JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS

HEARING SUMMARY, JANUARY 26, 1993

HOUSE SPEAKER THOMAS FOLEY

After opening remarks by Co-Chairmen Hamilton and Boren, who suggested a bold approach to legislative change (consideration of a 25% cut in staff, a new ethics system for Congress that could involve an outside commission of former Members, and a drastic cut in the number of committees), and Vice Chairman Gradison and Vice Chairman Domenici, who stressed the need to simplify the budget process and the need to consider 2-year appropriations, 2-year authorizations, and a 2-year budget resolution, Co-Chairman Hamilton invited Speaker Foley to present his testimony. Highlights of Speaker Foley's presentation is presented below as well as a summary of ideas suggested during the question and answer session.

Speaker Foley

Stated that he would like the opportunity, from time to time, to submit comments to the Joint Committee on its work.

Underscored the unique composition of the Joint Committee with no majority and no minority.

Recognized the unique culture and history of the House and Senate but believed that useful exchanges among the House and Senate members of the Joint Committee could promote bicameral understanding.

stated that a significant amount of reorganization had already occurred in the House, especially with regard to changes in the internal management of the House (e.g., the Director of NonLegislative Services).

Provided a historical perspective on how the House had changed from the era of powerful Speakers (e.g., Thomas "Czar" Reed and Joseph Cannon) to that of powerful committee chairmen. Strong, even autocratic, chairmen characterized the House when Foley was first elected in November 1964.

Today, the House is fundamentally different from what it was like in the mid-1960s. There is much more openness, public participation, accountability, and accessibility. Changes advocated by the DSG and other party entities "spread the action" in the House. Changes were also made during the mid-1970s and beyond that strengthened the Speaker.

Endorsed the proposed agenda of reorganization priorities established by the Joint Committee and stated that it was a time to be bold in considering changes. Everything that seems relevant ought to get the Joint Committee's attention. Every institution needs an opportunity for review and this is the time for Congress. The country has changed and so has Congress. Where the country and Congress previously accepted limited participation in politics and generally deferred to authority, neither is the case today. Moreover, the character of public problems has become more complex. For example, the civil rights issues of the 1960s are different from those of the 1990s. Congress' legislative agenda reflects the complexities of society and affects the way Congress works.

do.

Pointed out that there are limits to what reorganization can Our Founding Fathers built inefficiencies into our constitutional system. Moreover, the House and Senate are political institutions and the debate in each chamber reflects that.

Questions and Answers

Boren Should the Joint Committee leave campaign finance to

others?

Foley Correct. The Joint Committee should leave that issue to others to handle.

Boren Asked about House-Senate relations spotlighting the issue of conference committee size and parallel committee jurisdictions.

Foley There is large concern in the House among authorizing committees. Some Senators serve on or even chair both the authorizing committee and the relevant appropriations subcommittee. Senators may subsume authorizations into their appropriations bill and thus never act on the House-passed authorization. As a result, the appropriations bills contain many "legislative" and unauthorized provisions. This issue arouses intense feeling in the House. Perhaps it's worth hearing anecdotal complaints in private from House and Senate members.

Boren The fuzziness of lines between authorizations and appropriations and the overlap between them is also an issue in the Senate. This fuzziness also makes it hard for the public to fix responsibility.

Gradison Highlighted how many societies around the world seem to fear change and worry that Government will not improve things.

Foley Many people have lost faith in the process. He suggested that if constituents spent much time, not brief visits, in Congress observing what happens and what their lawmakers do, they would probably develop an enhanced view of Congress and its members. He stressed that it is legitimate and fundamental for the Joint Committee to consider public confidence in Congress. Unlike the executive branch or the judiciary, which largely function in secret and are constituted differently, Congress is an open, representative body. Congress and its members need to do a better job of explaining to constituents how the legislative system works.

Dreier Expressed concern about the rise in the number of restrictive rules, skewed ratios on the Rules Committee, committee staff imbalances between Democrats and Republicans, and the general sense among Republicans that there needs to be more fairness in the House.

Foley Recognizes that there is the feeling of unfairness among Republicans. Stated that there is no attempt to be fair regarding ratios on the Rules Committee (or ways and Means) because of the panel's lead role in agenda-setting. On other committees, Foley works with Michel to achieve fairness in committee ratios. But Rules is different. When the GOP last controlled the House in the mid-1950s, even with a narrow majority, Republicans, too, used a 2 to 1 ratio for Rules. And if the Republicans should sometime in the future recapture control of the House and institute disproportionate ratios for the Rules, the Speaker will not complain. He pointed out that GOP Rules members play an important role by illuminating issues; also, not everything is strictly party-line.

Foley also noted that not every restrictive rule is opposed by the GOP. Moreover, the interests of the House are not always served by having unlimited debates and amendments. There are 435 members; wide-open floor actions would prolong and complicate legislative action.

He sensed some interest on occasion in the Senate (among Democrats there) for something like the House Rules Committee. Observed that perhaps the principle of majority rule has gone too far in the House and not far enough in the Senate.

Emerson Noted that Republicans stress the value of fairness and Democrats efficiency. The two values are interconnected, for efficiency may not be achieved without fairness.

Foley Foley underscored that fairness is an important value. There is another value, too, besides fairness and efficiency that is important. It is accountability to the public. Foley suggested that each Joint Committee member might try separating himself or herself from their own circumstances and try to consider the views of the other party. Democrats may be in the minority sometime and need to view changes from that perspective. Similarly, Republicans might consider how they want things structured if they became the majority party. Would the GOP want exact party ratios on committees, no proxy voting, etc. if Republicans were in the majority?

Gejdenson On the matter of House-Senate relations, suggested the "Nebraska" solution (a unicameral body) and asked about the establishment of more joint committees as a way to get the House and Senate to work together.

Foley Joint committees are difficult and only a few have had legislative authority. A natural example of joint committees is conference committees. He would counsel against joint committees.

Questions of this sort have a benefit/cost ratio: controversy versus result. Committee jurisdictions need to be examined, but this issue arouses the proprietary concerns of Members in each party. Committee members go to their battle stations to defend and expand their turf.

Noted the sense on the majority side to move legislation, which is reflected in both chambers. Highlighted the example of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deliberations when House Democrats and Senate Republicans were in the majority and had the responsibility of moving legislation. Discussions ensued about whether inviting in the bipartisan minority--House Republicans and Senate Democrats-might slow down the policymaking process.

Geidenson Expressed the view that the minority ought not have the ability to prevent the House from acting.

Reid Noted that the country has changed and observed this change in the huge increase in constituent mail. Care must be exercised to insure that Congress doesn't cut its resources beyond what it needs to carry out its responsibilities. He expressed the view that party leaders in both chambers (the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker) require more authority and asked the Speaker to comment.

Foley Responded that he's not bashful about more influence and noted that he is assigned responsibility for events even though he often lacks the line authority for them. But there are limits to what he requires (does not need to appoint chairs, e.g.) and "enhancing" changes should be at the margins.

Allard Is interested in House-Senate cooperation on common administrative or management areas (maintenance, security, service, etc.) and asked the Speaker to comment.

Foley Noted that there is quite a bit of common activity (police and maintenance, e.g.,) with much of it done by the Architect of the Capitol. Noted, too, that Congress is not a unicameral body and different administrative structures may be appropriate. He highlighted the far-reaching changes in the House with the bipartisan appointment of a Director of Non-Legislative Services and the end of party patronage in House services. Suggested that the Senate might consider a business manager, too. While the notion of consolidation of House and Senate Services bears examination, he suggested that the Joint Committee concentrate on legislative relationships.

Norton on the matter of ethical requirements, the difficult issue of "peer review" was highlighted.

Foley This is an area that deserves careful consideration. There are problems keeping the issue within the House or using an outside group. Emphasized that in a collegial body it is hard for Members to judge their peers. Also hard to get Members to serve on the Standards of Official Conduct Committee.

But there are drawbacks, too, in getting people from the outside. You need to find people who understand the official responsibilities and conduct of members and not personal conduct. There is also the question of conflict-of-interest by outsiders. They will be scrutinized as to what interests they have before Congress or whether they might try to curry favor with lawmakers. Perhaps former Members and former high ranking staff and maybe some people from the general public might be appropriate.

Members must have a fair process because of the personal and political impact of ethics issues.

Obey Provided some general observations. While institutions need change, there must be a balanced understanding of change. Congress is at a fundamental disadvantage compared to other branches of government. The President receives his advice in private, the "blood" is spilled in private, and then the Administration publicly goes forward in a unified way. In Congress, a chairman or ranking member can issue his/her own statement even if it's contrary to their leader's position.

Congress is not a failed institution. It has met its responsibilities quite well.