Reid: Should the Majority Leader get the power to appoint members to committees?

Byrd: I do not think so. Stated that when he was Majority Leader, he wished he could have appointed members to committees. Since then he has often reflected on the question. With that kind of power in the hands of the Majority Leader, something has to give, something suffers; what suffers is the independence of individual Members of the Senate. This power should not be given to any Majority Leader.

Reid: Stated that the role of both the Speaker and the Majority Leader should be examined. Both should be given increased power. Do leaders suffer from lack of authority?

Byrd: Stated that when he was Leader, he often longed for the power of the Speaker, and that he might have been another Czar Reid with that power. Related the history of the evolution of the party leaders in the Senate, and stated that the Majority and Minority Leadership positions are relatively new, and are still emerging offices.

There are Senate rules that can and ought to be used to move the Senate floor. Stated that he knows that this can upset colleagues, but that the rules should be used in order to lead.

One thing that would bring most relief to leaders is campaign finance reform. It is so hard to schedule around the personal schedules of Senators, which is extremely frustrating for the leaders.

Obey: Discussed two issues of interest to him: the authorization and appropriations process, and the budget process. Stated that he was intrigued by the proposal of Lou Fisher of the Congressional Research Service, that the Budget Committee not be eliminated but that the requirement for budget resolutions be eliminated. Also, leaders should make budgets consistent with reality. Asked Senator Byrd whether he agreed.

Byrd: Stated that he would have to study it more, and was not sure that we could do away with the budget resolutions. Also, he remarked that he does not want to make things worse.

Obey: Fisher would argue that it creates the appearance of dialogue between the branches, but since the initiation of the budget process there has been less fiscal discipline than before.

Stevens: Should we limit the length of time that Senators should serve on committees?

Byrd: No.

Stevens: Noted that it is difficult to get information to a lot of places in his State. Should we look at the information techniques of Congress?

Byrd: As part of his response, stated that the newsletter privilege has been abused, but that there is something to be said for newsletters.

Stevens: Should Members have total discretion as to how they use their allowances? Suggested that Senators should be treated as if running small businesses, and each should be able to use his or her total allowance as he or she sees fit. There should not be standardized allowances for all offices.

Lugar: Spoke about service on the Ethics Committee. Asked who should serve on the Committee, and whether we should have such a Committee at all. What are Senator Byrd's comments on the Ethics Committee?

Byrd: One of the hardest things is getting Senators to serve on the Ethics Committee. Nevertheless, all these issues can not be left up to the courts. Some of these activities never get into the courts, in part because they are not criminal. A plausible approach would be to have a panel of some former members, carefully chosen, without axes to grind.

Stated that he hoped that the Joint Committee would make some recommendations in this area, because the process does not work very well. The three Committee Democrats protect their Democratic colleagues and the three Committee Republicans protect their Republican colleagues. The burden could be put on ex-Members, and off sitting Members.

Lott: If we reported a measure that would improve the way that we do business in the Senate, in two or three ways, what would that include?

Byrd: We do not need a new rule to expedite business. The trouble is not the way that we do business, the trouble is the people. There is too much partisanship in the Senate, which is responsible for some of the gridlock. The goal should not be to expedite business. Let's debate more, and talk about and weigh things. It seems like we are searching for a way to have less debate. For example, having one day of Senate session with all the votes scheduled would be destructive.

The Joint Committee should take its eyes off expediting the business of the Senate. Let's produce a better product.

Lott: Stated that there are a number of things that he does not understand about the Senate, including why it is not in session on Mondays, and why it sits at night when it has not met during the day. Another prerogative difficult to understand is why things are held up because one Senator is downtown and has not gotten back yet to participate in debate.

Byrd: Described how he inaugurated the practice of three weeks of Senate session then one week off, and said that "on weeks" were to involve working on five days. That was the bargain.

Emerson: Inquired as to how to get five day work weeks in the House. Can we have mandatory attendance? Can we force Members to be here? Could we shut down the House while committees meet, and vice versa?

Byrd: A great gulf has been created between the ideal and the real. In classrooms and to political scientists, this is a great idea. But it will not work. Related how when he was leader, if he wanted committees to meet, he made sure that the Senate was in session and that there were votes. Otherwise, Senators were not around. The object is not to have a good report card on the number of hours and days of session. Committees will not be here to meet if the Senate is not in session and there is not the possibility of votes.

Commented on other issues:

Stated that he wanted to debunk the idea that by merging the Appropriations and authorizing committees, we might somehow save money. Also, we hear it said that Congress approves every dollar, and that the President can not spend a dollar unless the Congress appropriates it. With the use of flip charts and an aide, he produced data to assert the contrary. Charts showed the growth of entitlements over time.

He suggested that the President veto bills creating new programs, and that it could not be said that Congress is the big spender. Over the decades, Congress has spent billions and billions of dollars less than Presidents have requested.

Asserted, and demonstrated on a chart, that Congress has discretion in two areas: defense, which constitutes 19.2% of the budget, and domestic discretionary, which constitutes 12.7% of the budget. In 1932, the Appropriations Committees had discretion over more than 90% of total funding. Now, they have jurisdiction over only 31.9% of the total budget. Entitlements and mandatory spending have grown enormously.

Boren: Noted that we are on autopilot in terms of most spending.

Byrd: The authorizing committees have jurisdiction over these entitlements, in terms of creating them, but then the entitlements are around from then on.

Domenici: If we could have diminution of fractured attention as a goal, it probably would be a very good one. Asserted that taking on more and more things causes less meaningful participation in real things, e.g. committee business.

Asserted that increased floor debate is not the answer, because staff does a lot more work than Senators care to admit. Having to go to the floor and debate would be a redirection of effort.

Discussed the fractured jurisdictions of authorizing committees, and asserted that where there is duplication of jurisdiction, we need to make more sense of it. Stated that too often we do things on the same subject matter, and that we should not have appropriations every year. We should appropriate one year, and then the next one could be dedicated to oversight.

Byrd: Rejected the idea that we should have a two year appropriations process because this would 1) increase supplementals, and 2) the Senate does not spend an inordinate amount of time on appropriations bills and supplementals. We must have annual appropriations as part of our oversight responsibilities.

In many instances, the Appropriations Committee is the only real oversight instrumentality. Many agencies would shut down if appropriations bills did not carry the authorizations.

Asked to include in the record an additional statement, and a budget office document on unauthorized appropriations and expiring authorizations. He cited examples of how long it has been since different agencies have been authorized, and stated that the government would shut down if appropriations bills did not contain authorizations.

Boren: Agreed that fractured attention is a problem. Part of the problem is the high number of committee assignments. Suggested an absolute rule of 50 committees and subcommittees, with no Member serving on more than two. Inquired as to whether this should be done in increments, or whether the Senate should go for broke -- from an average of twelve to two assignments per Senator.

Byrd: Stated that he does not think that taking the incremental approach is the right way to go. If committee assignments can be reduced, that and nothing else, then the time of the Joint Committee will have been worthwhile.

Noted that he has a paper on tax expenditures and how they increase the deficit.

Boren: Stated that he would be happy to receive it.

Senator Christopher S. Bond

Stated that he is an enthusiastic supporter of reform.

Asserted that we need to reform the way that the Ethics Committee does business. A new mechanism is necessary. We need to create a fact finding panel

of former judges, as a first step before Senate action. We need to bifurcate the process, as in the House.

Argued that we need a mandatory adjournment date, and that the pay of Members should be withheld after the adjournment date passes. Often the very best ideas come from home in the States. A better understanding of Congress and its problems will come from spending time with constituents.

Stated that we need to impose discipline in the scheduling of bills and in the handling of budget and appropriations.

Questions and Answers

Boren: You and I are in very close agreement on the Ethics proposal. However, I would expand the membership of the Ethics panel, and it would include former Members and judges. The Speaker supports an external mechanism.

Allard: Commented that he appreciated the comments on limiting the length of the session, and that he had introduced a bill to this effect in the State legislature.

Dreier: Noted that former Senator Howard Baker has talked about the idea of a part time legislature, and agreed that we should have a hard and fast date to finish sessions.

Emerson: Commented that there were periods in his lifetime where Congress only met for one half of a year, and that we have to resurrect that.

Domenici: Commented that a bombshell waiting to explode is oversight by Congress of the executive branch, of programs Congress has created.

Also remarked that he is not a fan of the General Accounting Office (GAO). They ought to be audited and should have peer review. We should know that they are non-partisan and that they are properly spending our money.

How could we cajole or coerce committees into doing more oversight in a regularized way, and not just perform the small amount that the appropriators do?

Bond: Agreed. Stated that the savings and loan crisis had gotten out of control, and that Congress had to go to an outside panel because the Banking Committees had lost control.

Stated that he could not agree more regarding the GAO, and that he has had several run-ins because the workmanship of GAO was sloppy. Suggested that auditors not connected with any particular firm should do a thorough review of the work of GAO.