Spratt: What about the Democratic Study Group and the Republican Study Committee?

Roberts: They are LSOS, and I'm a member of the RSC. The LSOS need a different reporting form, more akin to those used by personal offices and committees. We have no idea where the money is going.

Dreier: Both parties balk at abolishing LSOs.

Roberts: Informal caucuses are acceptable; they have no money.

Dunn: The lack of oversight of LSOs is disturbing.

Allard: This is outstanding information. What happened to the House Administration reports and recommendations?

Roberts: None were ever implemented; there are informal guidelines and informal advice but no regular monitoring.

HEARING SUMMARY, MAY 11, 1993

Six witnesses: Representative E. (Kika) de la Garza, Representative Carlos Moorhead, Senator David Pryor, Senator William S. Cohen, Senator Dale Bumpers, Representative William Clinger.

E. (Kika) de la Garza, Chair, House Committee on Agriculture

Congress created the Joint Committee because we recognized both the public's and our own frustration with the Congress. The Committee has a broad mandate: to improve Congress as a functioning institution of government and to meet public expectations. In carrying out this mandate we must distinguish between the structures and processes necessary for Congress to make national policy and those for permitting the people to be heard.

The most that can be expected from the legislative process is that it facilitate the opportunity for the people's views to be heard. Procedural reform cannot stop policy gridlock, which most often reflects a political lack of consensus on how to deal with issues. Even radical reform couldn't force action, for the process will always reflect any lack of popular consensus.

I specifically want to focus today on 1) legislative riders in appropriation bills, 2) the distribution of jurisdiction among committees, 3) Member committee assignments, and 4) the size of conference delegations.

Like the chairs of many authorizing committees, as Chair of the Agriculture Committee I often find the results of the appropriations process to compromise the ability of Congress to enact meaningful legislation. When Appropriations Members circumvent the prerogatives and jurisdiction of the authorizing committees by legislating on appropriation bills, the result is piecemeal legislation removed from overarching policy considerations. During initial consideration, House Rule XXI usually protects the authorizing committees, but the Senate's propensity to legislate on appropriation bills, combined with the House's procedures for considering Senate amendments, undermine them.

We need House rule changes to restore traditional boundaries between appropriating and authorizing committees. Motions in the House to dispose of Senate legislative amendments to appropriation bills should be offered by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, not by the Appropriations Committee. Also, the Speaker should use his authority to appoint authorizing committee Members to conferences on appropriations bills with legislative provisions.

Improvements are needed in the appropriation process, but I oppose abolishing the Appropriation Committees, or giving their functions to the authorizing committees. The additional responsibility of allocating funds annually would interfere with our own responsibilities for policy development and oversight, which take our full time already. I have constructive working relations with the

Appropriations Committee; our differences are natural, but the Federal food producing system and commitment to feed the hungry show that the system is workable and effective.

I think the proposal to abolish the Appropriations Committees comes because the legitimate traditional line between the policy setting and fiscal priority setting roles has become blurred. What we need is therefore to reinforce that line.

Changes in committee jurisdiction will be a tough and sensitive issue for the Joint Committee. Many believe that seemingly archaic overlapping jurisdictions contribute to gridlock. If the Committee were to start from scratch, you'd probably put subjects together logically and divide workload equally, and the current committee structure probably doesn't satisfy these goals completely. Yet wholesale realignment might not be beneficial enough to justify the effort; no redrawing of jurisdictions would do away with overlap.

I therefore hope the Committee will approach these problems through marginal adjustments, not wholesale realignment. Rather than trying to eliminate overlaps, acknowledge them and try to reduce their potential to generate gridlock; focus on facilitating policy consensus in spite of overlaps. In areas where overlap is common, perhaps there should be more use of ad hoc committees not Select, Special, or permanent committees, but panels like the one that put together the 1977 energy bill. Such an approach would give the House flexibility to overcome the gridlock and obstruction that may arise from jurisdictional overlap. There should be rules to require that ad hoc committees have balanced representation from the committees of jurisdiction, and to limit their total membership.

If the Committee does address major overlaps in jurisdiction, there are some that relate to the Agriculture Committee. We now have most aspects of the production, inspection, and marketing of food and fiber, and commodity exchanges. All inspection of meat, seafood, produce and processed foods could appropriately be included in our jurisdiction. We could also more adequately represent rural interests if we had all of forestry and forest management. We now have rural development, and could include USDA rural housing programs. Similarly, we have some jurisdiction over nutrition, and could cover it better if we had all USDA nutrition programs, including school lunches and WIC. As it is now, the Secretary of Agriculture says he must appear before five or six different committees or subcommittees.

I support other Members' suggestions for more full five-day weeks and weeklong recesses. Such a schedule would permit more concentrated debate on major issues, aid committees in meeting and debating, and help the reputation of Congress. Under present conditions, the Committee can't have hearings on Monday or Friday, and few on Tuesday; in practice, we're limited to Wednesday and Thursday. Even conscientious Members find themselves forced into this schedule by necessity. With a large district and a 4000 mile round trip, I can go to the district all weekend and still not go home.

I also encourage limits on committee assignments; too many Members have too many assignments. For my first three terms I lived under limitations to two committees and two subcommittees. Under that system, when Wilbur Mills was asked any question on the tax code on the floor, or Bob Poage about Agriculture, they'd know the answer. Today, we've lost some of that expertise because of the multiplication of subcommittees. When we find ourselves spread out running from one subcommittee to the next, we have to delegate to staff. They are often excellent, but then they and not we become the experts. We need this draconian limitation so that Members themselves can again become the experts.

I first served only on Agriculture; though my district wanted me on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and I had previous background in Foreign Affairs, my delegation told me to go on Agriculture. When I first became chairman of Agriculture, I didn't take a subcommittee, and some said I wouldn't be able to contribute to policy making, but I do. This approach also helped keep peace among newer Members. We could have gone to five subcommittees this year, but kept six to accommodate a Member.

Often we deal in personalities rather than with structure. We should make no distinctions between "major" and "minor" committees. When I became Chair I had to get off Merchant Marine, but the Chair of Merchant Marine didn't have to get off Agriculture because Merchant Marine was a "minor" committee. I was serving my district, but I was going to need all my time to dedicate to Agriculture.

Large conference committees also hinder efficient and timely completion of legislation. I once presided over a conference that involved four other committees. Members now feel their needs require them to serve on conference committees; few in our districts know what a conference committee is, but the institution makes it of major importance. The size should somehow be limited.

In summary, the Joint Committee should preserve the complementary roles of authorizing and appropriation committees. Increased use of ad hoc committees, and some marginal consolidation of jurisdictions, should help. If the Committee's recommendations take our democratic process into account, they will earn the support of Members and I'll work with you and support the final product.

Despite being too large and having too much workload, the Agriculture Committee has acted responsibly in reducing the budget for which we're responsible by $57 billion in the last few years. The 0.7% of the budget for which we're responsible yields 17% of GNP;. Ours is the only sector of our economy that has a positive balance of trade, and programs under our jurisdiction are only a small component of entitlement spending. If you give us a number we'll meet it, but let us set the priorities.

Questions and Answers

Boren: On committee structure and assignments, many Members suggest merging committees and limiting assignments to allow us to stop running around and fragmenting our efforts. Some think this approach could also lead to limiting the size of subcommittees, and some could get depopulated. Could the number of subcommittees be reduced?

de la Garza: I think so. When we were asked to reduce from eight to six, we worked it out in one afternoon session, accommodating both Member needs and commodity mixes.

Dreier: You made a point I make, that one of the greatest reforms would be for us to comply with existing rules, especially on appropriations-authorization problems. It's bold of you not to advocate eliminating the Appropriations Committee, which some chairs have.

You also referred to reducing the number of assignments; implementing that will be a challenge. How should we deal with sitting Members? Should we phase the new limits in? Should we maintain a grandfather clause?

de la Garza: This is a difficult area because it deals with Members' perceptions of what they need in their districts. But for the institution to function, we must stabilize assignment numbers. I don't know whether you use a grandfather. You don't want to damage any Member's career, and the perception is that to be taken off a committee is a negative.

Reid: Where do your jurisdictional conflicts occur on Agriculture?

de la Garza: We don't have conflicts, because where we have overlaps, we have good relations. But as the Secretary of Agriculture's remark indicates, it would be more orderly if everything within the Department of Agriculture would come to the Agriculture Committee. All food inspection, not only meat and poultry, should be in Agriculture. Part of nutrition is with Education and Labor, because of the school aspect. I think they should do the policy aspects of schools and let USDA, and the corresponding committees, do the food aspects.

Reid: When conferees fill up the whole room, it's hard to do good work. But doesn't the answer come from the leadership? Could you make their job easier by arbitrarily limiting the number of conferees?

de la Garza: In part. I remember conferences that consisted of the Chair, the Ranking Minority Member, two more Republicans, and four more Democrats. And it worked, though on the other hand, we didn't have the input of all Members as we do now. Now we have to meet in the caucus room, and many of the conferees may not be there.