many of the President's key appointees are spending too much time on Capitol Hill defending their agencies.

All of my suggestions relate to making time available for Congress to give due consideration to the broad issues facing our nation. Congress is not in need of smarter Members and staff or better information. Nor will term limits or salary cuts concentrate Members' attention. What Congress needs is the capacity to address the problems of our nation, and what that requires is time. Every reform you consider should be measured against this critical standard.

The role of Congress in the world should not be underestimated. The nation and world suffers when it falters. The work of the Joint Committee goes to the heart of vital democracy.

Questions and Answers

Hamilton: Our need of time has been a constant theme heard from our colleagues.

Dreier: There is a great deal of interest in two year appropriations. The argument against this has been that when there is a presidential election, there is always a desire for the new administration to set a new path. With two year appropriations, a new administration would be prevented from pursuing the new programs it was elected on. How can this problem be reconciled with a two year budget process?

Mondale: A new administration would not have to start from scratch because the budget would be in place. Eighty-five percent of the budget is not subject to change. There is no reason why the parts of the budget which a new administration wants to change can not be amended.

Dreier: As in supplemental appropriations?

Mondale: Correct.

Boren: Your point about our use of time and letting Members live like ordinary Americans is important. Time to reflect gives us perspective and allows us to be more productive. Our fractured attention span is a problem we have been grappling with. Is the solution strict, non-waivable limits on committee and subcommittee assignments? Should we adopt a generic rule that there be no more than three subcommittees for each committee, thereby cutting the number of subcommittees in half? Should we avoid grandfathers of the assignment limitations? What are your thoughts on these ideas?

Mondale: You have the right idea. There are too many committees and subcommittees, people are stretched too thin. Look at committee structure in terms of the world we live in and the future. If you were starting from scratch, what would you do? Come up with ideas this way. You can not grandfather;

that is what killed the Senate's Stevenson Committee reform. There is a growing tendency to have staff for constituency work and agency work in local and state offices. More and more local offices are being set up. This is becoming a bottomless pit which is driving Members away from the central purpose of their office.

Swift: Self restraint may be part of the solution, but the increased use of the filibuster is due to the fact that it is not costly to use it. If it became more inconvenient to use, would it be used with more restraint?

Mondale: In the Senate, Rule XXII is a high art form. There were times when the Senate stood alone as the only institution able to focus on issues. I do not know how you get self-restraint, but that is what is needed. I do agree that as a rule becomes less onerous, it is used more frequently.

Swift: The Joint Committee must ask if there are rule changes that can make up for the lack of comity in Congress?

Mondale: That is part of the same problem of time and perspective.

Lugar: There are time constraints because constituents expect more. One of the reasons why we have offices in our states is because constituents want answers right away. There are reforms that can make physical changes. It is a question of what role we should play.

Mondale: Constituent work is a very important part of a Senator's duty. A big change since I left here has been the rise in local offices. All that staff is not working on legislative matters. They are driving work that does not effect most important duties. Is there some place a line can be drawn?

Dunn: What are your thoughts on the area of compliance of Congress with laws that the private sector lives under. To what degree should Congress consider living under such regulations?

Mondale: As a general principle, rules that are good for American people are good for Congress. For example, you can not ask American people to protect the environment and then ruin it with federal institutions. This is a sacred institution. It should be noble in purpose and broad in vision. You do not want to impose on the ability to do this.

Dunn: What are your thoughts on whether the current ethics system adequately serves us?

Mondale: The American people want the highest ethics standards in public offices. The House and Senate need strong committees to respond to allegations and impose penalties.

Norton: Would you elaborate on your view of filibusters. Why do you regard filibusters with the reverence which you do? With the filibuster, you may see one person nullify the will of Congress and the President.

Mondale: This is a difficult issue. With the old rules, 66 votes were needed to end a filibuster. A small group could tie up everything. When the vote was dropped to 60, only more mainstream issues could be filibustered. The cap on post cloture debate has changed the filibuster more. The filibuster has less capacity to paralyze government. It was made easier to use and was more easily used. Now, it is being abused. I lived through a time when American liberty was threatened. Wars were declared without Senate knowledge. Money was impounded, the CIA was used secretly. The ability to ventilate the issue was the only answer. We needed the filibuster. It can not be done in the House. The Senate may be one of the more powerful chambers in the world. Power flows from the ability to ventilate.

Norton: The problem with broad general legislation is that it may cause more oversight, but it may also give agencies and courts the opportunity to provide their own interpretations.

Mondale: If we are going to deal with congressional reform, we have to look at relations with the Executive Branch. Detail is needed on central issues. My impression is that legislation is getting thicker and thicker as you try to anticipate every situation. There is a way to stand on the central, hard, broad issues. Let the minor issues be handled elsewhere, by regulation.

Allard: You talked about redundant legislation. I see redundancy in House and Senate procedure, witnesses testifying on the same subject on both sides. How can the House and Senate cooperate on matters?

Mondale: Try to get some ad hoc committees of former Members with executive experience and look at the problems and possible solutions.

Allard: What about more cooperation in the area of conference committees and reports? Could we codify the rules beforehand so we do not have to set them each time?

rules.

Mondale: Remember the problems that rise from the different germaness

Domenici: We have been stressing that we ought to become more accountable for what we do, and that what we do should be understandable. We have no place to debate priorities. We should look for priorities.

Mondale: You need time available for the big issues. Here you do not know what you will be talking about tomorrow. With more time, you can get your perspective. If you can look at the big picture, the better off the country will be. The pressure of the last couple of years has pushed us in the wrong direction.

We have to show people that we can deal with the major issues. We must be accountable and responsible. Some things can not be fixed with rules. What is needed is self-restraint.

Hamilton: You were the principle sponsor of a proposal to establish a question hour. What do you think of that idea?

Mondale: The best time in the Senate is when our guard is down. When Senators are on the floor without staff or press, just discussing the issues. Senate rules allow former Presidents on the floor. Let them come, close the door and talk.

Swift: There is a lack of restraint with legislation. There are too many details. This is an overreaction by Congress. Abuse of rules, lack of restraint and comity lead to overreaction which leads to crisis.

Mondale: There comes a time when the Senate must stand up to officials who will not obey the rules. It is helpful if in the absence of abuse there is a return to some sense of comity and respect.

Boren: The level of partisanship is at a point where everything is being played on opposite poles even when it should not be. Some level of partisanship is good, healthy competition keeps us honest, but new Members do not know their colleagues of the other party.

Mondale: If that is true, that is tragic. A sense of fellowship, friendship, and respect across the aisle is what the American people have the right to deserve.

Boren: Hopefully, this Committee can start rebuilding that.

HEARING SUMMARY, FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Five Witnesses: Senator Howell Heflin, Senator Trent Lott, Representative Henry J. Hyde, Representative Curt Weldon and Representative Robert E. Andrews.

Chairman Boren commenced the hearing by stating that this was the first hearing on specific topics of congressional reform. Today the committee will be discussing ethics and internal enforcement, with an emphasis on how to remedy the time constraints the current process produces and how to maintain public trust in Congress.

Senator Howell Heflin

Commented that while he was Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, an outside group of academic scholars looked at their procedures and made recommendations on improvements. Their report revealed that they did not fully understand the processes of Congress. Many people outside of Congress are not aware of what it means to be an elected representative.

Unless there is a clear breaking of the rules, the evaluation of ethical behavior is a subjective process. It is important to remember that ethical standards change over time.

If the two Houses had uniformity of rules and their interpretation, the process could be more easily understandable by the public.

An outside panel could play an important role only as an advisory or recommendatory group since Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution states that the House and Senate must punish their own. They could even be given the power to do more than serve indictments, if there was agreement among Members. As members of the public may not understand congressional operations, former Members of Congress must be used. Judges and scholars, however, should not be part of the panel.

Suggested a four step method for handling charges of ethics violations. Step 1 would involve an internal body acting in a grand jury capacity. This body would decide whether to charge a Member with a violation. They could also dispose of the charge if there is unanimous agreement. Finally, this body could decide whether or not to bring in an outside panel, particularly in a case that is of public concern. Step 2 would involve an outside panel with the authority of a review board. Using the Ethics Committee staff, the panel would report directly to the Committee. Step 3 would involve the Ethics Committee acting as a jury, deciding how to dispose of the case. The Committee needs broader power. Although it can reprimand by agreement, it should be able to dispose of cases at the committee level and perhaps have the power to censure Members. Step 4 would involve the full Senate taking final action on the ethics charge.