Representative Paul Kanjorski Noted that he and Representative Emerson were pages together forty years ago, and based most of his testimony on comparisons of the effectiveness of Congress then and now. Viewed earlier Congresses as more creative with more substantive deliberations. Urged the Joint Committee to be bold in its recommendations, noting that such opportunities did not present themselves often. Called for reforms evening out the workload and jurisdiction of committees, with fewer committees having broader jurisdiction requiring fewer multiple referrals. Supported a two-year budget cycle giving Congress a generally uninterrupted year in which to review program operation and spending before having to appropriate again. Called for a merger or linkage between authorization and Appropriations Committees; observed that the decision to remove appropriations jurisdiction from authorizing committees in 1921 might have been valid then, but was not valid now. Called for the leadership to set legislative priorities for the session, noting that committees spent too much time on bills and issues that ultimately won't pass. Committees hold too many hearings for press coverage and publicity. Relatedly, serious oversight activities are frequently omitted. Observed that the cause of congressional frustration is not with the enactment of laws, but with how the agencies execute the laws. Recounted instances where agencies completely misspent the funds Congress had provided, and that Congress had not noticed such action until it was too late to do anything. Labelled the administration of the House wasteful, fragmented, and inefficient. Noted the slowness with which purchases are made, and criticized the House Administration Committee's "approved list" of product and service vendors, noting that many equipment sources are much more expensive than ordinary public companies. Computer systems are faulty as well: too cumbersome and not user friendly. Better electronic data transfer in Congress is vital and it is much more common in the private sector. Why can't the House match or exceed the best private sector uses of information technology? In closing, criticized those who run for Congress by criticizing those who are in it, even their current colleagues. Such campaigns misrepresent and distort public perceptions of Congress. Urged the House to experiment with better ways of educating the public about congressional activities. Questions and Answers Emerson: Your testimony covers the principal areas in which the Joint Committee anticipates making recommendations. I concur in the need for better oversight and the related proposal for a two-year budget cycle. Do you think that the House is ready for serious reform? Kanjorski: Members will support change, but only so long as they are not directly affected. The 110 freshmen and some other blocks of Members can form the nucleus of support for any reform package. This effort is the last chance to save the congressional system; the public is so disenchanted with the political environment, it might endorse a shift to a parliamentary system as a way to get fast action. Emerson: I am not certain that one can reform the human element in the congressional system, or in the executive branch. I disagree regarding the parliamentary system; Congress was never supposed to be efficient. Kanjorski: Congress does not need to be efficient, but it needs to be able to deliberate and consult. Member-to-Member contact is vastly lower than forty years ago. Members need time to talk among themselves, and to talk with their executive branch counterparts both in framing policy and in reviewing it. Panel Presentation by Representative Tillie Fowler, Representative Peter Torkildsen, Representative Karen Shepherd, and Representative Eric Fingerhut As co-chairs of the Republican Freshman and Democratic Freshman Class Task Forces on Reform, respectively, they reported on their efforts to achieve bipartisan agreement on certain reform agenda items. Representative Karen Shepherd Both groups endorsed the Shays-Swett Congressional Accountability Act, bringing congressional employees under coverage of Federal labor and work place laws. Through their efforts, the bill now has been cosponsored by a majority of House Members. They also worked together with Representative Porter Goss of Florida to craft an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill phasing out benefits for former Speakers of the House, and will next turn to a similar phase out for former Presidents. They have reached bipartisan accord in campaign finance reform, both groups supporting an end to PAC contributions, soft money restrictions, and better lobbying disclosure. Representative Eric Fingerhut Noted both groups' concern for scheduling reform, an attempt to avoid the problem of doing too much in not enough time. Supported a three weeks on/one off scheduling plan. Supported bold jurisdictional shifts among committees to make the remaining committees more attractive; the demand to serve on more committees reflects a view that many committees are not enticing enough for Members. Representative Tillie Fowler Observed that the freshman classes, the largest such group since 1948, provides an unprecedented chance for reform since so many Members have such little stake in preserving the status quo. As a former Democratic staffer and now Republican Member, expressed concern with the heightened level of partisanship in the House, more than she experienced two decades ago. Representative Peter Torkildsen Noted the success in generating support for the Shays-Swett bill and other bipartisan efforts of the group. Questions and Answers Allard: What are the chances that the bipartisan freshman groups could work in concert with the sophomore groups in both parties? Fowler: I would supported such efforts if the two sophomore groups could work in tandem as the freshman groups have. Fingerhut: The key to such work is bipartisanship. Allard: As a sophomore Republican, I believe that an agreement might be possible on a reduction in committee budgets, reform in multiple referrals, enforcement of printing availability and layover rules, closed rules and debate restrictions, better Hill administration, more predictable scheduling, and possibly even on line-item veto. Torkildsen: Democrats and Republicans might not be able to agree on a line-item veto. Fingerhut: On layover rules, the proposals are all tied to debate limitations and scheduling predictability. The lack of quality debate coupled with fragmented attention to issues are all linked. The line-item veto agreement is not possible; freshman Democrats did not mention it at all in their package, because of conscientious opposition from some Democrats that would have threatened the entire package. There is much frustration about the issue: a majority of both parties support line-item veto proposals, but they have been unable to reach agreement on the procedures for debating and voting on the issue. Partisan squabbles have increased. Dunn: I congratulate your work on allowances for former Speakers. I agree that the freshmen will be an important force in any future successes in enacting a reform agenda. Fowler: There will be continued support from freshmen for reform. Torkildsen: The sheer number of freshmen Members is a clear indication of public dissatisfaction with Congress. If Congress does not succeed in reforms, the next freshman class will be comparably large. Shepherd: Both groups cannot truly speak for all freshmen. There is, predictably, strong support for reform in general, but particulars bring out opposition from individuals or from blocks within the classes. But, we will work toward reform since this is the best window of opportunity many will ever have. Dreier: Freshmen are the key. GOP opposition to the rule on the line-item veto was not due to the substance of it, but to the fact that the Republican Leader was denied the opportunity to offer a key amendment that he sought. Fingerhut: The bill has caused difficulties, and as an issue of conscience for Members on both sides of the aisle, compromise was extraordinarily difficult. Dreier: I hope to achieve a consensus on freer and more open debate, and better adherence to current rules. We've spent a lot of time on reform efforts so far, and we don't want to have wasted the effort. Shepherd: There is some shifting of opinion in the Democratic group on the issue of open rules. Fingerhut: As a Democrat, I want procedures that are democratic, with a small "d". Twenty-one Witnesses: HEARING SUMMARY, JUNE 29, 1993 Representative Neal Smith, Ned Massee, Fred Wertheimer, Paul Jacob, Joseph DioGuardi, Frank Horton, Joseph Gimelli, Richard Gutting, Thomas Schatz, David Slade, Beth Marks, Margaret Dunkle, Arthur Sackler, Gerald Leape, Karyn Strickler, Craig Van Note, and Andrew Palmer. Senator Byron Dorgan, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Dan Coats, and Senator Sam Nunn Representative Neal Smith As a former chair of the House Democratic Caucus Committee on Organization, Study, and Review, I understand the difficulty of putting together reform. You have to separate the long-term effects from the short term-effects. There are three major problems with Congress we are not effective, we are not getting the job done on time, and we do not have enough time to consider legislation. The reason for these problems is tardy authorization because of one year instead of multi-year authorizations. We are really on a three year cycle: one year to develop the program, one year to authorize the program, and one year to implement the program with mid-year corrections. Last October, the Defense Department made their request for 1994. Around February, they presented an authorization. The Appropriations Committee then held hearings in the spring on the Pentagon's idea of an authorization instead of on the law passed by Congress. The appropriation was held up waiting for an obsolete authorization. Bills with multi-year authorization, such as agriculture, education, health, and science & technology do not have the same problems. Hearings are held on the law and there is time for oversight. There should be a new rule that no authorizations should be allowed on the floor unless they are for years in advance of those being appropriated for or if they are phasing out an old program. The number of committees and subcommittees should be decreased and membership should be limited. The present system of letting anyone serve anywhere began in 1975. Before 1975, we had balanced committees, now we have special interest committees. We need to return to balanced committees. The full committee chair should only chair its subcommittee on oversight. Ned Massee, Chamber of Commerce In 1991, the Chamber's Public Affairs Committee organized its Government Process Task Force. Our mission was to consider improvements in the overall |