Dingell: In short, no. With respect to railroads, we solved the two recent railroad strikes, and we did it well and quickly. We're doing our work well so it doesn't need fixing.

Emerson: I wouldn't quarrel with the fact that it's been going well. But doesn't it make sense to get all transportation issues under one roof? The Public Works and Transportation Committee has jurisdiction over all other transportation, why not add railroads?

Dingell: The hard fact is that there is no great need to do this. Railroads have always been in our Committee. One of the reasons that the Commerce Committee legislates well is that we have broad jurisdiction. We're not a single or special interest committee. If you put all financial matters in a single committee, they will become a target of the special interests. We should not se up single interest committees.

Swift: The legislative process is not neat and could not be. You address the problem of Members being spread too thin in their committee assignments.

Dingell: We need a system where each Member has two committee and four subcommittee assignments, and an assurance that the leaders can't go off and get additional assignments for Members.

Swift: How did committees get their work done when there was jurisdictional overlap and before there was a procedure for joint referrals.

Dingell: Before the Bolling Committee there were sequential referrals. And they were atom bombs. A sequential referral got the attention of the committee chairs. In most cases, jurisdictional problems are worked out among the committee chairs without drawing much attention. This requires leadership on the part of the Speaker and proper performance on the part of the Parliamentarian.

There are times when bills will demand joint referrals, for example, in the area of health care. There is no way to avoid a multiple referral in this case, but the overlap will make for better legislation. But controls and constraints on the way this system works are needed.

Swift: I support reducing assignments and encouraging chairs to walk across the hall and work out problems rather than see multiple referrals as something to defend.

Walker: Republicans have limited assignments, as Mr. Dingell notes in his written testimony. But because Democrats have not similarly limited assignments, Republicans come back and ask for additional ones. Do you favor the elimination of proxy voting?

Dingell: No.

Boren: Would you favor an enforcement mechanism to force restrictions on committee assignments? This may be necessary because it is hard on leaders to resist Members asking for additional assignments.

Dingell: Waivers should not be allowed; just make this an absolute rule. Reductions might be done through attrition.

Boren: How can we determine which subcommittees are not necessary?

Dingell: If you try to decide which particular subcommittees should exist, there will be big trouble. Just establish a maximum number of subcommittees per committee, and establish limits on sizes of panels.

Keep oversight as a significant function of committees. This results in significant savings.

Boren: I am interested in your support for clear assignment of a major subject to one committee. Differing committee jurisdictions between the House and Senate may create problems in conference. Do you support greater committee structure parallelism between the House and Senate, in part to reduce the number of Members on conference committees?

Dingell: Didn't think that should be a high priority. The Senate's structure seems designed for a body of one hundred Members. The House can't afford to have as small a number of committees as the Senate without making them unnecessarily large. Moreover, policy issues are complex and multifaceted, and on big issues such as health policy reform you really can't reduce the number of committees involved. Generally, for broad policy bills, you really cannot keep the committee referral process simple. Complex bills take time and the referrals are sometimes sloppy, but you can't avoid that; nor should you want to on something as important as health policy reform, or omnibus environmental legislation.

Panel Presentation by Representative Gerry Studds and Representative Herb Bateman

Representative Gerry Studds

Remarked that he has been involved with legislative reform since early in his House service. As a Member of the Merchant Marine Committee, he was forced "to swear a blood oath" to oppose the Bolling Committee reforms. But he broke ranks then and supported the Bolling plan over the Hansen substitute.

Generally supported stronger assignment limits as the only way to get better control of Members' time. Any high school in the country does a better job of scheduling than the House. There are too many subcommittees; they decentralize legislative operations too much. Endorsed a reduction to at least five subcommittees on major committees and four on non-majors. Members could serve on only two

subcommittees per committee. Together, this would reduce subcommittees to below the level that existed in 1955. Member subcommittee assignments would be down to forty percent of their current level.

On the issue of whether Merchant Marine should be retained, he stated that Merchant Marine and Fisheries was not the problem with the committee system. No single committee was the cause of gridlock. Responding to criticisms of the Committee, offered the following defense: in many ways Merchant Marine and Fisheries is a model committee. It has good working relationships between the majority and minority parties and between senior and junior Members, and essentially has a non-partisan staff. Contrary to popular view, the Committee is not dominated by the merchant shipping interests; rather, it is a more diverse committee especially since it has become a key player in environmental legislation. In reviewing the committee system, urged the House to follow the motto of Mr. Obey "what's best is what works."

Finally, suggested a name change to reflect the current primary focus: Committee on Marine Affairs.

Representative Herb Bateman

Agreed with Mr. Studds that Merchant Marine was not a single issue committee. But, asserted the need for a committee to focus on revitalizing the merchant shipping industry in the U.S.

Lauded the Committee's Democrats for establishing a non-partisan professional staff, and was proud of the record of the Committee in working in a bipartisan manner. I will not oppose a proposal to change the Committee's name, once existing stock of stationery has been used up.

Supported Chairman Studds' proposals on assignment limitations. People are entitled to expect us to know what we are doing; too many assignments prevents us from doing our essential jobs.

Questions and Answers

Studds: Reauthorization of the endangered species act, and other major environmental legislation, are examples of the fact that the Merchant Marine Committee is in the thick of some of the major issues of the day, and is not just a peripheral legislative player.

Hamilton: Is it your position that we should not change jurisdictions or eliminate committees?

Studds: Some issues clearly can be reshuffled. But, you're going to endanger any other proposal the Joint Committee makes on other organization issues that could make a difference. Too much jurisdictional change will cause massive opposition within the Congress, and endanger other needed reforms. Policies are

complex, and the legislative process therefore reflects policy complexities. The committee system cannot be made entirely neat and tidy.

Bateman: You could completely dismember Merchant Marine and Fisheries, but I doubt that the committees that would get it are lacking for things to do now. Where do these subjects go, who would take them on? And what would happen to the degree of attention these subjects get now?

Boren: How do we implement subcommittee limits?

Bateman: Impose the assignment limits strictly, and let the committee decide what to do in carrying them out. Don't make any exceptions.

Hamilton: With regard to Mr. Studds' comments on scheduling, I hear more complaints about workload and scheduling than any other issue.

Studds: With regard to scheduling and assignments, the Joint Committee could review the assignment categories. I doubt that any other so-called minor committee has the scope of responsibilities or level of work that the Merchant Marine Committee has.

Panel Presentation by Representative Bill Clay and Representative John Myers

Representative Bill Clay

Noted that his service began before the Bolling Committee reforms, and that he had served on the Patterson Committee, so he knew first hand the difficult task of the Joint Committee. He listed the key components of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, focusing on Federal statistical policy and White House personnel as areas not often recognized as forming key areas of the Committee's work. He detailed the evolution of the Post Office Committee from the formation of a Select Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads in 1806. Cited the Committee as the principal congressional repository of expertise in government personnel, aspects of government ethics, salary and benefits. The Committee protects the bureaucracy from political raids by other committees. Pending major issues include the third largest dollar amount of reconciliation instructions.

Opposed parallel committee systems between the House and Senate. The larger House can allow for narrower committees to encourage Members to specialize.

Representative John Myers

Supported continuing the Post Office Committee, and noted the important constituent service (on retirement and health benefits of Federal employees) that the Committee provides to all House Members. It would be a terrible disservice to House Members generally to abolish this Committee; work and staff expertise of the Committee cannot be readily transferred to other committees, such as Government

Operations. Some adjustment in the committee system may be needed, but "long and hard" consideration should be given before the Joint Committee moves against the Post Office Committee.

Questions and Answers

Clay: Scheduling problems could be minimized with stronger and more restrictive assignment limits. The Post Office Committee currently has good attendance at meetings, and its decisions are relatively bipartisan.

Hamilton: Could you live with a four subcommittee limit?

Clay: If you also limited full committee assignments and reduced the size of full committees it would work, but not if you didn't cut back on full committee assignments.

Myers: There could be jurisdictional realignment to bring committee jurisdictions closer to that of budget functions. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I feel that legislative jurisdictions, budget functions, and Appropriations Subcommittee jurisdictions needed to be more similar to reduce complexity and duplication of effort.

Clay: There are too many multiple referrals; for example, striker replacement bills were sent to three House committees. The Joint Committee should do something about multiple referrals in the House.

Dreier: Don't you think we need to cut back and consolidate some aspects of Congress?

Clay: Reform efforts are moving in the wrong direction. The House would benefit from keeping both a Government Operations Committee and a Post Office Committee. Reforms and consolidation would not save much money, or allow much reduction in congressional staffing and operating costs. That should not be driving force of reform. Before the 1970's, the Executive had a monopoly on resources and ran over the Congress. We put money into new resources here, and that's what we should preserve.

Dreier: What committees should be abolished?

Clay: I don't see the need to abolish any. The need for assignment limitations and committee size reductions will minimize any need for jurisdictional shifts or for the abolition of committees.

Dreier: What do you think about banning proxy voting?

Clay: If you only got one committee assignment, a ban would be acceptable. But once you permit more than one committee assignment, there will come a time