RESPONSE TO QUESTION CONCERNING NUMBERS AND ASSIGNMENTS As I stated in my testimony, I do believe that Members have too many assignments. I am not sure that there is an "optimum" number, but my recommendations did include specific suggestions on how to reduce the assignments we receive. While my testimony addressed the situation in the House, I believe that this problem is as bad, if not worse, in the Senate. Specifically, I recommended limiting the size of committees in the House to no more than 30 or 35 Members for "major" committees and 20 or 25 Members for "non-major" committees. I also suggested that there be no more than five subcommittees for "major" committees and three for "non-major" committees. I further suggested that subcommittees be limited to no more than a proportionate share of the committee's total size to the number of subcommittees (e.g., the limit on subcommittee size for a committee with five subcommittees would be no more than 20% of the full committee's membership). As to your question about how to prevent waivers of these or other limitations, I have no real answer except to say that we need strong leadership in an institution like Congress, and without it any reform will be of dubious value. In the final analysis, however, self-discipline within the institution is the final answer anything that either House can do can presumably be undone. ANSWER TO QUESTION ON SCHEDULING CONFLICTS In my testimony I touched on the possibility of setting aside certain days of the week for meetings by various types of committees as one way of reducing scheduling conflicts. But I also believe that meaningful limitations on the number of assignments would itself go far toward reducing schedule conflicts, at least as far as overlapping committee meetings are concerned. RESPONSE TO QUESTION ON COMMITTEE JURISDICTIONS There may be some areas where jurisdictional overlap has contributed to Congressional inefficiencies. I do not believe that there are many such instances, nor that solving them will produce particularly noticeable gains in efficiency. I do believe that there should be some reform of multiple referrals so as to make it more difficult for committees with partial jurisdiction over an issue to thwart the ability of the whole House (or Senate) to work its will on that issue. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ON PROCEDURAL REFORM Again, my view is that if we bring about a substantial reduction in the number of assignments we will have achieved major reform, and any additional steps should be put off until we can analyze the effects of reduced assignments. Quorum requirements and proxy voting are among the items that I would put in this category. As to questions about adequacy of Committee reports, etc., I would point out that we can try to legislate competency, but we won't succeed. ANSWER TO QUESTION ABOUT STAFFING/FUNDING We Committee staff sizes can probably be reduced somewhat. should be careful not to go too far, however. Congress needs to retain its ability to ascertain facts on its own; it would be dangerous for Congress to become overly dependent on the Executive Branch for information, no matter who might hold the White House from time to time. The Honorable Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairman The Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Vice Chairman Dear Colleagues: This refers to your letter of June 1, 1993, requesting my responses to several questions relating to the structure of committees, scheduling conflicts, and legislative procedures. Question 1 relates to the number of committees, subcommittees, and Members' assignments. As I stated during my appearance before the Joint Committee on April 29, I do not see the necessity for eliminating any committees of the House. The fact that the House has more Members and, therefore, is able to have more committees is, in my view, a distinct advantage. The committee structure of the House affords House Members the luxury of being able to specialize in specific subjects and to explore those subjects in greater depth than our colleagues in the Senate. With respect to Members' assignments, I believe that many of our problems could be solved by limiting Members to no more than two committee assignments. I believe that the current system in the House of classifying committees as exclusive, major or nonmajor is appropriate and necessary. Those Members who are not assigned to an exclusive committee should be limited to service on one major and one non-major committee or on two non-major committees, and there should be no exceptions to this rule. Concerning a further reduction in the number of subcommittees, I believe that such a reduction could produce the desired effect only if Members are limited to service on two committees, as suggested above. If committees were limited to establishing only four subcommittees, but Members were allowed to serve on more than two committees, many committees still would have difficulty in filling all of their subcommittee slots. 2 Question 2 concerns the elimination of scheduling conflicts. In general, I would say that many of our scheduling problems could be resolved by limiting the number of committee and subcommittee assignments, as discussed in my response to question 1, above. With respect to other proposals, I do not believe it would be at all feasible to bar committee or subcommittee meetings whenever the House is in session. Given the consistently busy schedule of the House, I do not believe that the committees would be able to fully carry out their responsibilities if such a prohibition were in effect. related point, I am in favor of allowing committees to meet during proceedings under the "5-minute rule." This amendment to the House rules, adopted at the beginning of this Congress, has enabled the committees to conduct their business in a more predictable and effective manner. On a One proposal that I believe could have a significant effect on scheduling conflicts is to designate a certain day of each week on which only major committees could schedule meetings and a different day of each week on which only non-major committees could meet. This would assure most members that on those designated days there would be few or no conflicts between their two committee assignments. In addition, I suggest that on those two designated meeting days, the House leadership ensure that the House will not convene prior to noon. Question 3 concerns committee jurisdiction. The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service does not have a significant problem with respect to overlapping jurisdiction. There is some overlap of jurisdiction with the Committee on House Administration in the area of pay and benefits applicable to Members and Congressional branch employees. Also, in certain areas, such as General Accounting Office personnel issues and travel and transportation benefits of Federal employees, the Committee's jurisdiction overlaps with that of the Government Operations Committee. This Committee's biggest problem is convincing other committees of the House to refrain from including in their reported bills provisions which fall within the jurisdiction and, therefore, the expertise of this Committee. While our efforts usually are successful, there are occasions when our sole protection lies in our ability to request a sequential referral of the reported bill. I believe a committee's right to request sequential referral in such situations is essential, and I strenuously urge that such right be retained. 3 Question 4 relates to committee procedures. I do not see the need for any drastic changes in the procedures applicable to committees of the House. The right to vote by proxy in committee meetings is necessary, and should be retained, as long as scheduling conflicts are unavoidable. Members should not be denied the right to cast their votes on important issues when the demands of their schedules preclude their attendance at committee meetings. Also, I would not support any change in the so-called rolling quorum provision at this time. Since this provision has been in effect for only six months, I believe any proposal to amend or repeal the provision would be premature. Question 5 relates to committee staffing levels and methods for allocating committee funds. I do not believe that the total Committee staffing level should be reduced. Cutting staff levels for the sake of cutting staff levels is a bad idea that would seriously impair the ability of the United States Congress-- its members and its committees -- to carry out its legislative and oversight responsibilities. It is unthinkable that the United States Congress would cut back on its capacity to deal with the Nation's problems at a time when American society grows larger and more diverse, its problems more daunting and deeper, and its technological-industrial society more complicated. With regard to the question of how a committee's resources should be divided, I hesitate to recommend any one particular way to divide committee staff and funds because the characteristics of each committee, that is, its jurisdiction, its size, its funding, etc., vary. The most optimal way to divide staff and funds may vary for each committee. As a general matter, my view is that the chairman of the full committee should evaluate the needs of the full committee, the subcommittees and the minority every fiscal year and recommend an appropriate allocation. should be full realization that while the subcommittees, the minority and rank and file members contribute to the work of a committee, it is the full committee that is ultimately responsible for the smooth operation of both the administrative and legislative functions of the committee, and therefore is in the best position to allocate resources rationally. Sincerely, Bell WILLIAM L. CLAY There |