FORMER REPRESENTATIVE BILL FRENZEL

Before highlighting the points made in his testimony, Mr. Frenzel agreed that the ethics process needed changing, supported the examination of a multiyear budgeting process, and suggested that the President sign the concurrent budget resolution. His testimony was organized around radical changes, cost savers, and face savers.

RADICAL CHANGES

1. Constitutional Amendments. Supported term limits, balanced budget amendment, and the line-item veto.

2. Make Congress Obey Its Own Laws.

Committee Jurisdiction. Committee reorganization is the priority organizational need in the House.

3.

6.

Reduce total number of subcommittees.

Cut leadership staff substantially.

Abolish associate staff.

Bring legislatively mandated employees under the same scrutiny and authorization process as investigative staff.

7. Resurrect the House Inspector General.

8.

Publish monthly in the Record all expenses of all Members in a reasonably organized way.

9. Reduce the number of personal staff and the expense limits.

10.

Prohibit the use of taxpayers' money for Legislative Service Organization.

11. Reform the franking privilege.

1. The principle of minority rights in the House needs strengthening. Further, no amount of Oxford-Union style of debate will make up for the loss of dynamism and the vitality of real floor debate in the House.

2. The House and Senate need a business-like schedule.

3.

The House may have to use outsiders in a revamped ethics process, but do not draft former Members.

4. Do what is necessary to revamp campaign finance laws, but don't use taxpayers money.

5. If a so-called perk is Congress specific, rather than government-wide, put it at market rates.

Mr. Frenzel suggested that to realign committee jurisdictions may be too much to do at one time. He suggested a long-term plan for change and then move incrementally toward it. Mr. Rudman suggested a phased-in approach. He said it is important to attack the genesis of the committee reorganization problem, which is position and power. A phased-in approach is a reasonable solution, because the natural turnover of membership will facilitate reaching significant committee reorganization. Rudman also suggested, as did Jones, that committee jurisdictions should be aligned with the executive branch.

HEARING SUMMARY, FEBRUARY 2, 1993

Four Witnesses: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Senator Hank Brown.

Senator Robert C. Byrd

He dedicated his remarks to the operation of the Senate.

Stated that last year was open season on Congress, during which there was a whirlwind of charges against the Congress. Senators were charged with transgressions they did not commit, although individuals felt certain of their charges. However, distortions by those who make charges are representative of genuine institutional problems.

Asserted that the primary, root problem of the Senate today is the "fractured attention" of Senators. Action is delayed because Senators are not in D.C.

Argued that we need to put a lid on the amount of money spent running for a Senate seat. We need to enact campaign finance reform, and maybe 1993 will be the year. The single most important step towards improving the Senate would be to enact campaign finance reform.

Recognized that Senator Boren's focus in this context is on internal Senate changes. Asserted that problems tend to be addressed through tinkering with the process, and gave examples of these "process fixes," including a balanced budget amendment and a line item veto amendment. These proposed changes, advanced to reduce the budget deficit, would be damaging to the Constitution. Relying on "quick fixes" to substantive questions has impeded coming up with workable solutions. The hard choices are difficult for Members.

Underscored that the Senate needs to engage in great debates, because if not the information vacuum is filled by others. The American people must force issues before their representatives can come up with workable solutions. In some cases frustrated citizens support dictators because they can act immediately.

More and more, the Senate is ceasing to perform its deliberative function. The "Senate has lost its soul." But the answer is not in tinkering with the process in pursuit of efficiency. The Senate was not intended to be efficient. The Senate would become more effective when Senators again become interested in being full-time Senators.

Emphasized that Senators can not know everything, and should not wear too many hats. It is virtually impossible to give attention to more than two major committee assignments. We need to reduce committee assignments to two or one per Senator so that Senators can better focus on the issues of their assigned committees. Many Senators only know enough about an issue to fill a

two paragraph press release. They are expected to be experts on every subject. Senators run too much from issue to issue, relying solely, or too much, on staff. This frenzied activity fosters fractured attention spans.

Senators do not always see debate on the floor as the best way to use their time. Debate is dying as an art, because of which Congress is held in low esteem. People will listen to intelligent explanations of matters, as demonstrated in the presidential campaign. Debate on the Senate floor is one of the best ways to achieve this. C-SPAN should air the difficulties of national problems. Voters should be encouraged to examine facts for themselves, so they do not only get the too often distorted information of the news media and the lobbyists. The people need a better understanding of complicated matters, like health care and the environment. Congress can not inform voters without extensive debate on these very issues.

Emphasized that finding ways to expedite the legislative process does not seem to address the Senate's problems. Needed is the informing, deliberative function so that the Senate does not become irrelevant. The Senate must find ways, must explore ways, to encourage Senators in the direction of debate to inform Americans. It must stop trying to substitute process for purpose.

Stated that the Senate must be in session five days a week, certainly for the better part of a session, to encourage debate on the floor. Now, when Senators know that there are no votes scheduled, they are not around for responsibilities including floor discussion and oversight in committees. A five day Senate floor work week characterized by real debate is essential.

Related that from experience, he knows how hard it is to work around the schedules of 100 Senators. But this working around their schedules can not be done. The quality of life should never be viewed as more important than, or even as important as, the quality of work.

Offered that he did not mean to say that no improvements are possible. Committees are too large and there are too many assignments to committees and subcommittees. This creates problems. It is difficult to get quorums, committees are unwieldy, and the task of committee leaders is compounded. Big committees also mean that it is more difficult to hammer out compromises. However, the rewards of service on too many committees apparently are too attractive for Senators to decline. Members are overcommitted and unable to concentrate on the substance of their committee work. Participation is marginalized on some committees and subcommittees.

Related that this is not a new problem. The 1946 and 1970 Legislative Reorganization Acts addressed this same problem. The number of panels and the number of assignments have increased since 1946. And today, about one half of the Senators have waivers from the committee assignment rules.

As the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, he urged the Joint Committee to proceed with caution in changing the appropriations process.

Some changes are possible. For example, on the floor there are too many nongermane amendments to appropriations bills.

The current process for setting and for enforcing the rules of Congress needs to be redefined.

Agreed that misgivings about the ethics process are understandable. An ethics advisory board of non-Senators could be established, and it could make recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee.

The goal of executive and congressional lobbying restrictions is good, but these restrictions are difficult to accomplish.

Advised that the soul of the Senate should not be sacrificed in an effort to reform the Senate.

Questions and Answers

Dunn: What are the one or two most important changes that the Joint Committee could make?

Byrd: As far as the Senate is concerned, we need to get back to working, and to be perceived as working. Members need to come to the floor and debate. To make the Senate more effective, not efficient, we need to get back to the business for which the Senate was created.

Cohen: How can we shrink the committee structure, without proliferating subcommittees?

Byrd: I think that there is a rule that additional subcommittees can not be established without the approval of the Senate. We should simply refuse to create more subcommittees.

Cohen: Should we abolish the appropriations committee, or abolish the authorizing committees, and consolidate their responsibilities? Stated that he finds authorizing committees less and less relevant today, and that they are redundant.

Byrd: What is it that this consolidation would achieve?

Cohen: It would eliminate the duplicative testimony of witnesses before committees.

Byrd: History shows us that turning over the appropriations function to authorizing committees does not work, in terms of saving money of the taxpayers. He gave a historical example. I see no evidence that such consolidation of the functions of the authorizing and appropriating processes would improve the process.