local governments.\n--Negotiate solutions with people who would be subject to a regulation\nrather than dictate a new rule.\n'We have to move beyond the point where Washington is a sort of national\nnanny, Clinton said. ''We want a system that will reward results, not red\ntape. --Paul Heldman at the White House (202) 434-1884 /ba\n(Story illustration: for a graph of the federal budget deficit: FDBEST\nIndex GP and change the ending range date to 12/31/99. See story: NI EXE; on\nCongress: NI CNG) 13:45 -0- (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:45 EOS (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:46 86\n**** filed by: BB-F(--) on 02/21/95 at 13:58EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (161) on 02/22/95 at 11:21EST ****\n_10\nDaily Comet. Lafourche Parish, La./ Wednesday, February 22, 1995 3A\nContract reforms harmful\nBy A.B. Stoddard\nbags in automobile accidents,\nernment would pay when it \"took\"\nStates News Service\nClinton said \"let's not forget them\nmore than 50 percent of a piece of\nWASHINGTON - Regulatory re-\nas we cut red tape.\"\nprivate land\nform now propased in the House\nClinton said the proposed mor-\nWhile other more conservative\nGOP \"Contract with America,\"\natorium on new federal regulations,\nmembers of Congress are pushing\ncould harm public health and safety\nthat passed a House subcommittee\nfor a trigger 25 low as 10 percent,\nby rolling back crucial regulations,\nlast week. is unacceptable. \"It\nTauzin has argued that one lower\nPresident Clinton said Tuesday.\nsounds good but it's no judgement.\"\nthan 50 percent is not likely to pass\n\"They don't want reform, they\nhe said.\nreally want rigormortis,\" Clinton\nRob Gorman of Houma travelled\nGorman, who is the assistant\nsaid of Republicans at 8 White\nto Washington to appear at the\ndirector of Catholic Social Services\nHouse event, adding that the pro-\nevent because he said the \"Lakings\"\nat the diocese of Houma-Thibodaux\nposals would \"cost lives and dol-\nprovision in the regulatory reform\nwas in Washington representing the\nlars.\"\npackage would threaten jobs.\nCoalition to Restore Coastal\nRegulatory relief legislation now\nhomes and health in Louisiana.\nLouisiana He said the reform plan\nbeing considered in the House\nRep. Billy Tauzin, D-La., has\nwould require increased taxes to\nwould place a moratorium on all\ngained substantial support for pri-\nfund compensation for \"takings,\"\nnew regulations, while requiring\nvate property rights legislation he\nthat would \"effectively kill coastal\ncost-benefit analysis and risk as-\nbas reintroduced in this Congress\nrestoration.\"\nsessment for future does.\nthat is included in the Contract.\n\"Mam and Pop are going to pay\nWhile supporting the concept of\nUnder the provisions of Tauzin's\nthrough the nose on this bill.\" said\nregulatory reform. the White House\nPrivate Property Owners Bill of\nGorman, adding that the GOP pro-\nis attempting to distinguish itself\nRights. which applies to the federal\nposals are radical and fail to meet\nfrom Republican leaders in Con-\nwellands policy and the Endan-\nthe most important needs of Amer-\ngress who have introduced broad\ngered Species Act, the federal gov.\nicans.\nregulatory relief legislation. Tout.\ning the efforts of the Reinventing\nGovernment initiative his adminis-\nTIRED LIVING WITH BACK PAIN?\ntration began in 1992, Clinton said\nNECK PAIN? HEADACHES?\nhe wants reform that will bring\ncommon sense back to the regu-\nNUMBNESS? SHOULDER/\nlation culture of Washington.\nAt a press briefing with Vice\nARM OR LEG PAIN?\nPresident Al Gare, Clinton in-\ntroduced several \"real people' on\nIf So, It's Time To See\nwhose behalf the federal govern-\nIf A Chiropractor\nment has acted. or might have\nCan Help!\nacted.\nCiting the examples of those peo-\nCall Today! 447-2630\nple whose lives were saved by air.\nCHIROPRACTOR\n5048767751\nP.04\nFEB-23-1995 23:24\nReforms called threat to water quality\nRegulatory changes may increase danger of Cryptosporidium, doctor says\nBy KAREN e COHEN\npleaning,\" sald MO:TIS. who was\nthey are outdated.\nPeople lent to :ske manchted\n*In Milwaukee, in particular.\n313188 News Service\nInvolved in research during the\nMany environme loar\nSENSTY incastres IS alvens, Monts\nwe will meet 1. tougher standard\n1992 outbresk that sickened\nthe b... would reuter measures\nspld.\nthan the EPA TN matter WHAT\nWashington, D.C. - If House\nthousands and Is blained 127 at\nBEEN E3 the\nhealth and the E:1-\nthey do,° Norquist said. 'WE have\nRepublicans past their regulatory\nleast 100 deaths.\nClean Water,\nreforms, it could strongle efforts\nvircoment has to be a govern-\noarned use hard way federal and\nThe mezage the people who\nClean Air and\nmost responsibility, said Morris\nstate resulations were not strong\nto contain future Cryptospori-\ndlum outbreaks 9 Milwaukee\nare drafting tis logislation P.C\nEndangered\nwhose specialty focuses on the\nenough.\"\nsending to Milwa:kee :2 that this\nSpecies Acts.\norigin and patiern of Infections\nThe trouble with sweeping\ndoctor sald Tuesday.\nis sometow coceptable,\" he said.\nLabor groups\ndiseases.\nregulatory referr. is that il pre-\nRobert Morris. an epidemic.\nare concerned\nThe tublic MEY not realize\ntends there a a magic solution\ngist at the Medical College of\nThe House is preparing to vote\nMilwaukee Sentinel\nabout work.\nthe while E regulatory freeze\nand there is not, said Norquist.\nWisconsin, joined President Clin-\nthis weak on a measure that\nplace cond:\nand analysis sound\nGetting (Id of bad regulations\ntor. at the White House to watn\nwould tent corrilly 1.0022 all new\nLicns. and con-\n200d. their Imp ementation could\ntakes effort, he sold, citize the\nCongress to go slow on registration\nfederal regulations, plus make its\nsumer groups\n:0 hurd\nwork of Rep. Gorald Kleczka (D:\nry.reform.\nGovernment weigh the costs Y9.\nmorry the bill\nthe benefits of health, Refery and\nFor example, doing a cost-ben-\nV/is.) In getting rales changed to\nMorris said, that under the Re-\nwould ailow\nefft analysis could CBP crying CO-\nallow elderly-coly public hous-\npublican proposal. the Environ-\nother regulations.\nharmful prid-\nconst how many people will die\nIng.\nmental Protection Agency's plans,\nAt the White House, Clinton\nucts Into the Norquist\nwithion aregilation\nRepublicing could, be In for 6\nto research and gather deir on.\ncriticized the plan, saying Ameri-\nmarket-lace.\n\"The only WEY to do accu-\nsurprise 11 they Chink Amoricans\nCrypresportdlum could be In icop-\nCETS would pay for It with both\nJoining Mor.is at the White\nrately is 10 no: put the regula-\nwant. clean water regulations\nardy.\nlives and dollars. Instead, Clintor.\nHouse were people from around\ndons In place and court the nunt-\nrolled back, he added\n\"That would lest 16 killed Ln-\nsaid he would order agencies D\nthe nation who WO.D helped av\nber of people 44.10 get rich and\na Is important for the Ameri-\nder WhE: the Republic are\nre-examine regulations to see If\ndederal regulations\ndie. And that is not what 1 want,*\nCC:1 people 30 have some confi-\nhe stid,\ndener In he water supply\nBut LAilwanke Mayor John C.\nthroughout the country,\" Nor-\nNorquist sald that no motter\nquist sald \": think It is all area\nwhat Congress does, the water in\nwhere the Republicans may find\n2/22/95\nMILWE kee will remain under\nthe doing annething Is very un.\nscrutiny\npepular.\"\nClinton questions GOP regulatory reforms\nBy KENNETH R. BAZINET=\nWASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) Strongly suggesting he is prepared to veto\nRepublican legislation to freeze federal regulations, President Clinton said\nTuesday the GOP proposals would hurt consumers, workers, the environment and\nbusiness, while only protecting special interests.\n''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protections even things that protect business itself.\nThey don't want reform, they really want rigor mortis, Clinton said.\nThe House is expected to consider the moratorium on federal ragulations\nlater this week.\n''If a moratorium takes effect, all these benefits will be on hold for the\nforeseeable future. Therefore, to me a moratorium is not acceptable,\" Clinton\nsaid, suggesting he would veto the measure if it is approved.\nThe president lashed out at the GOP while announcing his own series of\nsteps aimed at reforming government regulations to better protect the health\nand safety of people while cutting wasteful or overly burdensome rules that\nstiffle American business.\n''Some in Congress are pushing a collection of proposals that, taken\ntogether, would bring federal protection of public health and safety to\na halt,' he said.\nTo help make his case, Clinton had with him but did not introduce several\ncitizens who said demonstrate the need for certain regulations.\n'There's a father in this audience whose son died from E. coli bacteria\nin food that might have been discovered if our proposed rule had been in\neffect when his son ate the contaminated food, Clinton said.\n''There are people here whose lives were saved by airbags There's a\nwoman here who is a breast cancer survivor who lost a child to cancer, who\nlives in an area unusually high in the density of people who suffer from\ncancer.\nIn addition to the House Republican's regulatory legislation, Sen. William\nRoth, R-Del., has proposed a bill that would require a cost- benefit analysis\nand a detailed regulatory analysis for any new rule costing more than $100\nmillion. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole has proposed a similar bill that\nwould set the level at $50 million.\nMeanwhile, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who oversees the\nadministration's effort to reinvent government, ordered the following steps\nto be taken immediately:\nRegulators must conduct by June 1 a page-by-page review of rules to\ndetermine which are obsolete.\nRegulators must develop ways judge performance by results in this case\nthe ability to improve health and safety.\nRegulators must convene relevant experts and citizens to guide them in\nmaking decisions on what works and what doesn't.\nGore will conduct a review of all of the above and submit a series of\nregulatory reform proposals in the coming months.\n''I still believe that, working together with Congress, we can achieve\nreal and balanced regulatory reform, but we shouldn't go too far,'' Clinton\nsaid.\n****\nfiled by: UPI- (us) on 02/21/95 at 15:33EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:36EST ****\nBC-CLINTON REGULATION\nClinton asks some rules scrapped but rejects freeze\nBy Susan Cornwell\nWASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Tuesday set a June 1 deadline for\nscrapping unneeded federal regulations but said a Republican effort to freeze\nall rulemaking would paralyze the government.\nClinton, appearing with Vice President Al Gore before an assembly of\ngovernment regulators, said he did not want the government to be the\n'national nanny He said he favored throwing out rules, even entire\nagencies, that are obsolete, but he said, ''We shouldn't go too far.\nClinton said government regulation had saved lives through dramatic\nimprovements in public health and worker safety and he opposed ''extreme''\nRepublican proposals to stop all rulemaking. ''I am convinced a moratorium\nwould hurt the broad interests of the American people, he said. ''A\nmoratorium is not acceptable.\n''A small army of special interest lobbyists knows they can never get\naway with an outright repeal of consumer or environmental protection,'\nClinton said. ''But why bother if you can paralyze the government by\nprocess?''\nThe White House aranged the event to let Clinton show he too favored\nregulatory reform while declaring his opposition to the Republican proposals\nnow working their way through the House. But the president stopped short of a\nveto threat.\nAs part of their domestic policy agenda, the Republican majority on\nCapitol Hill wants to impose a regulatory moratorium, a move that would end a\nwide range of government action from investigating the tobacco industry to\nregulating seafood and meat. A vote on the regulatory moratorium is expected\nin the House this week.\nIf passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, it would last\nindefinitely, or until Congress passes permanent regulatory reform.\nThe Republicans also are promoting legislation to require extensive risk\nassessment and cost benefit studies before new regulations can be issued and\nrequire compensation of private property holders when regulations have the\neffect of reducing their property value by 10 percent or more.\nEmphasizing that he, like the Republicans, wanted reform, Clinton asked\nfederal agencies to come up with a list of rules that can be discarded by June\n1. He also asked federal regulators to look for rulemaking that can be\n`negotiated'' with the public; to start measuring their own performance by\nsuccesses, not how many punishments they mete out to the public; and to meet\nwith people affected by their rules.\nClinton said as governor of Arkansas he used to eliminate agencies just\n''tó see if anybody would notice. Normally, he said, no one did. But he said\nfederal regulations were responsible for cutting auto fatalities, making meat,\npoultry and drugs safer and helping to rid the environment of toxic pollutants\nsuch as lead.\nIn a swipe at Republicans; Clinton said their ''Contract with America''\nlegislative agenda also had the effect of piling new regulations on\ngovernment. '`The Contract with America, literally read, would pile so many\nnew requirements on government that nothing would ever get done, he said.\nREUTER\n**** filed by: RB (--) on 02/21/95 at 15:21EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:36EST ****\nPM-Clinton Regulations, 1st Ld-Writethru, a0557, 320\nClinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations\nEDs: INSERTS new 5th graf, Elaine Kamarck\nto\nUPDATE\nwith\nveto\nsuggestion\nBy TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=\nWASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for\na moratorium on new government regulations, saying 'they ,go too far' and\nwould endanger public health.\n'`These are extreme proposals, the president said. '`They would cost\nlives and dollars.\nThe target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP. proposal scheduled for a vote\nin the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government\nregulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of\nnew regulations.\nClinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks\nfederal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that\nprotects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to\ncommercial fishermen.'\nElaine Kamarck, the White House official heading up the White House drive\nto streamline the government, suggested afterward that Clinton would veto the\nGOP bill if it's not changed. ''In its current form, it's not acceptable, ,\nshe said.\nHis remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast\nwith the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has\ndrawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.\nOn Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.\n''His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said. '`The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,\nbig government approach that we are convinced will not work.''\nProposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal\nregulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.\nThe president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the\ncountry of regulators and the people affected by their rules.\nWhile saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, \"Protections are still\nneeded. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the\nenvironment is still not able to protect itself.\n''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.\nThey don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.\n**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 14:02EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:05EST ****\nPM-Clinton Regulations, 320\nClinton Says GOP Going 'Too Far' on Limiting Regulations\nEDs: Includes Gingrich comments from PM-Gingrich-Clinton\nBy TERENCE HUNT= AP White House Correspondent=\nWASHINGTON (AP) President Clinton today attacked Republican proposals for\na moratorium on new government regulations, saying 'they go too far'' and\nwould endanger public health.\n''These are extreme proposals, the president said. ''They would cost\nlives and dollars.\nThe target of Clinton's criticism was a GOP proposal scheduled for a vote\nin the House this week, calling for a moratorium on most government\nregulations and a requirement to weigh costs when evaluating the benefit of\nnew regulations.\nClinton, in a speech, said, ''It sounds good. But this stops in its tracks\nfederal action that protects the environment, protects consumers, that\nprotects workers. It would stop the government from allocating rights to\ncommercial fishermen.\nHis remarks marked another example of Clinton trying to draw a contrast\nwith the new Republican majority in Congress. The administration already has\ndrawn distinctions on foreign policy, crime and education.\nOn Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at Clinton.\n'`His administration is now actively opposing us from crime bills to\nregulatory reform to capital gains tax cuts to a whole range of other\nissues, Gingrich said. \"The president is locked into sort of a left-wing,\nbig government approach that we are convinced will not work.\nProposing his own, limited reforms, Clinton said he was ordering federal\nregulators to examine each rule they administer to see if it's obsolete.\nThe president also directed regulators to convene meetings around the\ncountry of regulators and the people affected by their rules.\nWhile saying reforms are necessary, Clinton said, \"'Protections are still\nneeded. There is not too little consumer fraud, toys are not too safe, the\nenvironment is still not able to protect itself.\n''Some would use the need for reform as a pretext to gut vital consumer,\nworker, environmental protection, even things that protect business itself.\nThey don't want reform. They really want rigor mortis.\n**** filed by: APE- (--) on 02/21/95 at 13:41EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:04EST ****\nBC-Clinton-Launches-Program-to-Eliminate\nClinton Launches Program to Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations\nWashington, Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton launched\na second search for unnecessary government regulations while warning against\nRepublican proposals that he said would \"gut\" consumer, worker, and\nenvironmental protections.\nClinton said the administration will spend the next few months finding\nways to improve regulations governing financial institutions, the environment,\nhealth, food, and worker safety and to cut unnecessary rules. He set a June 1\ndeadline for submitting reviews of federal regulations to him.\nVice President Al Gore, who oversaw the administration's first round of\ngovernment overhaul, will be in charge of the project.\nClinton, however, warned against a House Republican proposal to place a\nmoratorium on creating new government regulations.\n''It would stop good regulations, bad regulations, in-between\nregulations, he said at the Old Executive Office Building. \"It would even\ncancel the duck hunting season.\nDuck hunting regulations are rewritten every year by the federal\ngovernment.\nThe administration argues that the Republican proposal would hurt the\nmiddle class while helping business interests.\n' 'We cannot strip away safeguards for families, he said.\nClinton and Gore outlined areas where regulations had been streamlined by\nthe administration to the benefit of businesses. Among them, for example, were\nreducing limitations on exports.\nToday, Clinton called on government regulators to:\nCheck rules to see if they are obsolete and whether they could be better\nenforced by state and local governments.\n--Negotiate solutions with people who would be subject to a regulation\nrather than dictate a new rule.\n' 'We have to move beyond the point where Washington is a sort of national\nnanny, Clinton said. ' 'We want a system that will reward results, not red\ntape --Paul Heldman at the White House (202) 434-1884 /ba\n(Story illustration: for a graph of the federal budget deficit: FDBEST\nIndex GP and change the ending range date to 12/31/99. See story: NI EXE; on\nCongress: NI CNG) 13:45 -0- (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:45 EOS (BBN) Feb/21/95 13:46 86\n**** filed by: BB-F (--) on 02/21/95 at 13:58EST ****\n**** printed by: WHPR (JSIL) on 02/21/95 at 15:04EST ****\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nMica-Chapman Plan Would Target Existing Regulations\nAs the House leadership prepares to move regulatory reform\nbills to the floor next week, Reps. John Mica, R-Fla., and Jim\nChapman, D-Texas, are preparing an amendment targeting existing\nrules that would require agencies to review all existing federal\nlegislation. The proposal, drawn from legislation previously\nintroduced by Chapman, would put a seven-year sunset on all\nexisting rules unless they are reviewed and continued by the\nagencies, and would require each new federal rule to undergo a\nsunset review after three years. The House Commerce Committee's\nrisk assessment and cost-benefit analysis legislation already has\na provision to get at existing rules -- a petition process to\nallow for reopening of rules likely to fail to meet the bill's\nnew tests. But an aide to Mica said the amendment would be\nbroader in scope and put the onus on government, rather than on\nbusiness, to review the regulations.\nOn a related matter, Rep. James Hayes, D-La., today suggested\nthe fast pace of action on property takings and risk and cost-\nbenefit bills to meet the 100-day \"Contract with America\"\ndeadline threatened to result in legislation with \"drafting\nerrors, and unintended \"poor choices.' The House will be\nabdicating its legislative responsibility to the Senate, he\nargued, which will then become the forum for writing laws. While\nsupporting in principle the risk-cost benefit bill, Hayes\nquestioned its details, arguing, \"Nothing works across the\nboard. He gave as an example a bill requiring a risk analysis\nbefore issuing water permits. \"That's idiotic for that program,\"\nhe said. Asked about Hayes' concern, an aide to Rep. Lamar Smith,\nR-Texas, a proponent of the contract's takings provision, said\nthere is a desire to move carefully, but that the House is moving\nrapidly because 2.0 years of abuse by regulators has been largely\nignored.\nMeanwhile, as property rights provisions move toward a markup\nin the House Judiciary Committee, House aides said discussion is\nongoing about whether the current 10 percent trigger-level will\nbe modified. Under the existing bill, property owners would have\nto be compensated if federal regulation reduced private property\nvalues by 10 percent or more. There is strong debate even among\nproperty rights groups and proponents of compensation measures\nover whether that number is too low. There is work under way to\nrevise the legislation so it is pay-go neutral, aides said. One\noption, sources said, is to take spending for compensation out of\nan agency's budget. The goal, according to the Smith aide, is \"to\nreduce the amount the government regulates,\" rather than to pay\npeople for speculative uses of the land.\nThe Congress Daily --- Monday --- February 14, 1995\nDate: 02/15/95 Time: 11:05\nGingrich Predicts 'Real Brawl' In Litigation Reform Battle\nWASHINGTON (AP) The House faces a real brawl' in the next\ntwo months as trial lawyers try to block a Republican move to limit\ndamages in lawsuits, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today.\n''I believe this is going to be the biggest fight of the next 60\ndays, Gingrich told a group of insurance executives this morning\nat a Washington hotel. ''It's the one I'm most worried about\nlosing, frankly.\"\nGingrich was referring to the impending House debate over the\nprovision of the Republican 'Contract With America'' that would\nimpose limits on lawsuits, particularly on the damages that can be\nawarded.\nThe original contract proposal would limit punitive damages in\nlawsuits, and let judges order losers to pay both sides' litigation\ncosts. Businesses, complaining they are victims of frivolous and\ncostly lawsuits, urged House leaders to include the provision in\ntheir legislative blueprint.\nThe proposal threatens a major revenue source for trial lawyers.\nGingrich specifically attacked the American Bar Association for\nfighting the legislation \"to defend their right to gouge the\ncountry. He said lobbies for the lawyers are planning to spend\n$20 million to fight the bill and to threaten lawmakers who support\nit.\n'This is going to be real brawl and I'll just tell you flatly,\neverybody who's griped about too many lawsuits, you'd better be\nprepared to throw every ounce of your muscle into this fight\nbecause they will,\" Gingrich said. ''They're going to run every\nad, they're going to pull out every stop, they're going to use\nevery trick, they're going to make every threat to every member.\nSpecifically, Gingrich said the lawyers' lobby will tell members\nit will field and finance primary and general election candidates\nagainst members who support litigation reform.\n''That's how bad it's going to be. It's going to be\nunbelievable, bitter, in the trenches, just fighting it out, he\nsaid.\nA spokesperson for the American Bar Association did not\nimmediately return a call seeking comment.\nThe legislation is working its way through committee. So far,\nother provisions of the ''Contract''' that have come up for a House\nvote have passed.\nOn Tuesday, the 'Common Sense Legal Reform'' bill, a plank of\nthe ''Contract, emerged from the House telecommunication and\nfinance subcommittee after a lengthy and technical session in which\nDemocrats unsuccessfully attempted to modify the bill.\nThe bill, reflecting a compromise announced last week, now goes\nto the House Commerce Committee, where it is scheduled for a vote\nThursday.\nThe legislation would amend the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to\nraise the standard for private investors to sue in securities fraud\ncases. It would impose a modified ''loser pays'' rule which would\npermit judges, in cases where a securities fraud lawsuit was deemed\nwithout merit, to have the plaintiff pay the winning side's legal\nfees and expenses.\nAPNP-02-15-95 1108EST\npossible now that the House has voted it down? It doesn't look\ngood, but the bottom line is Senator Gramm may try to go ahead and\nget a vote on it. Gramm may use the vote to gauge support for a\nchange in Senate rules, according to the aide. \"There may be an\neffort down the road to come back and look at this. The House\nalready kind of did the 3/5, you see, when they voted on a rule\nchange on the first day.\nThey didn't do it in the\nconstitutional amendment, but they did do it in the rule change.\"\nAdded the source: \"It's not just a symbolic vote; it's also seeing\nif there's any support for a rule change to lock this into law.\nPerry testifies against national security bill. Defense Secretary\nWilliam Perry offered the House National Security Committee sharp\ncriticism of the National Security Revitalization Act, H.R. 7,\ntoday. \"I find it disturbing on several counts, not the least of\nwhich is the assertion at the front end of this H.R. 7 that we have\na hollow force, which is not only wrong but I think is a dangerous\nstatement, misleads the American people, and it may confuse\npotential aggressors of the United States.\" Perry also objected to\nthe bill's call for an independent oversight commission. \"You are\nmy commission,\" he told the committee. \"I don't need an independent\ncommission interposing itself between myself and you, and you do not\nneed an independent commission interposing itself.\"\nWhite House believes public was more supportive of State of the\nUnion than the press. \"The speech proved to be highly effective,\"\nargued a White House official this morning. \"We are seeing public\nopinion data from polls and focus groups indicating that from every\nperspective the public thought the speech was a success. The\nofficial added that \"all of the President's numbers went up across\nthe board\" and \"we're pleased\" with the results. Asked why the\npress reports and columnists' commentary reported a different\nresult, the official commented: \"It always helps to have the people\nwho interpret the presidency for the public to be on your side, but\nit helps more to have the people on your side. And there is a\ndisjunction between the press reaction the public reaction.\"\nConcluded the official: \"It just shows the quality of the speech\nwas being evaluated on very different terms by the people, as\nopposed to the press, and if you have to choose, we will take the\npublic reaction anytime.\"\nBoth sides in regulatory relief battle gearing up. Advocates and\nopponents of \"Contract With America\" inspired regulatory reform\nlegislation that is brewing in Congress are gearing up for a\nlobbying donnybrook. At issue are proposals in Congress to place a\nmoratorium on regulations that were proposed by the Clinton\nAdministration after November 9th and two elements of the Contract\nWith America that would impose a cap on Federal Government\nregulatory activities and make it harder to promulgate future\nregulations by requiring the government to compensate private\nproperty holders whose property values diminish greater than 10\npercent as a result of government regulation.\nProject Relief, a group formed to support the congressional\nRepublicans' regulatory reform agenda, is unlike past broad-based\nbusiness coalitions on regulatory issues in that its membership also\nincludes representatives of think tanks such as the Heritage\nFoundation and conservative organizations such as the Christian\nCoalition and Concerned Women for America. According to sources in\nthe Project Relief coalition, Citizens For a Sound Economy (CSE)\nwill head up the coalition's communications effort. CSE, a\nWashington-based advocacy group headed by former White House Counsel\nBoyden Gray, is already running advertisements on local radio\nstations decrying an incident where a worker who \"jumped into a\ncollapsing ditch to rescue his buddy\" was fined by the government.\nA second ad criticizes the Food and Drug Administration's rules\nwhich \"prohibit\" an aspirin maker from discussing the ability of its\nproduct to prevent a second heart attack. The Competitive\nEnterprise Institute, another conservative organization, is running\na similar ad attacking \"delays\" in FDA approval processes for new\ndrugs. CSE spokesman Brent Bahler told the Bulletin that in 1994,\nhis organization spent $10 million on its advocacy efforts, and this\nyear will spend an equivalent total amount on such priority issues\nas regulatory relief, tort reform, welfare reform and advocacy of a\nflat tax. CSE has already conducted focus groups and polling to\nfine tune its message and is expected to continue tapping an\neffective grass roots network to help pressure Congress. According\nto Bahler, one of the major targets of the CSE communications\nefforts to spotlight examples of regulatory overkill will be the\nFood and Drug Administration, which they accuse of restricting the\nability of drug manufacturers to discuss the secondary benefits of\ntheir products, attempting to impose \"unnecessary\" user fees on\nmanufacturers of medical devices and imposing a $350 million\nregulatory burden on the producers of new drugs. Another target of\nthis campaign will be a new FDA building being constructed in\nClarksburgh, Maryland, whose cost CSE says has escalated well beyond\na projected $600 million to over $1 billion. FDA spokesman Jim\nO'Hara told the Bulletin that the cost of the building will be\naround $800 million and that the project has been thoroughly\nreviewed and approved by Congress.\nMeanwhile, there are indications that the regulatory relief\neffort will move at an increased pace. According to Bruce Gates\nhead of Project Relief, \"The Senate is moving a pace on regulatory\nreform. There is some indication we may be settling on moving the\nbig reform package soon. Senator Dole is close to finalizing his\npackage and the House is moving on its package, so we could be in\nthe thick of it in the next few weeks. Gates added, \"We may be the\nvictim of our own success in getting the reform agenda energized.\nIf we move sooner on the larger agenda it may eclipse the moratorium\neffort.\"\nOpponents of the Republicans' regulatory relief agenda are also\norganizing around a new coalition, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards\n(CSS). According to Gary Bass of OMB Watch, one of the main\norganizers of CSS, the coalition of some 200 labor, environmental,\ncivil rights, disability, education, health, consumer and religious\ngroups (American Jewish Committee and various Protestant lay\norganizations) is \"the broadest based coalition I've ever seen.\"\nBass said he prefers to think of CSS's task as not turning the issue\ninto one of \"liberals and conservatives\" but instead to break it\ndown \"to a David versus Goliath, meaning individuals versus the\npowerful special interests.\" Bass said initially CSS will focus on\ndirect lobbying of members of Congress and grass roots lobbying. He\nsaid a coalition television and radio strategy has yet to be\ndetermined and claimed CSS will be vastly outspent by Project\nRelief. One of CSS's first actions will be to present at a yet to\nbe scheduled press conference people who will dramatize the\nregulatory issue. \"There will be a woman from Chicago whose child\ndied from food poisoning, a worker who lost an arm in an industrial\naccident,\" said Bass. \"It wasn't hard to find people at all.\"\nMeanwhile, the Administration has been slow to get directly\ninvolved in the regulatory battle. President Clinton told the\nCongress in the State of the Union Address, \"I applaud your desire\nto get rid of costly and unnecessary regulations, but when we\nderegulate, let's remember what national action in the national\ninterest has given us: safer food for our families, safer toys for\nour children, safer nursing homes for our parents, safer cars and\nhighways, and safer workplaces, cleaner air and cleaner water.\nDo we need common sense and fairness in our regulations? You bet we\ndo. But we can have common sense and still provide for safe\ndrinking water. We can have fairness and still clean up toxic\ndumps, and we ought to do it.\" When the Administration does weigh\nin on the specifics of the GOP's Contract proposal, which are\nembodied in H.R. 9, \"The Jobs Creation and Wage Enhancement Act,\" it\nwill be armed with an extensive agency review of the legislation.\nThis review points out that if enacted, H.R. 9 could \"be enormously\nexpensive to the treasury\" according to one of the people working on\nthe analysis. According to this source, the private property rights\nportion of the legislation \"has perverse incentives. It encourages\nthe property owner to propose things they have no intention of doing\nand then say, \"You've denied my permit, pay up.\" A Republican staff\nmember involved in the drafting of H.R. 9 said, however, that the\nlegislation has safeguards against such nuisance claims. And\naccording to a White House source, \"There is a strategy hatching on\npicking up [the argument] on any number of [regulatory] issues in\nthe Contract.\" The source, added however, that the White House has\ndelayed implementing the strategy because \"every time we try to do\nthis the agencies get all scattershot, and this hurts us more than\nhelps us.\" The source added, \"The President has said that there are\nsome areas where we are not going to back off. And the environment\nis one area where we are not going to roll over and play dead.\nPeople think the environment and a good economy go hand in hand.\nCongressman Miller fires balanced budget amendment shot at resource\nsubsidies. Rep. George Miller, the ranking minority member on the\nHouse Resource Committee, fired a shot at the Republican majority\nthis morning by introducing legislation to \"bring to fair market\nvalue the sale or distribution of natural resources by the Federal\nGovernment\" that he said would result in at least $3 billion dollars\nin annual savings to the treasury. \"You cannot scour the Federal\nbudget and ignore natural resource subsidies,\" said Miller. \"It\nwould be completely irresponsible.\" Miller's legislation has only\none Republican co-sponsor, Porter Goss of Florida, and definitely\nfaces an uphill battle. The legislation would attack timber,\ngrazing and irrigation subsidies. It would also require an eight\npercent royalty on hard rock mining, increase oil and gas rental\nfees, eliminate the Federal helium program and a program that\nprovides free feed to livestock producers and increase the fees\ncharged to communications companies such as MCI that rent microwave\nstations on Federal lands. Rep. Miller labeled his proposal, \"140\nyears and you're off.\" This is a reference to both current welfare\nreform proposals and the length of time that some of the subsidies\nhe is attacking have been in place.\nSenate Republicans Convene Health Care Task Force. The Senate\nRepublican Health Care Task Force yesterday held its first meeting\nthis session, led by its chairman, Sen. Robert Bennett. \"All the\nmembers in attendance were unanimous in their commitment that this\nis still a major issue and we need to do something,\" according to a\nBennett aide, \"And they were happy that the President has finally\ncome around to what they've been saying for two years -- we can't do\nthis all at once, it's too big. A step by step incremental approach\nis the way to get this accomplished.\" Following the meeting,\nBennett announced that the group would look for ways to assure\naccess to health care and address the costs of providing that care\nwhile taking the Federal deficit into consideration. Bennett added\nthat \"everything is on the table,\" including Medicare reform and\nchanges in the Internal Revenue Code. However, according to\nBennett's staffer, the senator \"recognizes that this task force\nisn't a legislation-writing body. The forum in which a bill will be\nwritten will be the finance and labor committees, and the job of the\ntask force is to provide recommendations.\"\nThe task force meetings, scheduled every Thursday morning, are\nopen to any Republican senator wishing to attend. Participants in\nyesterday's meeting included: Sens. Chafee, Packwood, Bond, Frist,\nGorton, Grassley, Jeffords and Stevens.\nGephardt addresses mayors, raps GOP Contract. House Minority Leader\nRichard Gephardt appeared before the US Conference of Mayors this\nmorning, where he criticized the GOP Contract with America. \"I\nthink my greatest concern about the so-called 'Contract' is that if\nyou add it all up it causes a further huge hole in our national\nbudget,' Gephardt said, adding: \"I hope that my sources are\ncorrect, and I'm willing for them to be checked, but the way the\nTreasury Department and other sources add everything, their\nconclusion is that if you did all the things the way they're said,\nyou're going to blow a big trillion dollar hole in the budget, and\nI don't think that's what we want to do.\"\nTHE ROAD AHEAD:\nThis morning the Bulletin invites Gary Blumenthal, Vice President of\nPolicy at World Perspectives Inc., a market and policy analysis consulting\nfirm, and formerly Special Assistant to President Bush for Agricultural\nTrade and Food Assistance, to discuss the outlook for the 1995 farm bill.\nBULLETIN: of the two Agriculture Committee chairmen, Senator Lugar seems\ninclined to end farm subsidies as we know them, and Representative Roberts\nMichel Weldin\n214\nOEOB\nPolitical Advantage: Japan's\nCampaign for America\nby Pat Choate\nImagine a foreign country\nrunning an ongoing political campaign in the United\nStates, as though it were a third major political party.\nImagine it spending more than $100 million each\neffective than either U.S. political party or any U.S.\nyear to hire 1,000 Washington, D.C. lobbyists, super-\nindustry, union, or special interest group, Japan's\nlawyers, former high-ranking public officials. public\ncampaign for the United States is designed to serve\nrelations specialists, political advisers-even former\none very important purpose: to influence the out-\npresidents. Imagine it spending another $300 million\ncome of political decisions in Washington, D.C. that\neach year to build a nationwide grass roots political\ndirectly affect Japanese corporate and economic in-\nnerwork to influence public opinion. Imagine that its\n$400 million per year political campaign sought to\nPat Choate is an aconomist, author, and lectures in Wash-\nadvance its economic interests, influence U.S. trade\nington, D.C. His books on U.S. competitiveness include\npolicy, and win market share in the United States for\nBeing Number One: Rebuilding the U.S. Economy (wich\nGail Garfield Schwartz, D.C. Heath. 1980), America in\nits target industries.\nRuins (with Susan Walter Duke University Press, 1982),\nNone of this is imaginary; none of it is illegal. The\nand The High-Flez Society (with I.K. Linger, Knopf. 1986).\ncountry that is actually undertaking this political\nThis is his second HBR article; the first. \"Tailared Trade:\ncampaign is Japan. Today Japan controls the most so-\nDealing With the World as It Is,\" appeared in January-\nphisticated and successful political-economic ma-\nFebruary 198R This article draws from his new book,\nchine in the United States. More extensive and\nAgents of Influence (Knopf. 1990).\nDRAMINGS BY KURT VARGO\n87\ncomputers, machine tools, hall and roller bearings,\nThe Scarlet M\noptical fibers, satellites, biotechnology, air transport,\ntelecommunications, semiconductors, legal and fi-\nIn the spring of 1990, Japanese officials, commen-\nnancial services-one recent example illustrates the\nrators, and several of their U.S. allies simultane-\npower and importance of Japan's growing political\nously began to link criticism of the Japan Lobby and\ninfluence in the United States: trucks and tariffs. It\nWashington's revolving door with McCarthyism\nis a victory in which Japanese organizations success-\nBut then, America's all-purpose political slur has\nfully outmaneuvered General Motors, Ford, Chrys-\nlong been used to fight other political battles. In\nler, and the United Auto Workers and, in the process,\n1981. for example. Lawyers who represented terrorist\norganizations like the Baader-Meinhof Gang called\ndeprived the U.S. Treasury of more than $500 million\nthe formation of a Senate Subcommittee on Secu-\nper year in duties.\nrity and Terrorism McCarthyism. In 1989, critics of\nSince 1981, the Japanese government has set a \"vol-\nthe federal Drug Enforcement Agency called its new\nuntary export restraint\" on the number of passenger\nprogram to stop indoor marijuana production mari-\ncars it would send to the United States. No such re-\njuana McCarthyism\nstraint existed for light trucks. There is, however, a\nsubstantial difference in the tariff levied by the\nUnited States on cars versus light trucks: for passen-\nM\nger cars it is 2.5%, for light trucks, 25%. During the\nearly and mid-1980s, the Japanese paid the difference\nin duties without raising any issue; but in 1987, the\nsituation changed. The large number of new Japanese\nauto plants in the United States, combined with a\nPeter Collier and David Horowitz write in their\ngrowing demand for light trucks as a family vehicle,\n1989 book, Destructive Generation, that the term\nmeant that the passenger-car quota was going un-\nMcCarthyism in \"a spell that creates self-cen-\nfilled. To fill the limit, the Japanese sent more light\nsorship.\" Because it is a synonym for sinister au-\nthority, they write, individuals and parties \"com-\ntrucks. To avoid paying the higher tariff, they began\npete to brand each other with the Scarlet M, using\nto reclassify light trucks as passenger cars.\nthe term as the moral trump card which automati-\nIn the spring of 1988, the U.S. Customs Service be-\ncally terminates arguments.\"\ncame aware of Japan's abuse of tariff regulations and\nAcrually, the issue about Japan's growing political\ninitiated a review process, inviting comments from\ninfluence in the United States and the rapid move-\ninterested parties. The Japan Lobby went to work.\nment of dozens of our top former federal officials\nJapanese interests responded by expanding their lob-\nonto their payrolls as lobbyists and political advis-\nbying team. In October 1988, for instance, Suzuki\nem is not about patriotism or idealogy. It is about\nMotor Company hired Robert Thompson, a well-\nsystemic, identifiable public corruption-all of it\nconnected Republican lobbyist who had been an aide\nentirely legal and widely tolerated, at least in offi-\nto Vice President George Bush in the 1980s.\ncial Washington\nThe Japanese campaign began in the summer of\n1988 with a letter from Congressman James Inhofe,\ncosigned by 30 representatives and 11 senators, urg-\nterests, decisions in which every day hundreds of\ning Commissioner of Customs William von Raab to\nmillions of dollars-and cumulatively billions of\nclassify light trucks as cars. Inhofe followed up his\ndollars-are on the line\nletter by summoning von Raab to his office to ex-\nBy knowing about these decisions ahead of the\nplain why the review process had been initiated.\ncompetition, by using its network of well-connected\nWhen von Raab got to the congressman's office, he\ninsiders and lobbyists in Washington, D.C., by ac-\nfound Inhofe-and John Rehm, who had been gen-\ntivating its broad-based nerwork in local communi-\neral counsel in the White House Office of the Special\nties across the country, by shaping American\nRepresentative for Trade Negotiations during the\njournalists' coverage of economic issues, and by pro-\nJohnson administration. Rehm's law firm repre-\nmoring its opinion leaders in universities and think\nsented Japanese and other foreign automotive inter-\ntanks, Japanese companies and the Japanese govern-\nests, plus American automobile importers. With\nment are able to transform political strategy into a\nInhofe's blessing Rehm sat in on the entire meet-\ncritical element of corporate and national strategy.\ning. Both Inhofe and Rehm urged von Raab not to\nThis political game is going on every day, as it was\npursue the reclassification issue, but von Raab re-\nfor most of the 1980s. Among the victories scared by\nfused to preempt the Customs Service's decision-\nJapanese interests during the last decade-in super-\nmaking process.\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Septeu\nOctober 1990\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\nOn January 4, 1989, Customs ruled that light\nthe vehicles as trucks for sale once they were inside\ntrucks could not be classified as cars. In an interview\nthe United States. This bureaucratic two-step al-\nlater, von Rasb said of the decision, \"These vehicles\nlowed the Japanese to enjoy the best of both worlds:\nare built on truck hodies. They have truck character-\nfirst, to reduce the tariff, which is lower for cars than\nistics. Most are built in truck divisions. They are ad-\nfor trucks; and second, to reduce the requirements\nvertised as rucks, off-road vehicles, vans, or vehicles\nfor fuel efficiency, safety, and emissions, which are\nthat can carry cargo For years, the Japanese have cer-\nlower for trucks than for cars.\ntified them as trucks when importing them into the\nIn the end, for an estimated $3 million invest-\nUnited States. Even my grandmother can go into a\nment in lobbyists, public relations advisers, and po-\nparking lot and tell the difference between a passen-\nlitical consultants, the Japanese avoided more than\nger car and a truck. These are trucks.\"\n$500 million per year in import duties-withour\nJapanese interests reacted swiftly. At a meeting of\nmaking a single concession or agreeing to a single\nthe world's finance ministers, the Japanese minister\nU.S. demand.\nof finance persuaded his German and British coun-\nterparts-each of whom had a small number of ve-\nhicles that would be affected to approach U.S.\nJapan's Campaign for America\nSecretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, von Raab's\nboss, and ask for an official reconsideration of the de-\ncision. Brady agreed; within nine days of the Cus-\nLobbying seeking political influence, using infor-\ntoms Service decision, the ruling was suspended.\nmation to advance economic interests-none of this\nJapan's next move was to seek to kill the ruling per-\nis unique to Japan or to Washington, D.C. in 1990. Ex-\nmanently. In Washington, D.C., Japan's American\namples abound across the pages of history. Japan's\nlobbyists and representatives of the Japanese govern-\ncampaign is the most recent and most extensive ef-\nment met with officials from the Office of the U.S.\nfort along these lines-and as such raises important\nTrade Representative, the White House, and the Trea-\nquestions about how the United States wishes to\nsury. Japanese automakers financed a public relations\nconduct its democratic practices. Japan's govern-\ncampaign built on the theme that von Raab's ruling\nment and leading companies together spend $400\nwould harm U.S. consumers by increasing prices on\nmillion annually running an ongoing political cam-\nlight trucks. Auto importers flooded Congress with\npaign in the United States. This figure represents an\nletters. The government of Japan implied that an un-\namount equal to the expenditures of both the Re-\nfavorable decision could do great harm to the U.S.-\npublicans and Democrats in both the House and\nJapan relationship.\nSenate elections of 1988, combined. Japan spends\nIn a rare show of political unity, Roger Smith of\nmore on its 1,000-person lobby in Washington, D.C.\nGeneral Motors, Donald Petersen of Ford, and Lee\nthan the five most influential American business\nlacocca of Chrysler sent a joint letter to the president\norganizations-the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the\nand Congress urging that Customs's original ruling\nNational Association of Manufacturers, the Busi-\nstand. But in a fierce political contest on the Big\nness Rounduable, the Committee for Economic De-\nvelopment, and the American Business Council-\ncombined. In fact, Japan spends more in America in\nLight trucks became cars for\nlobbying, politicking, and propagandizing than the 12\npurposes of the tariff, then\nnations of the European Community combined. The\nwent back to trucks for\npeople whom it hires as its representatives, lobbyists,\nand spokespersons come from the highest levels of\npurposes of environmental\nAmerican public the best and the brightest poli-\ncymakers, political strategists, legal experts, elected\nregulations.\nand appointed officials.\nLike any high-quality political campaign, the Japa-\nThree's home court, the Japanese trounced their U.S.\nnese program in the United States depends on a\nrivals. Within 45 days of von Raab's original ruling\ntested formula for its success: keep your message\nthe Treasury Department overturned the Customs\nsimple, use a variety of credible messengers, and let\nService decision: it was official U.S. policy that light\nthe echo effect drown out your opponents. The Japa-\ntrucks were passenger cars for purposes of the tariff.\nnese have crafted six basic messages that they seek to\nThen in a remarkable twist, the U.S. government\ndeliver (see the insert \"Japan's Six Excuses\") and five\nmade Japan's victory even more complete: the lapa-\ntechniques for delivering them. The components of\nnese convinced the Bush administration to reclassify\ntheir ongoing campaign are:\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\n89\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\nJapan's Six Excuses\nThrough propaganda, Japan has been able to ward\nhomegrown-poor quality, lazy workers, 2 high\noff American criticism of its protectionist eco-\nbudget deficit, among dozens of other variations. If\nnomic policies. Using six simple excuses and then\nthis were true, America would be hard put to blame\nrepeating them cndlessly in countless variations, 1a-\nthe Japanese for any hilateral trade frictions. To be\npan has crafted an effective public relations cam-\nsure, the United States has many shortcomings.\npaign. Japan's six excuses are:\nStill, these inadequacies do not explain why U.S.\nproducts that are fully competitive are kept out\nEXCUSE 1: Japan Creates Jobs for Americans\nof Japan's market. Hundreds of U.S. companies\nIn the late 1980s, when Japan began to be criti-\nproduce goods and services that are the best in the\ncized for its rapidly expanding investment in the\nworld by any measure-price, quality, service, inno-\nUnited States, the propaganda theme most widely\nvation, and marketing. These companies hire sales-\ndisseminated by its spokespersons was that Japa-\npeople who speak Japanese. They make a long-term\nnese investment created new jobs for Americans.\ncommitment to their Japanese customers. Yet most\nThe theme worked to defuse the criticism-bur it is\nmake only a token penetration into the Japanese\nberrayed by the facts. Of the 677,000 jobs that all for-\nmarket. By contrast, these products compete with\neign investors, including Japan, claim to have\ngreat success against Japanese goods in Europe and\ncreated in 1988, only 34,000- a mere 5% were\nother markets. This defies all economic lagic-\ncreated by the establishment of new foreign-owned\nunless we consider one critical factor: Japan's mar-\noperations in the United States. The other 95%\nkets are far more closed than are America's or\nwere made up of existing jobs in U.S. companies\nEurope's And thar's Japan's fault.\nthat were taken over by foreign investors. Moreover,\nwhen we take into consideration the liquidation-\nEXCUSE 4: Globalization\nor curback-related layoffs in foreign companies'\nThe message of globalization is that national bor-\nnewly acquired U.S. affiliates, the net number of\nders are disappearing along with such outdated con-\nnew jobs created by all foreign investment is nomi-\ncepts as national pride and national security In their\nnal at best and may actually be negative.\nplace is emerging & single world economy, where de-\npendence and national allegiance have no place and\nEXCUSE 2: Japan's Critics Are Racists\ncorporations are no longer Japanese, American, or\n\"Criticiam of Japan is racism\" has long been a\nEuropean but entities separate from nations. The\nmainstay of Japanese propaganda. With no apparent\nunderlying message: policy sophisticates shouldn't\nhesitation, Japanese propagandists automatically\nworry about the Japanese purchases of U.S. assets or\nlabel critics as racists. Variations include calling\nabout Japan's quest for global domination of key in-\ncritics \"Japan bashers,\" \"Tap bashers,\" or CVCD \"Ta-\ndustries. What is ignored, of course, is that by selling\npanophobes.\" Of course, some Americans are racist\nits appreciating capital stock (real estate and com-\nand some bashing of Japan does occur But the vast\npanies) to buy depreciable foreign-made consum-\nmajority of accusations of racism and Japan bashing\ner goods (VCRs, cars, and electronic gadgets), the\nis little more than a cynical gambit by the Japanese\nUnited States is sure to be a poorer nation in the\nand those in their pay to silence Japan's critics and\nlong run. For after the consumsbles are gone, Japa-\ndiscredit legitimate American debate\nnese and other foreign investors will still be taking\nprofits and rents from cheir ownership at equiry\nEXCUSE 3: It's America's Fault\nFor all of Japan's arguments that national borders\nThe \"It's America's fault\" excuse promotes the\nare evaporating its own borders remain substan-\nperception that U.S. trade problems are entirely\nrially closed. As a consequence, American and other\nIntelligence gathering,\ncorrodes the integrity of the economic and political\nLobbying and influencing policy,\nsystem of the United States.\nPoliticking at the grass roots level,\nTo the Japanese, a political strategy in the United\nDispersing propaganda, and\nStates-indeed, in every major market of the world-\nInfluencing U.S. education and classroom\nis a critical element of business strategy (see the in-\ninstruction.\nsert \"Japan in Europe\"). In fact, what an in-depth\nThis is, of course, completely legal. It all falls\nanalysis of Japan's systemaric political strategy in the\nwithin Washington, D.C.'s often self-serving defini-\nUnited States teaches is the dominant role of politics\ntion of ethics-which one powerful lawyer-lobbyist\nin the global economy. According to an A.T. Kearney\ndescribed as, \"If it's legal, it's ok.\" And it all deeply\nsurvey, fewer than 30% of America's top 150 CEOs\n90\nHARVARD BU\n$ REVIEW September-O\n1990\nIn politics, as in manufactured products, Japanese\nstrategy follows a simple and predictable partern:\nprotect your own domestic market from foreign\nforeign investors own fewer than 1% of Japan's na-\npenetration, capture as much of your competitor's\ntional assets-a stark contrast to the United States\nmarket share as possible. In Japan, it is unthinkable\n(9%) and West Germany (17%). Equally important,\nthat a top government official would become a top\nin the 1980s, the ratio of manufactured imports to\nlobbyist for a U.S. corporation, that a candidate for\nGNP was less than 3% in Japan, compared with\nhigh office would accept a campaign contribution\nroughly 7% in the United States and more than 10%\nfor most European countries.\nfrom a U.S. corporation, that a foreign government\nwould stage-manage a grass roots political cam-\nEXCUSE 5: Japan Is Unique\npaign among its people, or that foreign companies\nJapan has long sought unequal and nonreciprocal\nor governments would establish think tanks to\nrelationships with the United States by arguing that\nfeed ideas into the government. In all these ways,\nit is \"unique\" and thus requires special treatment.\nJapan is a closed political market.\nThe United States, for instance, is urged to accept Ja-\nYet, in all these ways, Japan is gaining political\npan's closed rice market and discriminatory dis-\nmarket share in the United States, spending hun-\ntribution system because they are part of Japan's\ndreds of millions of dollars for competitive advan-\nunique culture, even as Japanese companies have\ntage. To the Japanese, politics is another legitimate\nfull access to the rich U.S. market. Ironically, the\nbusiness expense.\nheart of the revisionists' argument is that Japan is\nindeed different from other nations and should be\nIt is a business expense that the Japanese incur\ntreated differently. When the revisionists argue that\nwith remarkable consistency, coherence, and coordi-\nJapan is unique, however, the Japanese reject the\nnation. As with their larger business strategies, when\nargument.\nit comes to global politics Japanese business and gov-\nemment interests work together, practicing a unique\nEXCUSE 6: Japan Is Changing\nbrand of \"economic diplomacy\" that puts the instru-\nJapan forestalls rough American action to open its\nments of state to use for economic purposes. For ex-\nclosed markets by holding out the prospect that\nample, a representative of the Keidanren, the Japan\n\"change is imminent.\" In the 1960s, Japan was sup-\nFederation of Economic Organizations, is stationed\nposed to change once its youth came into positions\nin Japan's Washington, D.C. embassy, and the consul\nof influence. In the 1970s, Japan was supposed to\ngeneral in Japan's nine consulates across the United\nchange once enough Japanese tourists and business-\nStates functions first and foremost as a chief eco-\nmen had been exposed to other nations. In the early\n1980s, Japan was supposed to change because of the\nnomic officer. Moreover, the Japanese are prepared to\n\"intermationalization\" of Japan's financial market.\nspend whatever it takes on politics to secure their\nIn the late 1980s, Japan was supposed to change be-\neconomic goals-recognizing that $400 million per\ncause political reforms created by the Recruit scan-\nyear is a bargain if it safeguards a $50 billion per year\ndal would produce a Japanese government far less\nbilateral trade surplus.\nbeholden to its corporations and more concerned\nJapan's political machine in the United States is\nabout consumers.\ndesigned to serve six national and corporate goals:\nFor all of the American and European anticipation\n1. To keep the U.S. market open for exports from\nof change, Japan remains by far the most closed\nJapan.\nindustrial markes in the world. Thus is is reason-\n2. To smooth the way for additional purchases of\nable to ask: Do Japan's policymakers really want\nkey assets in the United States.\nto change?\n3. To blunt criticism of Japan's adversarial trade\npractices.\n4. To neutralize or, even better, to capture the polit-\neven try to influence the policies of their own govern-\nical influence of the U.S. companies that compete\nment. Japanese business leaders, in contrast, have ea-\nwith Japan.\ngerly embraced the notion that politics is a critical\n5. To influence U.S. trade policies toward Japan, Eu-\nsource of advantage in glohal competition. Ameri-\nrope, and all other markets where Japan has signifi-\ncans have become accustomed to high-quality, low-\ncant economic interests.\nCOST, innovative Japanese products in the marker-\n6. To create an integrated U.S.-Japan economy that\nplace. Now the Japanese are bringing the same high\nprevents the United States from confronting Japan\nlevel of performance to a political product offered in\neconomically and politically.\nthe corridors of Congress and the back halls of the\nOther nations lobby on behalf of their economic\nWhite House.\ninterests in the United States; in fact, South Korea,\n91\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\nPOLII ADIAN IAGE\nUnited States. In February 1990. the Foreign Minis-\ntry summoned 300 of Japan's business leaders to a\nmeeting in Tokyo and instructed them to increase\ntheir local donations in the United States. As an\nJapan In Europe\nadded inducement, the government announced that\nit would give them benefits on their taxes in Japan\nIn the fall of 1988, Cores, a Japanese consulting\nfor such contributions.\nfirm that specializes in foreign marketing, pre-\nsented 20 of Japan's largest electronics manufac-\nThe Japanese help finance both the Republican and\nturers with a detailed blueprint for lobbying,\nDemocratic parties, make major contributions to po-\npoliricking and propagandizing in Europe. The goal:\nlitical action committees, and count on their payrolls\ninfluence the rules that the European Community\ntop political advisers to the president, to members of\nis adopting to create a single market in 1992.\nCongress, to governors, and to mayors. Charles\nJapanese companies were advised to: join every\nManatt. for example, who headed the Democratic\nlocal industry association they could; hire lobbyists\nNational Committee in the mid-1980s, is now a\nand public relations personnel in each of the EC's 12\nWashington, D.C. political adviser to NEC America.\nnations; establish an intelligence-gathering net-\nFrank Fahrenkopf, who chaired the Republican Na-\nwork in each country; spread their facilities across\ntional Committee from 1983 to 1989, while in office\nthe EC; hire European Lawyers and financial experts\nwho could monitor local developments, invite in-\narranged meetings with top U.S. government offi-\nfluential European academics, journalists, and poli-\ncials for his client, Toyota Motor of North America.\nticians to Japan; and appoint a local political\nMoreover, the Japanese are willing to be explicit\npersonality as a figurchead chsirman for Japan's Eu-\nabout their political goals in the United States. Ac-\nropean operations-someone who would be willing\ncording to Akio Morita-chairman of Sony, vice\nto open doors and Lay the groundwork for the sys-\nchairman of the Keidanren, and chairman of the\ntematic lobbying of national officials and politi-\nKeidanren-created Council for Better Corporate Citi-\nclans, In short, every element of the political\nzenship in the United States-Japan's investments in\nstrategy that was first employed by the Japanese in\nthe United States have a specific political purpose.\nthe United States is now being deployed in Europe\n\"What we mean by 'better investment,\" Morita\nwrote in The Japan That Can Say 'No', \"is the type of\ninvestment which will get Americans on Japan's\nside.\" Getting \"Americans on Japan's side\" means\nchanging how Americans vote. The goal set by\nMorita: \"make politicians stop bashing Japan.\"\nTaiwan, and several European nations are now set-\nThe Japanese political strategy in the United States\nting up their own political machines in the United\nreplicates the political mind-set in Japan in some\nStates. But there are important differences, both in\nfundamental respects. In Japan, money polities is an\napproach and amount. For the most part, Canada and\nestablished fact. A golden triangle, consisting of the\nthe nations of Western Europe still rely on traditional\nLiberal Democratic Party (LDP), elite bureaucrats in\ndiplomacy to influence U.S. policies; companies\ngovernment ministries, and established corporate\nfrom these countries tend to retain representatives\nleaders from business, dominates Japan's domestic\nonly when they need help to fight a specific decision\npolitical machinery in a way designed to serve the\nthat would affect their ability to compete.\ncountry's economic interests. Money and the ex-\nJapan, by contrast, has sought to establish an inte-\nchange of political favors make the system go: the\ngrated political strategy. Moreover, the scale of the Ja-\nKeidanren alone provides the LDP with $100 million\npan Lobby in Washington is unprecedented: the\neach year. In 1990, with the LDP's 35-year uninter-\ngovernment of Japan and Japanese companies em-\nrupted reign in jeopardy because of money politics\nploy 92 law, public relations, and lobbying firms on\nand the stain of the Recruit scandal, the Keidanren\ntheir behalf, compared with Canada's 55, Britain's 42,\nand other Japanese business interests contributed\nand the Netherlands's the 3 other largest inves-\nmore than $1 billion to keep the party in power.\ntors in the United States. Japanese corporations and\nIt is a world of very tight political, economic, and\ngovernmental agencies have relationships with the\npersonal relationships. Take the construction indus-\nten largest law firms in Washington, D.C. that spe-\ntry, where politics is everything, public spending\ncialize in trade matters.\ncritical, and bid-rigging or dango, all too common-\nAmong the nations of the world, only the Japanese\nplace. The youngest daughter of former Prime Minis-\ngovernment offers a tax break to its companies that\nter Noboro Takeshita, who was forced to resign in\nmake corporate contributions to civic affairs-in the\n1989 in the wake of the Recruit scandal, is married to\n92\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\nthe son of the president of one of lapan's \"Big Six\"\nassistants to the president, 1 presidential counselor, a\nconstruction companies. Takeshita's eldest daughter\ndeputy White House press secretary, a chief of staff to\nis married to the son of the leader of the construction\nthe vice president, a chairman and vice chairman of\nzoku-the LDP policy group covering that particular\nthe U.S. International Trade Commission, ? deputy\nindustry. Takeshita's half-brother is married to the\nU.S. trade representatives, 6 senators, 0 representa-\ndaughter of the founder of Fukuda Construction\ntives, 12 senior Senate staff. 5 senior House staff, and\nCompany, one of Japan's largest contractors. Former\n4 retired generals. Together these 76 former top-\nPrime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone's daughter is\nranking U.S. officials represented 166 foreign clients\nmarried to the heir apparent of Kajima Construction,\nfrom S2 countries and 2 international organizations-\nJapan's largest construction company.\n20 of them went to work for Japan.\nIn Japanese politics, moreover, the line between\nJapan's political campaign in the United States,\ngifts and bribes is hard to discem. In the Recruit scan-\nand the eager willingness of American insiders to\nrepresent Japanese economic interests in this coun-\nBetween 1980 and 1985,\ntry, have scrious implications for U.S. companies and\nthe American public. In one critical industry after an-\n76 top-ranking U.S. officials\nother, U.S. companies, originally challenged by Japa-\nleft office and became\nnese manufacturing prowess, now run the added risk\nof losing our to the Japanese competition because of\nregistered foreign agents.\nJapan's well-managed political strategy. American\ncompanies, pressed in the market for the consumer's\ndal, for example, former Prime Minister Nakasone\nfavor, may now face the defection of their own gov-\nadmitted that he had received $300,000 from Re-\nemment as an ally in global competition. For the\ncruit; his successor, Noboro Takeshita, admitted that\nAmerican public, the issue is even more stark. With\nhe had received more than $1.5 million. Neither man\nso much Japanese money influencing so many offi-\nwas arrested or indicted; the money was classified as\ncials in government, the question for the American\npolitical contributions.\npeople is, \"Who do you trust?\"\nIn Japan, there is a name for this approach to poli-\ntics: \"structural corruption.\" It is the same approach\nto politics that the Japanese are now vigorously prac-\nJapan's Intelligence Gathering\nticing in the United States-with the active partici-\nparion and eager complicity of American lobbyists,\npower brokers, and government officials.\nIn late 1988, the Washington, D.C. trade policy\nIt is, after all, greed and self-interest in Washington,\ncommunity speculated over who would be named by\nD.C. that makes it all possible, the \"revolving door\"\nnewly elected President George Bush to the post of\nof government at the highest levels that confuses\nU.S. trade representative. During this period, Carla\n\"public service\" with \"personal advancement\" and\nHills's name never appeared in the American press.\nmistakes \"legal\" for \"ethical\" For many, a top job in\nBut in Tokyo, the insiders already knew. One week\nthe cabinet is merely a sabbatical from a more perma-\nbefore the appointment was announced, a Japanese\nnent career as a registered agent lobbying for a foreign\nofficial bragged to an American friend that \"the lady\"\ncorporation. For example, herween 1973 and 1990,\nwho would be named was \"most acceptable\" to la-\none-third of the principal trade officials in the Office\npan. Two days before the appointment was an-\nof the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) left to be-\nnounced, a Japanese newspaper, the Nihon Keizai\ncome registered foreign agents, most did work for Ja-\nShimbun, broke the story in Tokyo.\npan. Fully one-half of those who held the position as\nToday Japan can boast the best political intelli-\nthe nation's top trade negotiator later became lobby-\ngence system in the United States. One of the most\nists for foreign businesses; three of those were subse-\nimportant functions of the lobbyists and public rela-\nquently hired to work for Japanese corporations.\ntions firms hired by the Japanese is to keep a steady\nThis pattern of economic relationship between Ja-\nflow of current information streaming back to To-\npan and top U.S. officials includes other key agencies\nkyo. According to Herbert E. Meyer, vice chairman of\nas well. A 1986 General Accounting Office survey\nthe National Intelligence Council during the Reagan\nidentified 76 former federal officials who left office\nadministration, \"Every branch office of every trad-\nbetween 1980 and 1985 and then became registered\ning company operates like an information vacuum\nforeign agents. The list-which the GAO acknowl-\ncleaner, sucking in information.\" Normally, the Japa-\nedges is only partial-includes 8 special assistants to\nnese will assign three or more companies to the task\nthe president, S assistants to the president, 2 deputy\nof analyzing the-same problem or issue. The redun-\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\n93\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\ndancy allows them to discem the difference between\ngence, the study is a remarkable chronicle of Japanese\ntatemae - the official story - and honne the real\npolitical strategy.\ntruth. It also guarantees that they will know more\nCommissioned in 1982 and published in 1984, the\nthan any individual lobbyist and permits them to tai-\nstudy, \"Role of the Congressional Staff in the U.S.\nlor cheir response to the political circumstances, uti-\nDecision Making Process\" was prepared by Japan's\nlizing the firm or individual whose background,\nNational Institute for Research Advancement. An\nskills, or personal relationship best fits the needs of\nexample of Japanese choroughness and detail, it not\nthe situation.\nonly analyzes the operation of staff but also spells out\nJapan's intelligence operation extends, as well, to\nindividuals' educational backgrounds, age distribu-\none of the most important and least visible parts of\ntion, and levels of influence. It flags the \"key watch-\nWashington, D.C.'s policy arena-the staff. In the\ning points\" that require parricular attention from the\n1980s, as the economic stakes of political decisions\nJapanese and the importance of identifying \"floating\nescalared, the Japanese grew to appreciate the influ-\nideas\" that are most likely to capture staff support.\nence of congressional and administration staff. Aides\nMost important, the study emphasizes the need for\ndo research, draft legislation. negotiate with constit-\nJapan to win over those staff members who presently\nuents, contributors, and special interests, and cut\nare powerful and most likely will become even more\ndeals with their counterparts in Congress and the ex-\npowerful. In particular, the study targets young law-\necutive branch. To come to terms with congressional\nyers on the Senate Finance Committee as likely pros-\nstaff, the Japanese commissioned a major study of the\npects to move into influential trade posts.\nrole and career patterns of the 30,000 people who fill\nTo implement the study's findings, the Japanese\nthese critical slots. As a piece of political intelli-\nbegan to court congressional staff systematically\nThe Japanese embassy assigned\nfour officials to get close to key\ncongressional staff members-to\nlearn about their backgrounds,\npersonal ambitions, connections,\nand positions on important is-\nsues. The Japanese also made a\npoint of wining and dining these\nstaff members, each year inviting\nstaff-level trade specialists to par-\nties, lunches, dinners, and, in-\ncreasingly, to all-expenses-paid\nfact-finding trips to Tokyo. While\nthese trips and other contacts un-\ndoubredly serve useful purposes\nfor staff, they serve other purposes\nas well. After congressional staff\nmembers leave service in the U.S.\ngovernment, they are increas-\ningly going to work for Japanese\nclients and Japanese companies.\nBecause Japanese businesses\nhire so many senior insiders and\ncoordinate their collection of\ninformation so effectively, the\nJapanese actually have a better\noverview of what is happening in\nthe federal government than all\nbut a handful of those who serve\nin the administration. And by\nhaving more and better informa-\ntion on the inside workings of\nAfter congressional staff members leave the government,\nthe government, the Japanese are\nthey are increasingly going to work for Japanese clients and companies.\nable to affect a decision before\n94\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\nmost people even know that there is a decision to\nsultant\" or \"member of an advisory board\" of an\nbe made.\nagency or company. As the economic stakes have\nIn 1988, for example, during the final negotiations\ngrown, the Japanese have added yet another lure to\nof the Omnibus Trade Act, a member of the House\nattract U.S. government officials-an equity position\nWays and Means Committee received a call from an\nin a business deal, with the prospect of substantial\nofficial in the Japanese embassy, lobbying him over a\nand ongoing returns. The transaction is a simple\nprovision of the just-passed Senate version of the\nequation: equity for influence.\nmeasure, which the committee would take up the\nThe sums of money from Japan are so large and the\nnext day. None of the members of the committee had\nabsence of ideals in Washington, D.C. so complete\nyet obtained a copy of the Senate draft-as a courtesy\nthat a substantial number of U.S. public officials are\nand to facilitare its lobbying, the Japanese embassy\ndramatically altering their career paths in the federal\nhad a copy hand delivered to the congressman.\ngovernment-as well as their decisions while in of-\nfice. One former U.S. trade negoriator puts it bluntly:\nLobbying and Influencing Policy\n\"When people in government get ready to leave, they\nknow where the money is. It's with the Japanese.\nNobody who's looking at an opportunity to make\n$200,000 or more a year representing a Japanese\nTo put the intelligence they gather to good use, Jap-\ncompany is going to go out of the way to hurt them\nanese companies excel at the next phase of politics,\nwhile in office.\"\ngaining access to the policymakers. In Washington,\nThe influence of Japanese money is so pervasive\nD.C., access and influence go hand in hand; they are\nthat there is even a name for it: the demonstration\nthe srock in trade of the lobbyist, the lawyer, and the\neffect. The huge sums of money made available to Ja-\npolitical adviser. They are, as well, the one \"skill\"\npan's friends once they leave office \"demonstrate\"\nthat current office holders and staff members can\nthe value of a friendly Japan policy to officials still\ntake with them when they leave the government (see\nin office. Some Americans even try to prequalify for\nthe insert \"How a Make an American Governor a\na position as a lobbyist for Japan by offering \"gold-\nJapanese Lobbyist\").\nen nuggets\" of inside information to Japanese corpo-\nConsider a recent case involving the 1990 U.S.-\nrate or government officials as evidence of their\nJapan Super 301 talks on bilateral made in high tech-\nfuture value.\nnology. During the negotiations, Fujitsu Ltd., one of\nWhen it comes to the demonstration effect, noth-\nJapan's largest electronics companies, hired David\ning rivals the example set by Japan's most recent po-\nOlive, one of the State Department's principal ex-\nlitical coup: the hiring of former President Ronald\nperts on the substance of the talks, to be a senior rep-\nReagan as a Japanese public relations shill. In Octo-\nresentative in its Washington, D.C. office. Olive had\nber 1989, former President Reagan hired himself out\nhelped draft State Department position papers, at-\nto Pujisankei Communications Group, a $5.5 billion\ntended interagency meetings, had access to confiden-\nconglomerate then headed by its founder, Nobutaka\ntial information shared by U.S. companies, and knew\nShikanai, a right-wing, controversial tycoon who\nthe U.S. negoriating strategy for such critical high-\ntechnology industries as semiconductors, telecom-\nmunications, and supercomputers. The U.S. State\nSays one former trade official,\nDepartment defended Olive's job change as in ac-\n\"When people in government\ncord with applicable U.S. laws and regulations.\" Nev-\nertheless, whether intended or not, the Japanese\nget ready to leave, they\ngained two important advantages over their U.S. ri-\nknow where the money is.\nvals by this one hire: they secured the services of an\nindividual with a finely honed sense of political pos-\nIt's with the Japanese.\"\nsibilities, and they sowed distrust among American\ncompanies about whether to share information with\nowned Japan's largest radio network, a national\ntheir own government.\nnewspaper, and the country's most successful televi-\nThe easiest way for Japanese and other foreign in-\nsion chain.\nterests to gain access and establish influence is sim-\nFor $2 million, America's former chief of state\nply to pay for it. Generally, an insider is hired as a\nwent to work for Pujisankei for one week. He made\nlobbyist. If the former official wants to avoid the em-\ntwo 20-minute speeches, gave exclusive interviews\nbarrassment of having to register as a \"foreign agent,\"\nto Fujisankci's newspaper and television stations,\nthe arrangement can be changed to that of \"con-\nand, in the process, parroted the Japanese line about\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October\n95\nU.S.-Japan trade frictions. The bilateral trade friction,\nHow to Make an American Governor\nReagan told the Japanese, was America's fault. caused\na Japanese Lobbyist\nby \"trade protectionists\" in Washington-whom he\n\"had to fight every day.\"\nThat was the message of Reagan's trip to the lapa-\nWhen Governor Victor Atiyeh of Oregan left of\nnese; the message to public officials back in Wash-\nfice in 1987, he became a registered lobbyist for\nSeiko Epson Corporation and Fujitsu America, Inc.\ningron was different. To them Reagan's $2 million\nAcqually, the Japanese have little need to hire former\ntrip was the pinnacle of the demonstration effect-\ngovernors as lobbyists since incumbents now de-\nproof that anyone can be bought by the Japanese if\nvote much of their energies to wooing the Japanese.\nthe price is right and permission for others to do the\nMore states now have offices in Tokyo than in\nsame. After all, if a former president can go to work\nWashington. D.C. One of the biggest lures is their\nfor the Japanese, why not a lower level bureaucrat?\nstate's congressional clout in Washington\nThat, despire the fact that it would be inconceivable\nIn 1986, Eddie Mahe. Ir., a leading Republican\nfor Yasuhiro Nakasone, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut\npolitical consultant and a paid adviser to the Japa-\nKohl, or François Mitterand, after retiring from pub-\nnese embassy in Washington, addressed Japanese\nlic office, to accept money from a U.S. company to\nbusinesspeople on how to transform governors who\nseek new Japanese investment for their states into\ndo a public endorsement or to advance its nation-\nlobbyists for Japan. \"Simply stated,\" Mahe said,\nal standing.\n\"Each and every one of you who has a business, or\nFunneling money to politicians after they leave of-\ninfluences a business, has the opportunity to come\nfice works at one end of the political value-added\nto the United States and be a star\"\nchain. An even more important activity is to funnel\nMabe recommends that the Japanese follow three\nmoney to them at the front end, to help them get\nsimple principles.\nelected in the first place. While U.S. election law\nThe first principle: The U.S. economy is driven\nprohibits a foreign national from making a direct or\nby politics. Most polities are local. And the most\nindirect contribution in any local, state, or federal\nimportant local issue is always jobs. Thus couch\nall issues in terms of jobs. Said Mahe, \"If you were\ngoing into Iowa and opening up a plant with 250\nTo influence politicians,\njobs, 1 guarantee you could get in to see the governor\nof Iowa if you wanted a do that If at that time Con-\nfunnel money to them at the\ngreas was considering some kind of trade bill that\nfront end of the\nwould affect you as a businessman opening up that\nplant and creating those 250 jobs, the governor of\npolitical value-added chain.\nlowa would lobby for you\"\nThe second principle: Just as politics is local, so\nelection, foreign-owned companies in the United\nare matters of trade. Pew Americans understand\nStates are allowed to operate political action com-\nthe pros and cons of the abstract theories of \"free\nmittees (PACs) and to make political contributions\ntrade\" versus \"protectionism\" In practice, North\nas if they were U.S. corporations. In the 1980s, more\nCamlinians shink that made policy means textiles.\nIowans think it means beef or com. In Michigan,-\nthan 100 foreign companies-primarily from Europe\nit means automobiles. Couch trade issues in real\nand Canada-used this legal loophole to play a direct\nrather than theorerical terms\nand influential role in American politics. The Japa-\nThe third principle: When choosing a plant site,\nnese use a more subtle technique, they encourage\nmeet with as many governors and other elected offi-\nAmericans with whom they have important busi-\ncials from as many states and communities as possi-\nness links to make political contributions to pursue\nble. Why! Because even those officials whose\ntheir shared political interests.\ncommunities are not selected will remain friendly\nThe most visible, successful, and controversial ex-\nand hope to have better luck next time. Mahe told\nample is the Auto Dealers and Drivers for Free Trade\nthe Japanese businesspeople, \"If you understand and\nPAC-AUTOPAC. As an industry, automobiles today\naccept how open the American political system is\naccount for $28 billion of the $49 billion bilateral\nand how accessible our elected public officials are,\nyou really have a great opportunity if you are think-\nU.S.-Japan trade deficit, therefore, it is an econom-\ning of investing in or opening up a plant in the\nic issue worthy of strong political involvement by\nUnited States\"\nthe Japanese and other auto-exporting nations. Just\nhow strong was vividly demonstrated in the 1988\nelections. Using a fund-raising formula of $2 per\nevery car sold or $5,000 per year, the foreign auto\ndealers of AUTOPAC raised $4.5 million, making\n\"6\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1990\nAUTOPAC one of the top PACs in the United States.\nPackard and one of America's most respected se-\nOf that $4.5 million, AUTOPAC dumped $1.4 mil-\nnior managers, makes the point. In 1983, the Rea-\nlion into just seven congressional races, elections\ngan administration created the President's Commis-\nwhere AUTOPAC picked a candidate who favored an\nsion on Industrial Competitiveness and named\nopen American market-the single issue of critical\nJohn Young to be its head. Given the Reagan admin-\nimportance to the industry\nistration's unyielding laissez-faire ideological bent,\nOne such race was the Senate contest in Florida be.\nmost Washington, D.C. insiders considered the com-\ntween Democrat Buddy McKay and Republican Con-\nmission to be little more than a political fig leaf\nnie Mack. In a statewide election decided by only\n31,000 votes, McKay lost-in large part because of\n$326,000 spent by AUTOPAC on negative television\nToshiba used its leverage to\ncommercials in the last days of the campaign. Look-\nforce John Young to use his\ning back on the election, McKay says, \"In the final\nanalysis, I was not beaten by Connie Mack. I was\nlobbyists on its behalf.\nbeaten by Tokyo.\"\nPolitical action committees like AUTOPAC are\na protective cover for the 1984 election in case\nonly one device for influencing U.S. politics. Another\nWalter Mondale were somehow able to make the\nfavorite Japanese technique is the use of an existing\nissue of competitiveness come alive. Predictably,\norganization or the creation of an ad hoc coalition-\nafter the election, the Reagan administration tried\nan association of U.S. members that allows Japanese\nto vanish the commission and its report, releasing\ninterests to put an American face on their politick-\nit in an obscure Commerce Department office rath-\ning. One example of this approach is a Washington,\neT than the White House and printing the absolute\nD.C.-based public interest group, Consumers for\nminimum number of copies.\nWorld Trade (CWT). Since the early 1980s, CWT has\nBut John Young was not so easily dismissed. While\nbeen one of Washington, D.C.'s most avid advocates\ninsiders might have written off the commission,\nof unrestricted free trade; its arguments focus on the\nYoung took the issue seriously. He saw to it that the\nbenefits free rrade affords the American consumer.\ncommission issued a first-class piece of work; its\nThe organization has steadfastly opposed any recip-\nfindings and recommendations have subsequently\nrocal trade law that would threaten Japan with re-\nframed much of the ongoing debate on the issue. And\nstrictions on access to the U.S. market as a way to pry\nwhen the report died within the administration,\nopen the Japanese market. In 1987, CWT organized a\nYoung championed the issue on his OWN. In 1987, he\ngrass roots campaign against what it labeled the \"pro-\nsupported sympathetic members of Congress who\ntectionist\" features of the pending Omnibus Trade\nset up the Congressional Competitiveness Caucus;\nAct of 1988, CWT testified in front of congressional\nworking with other corporate leaders, he spear-\ncommittees six times, each time arguing the case for\nheaded the creation of the Council on Competitive-\nU.S. consumers and against tough trade sanctions\nness, which he currently heads.\naimed at the closed foreign markets, most notably\nBut in 1987, another event occurred: the Toshiba\nthe Japanese.\nMachine Company, which is 50% owned by the\nStarting in 1980, the Japanese began to take a deep\nToshiba Corporation, was found to have sold sensi-\ninterest in CWT. Again, the Japanese automakers led\ntive technology to the Soviet Union-technology\nthe way. Subaru, for example, paid the initial dues for\nthat would allow Soviet submarines to escape detec-\n1,500 of its employees to become members, in No.\ntion by the United States Navy. Congressional re-\nvember of 1980, Subaru employees represented more\naction was swift and fierce: in June 1987, the Sen-\nthan half of CWT's 2,700 members. Toyota and other\nate voted 92 to 5 to impose sanctions on Toshiba,\nJapanese companies made direct corporate contri-\nthe House was prepared to vote to ban the sale of\nbutions. By staying in the background, they did not\nall Toshiba components in the United States for\njeopardize the American face of CWT. Neverthe-\ntwo years.\nless, when the Japanese infiltration of CWT came to\nAnd suddenly John Young champion of U.S. com-\nlight, U.S. Senator John Heinz termed it \"an under-\npetitiveness, found himself forced to use his Wash-\nhanded and dishonorable way for the Japanese to try\nington lobbyists on behalf of Toshiba-because\nto influence public opinion.\"\nHewlett-Packard, like so many American high-tech\nBut the most effective lobbying technique re-\ncompanies, simply could not do business without\nflects the current tangle of global politics and eco-\nToshiba's components. In a textbook example of\nnomics. It is the high art of creating a captive com-\n\"leverage lobbying,\" Toshiha, the Japanese supplier,\nperitor. The story of John Young, CEO of Hewlett-\nused the leverage of its strategic components to get\nHARVARD BUSI\nRE\nW\nSeptember-Ocrober\n97\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\nits U.S. customers, including Hewlett-Packard, to\nestablished 47 facilities, employing 10,000 Ten-\nlobby Congress an its behalf. The U.S. companies\nnesseeans, a full 10% of Japan's total U.S. manufac-\nhad become Toshiba's captive competitors.\nturing investment. And in the early 1980s, Japan had\nalready begun public relations and educational ef-\nGrass Roots Politicking\nforts in Tennessee, leading to university-based Japan\ncenters, special programs in the school districts of\nthe state's four major cities, and the formation of a\nJapan-Tennessee Society.\nIt is a guiding principle of American political life\nOnce the Japanese had targeted Tennessee, the\nthat all politics is local. It is a principle that the Japa-\ncampaign swung into motion. A new local organiza-\nnese have been quick to grasp, building an extensive\ntion was created, the Tennessee-Japan Friends in\ncoast-to-coast nerwork of polities at the grass roots\nCommerce (TIFC). The organizers recruited three\nlevel across America. And it is a principle best put\nnon-Japanese cosponsors: the state government; the\ninto practice by the Electronic Industries Associa-\nJapan Center of Tennessee, located at Middle Tennes-\nrion of Japan (ELAJ) and Sony's Akio Morita.\nsee State University in Murfreesboro: and the Japan-\nIn a June 1985 presentation to the members of\nTennessee Sociery For the most part, however, all the\nELAJ, which is made up of Japan's 600 largest elec-\ncosponsors put up was their names; two-thirds of the\ntronics companies, Morita explained that U.S. criti-\nbudget for the organization came from the ELAI and\ncism of Japan \"is not due to a misunderstanding of\nits member companies, particularly Toshiba, Sharp,\nand prejudice against Japan, but rather to certain po-\nand Matsushita.\nlitical intentions.\" In response, Morits said, Japan\nTo add legitimacy and an American face to the or-\nneeded to mount a grass roots political campaign in\nganization, former Lt. Governor Frank Gorrell was\nthe United States, a campaign that \"should not stop\nhired to take the position of chairman. To create\nwith PR within the electronics industry but should\nmembership, Mart Reese & Associates identified\nexpand PR activities to the mass media, consumer\nseveral thousand Tennessee opinion leaders, who\ngroups, and political groups on the state level\"\nwere then invited to join.\nGoing further, Morita next laid out an extensive\nAs an initial test, TJFC sponsored three forums in\nlist of political activities for ELAJ's grass roots cam-\nNashville, Knoxville, and Memphis. In attendance\npaign The program would consist of:\nwere Tennessee Governor Ned McWherter, other\nManaging debates and seminars at the state and\nstate elected officials, business executives, and aca-\nlocal level,\ndemic leaders. The message: the importance to the\nStaging local events with Japanese plants and\nTennessee economy of the \"friendship\" between the\nfactories,\npeople of Tennessee and Japanese companies. The\nPublishing local newsletters and magazines,\nkeynote speaker: Alcio Morita\nCreating exchange programs with state universi-\nIn his speech, Morita lamented the fact that poli-\nries and think tanks,\ntics was responsible for disturbing the otherwise su-\nEstablishing links with state economic develop-\nperbly functioning economic relationship between\nment offices, local chambers of commerce, and the\nJapan and the United States. He told the crowd, \"At a\nlocal offices of federal elected officials,\ntime when the relationship between our two nations\nOrganizing exchanges with consumer groups at\nhas become inextricably intertwined, it is most un-\nthe local level; and\nfortunate that things that bear on the relation-\nOperating student exchanges.\nship have become so politicized.\"\nTo weld the campaign into a coherent whole,\nThings were about to become even more po-\nMorita proposed a unified message that would be re-\nliticized-and the pilot project was about to be put\npeated in every locality: Japanese investment cre-\nto a test. The Toshiba controversy broke out in the\nates jobs, Japanese companies rebuild depressed\nmiddle of the series of public forums, creating a real\nU.S. communities, lapanese companies satisfy U.S.\npolitical emergency. Tennessee responded. Toshiba\nconsumers, the Japanese and U.S. economies are\nsupporters across the state and state-level elected\nintertwined\nofficials led by Governor McWherter pressured the\nBefore launching the campaign on a national basis,\nTennessee congressional delegation not to impose\nELAJ decided on a pilot project. It hired the Washing-\nsanctions on the Japanese company-which hap-\nton, D.C.-based political consulting firm of Matt\npened to be a major Tennessee employer and con-\nReese & Associates to help test the program in a sin-\ntributor to TJFC. Remembering the episode, one\ngle state: Tennessee. Tennessee was an attractive test\nTennessee congressman said, \"My arm was twisted\nsite for several reasons. By 1987, Japanese companies\nso hard that 1 feel lucky to have it.\"\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September4\nIn the end, the ELAJ deemed the experiment a suc-\nperts on Japan, dubbed the Chrysanthemum Club by\ncess. The forums served to establish useful contacts\ntheir critics; others are academics, members of think\nfor ELAI with state opinion leaders; ELAJ's message of\ntanks, and journalists, often with a free-trade ideolog-\nthe benefits of Japanese investment had been con-\nical bent. While most of them hold their views hon-\nveyed in a credible fashion; and the forums had given\nestly, almost all are stroked, supported, and promoted\nToshiba an opportunity to communicate its impor-\nby the Japanese, who recognize the enormous value\ntance to the people and economy of Tennessee. In\nof having earnest American defenders who will make\nthe wake of the Tennessee test, the Japanese made\nJapan's case.\nthe determination to take the campaign national.\nThe Chrysanthemum Club, named after the floral\nIn 1988, the Keidanren, with Morita again in the\nsymbol of Japan's imperial family, draws its member-\nlead, formed the Council for Better Investment in the\nship from Americans with an intellecrual, personal,\nUnited States-later renamed the Council for Better\nor business stake in Japan. Most prestigious and in-\nCorporate Citizenship in the United States, an orga-\nfluential are the long-standing members of the U.S.\nnization with the avowed purpose of helping Japanese\nforeign policy establishment, the diplomats who, in\ncompanies become fully integrated \"into American\nmany cases, helped forge the post-World War II U.S.-\nsociety.\" The nationwide effort aims to win public fa-\nJapan relationship. Now these same individuals are\nvor and goodwill through a massive program of chari-\nhard at work trying to defend Japan to Americans and\ntable donations and highly visible public relations\nto preserve \"the relationship\"-and the work of their\nactivities. What makes the donations croubling how-\ncareers (see the insert \"The Relationship\").\never, is the fact that Japanese companies have no tradi-\ntion of charitable giving, either at home or abroad.\nThey generally combine charity and political contri-\nChrysanthemum Club\nbutions into one accounting line on the balance sheet.\nmembers put \"the relationship\"\nNow the Japanese government is pressuring them to\nmake large, public contributions to defuse the mount-\nahead of economic issues.\ning hostility in the United States toward Japan's eco-\nnomic strategy\nAlso in the foreign policy category of Chrysanthe-\nAt the same time, Japanese companies have care-\nmum Club members are entrenched Defense De-\nfully spread their investments in new plants and facil-\npartment officials, unreconstructed cold warriors\nities for maximum political advantage with the U.S.\nwho give little weight to geoeconomics and continue\nCongress. To muzzle congressional critics, the Japa-\nto place enormous emphasis on the importance of\nnese sited plants in targeted districts; seven facilities\nmaintaining American military bases in Japan. To\nhave gone into the district of Georgia Congressman Ed\nthem, national security is defined only in military\nJenkins, a persistent critic of Japan's closed markers.\nterms; economic friction should not be permitted to\nJapanese plants have also been placed in the same dis-\njeopardize the geopolitics of the U.S.-Japan relation-\ntrict as U.S. competitors in an effort to \"share\" the\nship. Other members of the Club are free-trade\nelected official and neutralize the rival's political influ-\nideologues and U.S. corporate leaders who do not\nence. By 1990, the Japanese had successfully estab-\nwant to see criticism of Japan change the existing\nlished a formidable, fully functioning grass roots\nrules of commerce between the two nations.\npolitical infrastructure throughout the United States.\nIt is this defense of the economic status quo that\nmarks the members of the Club. Kevin Kearns, a for-\nJapan's Propaganda\nmer U.S. diplomat who served in Tokyo during the\nlate 1980s, wrote in the Foreign Service Journal, the\nprofessional journal for foreign service officers, that\nChrysanthemum Club members \"somehow fail to\nThe mission of Japanese propaganda is simple: to\nsee the trail from predatory Japanese policies to lost\npersuade Americans to adopt favorable views toward\nmarkets, to destroyed industries, to large outflows of\nJapan. Through propagands, the endless reperition of\nwealth in the form of trade deficits, and finally to\ntheir six messages, the Japanese have successfully\nthe resultant decline of American power and influ-\nstifled criticism of their own nationalistic approach\nence Chrysanthemum members seem to see their\nto economics and shaped the prevailing U.S. view of\nfunction not as representing U.S. interests but as bal-\nJapan and global economics.\nancing the demands of both sides to make the in-\nJapanese propaganda is effective primarily because\ncreasing Japanese domination of the U.S. economy\nit is delivered by highly credible spokespersons-\nas painless a process as possible for our institutions\nmost of them Americans. Some are long-standing ex-\nand the American people.\"\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-Ocrober 1990\n99\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\ntraordinarily tight control over access to information\n\"The Relationship\"\nwithin Japan. In more than one case, U.S. scholars, ac-\nademics, and students who have been critical of Ja-\nJapan's diplomatic trump card is America's obses-\npan have found their research efforts jeopardized or\nsive concern with the U.S.-Japan \"relationship.\" Re-\nmade more difficult. Conversely, friends of Japan can\npeatedly, the Japanese have elevated contentious\nfind that most obstacles are swiftly removed. An-\nbilateral issues into tests of the soundness of \"the\nother consideration is money. It takes a great deal of\nrelationship.\" When American rice millers sought\nmoney to run a major Japan studies program - and\nhelp from the U.S. government to open Japan's\nthe Japanese are much more inclined to contribute\nclosed market, both governments warned that\nsubstantial sums to those whose academic research\nAmerican pressures threatened \"the relationship.\"\nCritics of the FSX agreement were accused of threat-\nsupports their interests and substantiates their\ncoing \"the relationship.\" Efforts to open Japan's\npropaganda.\nclosed construction market were sidetracked be-\nAmerican academics have also emerged as the\ncause they might harm \"the relationship.\"\nleading critics of the \"revisionists\"-particularly\nRepeatedly the United States has made politi-\nKarel Van Wolferen, Clyde Prestowitz, Chalmers\ncal and economic concessions to preserve \"the re-\nJohnson, and James Fallows-who advocate changes\nlationship.\" It is a uniquely Japanese form of\nin the U.S.-Japan relationship. For example, George\nbrinkmanship. And, invariably, when America goes\nR. Packard, who is the dean of the School of Ad-\n\"eyeball to eyeball\" with the Japanese, it is America\nvanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins\nthat blinks. By contrast, there is no evidence that\nUniversity, has publicly labeled van Wolferen \"a\nthe Ispanese have ever made more than a symbol-\nhoax\" and attacked the writing of Prestowitz and\nic economic concession for the sake of \"the\nrelationship.\"\nFallows as threats to the U.S.-Japan relationship.\nThe U.S. State Department, which has assumed\nPackard's program at SAIS is one of the leading aca-\nthe role of guardian of the relationship, regularly\ndemic centers for U.S.-Japan studies; it has been a\ntakes Japan's side in unde and economic disagree-\nregular recipient of Japanese funding\nments berween the two nations. And just as regu-\nUndoubtedly, Packard comes to his views honestly.\nlarly, U.S. economic interests are sacrificed on\nAnd the Japanese come to them eagerly, ready to\n\"foreign policy\" grounds-\"the relationship,\"\nbroadcast them to gain political advantage. For exam-\nple, the February 1989 issue of The Atlantic carried a\n16-page special advertising supplement paid for by\nmajor Japanese companies. Called \"Partners in Pros-\nA second major instrument for Japanese propa-\nperity,\" the supplement contained advertorial mes-\nganda dissemination is U.S. universities and think\nsages from Mitsubishi, Brother, Canon, Ricoh, and\ntanks, a majority of which depend on significant Japa-\nother Japanese companies, featuring titles such as\nnese funding and Japanese access to operate their\n\"Toyota USA: An American Phenomenon.\" But the\nJapanese studies programs. In turn, the Japanese\nmajor element was an essay by George Packard,\nrecognize that these institutions craft many of the\nwhich argued that the United States and Japanese\nideas and conduct many of the studies that shape\neconomies and cultures have been transformed \"into\nAmerican opinion on trade and economic policy. Al-\none nearly seamless web of interdependence.\"\nmost without exception, Japanese contributions sup-\nIn the area of trade, Packard concluded, any differ-\nport the work of those who advocate neoclassical\nences between the two nations are \"more than com-\nlaissez-faire trade policies. These views are genu-\npensated for by the clear and well-recognized\ninely held, the Americans who argue for this ap-\nbenefits that each nation draws from the partner-\nproach would make the same arguments with or\nship.\" On the Japanese side, Packard chalked up ac-\nwithout Japanese financial assistance. What the Japa-\ncess to the wealthiest market in the world, to which\nnese hope to accomplish through their support of\nJapan sends 40% of its exports; access to U.S. scien-\nthese people's work is to amplify it, sustain it, and\ntific and technological advances \"through various\ngive it added influence in the highly competitive\narrangements\", ability to rely on the United States\nmarkerplace of ideas. Moreover, since ties to and sup-\nfor defense-which means a lower level of mili-\nport from Japan are often obscured or left unreported,\ntary and defense expenditures and benefits such as\nthe question of objectivity goes unasked.\nan uninterrupted oil supply from the Middle East.\nAmerican academics typically line up on every\nOn the U.S. side, Packard listed: access to military\nside of every issue. But in the case of the U.S.-Japan\nbases in Japan; $7 billion in annual agricultural ex-\nrelationship, more than simple intellectual disagree-\nports to Japan; access to Japanese management tech-\nment has come into play. The Japanese exercise ex-\nniques and technological innovations, and U.S. con-\n1\nHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October\nsumers' access to Japanese products. Pared to\nThe program collapsed when Congress learned of\nits essentials, the list represents the U.S.-Japan\nit. Senators John Heinz, Donald Riegle, and Frank\ntrade relationship: Japan gets to send its products\nMarkowski wrote angry letters to the U.S. secretary\nto the U.S. market; Americans get to buy them.\nof state, the U.S. attorney general, Japan's prime min-\nNowhere does Packard mention Japan's $50 bil-\nister, and the Japanese ambassador in Washington,\nlion annual balance of trade surplus. Rather, his addi-\nD.C. Riegle denounced the program as \"particularly\nrion of the benefits enjoyed by each side leads him to\ninsidious because it is designed to contract with in-\nconclude: \"Thus the partnership has been firmly\nfluential Americans so the Japanese can make use of\nrooted in mutual interests\"-the kind of conclusion\ntheir personal contacts, reputations, and positions in\nthat the lapanese argue repeatedly and are only too\nlocal communities MITI's plan shows that the Jap-\nhappy to have Americans make for them.\nanese government, despite its promises to correct\nThe third channel for carrying Japanese propa-\nsources of trade tension between the two countries,\nganda is the U.S. media, which Japan affects in two\ncontinues its strategy of temporizing and distracting\nways: financing programs that are presented over the\nAmerican public opinion while actively worsening\nairwaves and influencing the content of journalists'\nthe already dangerous bilateral trade imbalance.\"\nreporting on Japan. Since the early 1980s, Telejapan\nand the Japan Center for Information and Cultural\nAffairs (JCICA) have sponsored television and radio\nJapan Educates the United States\nprograms in the United States, producing shows for\nthe Christian Broadcasting Network, the USA Cable\nNetwork, the Cable News Network, and public tele-\nJapan's most forward-reaching political program is\nvision stations. Borh Telejapan and JCICA are di-\naimed at U.S. educators and students. Its goal is to\nrectly linked to the Japanese government. Telejapan\nshape what future generations of Americans think\nis affiliated with the Ministry of International Trade\nand know about Japan-including rewriting the his-\nand Industry. JCICA works with the Foreign Ministry,\ntory of World War II to omit Japan's arrocities against\nwhich has had to approve the re-\nlease of funds for at least one of\nthe JCICA's television projects.\nIn 1986, MITI went even fur-\nther in its attempt to influence\nthe American public's view of Ja-\npan: it established the Moon-\nlighter Project, a $200,000 fund to\npay moonlighting U.S. reporters\ndirectly. As reported in the\nMainichi Shimbun, MITI's initial\nplan was to put on the Japanese\npayroll one reporter, editor, or lo-\ncal chamber of commerce direc-\ntor in each of 10 states. Missouri\nand Michigan, home to three of\nJapan's leading critics-Congress\nmen Richard Gephardt and John\nDingell and Senator Donald\nRiegle were among the test\nsites chosen. If the test worked,\nMITI would extend the program\nto include more journalists and\nstates. The purpose of the project,\nas defined by MITI, was to have\njournalists collect information\nthat would help Japanese compa-\nnies expand in the United States\nand to \"conduct PR on Japan's\nWashington, D.C.'s revolving door: for many, a top job in the cabinet\nmarket-opening measures.\"\nis a subbatical from 2 more permanent career as a registered foreign agent\n101\nHARVARD BUSD\nREVIEW September-October\nPOLITICAL ADVANTAGE\nWhen the teachers return to the United States,\nJapan Is Different\nthey are expected to write trip reports and are en-\ncouraged to give talks in their local communities to\nIn international discussions, at different times\n\"explain\" Japan back home. An aide to van Loewen-\nand in different industries, the Japanese have argued\nfeldt describes the real purpose of the program: \"One\nthat they are \"different\" as a way to maintain their\nteacher who has visited Japan can infect hundreds,\nprotected domestic market. Here are some of the\neven thousands, of other reachers with his or her\nways in which Japan is different:\nenthusiasm.\"\nIn 1978, the Japanese government refused to per-\nTo help spread the \"infection\" even further, the\nmit imports of American-made blood analyzers be-\nJapanese have financed the production and distribu-\ncause, it asserted, the Japanese have different blood.\ntion of teaching materials: handbooks, lesson plans,\nIn 1986, foreign companies were not allowed to\nparticipate in the land reclamation work of the Kan-\nvideotapes, and other instructional supplies. Of\nsai Airport construction project because, the Japa-\ncourse, these teaching materials present history and\nnese argued, they have different dirt.\neconomics from Japan's point of view. For example,\nIn 1986, MITI attempted to prevent U.S. and Euro-\naccording to one workbook, Japan invaded China be-\npean ski manufacturers from offering their products\ncause of American and European racist insults di-\nin Japan because Japan has different snow.\nrected toward Japan after World War I. Another text\nIn 1987, U.S. garhage disposels were kept out of\nexplains in great detail the U.S. role in causing the\nthe Japanese market because Japan has a different\nwar in the Pacific, including U.S. actions that drew\nsewage system.\nJapan to attack Pearl Harbor.\nIn 1987, U.S. beef imports to Japan were limited\nIn economics as well, Japanese-sponsored material\nbecause the Japanese have intestines that are a dif-\ncarries familiar Japanese propaganda as if it were es-\nferent length from other people's.\nIn 1990, the Japanese tried to keep out U.S. lumber\ntablished academic fact. Teaching guides either dis-\nexports, because the wood wouldn't withstand Japa-\nmiss the U.S.-Japan bilateral trade imbalance as a\nnese earthquakes, which are different from those in\nmatter of little consequence at, alternatively, blame\nthe United States.\nit on U.S. business, workers, and government. One\ntext teaches, \"According to cconomic theory, we do\nnot need to worry about trade imbalances because\nmarket forces cause them to disappear.\" The guides\noccupied nations and prisoners of war and to explain\nexplain away Japan's protected markets as necessary:\nthe was in the Pacific as a consequence of the U.S.\nsince \"Japan is a small island country with no natural\ndecision to cut off Japan's supply of steel and ail.\nresources,\" it must have a trade policy that will guar-\nThe Japanese government began its effort to influ-\nantee supplies of food and energy and cash reserves\nence America's educational system in 1978, when it\nwith which to buy necessities on the world market\ncommissioned West Coast-based consultant Charles\n(see the insert \"Japan is Different\"). Why the United\nvon Loewenfeldt to develop a strategy to shape what\nStates and other nations have no similar need is not\nelementary and high school students in the United\nmentioned or discussed.\nStates are taught about Japan. Von Loewenfeldr's ad-\nvice: the best way for Japan to reach the students was\nfirst to teach the teachers.\nAccording to one textbook,\nSoon the government of Japan Launched its educa-\nJapan invaded China\ntion program by offering elementary and secondary\nbecause of American and\nschool social-studies teachers all-expenses-paid\ntours of lapan-\"invitational diplomacy\" designed to\nEuropean racist insults after\ngive the teachers a carefully prepared, stage-managed\nWorld War I.\nimpression of Japan. These tours are almost always\nthe same: they begin with a visit to historic, charm-\ning Kyoto; next they go to Shikoku, one of the main\nIn the 1980s, the Japanese extended their educa-\nislands, where teachers stay with selected families\ntional effort through a $2 million per year \"Program\nfor several nights, then they go to Hiroshima Peace\nfor Teaching About Japan.\" The program concen-\nPark, which retells the history of World War Il and\ntrated on social studies-economics, history, trade,\nAmerica's dropping of the atomic bomb from the\nand U.S.-Japan relations-and was designed to make\nJapanese perspective, then to Ossks to see modern\nit easy for teachers to offer prepackaged lessons on Ja-\nJapanese industry; and finally, to Tokyo to see the\npan; videotapes, sample lessons, student handouts\nfamous Japanese juku, or cram schools.\nwere all provided. As one high-ranking official in the\n102\nHARVARD BUSI\nREVIEW September-October 1990\nTOTAL P.18\nJapanese Foreign Ministry said in an interview, \"I'm\nparticipating in and contributing to U.S. elections.\nnot worried about U.S.-Japan relations in a decade. By\nMoney politics is bad enough; foreign money politics\nthen, the next generation of Americans will think\nis out of the question.\ndifferently about Japan.\"\nMoreover, where it is legal and ethical for compa-\nnies to hire former elected officials, U.S. corporations\nAmerica's Politics, America's Future\nshould recognize the new reality of global comperi-\nrion: politics is a source of competitive advantage.\nU.S. companies must accept and participate in both\nthe reforms of the corrupt practices that now go on\nJapan's campaign for the United States is com-\n-recognizing that domestic corruption is every bit\nplerely legal. It plays the American economic game\nas destructive as foreign corruption is-and the le-\nby American rules. It uses the campaign tactics and\ngitimate pursuit of political advantages.\nmerhods of American politics. It hires Americans to\nJapan's campaign for America should serve 29 a\nlobby, educate, and influence other Americans. It is\npowerful wake-up call to U.S. business leaders that\nthe highest stakes political-economic game in the\npolitics is a critical component of corporate strategy.\nworld today, affecting whole industries, billions of\ndollars, millions of jobs, and, ultimately, the wealth\nand power of nations.\nThe Japanese campaign for\nIt is also deeply corrosive of the U.S. political and\nAmerica should be a\neconomic system. The revolving door of Washington,\nwake-up call for American\nD.C. breeds cynicism and mistrust. It ultimately rep-\nresents A form of political cormuption-completely\nbusiness leaders.\nlegal, completely unethical The problem, of course,\nis not in Tokyo, but in Washington, D.C.\nIn Washington, D.C., in state and local governments,\nAmericans have all but lost sight of some of the\nin school districts across the country, politics not\nmost basic lessons of civics-chief among them the\nonly shapes public opinion and perception but also\nguiding concept of civic virtue. The value of national\ndrives outcomes in terms of real products and ser-\nservice-for an individual to be of service to the coun-\nvices in the marketplace. Significantly, this holds\ntry and to work on behalf of the country's interests-\ntrue in Tokyo as much as in Washington, D.C. And\nhas been cheapened by a more mundane coin of the\nyet in the home market of American companies, the\nrealm: personal advancement, self-interest, big\nJapanese have proven more effective than their\nmoney. As a consequence, the United States is not\nAmerican rivals in seizing the political advantage.\nonly selling corporate assets and real estate to for-\nMoreover, most U.S. companies, if they do business\neign bidders, also for sale is U.S. integrity and na-\nin Japan, regard the Japanese government as an alien\ntional honor.\nand external entity and depend almost solely on the\nThe revolving door must stop. Those who hold top\nAmerican embassy for political advice and counsel.\nfederal positions, such as director of the Central In-\nWhether in Tokyo or Washington, the lesson is the\ntelligence Agency, U.S. trade representative, and\nsame: companies can create political advantage that\nsecretary of state, should be permanently prohibited\ngoes beyond the conventional boundaries of com-\nfrom becoming foreign agents or paid lobbyists for\npany strategy. Indeed, the political and economic di-\nany corporation-foreign or domestic. For lower lev-\nmensions are inseparable.\nel federal office holders, there should be a longer\nFinally, it is up to American business leaders and\n\"cooling off\" period between their departure from\nthe American people to demand a higher standard of\ngovernment service and their availability to lobby,\nconduct from their elected and appointed representa-\ncounsel, or advise on trade matters. As of January\nríves. Companies that are accustomed to the require-\n1991, federal law will require a one-year waiting pe-\nments and strictures of the Corrupt Foreign Practices\nriod; five to ten years would represent a more sub-\nAct should now demand a U.S. version-a Corrupt\nstantial safeguard of the public interest.\nDomestic Practices Act. The manipulation of the\nIn a democracy, the best disinfectant for corruption\nU.S. political and economic system by foreign inter-\nis sunshine. All foreign agents-those who represent\nests with the willing and eager participation of\nforeign clients, whether lobbyists, journalists, aca-\nAmericans-for-hire threatens America's national\ndemics, public relations advisers, political strate-\nsovereignty. It threatens America's future. It goes on\ngists, lawyers, or foundations-should provide full\nonly because Americans tolerate it. Americans are\ndisclosure to the fustice Department. No exceptions.\nthe only ones who can stop it.\nD\nForeign companies should be flatly prohibited from\nReprint 90503\nHARVARD BL\nin\n# September-Ocrober\n103"
}

Survos folio page chat

Ask the Scholar

Page image

OCR

Page data

Document data

Context sent to Scholar