Cohen: You could in fact create a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee dedicated to intelligence. There are problems with this, however. First, the Intelligence Committee is not partisan. Second, the Intelligence Committee is not parochial in nature, which can not be said of our military policy. There are legitimate reasons for not making the Intelligence Committee a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I could make a case for merging the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. We haven't decided exactly how we will do this, whether to start at the ground and build up.

As we become more specialized, we have to resist the temptation to be specialists in every bill on the floor. We have yet to contend with this issue in any of our discussions. When an Armed Services Committee bill was on the floor, we had over 100 amendments because we all think we are specialists. In the good old days we took a bill to the floor and in a short time it passed. Not today. We have young, bright staffs who load us up with amendments and we attempt to amend bills over which we have no expertise. We have got to start deferring to the people making themselves expert in a field.

Murkowski: Most committees have majority and minority chiefs of staff. This is like having two city managers. Also, we need to look at the way we run the Capitol. The Architect is appointed for a term of somewhere between life and the hereafter. We need professional management to come in and run this place.

Cohen: We are deluding ourselves if we go through a fundamental restructuring of committees so that we can become expert in areas of particular committees but then go to the floor with a whole sheet of amendments. This defeats the purpose of specializing in fewer committees. We need to have the leadership or someone tell us when we are going too far as individuals, and we need to defer to the experts. It is frustrating to me to report Armed Services' legislation then go to the floor and have to spend days and days dealing with over 100 amendments.

Rockefeller: I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding major reform, because I have not looked at the bigger picture that you all have looked at. So, I can't say that I'm just willing to tinker at the edges. I have defended the Veterans' Committee and am committed to retaining that.

Cohen: Then I had misunderstood your statement. With respect to modest changes at the edges, you were referring only to the Veterans' Committee.

Boren: Do we need to reduce assignments? The average Member serves on 12 committees and subcommittees. We have heard a lot about our time being fractured. Especially subcommittees tend to justify their existence. Some suggest placing in rules strict limits on committee and subcommittee service. I think subcommittee rules may be even more important than committee ones. If we only reduce committees, but then create another 100 subcommittees, we are no better off. How would you feel about a rule limiting assignments that could only be

waived by the full Senate, for example, allowing 3 committee and 5 subcommittee assignments?

Rockefeller: I would favor it. I think that would be the way to go. We need to be able to justify each subcommittee.

Boren: I note with interest that the Veterans' Affairs Committee has no subcommittees. On the Intelligence Committee we had no subcommittees. This helped us. Members only have a certain amount of time. If time traditionally used for subcommittees is given to full committees, say 10 hours, it could be more constructive. Perhaps we could have a 3 committee, 3 subcommittee assignment rule, with Senators allowed to serve on 1 subcommittee of each of 3 committees. This would automatically depopulate unnecessary subcommittees. We'd leave it up to each committee to decide the jurisdiction of its subcommittees, but we'd establish the limit.

Rockefeller: It is very hard for a committee chair to say no to a junior Member who wants to serve on subcommittees.

Boren: With fewer unnecessary subcommittees, we could achieve staff reductions as well, because some staff who serve there would not be needed in the core, full committee staff. Mr. Murkowski, do you agree with the need to reduce assignments?

Murkowski: Yes, I do. And it could be done without being detrimental to

seniority.

Rockefeller: I feel strongly about what you said about 2 committees plus 1 B committee. As Mr. Cohen said, developing expertise takes a lot of time. I really advocate the idea of Senators becoming more expert in an area.

Boren: We have gotten away from this. We swing at every ball. If we had 3 committees, and 3 subcommittees apiece, it would greatly enhance our ability to schedule. We could group committees, so that certain committees and their subcommittees only could meet on certain days. We would not have to run so much from committee to committee. Also, it would help with parallel jurisdictions.

Rockefeller: I don't want to leave it on the record that it will always be possible to serve on only 1 subcommittee of a committee.

Boren: There would have to be some flexibility. If you serve on no subcommittees of one committee, then you could serve on two of another. Under the Stevenson Committee reform plan, there was agreement to limit each Senator's assignments to 8 committees and subcommittees, but now we average 12. We could make the whole Senate vote if someone is seeking more than the required number of assignments. A reduced assignment limitation would take care of the problem of too many subcommittees, because some would depopulate.

Rockefeller: I hear that some subcommittees never meet, but work through the full committee.

Boren: We should look carefully at committees like Intelligence and Veterans that are non-partisan and see if we can draw some lessons. The staff of the Budget Committee also in non-partisan. Maybe it won't work on all committees, but we should try to draw as many lessons as possible from these examples. Most committees will need partisan staff, but we should try anything we can to encourage bipartisanship. The increasing partisanship greatly disturbs the American people.

Mr. Rockefeller, some have suggested we create a health care committee because jurisdiction over health care is fragmented. How do you respond to that?

Rockefeller: It think that the system should remain as it is. No committee on health is needed. We have two main committees that deal with health depending on how you draft legislation. But, the issue should stay as it is in the current system.

Boren: We will probably end up drawing upon the best concepts of each of the jurisdictional realignment plans presented by CRS to form our plan. We hope to complete our deliberations by the end of the summer.

Rockefeller: I am troubled because there are not more than 30 or 35 Members that are expert in health policy, just as the chambers are poised to do massive overhaul of the health system. I am not sure how this fits into your discussions, but this is a deep concern.

HEARING SUMMARY, APRIL 29, 1993.

Witnesses: Representative Tony Hall; Representative Bill Emerson; Representative Gerald D. Solomon; Representative John Dingell; Representative Gerry Studds; Representative Herb Bateman; Representative Bill Clay, Representative John Myers; Representative Henry B. Gonzalez; Representative Jim Leach.

Panel Presentation by Representative Tony Hall and Representative Bill Emerson Representative Tony Hall

Urged the Joint Committee to find a way to fulfill the mission of the nowdefunct Select Committee on Hunger. The Hunger Committee was created in 1984 to coordinate hunger-related issues. Hunger issues cut across the jurisdictions of ten standing committees; until the creation of the Select Committee on Hunger, there was no single committee that looked at the whole picture.

The focus, leadership, and "special institutional voice" of Select Hunger will be lost as many authorizing committees deal separately with hunger issues. If you don't focus on the issue, the fire will go out. For example, regarding domestic hunger, jurisdiction is split among three committees: Agriculture, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means. This type of fragmentation makes it nearly impossible to address the issue of domestic hunger in a comprehensive manner.

Further, hunger and similar human needs issues take a back seat to the flashier issues that committees with hunger jurisdiction also handle. Human needs issues need their own standing committee so they do not compete with other issues.

The Joint Committee has two options regarding jurisdiction over hunger-related issues: One, rethink the current categories for the legislative or authorizing committees. A Committee on Human Needs, for example, would address certain matters currently handled by Agriculture; Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs; Education and Labor; Ways and Means; and Foreign Affairs.

Second, consider the idea of a new Select Hunger Committee, possibly a joint committee. While some argue that creating committees that have no legislative authority makes no sense, I found that not having to report legislation and not having to deal with a fixed legislative schedule gave the Select Committee on Hunger considerable flexibility. Despite the good work Select Hunger did, there was never any real debate about the quality of our work or about the wisdom of having select committees.

The best approach would be to revise current jurisdictions and establish a new legislative Committee on Human Needs. The next best would be to create a Select Committee on Human Needs, without legislative jurisdiction but with a mandate to provide the focus, leadership, and coordination on these issues that is missing from the legislative committee structure.

Representative Bill Emerson

In some eyes, the elimination of the select committees may have been a success; others, including myself and Mr. Hall, would disagree. Asserted that the process - the means through which the select committees were eliminated -- was a failure. I am optimistic that the Joint Committee will recommend and Congress will pass a big and bold reform package. At the same time, we should undertake reform in a careful, deliberative manner.

The abolition of the select committees was the result of arrogance on one side of the aisle and an intemperate thirst for victory at all costs on the other.

Select committees should exist until the problems they deal with no longer exist, or until changes are made in the committee structure so that the problems are adequately dealt with. In the case of the Hunger Committee, hunger did not go away, nor did the House make provision to deal adequately with the issue.

The sane and logical course of action for the House would have been to reauthorize the select committees for a year and then let the Joint Committee decide their fate. Expressed embarrassment at the way the abolition of the select committees was handled. Regardless of the merits of the issues, it is clear that the process failed. Reforming the committee system is about enabling us to do our work more effectively; it is not about issuing press releases back home to say that we have saved the Congress from itself.

On the matter of the Hunger Committee's responsibilities: 1) requested that the statement prepared by the Hunger Coalition be entered into the hearing record; 2) noted that hunger issues cut across the jurisdictions of several committees; 3) stated that Congress should consider the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with hunger issues; and 4) supported the incorporation of hunger issues into standing committees with legislative jurisdiction.

Questions and Answers

Dreier: An ad hoc committee would have more of a temporary nature to it. Would you, Representative Hall, be in favor of it?

Hall: Yes.

Dunn: How would you fold into a new select committee the hunger jurisdictions of the other committees?

Emerson: Plan F of the CRS jurisdictional reorganization plans CRS appears to be the one that would accommodate all the hunger issues. Hunger is not just food; it's transportation and structure. The issue has to be addressed in the context of welfare reform. If there had been a place to put hunger jurisdiction in the first place, there would have been no need to create a Select Hunger Committee.