Expressed concern about House-Senate comity on the Joint Committee. Many House members are concerned about the Senate. The Senate contributes to fuzziness in the authorization-appropriations process. Senate authorizations often piggyback onto appropriations bills and invite controversy in the House. In addition to the different rules between the House and Senate, the "human factor" needs to be taken into account. There may be personnel problems at the top that contribute to piggy backing. The White House, too, may "stiff" the authorizers because they can get a better deal with the appropriators. In short, in our evaluation, there is a danger of going too far in engaging in comity between the chambers. Filibusters affect the House and the House needs input on that practice. Dunn Asked about complexities associated with the authorization-appropriations process and its potential for confusing the public. Foley The Joint Committee can look at this area, and there has been a recent tendency for the appropriations process to dominate. Appropriations determine the resources for the underlying substantive law. People are confused by it. A child vaccination authorization may be enacted and press releases are distributed on it, but the program doesn't have money until it gets an appropriation. People get confused by this. Congress is an institution that is constantly self-critical even in our day-to-day debates. Interest groups, too, often run elaborate public relations campaigns against Congress. To raise money, they try to create a sense of crisis, making attacks on Congress, to excite people to give money to their cause. Congress has a host of internal and external critics that call into question the dedication of Members. We are not good at explaining what we do. People need an accurate sense of what we do and why we do it. Summary of testimony of Representative Gephardt (26 January 1992) The Majority Leader suggested that the House needs to become more efficient and better able to respond to changing circumstances. Static rules, he said, were anathema to a functioning chamber in a changing world. He endorsed the aggressive hearing schedule of the Joint Committee, and spoke to several of the topics to be covered, but did not offer many specific proposals. He stated that enhancing public understanding of the Congress was a very important aspect of the Committee's work, and also endorsed investigations into better use of technology and application of laws to Congress. More specifically, he stated that the quality of debate needed to be improved and proposed that special order time be used for Oxford-style debates on significant issues; and that the unpredictability of scheduling was a sore spot with many Members on both sides of the aisle, suggesting that a strong Rules Committee had an important role to play in enhancing predictability of scheduling. He also stated (as did several other Members over the course of the day) that disparities between the chambers in the authorization and appropriations processes led to confusion Responding to a question from Senator Domenici, he conceded that streamlining committee jurisdictions was an important issue, but focused on the benefits of enhancing bicameral parity rather than on questions of realigning House jurisdictions per se. In response to a second question on biennial budgeting, Mr. Gephardt said that the experience of the past few years under the BEA has demonstrated that some form of multi-year budgeting could be successful, but stopped short of an explicit endorsement of biennial appropriations. In response to a question from Senator Boren, Mr. Gephardt concurred with Mr. Michel's support for exploring the question of ethics committee structure, especially because of the strain on Member's time caused by membership on the Standards Committee. In response to Mr. Emerson, he agreed that scheduling overlaps between floor and committee responsibilities was an issue, but offered no specific remedy. Summary of testimony of Representative Michel (26 January 1992) focused on The Republican Leader's opening statement questioning the fairness of current House rules along with several suggestions for improving the situation. First, he focused on the question of committees and proposed that there be a major realignment of committee jurisdictions in order to eliminate overlaps in jurisdictions, reduce multiple referrals and cut down on committee assignments for Members. part of this he also suggested that with fewer assignments, proxy voting should be eliminated. As Second, he proposed reforming the rules to restrict the ability of the Rules Committee to issue structured rules. Third, he made several proposals which he suggested would enhance public trust in the government. Such as having the Government Operations Committee controlled by the party not in the White House, even when it is in the minority in the House, in order to allow for effective investigations into the executive branch. In addition, he seconded the idea that the Joint Committee should include the application of laws to Congress as part of its agenda. Responding to a question from Senator Domenici, he reiterated that realigning committee jurisdictions was an important issue, and stated that too much authority was currently concentrated in the hands of a few committees. In response to a second question on biennial budgeting, Mr. Michel said that he opposes 2-year appropriations because he feels that they serve a significant oversight function. In response to a question from Senator Boren, Mr. Michel stated (later supported by Mr. Gephardt) that the question of ethics committee structure was a legitimate one to be explored by the Committee. In response to a question by Mr. Obey he stated that he supported enhanced rescission authority for the President, as well as some enhanced authority over targeted revenue provisions. This is embodied in H.R. 493, introduced by Mr. Michel on 20 January. In response to Mr. Emerson, he agreed that scheduling overlaps between floor and committee responsibilities was an issue, but offered no specific remedy. SUMMARY TESTIMONY OF SENATE MAJORITY LEADER GEORGE YTCHELL: -Emphasized need for reform including public criticism -But cautioned against change for the sake of change and aċċei che side's reform. is another's problem so the JC shouldn't try to satisfy everyone. -Outlined his proposed rule changes that he said would increase efficiency, make the schedule more predictable wither reducing minority right to debate an issue. (Summary of rules changes is attached) zee. -Has taked to Dole about the rules changes and Dole doesn't -Should enforce committee assignment limits of two "A" committees and one "B" committee. -Other steps (which could be imposed by individual party caucuses) to give leaders flexibility to committee assignments: no additional staff allocation, no additional subcommittee chairmanship, no accrual of seniority on the committee -Campaign finance reform is one of his top priorities. -Supports cuts in committee spending including a 10 percent c in committee budgets (including leadership offices) for the next fiscal year beginning March. -Senate leadership needs more power and authority; give leaders power to make committee assingments and to limit the number cf roll call votes. -Urged JC to to review the budget, authorization and approp. Fcess to make system more efficient. (So Senators don't have to date and vote several times on the same issue.) -Recommended against prohibiting voting in committee by proxy as that would add to delay. DCLE: -JC should study term limits and franking. -Wants 30-day floor agenda from the majority leader published i the congressional record (and one for every days while the Senate is in session). -His opinions on reform have been influenced by Eric Felten c the Heritage Foundation. -Budget and staff have grown out of proportion -Some committees should be eliminated (ex. the committes ca aşing, small business, and Indian affairs could be made into scommittees of other committees). -Could cut 1994 comittee budgets to 90 percent of their 1993 biget. (Same 90 percent rule to the Office of Technolca Assessment, CRS and GAO). -Cap committee staff levels. -Limit detailees. (No Senator or Senate comittee should accept a detailee by a federal agency.) -Limit each session to six months. -Eliminate commemorative bills. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: NORTON: Will reform proposals carry more weight coming from the JC? MITCHELL: They will have greater force than otherwise but some will be easier than others (ex. committee chances are more likely than cloture changes) DOLE: Agrees. It will be hard to pass rules changes. But if the five leaders are behind the JC's recommendations, it will have a big influence. LUGAR: What's the best way to handle non-legislative affairs (such as operation of the cafeteria). A non-partisan "CEO" who reports to the members as the "board of trustees"? MITCHELL: That's an important subject. Congress made a modest beginning when addressed perks last year and efforts should be expanded to other area. LUGAR: How to avoid items slipping in at the end of the approp process (such as the Lawrence Welk mezorial)? Do they favor combining approp and authorizing? MITCHELL: The tension between approp and author. has always been there and grows out of the checks and balance set up by founders. He has no specific solution and is not familiar with Kassebaum's proprosal but will review it. ALLARD: Interested in ways the House and Senate can cccperate on agencies. (Ex. There are different rules in the House and Senate for taking pictures.) MITCHELL: Welcomes an anaylsis of where cooperation exists and doesn't exist with the goal of cooperation, uniformity, efficiency and cost savings. KASSEBAUM: Is bothered by duplication of debate in auth and apporp bill; making changes will improve accountabilty to public; She would support Mitchell's rules changes if she was in the majority but protections are needed for the minority. DCLE: The system does waste a lot of time; doesn't know how to fix it. MITCHELL: debate Isn't proposing probiting unlimited or the |