15 



Mr. VOLKMER. I have no further questions. 



Does the gentleman from Texas have any questions? 



Mr. Stenholm. You have answered the two questions that I, too, 

 was going to ask. 



I was just curious; you said, "Some of the steps that we must go 

 through could take a little longer." In light of the fact that we're 

 about to reinvent Government and the USDA, have you already 

 taken a look at these steps to see where we might have an amend- 

 ment as part of this legislation to eliminate some of these steps be- 

 cause they might be unnecessary? Or are these steps all necessary? 

 Or do you know? And if you don't know, that's fine for right now, 



Mr. Clayton. I think, Mr. Stenholm, that the bulk of the steps 

 that are necessary are prescribed in the Administrative Procedures 

 Act. 



Mr. Stenholm. That's not a good enough reason. 



Mr. Clayton. Well, for those of us who live under the APA, we 

 unfortunately do have to follow the steps that are laid out in that 

 act. 



Mr. Stenholm. Could it be that we could make some rec- 

 ommendations to make that act a little easier to conform with 

 when we have these kinds of questions? Have you looked at that 

 as yet as part of reinventing Government? 



Mr. Clayton. That's probably a question that I can't respond to 

 today. 



Mr. Stenholm. Before we get into the markup stage, I would be 

 appreciative if you would take a general, cursory look at that to see 

 whether or not that's one of the areas of redtape that we might 

 help ourselves in. 



Mr. Clayton. Certainly. 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. 



Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman from Oregon. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Well, if you can't cut it down from 180 days for two tiny steps 

 for eggs, what's left in life? [Laughter.] 



Mr. Clayton, what's the economy of size in the number of hens 

 that I need to make a living? 



Mr. Clayton. Mr. Smith, I don't want to be evasive. I'm not sure 

 I know the answer to that. Perhaps some of the gentlemen here 

 from the industry group, when their turn comes, would be in a bet- 

 ter position to answer that for you. 



The only observation I might make is that it's my understanding 

 that the portion of the amendment which would increase the ex- 

 emption level from 30,000 hens to 50,000 hens would effectively re- 

 move about 20 percent of the producers subject to the act, while 

 only eliminating 2 percent of the assessments. That would suggest 

 that there are a number of producers that are at the smaller end 

 of the spectrum, at least in that 30,000 to 50,000 hen range. But 

 beyond that, I would defer to the industry representatives to help 

 you on that. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. I thank you. The obvious reason for my 

 question is simply that if it takes 100,000 hens to make a living, 

 then a 50,000 exemption is not out of line. If you can't make a liv- 

 ing on 50,000 hens, you probably ought to be exempted from the 

 act. The point is simply that it sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it 



