[Senate Hearing 112-537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-537
RAISING THE BAR FOR CONGRESS: REFORM PROPOSALS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2012
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-685 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Joseph C. Harris Jr., Counsel, Office of Senator Lieberman
Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director
Julie A. Dunne, Minority Senior Counsel
Jennifer L. Tarr, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 4
Senator Brown................................................ 22
Senator Johnson.............................................. 25
Senator Pryor................................................ 27
Senator Coburn............................................... 29
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 33
Senator Collins.............................................. 36
WITNESSES
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Hon. Johnny Isakson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia.... 6
Hon. Dean Heller, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada........ 8
Hon. Jim Cooper, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee...................................................... 11
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Co-Founder, No Labels; Director, Federal
Government Affairs, Deloitte and Touche LLP.................... 13
William A. Galston, Co-Founder, No Labels; Senior Fellow,
Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.................. 15
Donald R. Wolfensberger, Director, Congress Project, Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars....................... 17
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cooper, Hon. Jim:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Davis, Hon. Thomas M.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Galston, William A.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Heller, Hon. Dean:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Isakson, Hon. Johnny:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Wolfensberger, Donald R.:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 53
APPENDIX
Chart referenced by Senator Johnson.............................. 57
Testimony supplement submitted for the Record by Mr. Galston..... 58
Documents submitted for the Record by Mr. Galston................ 61
Letter from Mr. Galston and Mr. Davis, dated March 27, 2012...... 92
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
Mr. Davis.................................................... 93
Mr. Galston.................................................. 95
Mr. Wolfensberger............................................ 96
RAISING THE BAR FOR CONGRESS: REFORM PROPOSALS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Pryor, Collins, Coburn, Brown,
and Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The hearing will come to order. Good
morning. And before we proceed, I know Senator Brown would like
to be recognized to make a brief statement.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just note I
am running the Veterans Committee's hearing over in the Russell
Building. I am going to go and do that for a little bit, and I
will be back, but I just wanted to just let you know that. And
now that my spot is reserved, I appreciate it.
Chairman Lieberman. Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. Thanks to everybody who is here
for this hearing this morning.
As you know, we are going to discuss ways this morning to
break the present gridlock in Congress and get this institution
back to what it was created to do, which is to work
productively for our country.
I know that for some people the very decision to hold this
hearing was controversial. They have asked us why we would do
it. And my response was a question back: Why wouldn't we want
to hold this hearing? Why would anyone feel, based on the
record, that Congress is fulfilling its responsibilities to the
American people? Why wouldn't we want to open the conversation,
particularly on the broad series of proposals made by a
relatively new citizen-grassroots, good-government group called
No Labels?
I know that the particular legislative proposal--the one
part of the No Labels reform program that is legislative has
been referred to this Committee--the No Budget, No Pay
proposal, is controversial. But it, too, in many ways expresses
and frames the public mood toward Congress today.
Somebody said to me this proposal is like a legislative
scream--it is. And it is a scream--whether Members of Congress
agree with it or not--that has to be heard and responded to.
The fact is that, as everybody knows, the public's
estimation of Congress is at historic lows, and there is ample
reason why that is so. Congress is just not fulfilling some of
the basic responsibilities that the Constitution gives us,
including, of course, the responsibility to propose, to debate,
and to adopt in a timely manner a budget for our country. Let
me give you some examples of why we are here.
It has been more than 3 years since Congress has passed a
budget on time and more than a decade since Congress has done
so in the manner prescribed by the rules, with all of its
appropriations bills being separately considered and passed.
Nominations to judicial and executive positions are often
held up for months for political reasons by procedural
maneuvers, and then when those nominations come to the floor,
they pass by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. But in the
meantime, important parts of our Executive and Judicial
Branches of government have gone without the leadership that
they need to function on the people's behalf.
On Monday of this week, in the midst of what has been
called a judicial emergency, which is to say that there are
great backlogs of cases in many Federal courts because there
are not enough sitting judges, the Majority Leader of the
Senate filed procedural motions on the nominations of 17 judges
which have been held up, even though they came out of the
Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support.
And then last summer, as we all know, we came perilously
close to defaulting on our Nation's fiscal obligations as the
debt ceiling fight dragged on and on to a critical deadline.
Default would not only have left us unable to pay our debt, but
would have also forced a government shutdown.
Standard & Poor's concisely summed up the situation when it
announced it was dropping our Nation's long-time AAA credit
rating to AA-plus, and Standard & Poor's said, ``The downgrade
reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and
predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and
economic challenges.'' That is a classic financial community
understatement, but it is surely the sad truth.
Today we are going to consider those possible reforms that
No Labels and others have put forward, and as we consider them,
I think we also need to focus on the prevailing political and
congressional mentality that considers ``compromise'' a dirty
word and makes legislative gridlock practically inevitable.
Partisanship and ideology have been a part of American
democracy since our beginning, but our forefathers did not let
their competing partisan loyalties and often quite strongly
held competing views prevent them from reaching the kind of
compromises that were so central to the formation of our
country and to the progress that we have achieved since then.
In fact, the House and the Senate are themselves the result of
the Great Compromise, which is the erroneous name for it--the
correct name is, of course, the ``Connecticut Compromise.''
[Laughter.]
Because it was authored by two of my home State's delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman and Oliver
Ellsworth, as a way to balance the interests of the large-
population States and the small-population States. It was one
of the very reasons why the Constitution was adopted and how
the government was able to proceed.
Among the very first legislative issues that Congress had
to confront was how to fund the Federal Government and how to
pay off our Revolutionary War debt. Sound familiar? Factions
quickly lined up behind two of the great giants of the day,
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, but both of those men
and their followers were able to work through their differences
and reach a compromise agreement that put our Nation on a sound
financial footing that both funded the Federal Government and
paid down the debt.
And in modern times, which seem far from where we are now,
Congress has been able to put together bipartisan majorities to
pass a lot of landmark legislation and in doing so overcame
serious differences--I am thinking here, for instance, of the
creation of Social Security or the Civil Rights Acts of the
1960s. They took on historic challenges and transformed our
Nation in ways that are everlasting.
Compromise in all these cases meant not an abandonment of
principle, but a willingness by all involved to settle for less
than 100 percent of what each had originally sought.
Today, while the enormous challenges our Nation faces
continue, the spirit of compromise is largely gone. Today
members who honestly seek to understand and accommodate views
from the other side of the aisle are not often embraced warmly
by their own parties. In fact, too often they are punished.
We have a national debt today approaching $16 trillion and
13 million of our fellow Americans remain unemployed. Our
Nation's computer networks, on which so much of our economic
prosperity and national defense depend, are under attack from
rival nations, terrorists, and organized criminal syndicates.
Iran seeks a nuclear weapon. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
is massacring his own people, and our mission in Afghanistan is
foundering.
We need a Congress that can vigorously debate these and the
many other great challenges we face, find compromise, and then
come together for the good of the Nation. And that is why I
think the proposals that we are going to hear today really
offer us the hope of getting America's legislative train back
on track.
We are going to hear not only testimony from colleagues
Senator Dean Heller and Congressman Jim Cooper on the No
Budget, No Pay proposal, but Senator Johnny Isakson is here to
testify about the biennial budget proposal, which is a response
to that. And then on the second panel, we will have some
outside experts, independent thinkers who will comment on the
range of proposals before us.
I have spent a lot of time going back to the early
Americans because I think we need their wisdom and also the
model that they set by their actions. President Washington, in
his first address to a joint session of the House and Senate on
April 30, 1789, after he was sworn in, closed with a prayer
asking that ``the benign parent of the human race'' bestow his
blessing on the House and Senate so that they might deliberate
in ``perfect tranquility'' with ``enlarged views'' and
``temperate consultations.''
It seems like a long time ago. However, history shows in
the decades and centuries since then that Congress has at times
reached Washington's level and realized his vision, and when it
has done so, it has been at its best. Now more than ever,
Congress needs to put partisanship and ideological rigidity
aside and put the needs of our great country first. We need to
talk to each other, as Washington said, ``in temperate
language'' so that we might not only enlarge our views but
bring needed tranquility to the national dialogue as well--and,
incidentally, provide results to the people of America who have
been good enough to give us the privilege of serving here.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With enormous problems facing our country and Congress
having little to show by way of accomplishments, our witnesses
today are shining a spotlight on how Congress could accomplish
more and bicker less.
A recent analysis by the Washington Times reveals that last
year marked the least productive session of Congress in more
than 60 years. Whether one examines hours of debate, the amount
of conference reports produced, or the number of votes taken,
the data validate the instinctive frustration that many
Americans feel about the lack of accomplishments in Washington.
Like many of our witnesses, I have always believed that
bipartisanship and compromise are the key to tackling the major
problems confronting our Nation, whether it is a poor economy,
high gasoline prices, or the $15 trillion debt.
Unfortunately, however, that seems out of fashion today.
Sitting down with those on the opposite side of an issue,
figuring out what matters most to each side, negotiating in
good faith, and attempting to reach a solution are actions that
are too often vilified by the partisans on each side of the
aisle. Perhaps that is why the American people are so angry
with incumbents and why the public's perception of Congress is
so dismal.
And who can blame the public for their frustration? Today
we are marking 1,050 days since the Senate has passed a budget.
The Majority Leader has made the stunning statement that he
does not intend to take up the President's budget--or any other
budget, for that matter--which is a troubling abdication of the
Senate's responsibility under the law.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974, a law written by one of my predecessors, Senator Ed
Muskie from Maine, requires Congress to adopt an annual budget
resolution, and that budget is critical to controlling spending
through binding caps and is essential if we are to rein in our
ruinous debt that is now virtually the size of the entire
economy.
So I certainly understand the desire to hold Congress' feet
to the fire. Some of the proposals discussed here today could
help while others may not be as effective. I believe that there
are several worthwhile reform options that we should and must
consider.
First, let us take up each and every one of the
appropriations bills on time prior to the start of the fiscal
year and allow each bill to be debated, amended, and considered
on its own merits. That would help restore the public's
confidence, lead to more carefully considered bills, and
restore the Senate tradition of free and open debate. This bad
habit of combining all or most of the funding bills into one
gargantuan package produces thousands of pages and little time
for Members to scrutinize the fine print and trillions of
dollars in spending.
Second, we need a better understanding of the programs we
fund and how they are working or not working. That requires
more rigorous and more frequent oversight, and that is why I am
proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Isakson's bill that would
establish a budget for 2 years rather than one. This is the
approach that is used by the State of Maine and many other
States. Such a schedule would free Congress to devote the off
year to conducting oversight together in a bipartisan way on
the programs and agencies we fund, regardless of which party is
in charge of the Executive Branch. More systemic due diligence
could produce more bipartisan consensus about needed reforms,
program eliminations, and spending reductions, or even spending
increases for some worthwhile programs. I am grateful that our
colleague, Senator Isakson, is here today to discuss his
biennial budgeting bill.
Third, I want to acknowledge Senator Coburn's leadership in
offering legislation aimed at identifying redundancy and
overlap in Federal programs. Without better information,
Congress will continue to create scores of new programs every
year, adding to the thousands that already exist. America
cannot afford any further delay in creating the transparency
that would help us prevent duplication and overlap.
There is another proposal that we are considering today
from the No Labels organization that would require Members to
go without pay unless we pass a budget and all of the regular
appropriations bills prior to the October 1 deadline. Our
esteemed colleagues Senator Heller and Congressman Cooper are
presenting this intriguing option. Of course, I think it is
important to acknowledge that the power to negotiate a budget
through a committee and bring it up for a vote on the Senate
floor is not equally shared by all Members, no matter how
forcefully those of us who are not in leadership may advocate
for a budget.
My point is that my own determination to pass a budget is
motivated by doing what is best, by doing what is right, for
the people of Maine and for the citizens of this Nation. But I
do not control the Senate agenda.
What might be more effective? Changing the rules to require
that a budget be passed before a single funding bill could be
considered and passing Senator Isakson's biennial budget bill
are two worthwhile options that would make a difference.
As Americans tighten their belts in these troubled times,
they have less tolerance for a profligate, partisan Congress
that avoids the most basic discipline of developing a budget,
and that must change.
Finally, let me very briefly touch on another proposal put
forth by No Labels. It aims to improve congressional civility
by calling for no negative campaigning against fellow
incumbents. I am a firm believer in what I refer to as ``the
Chafee rule.'' When I was a freshman Senator in 1997, Senator
John Chafee of Rhode Island advised me never to campaign
against those with whom I serve. ``Campaign for your Republican
colleagues,'' he said. ``Go into States with open seats. But do
not campaign against your Democratic colleagues. It will poison
your relationships with them and make it far more difficult for
you to work with them.''
That was great advice, and it is advice that I have always
followed. But, nevertheless, the Chafee rule, to which I
adhere, is distinct from a ban on saying unpleasant or
uncomfortable things about the actions of our colleagues. What
would such a ban have meant in June 1950 when Senator Margaret
Chase Smith, a freshman Senator, took to the floor of the
Senate and spoke out against Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was
sitting just two rows behind her? She denounced his actions as
an assault on the right to criticize, to hold unpopular
beliefs, to protest, and to have independent thought. And she
did that not only on the Senate floor but elsewhere.
So I think we have to be careful to make sure that we
strike the right balance. I strongly support efforts to bring
more civility to Congress. I believe, however, that despite
rules or bans or pledges, Members have always been and will
always be restrained primarily by their own decency and their
commitment to the voters, their country, and our Constitution,
and by the American people demanding more civility in Congress.
I look forward to a discussion of these issues today, and
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins, for
that excellent statement. Of course, I agree with you on the
whole idea that Members of Congress should not campaign against
colleagues of the other party. In our case, we have taken that
even one step further. Though we are of different parties, we
have campaigned for each other. And that is not the reason why
we work so well together, and I think this Committee has been
productive, but it sure does not hurt.
We will go now to our first panel. I do want to say for the
record, unfortunately, the Senate will begin voting on matters
at 11:30. That means I can stay at least close to 11:45. If we
are not fully done, I will try to come back. But there will be
three votes then on the highway bill.
So let us proceed with Senator Isakson, and we call in
order of seniority. I notice the No Labels provision does not
inherently call for an end to the seniority system, so we can
call you without guilt first, Senator Isakson.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Lieberman, and thank you, Senator Collins. You both are
examples of what these people here today want out of our
Congress, and that is good people dedicated to solving problems
and reaching across party lines to work together. And I commend
you on holding this hearing today. I commend Representative
Cooper and my colleague Senator Heller for their engagement in
this important issue. And I take personal privilege to
acknowledge the presence of Lisa Borders, an outstanding
elected and civic leader of the City of Atlanta for whom I have
the greatest admiration and appreciation for what she has done
for so many years in our city.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Isakson appears in the
Appendix on page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to ask unanimous consent that my printed
statement be included in the record.
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Isakson. I do that because I want to talk to you
very personally and very sincerely and not reading from a piece
of paper, which I will put over here.
George Washington engaged the benign parent to come to the
House and Senate and allow them to debate in civil discord so
they could come up with decisions that made sense for the
country. We now suffer from benign neglect in the Congress of
the United States of America. We neglect the most important
responsibilities that we have, and we suffer because of that.
Senator Johnson, who sits to your right and my left, ran a
business very successfully for years, a lot more successfully,
I am sure, than mine. But I ran a business for years, and in my
business, every September we began having all of our branch
offices, all 28 of them, submit a budget. We had a retreat in
November where we thrashed out the budget. We set our goals for
sales in the future, determined how much revenue would come in
because of those sales. And then we budgeted our expenditures
accordingly, and we kicked off the next year knowing what we
expected to earn, what we were going to spend out of that, and
how much of a bottom line the company was going to have to
reinvest in the company. And we spent that next year constantly
tweaking that budget based on circumstances. We had a system
that forced us to do the right thing.
The Congress of the United States needs a system to force
it to do the right thing. Twenty of the 50 States have biennial
budgets, and I am very honored that Jeanne Shaheen, the former
governor of New Hampshire, a fellow Member of the Senate and a
Democrat, joined me in this legislation, along with 32 other
Members of the Senate, in a bipartisan bill promoting the
biennial budget. And what it portends is this: Instead of
budgeting and appropriating every year--or in this case as we
are doing now--you set up a system where in the first year of a
new Congress you do a 2-year budget and a 2-year appropriations
act. The odd-numbered year is the first year and the even-
numbered year is the second year. The biennial appropriation
then allows you to do oversight of that spending in the even-
numbered year, which just happens to be the year you are
running for re-election if you are in the House, or every three
elections you are running for in the Senate. So instead of
campaigning on the bacon you are bringing home from the budget
process, you are talking about the savings you are finding and
efficiencies through oversight.
There is a trash bin somewhere in Washington, DC, or a
recycling bin, where all the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
reports and all the inspector general (IG) reports go and are
thrown away. We call for investigations every year in
efficiency. We call on agencies to examine themselves. We have
hearings on them. There is one hearing, no follow-up, it goes
in the trash bin, and we go back to a process of arguing
politically over whether we should budget at all.
So my proposal is very simple. It is not an original idea.
It is not mine. It is the original idea of 20 of our most
fiscally sound States. It is based on my experience as a
businessman. It is based on the practical knowledge that
everybody in this room understands. Every American family in
our recession has had to sit around their kitchen table
prioritizing their expenditures and living within their means.
It is time the government that they elect did the exact same
thing. And I would submit to you the Biennial Budget and
Appropriations Act is the way to do that.
Last, I find it interesting that 3 years ago Congress
passed a biennial budget and a biennial appropriations act. We
did it when we were almost on the doorstep of a government
shutdown. We knew we had all these veterans coming home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, and we did a 2-year appropriation for the
Veterans Administration to have the continuity of funding to
take care of the soldiers that had risked their lives or even
died for us. If it was that serious for that occasion, it is
that serious now for the entire government. It is a way to
systematically appropriate and budget, plan and have
accountability, and in the end have a more efficient government
that responds to what the American people want sitting around
our kitchen table debating our priorities and living within our
means.
I thank the both of you for the time to testify today.
Chairman Lieberman. Senator Isakson, thanks very much for
that statement. I was thinking as you were talking, I think if
there is one thing on which Members of the Senate on a
nonpartisan basis, it is that you carry within yourself the
civility and temperament that Washington hoped for in Members
of the Senate.
I know you have a busy schedule, so whenever you want to
leave, we will understand.
Senator Isakson. If we are not going to do questions, I
will leave because I have to co-chair a hearing for another
committee.
Chairman Lieberman. Go right ahead. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Lieberman. Next we go to Senator Dean Heller from
the State of Nevada. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DEAN HELLER,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks for the
introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Heller appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent a letter to you and Ranking Member Collins last
September, to encourage this Committee to look at this
legislation. And I appreciate the opportunity and thank you for
the opportunity to talk about No Budget, No Pay, something
obviously supported by myself, a Republican; my colleague here
to my left, Congressman Cooper, a Democrat; and the No Labels
community, a bipartisan group that is looking for ways to
change the direction of Washington.
I want to start out by talking about the State of Nevada
that is currently enduring the highest unemployment rate in the
country. In fact, Nevada has led the Nation in unemployment for
more than 2 years. And as I travel the State, I hear from
individuals who are laboring to make ends meet--families who
stay up late working on their budget around the kitchen table.
But in Washington, DC, it is business as usual. Our
Nation's capital remains a pain-free zone. Congress continually
kicks the can down the road, leaving tough fiscal decisions for
future congresses, future administrations, and, of course,
future generations.
Our failure to budget is one major example. President
Obama's most recent State of the Union address marked 1,000
days since the U.S. Senate passed a binding budget resolution.
Since Congress last passed a budget, the Federal Government has
spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion to the debt. In
fiscal year 2011 alone, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare
that to the last time the budget was balanced, when $1.8
trillion was spent.
I was particularly concerned by the tone set for the 2013
fiscal year, as Senate leadership announced there would not be
a regular budget process before the President even submitted
his budget.
As the budget has been ignored, the regular appropriations
process has broken down. Huge omnibus spending measures and
continuing resolutions have replaced the regular appropriations
process. This regular appropriations process is a means through
which Congress should be engaged in rigorous oversight of
Federal spending, and Congress has proven delinquent in its
duties through a dysfunctional addiction to short-term,
shortsighted funding measures.
Members of Congress are willfully refusing to put our
Nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. As long as
this is the case, Americans will continue to be frustrated and
angry with Washington's inability to produce real results.
In light of these facts, is it really any mystery why
Congress is currently experiencing its worst approval ratings
in history?
I crafted the No Budget, No Pay Act to force Congress to
face reality and take responsibility for running this country.
This legislation requires that the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives pass a budget and all appropriations bills by
the beginning of each fiscal year. Failure to do so would
result in the loss of pay until Congress takes its job
seriously. If Congress does not complete its constitutional
duties, then Members should not be paid.
This concept resonates with the American people. I know
because I asked Nevadans during a series of telephone town hall
meetings last year whether they supported a bill that would
withhold Members of Congress' pay if they failed to pass a
budget. I include Nevadans of all political persuasions--
including Independents, Democrats, and Republicans. More than
4,000 Nevadans participated in this poll, and 84 percent of
them supported the No Budget, No Pay concept.
I doubt Nevada is alone in this sentiment. Members of the
Committee, I submit that if 84 percent of Americans across the
political spectrum agree on something, Congress needs to stop
what it is doing and pay attention.
If we spent more time talking about what the American
people agree on, I guarantee you that Congress would produce
better results. More importantly, we would actually implement
policies that would encourage the economic growth we need to
ensure that workers can have good jobs to provide for their
families.
I have had some people tell me that No Budget, No Pay is
just a talking point. But it is not to me, and it is not to the
bipartisan cosponsors who have joined this effort. No Budget,
No Pay would hold Congress accountable to the American people.
It reflects the principle that an honest day's work will result
in an honest day's pay.
Too many in Congress have come to expect an honest day's
pay whether or not they have actually accomplished the work of
the people. Members of Congress are indeed out of touch with
the American people if they believe they should be rewarded for
a job poorly done or one not done at all.
I have heard some of my colleagues scoff at the timeline
established by this legislation. But Congress has been able to
accomplish its regular budget and appropriations processes
before the start of new fiscal years in recent history. It
happened under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. And
it happened under President Reagan with a Democratic Congress
in 1988. There are a handful of other examples--not as many as
there should be--but the fact remains that these deadlines have
been met before, and now is the time to start meeting those
deadlines again.
While the No Budget, No Pay Act will not solve every
problem in Washington, I sincerely believe that it would help
restore regular order in the budget and the appropriations
processes. These essential functions of Congress are vital to
fiscal responsibility and keeping our Nation's fiscal house in
order. We cannot hope to make progress in this Congress or this
country until we take our constitutional responsibilities
seriously.
My hope is that the No Budget, No Pay Act will be adopted
as part of a broader effort to change the way Congress does
business and restore the confidence of the American people in
their government.
So, Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins, thank you for
holding this important hearing, and I deeply appreciate the
Committee's time and look forward to continuing this important
discussion in the future. Thanks.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Heller. We are
holding the hearing because we believe that the proposal you
have made with Congressman Cooper and others deserves attention
because it does express a public view, and it hopefully will
lead to some kind of action to deal with the total breakdown of
the budget process hopefully in this session of Congress.
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
Congressman Cooper from Tennessee, welcome to the other
side of the Capitol. You are always welcome here. It is good to
see you this morning.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM COOPER,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman and Senator
Collins. I appreciate your holding this hearing, and I also
appreciate the attendance of Senators Coburn, Pryor, and
Johnson. I appreciate your taking time to be here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper appears in the Appendix on
page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As everyone knows, about 90 percent of the public
disapproves of the way that Congress has been acting.
Unfortunately, too few of our colleagues are listening to that
discontent, and too few are focusing on ways to fix the broken
branch of government.
I have been working on this for many years--I had a book
out in 2006--and trying to do my best to improve this
institution, which I dearly love. But we have to realize that
this year we have a rare chance to make some of these good
reform ideas reality.
I think this hearing is important because this is the first
formal institutional recognition that I have seen that Congress
knows it is sick. The question is: Will Congress be able to
heal itself?
We do not know the answer to this question. First of all, a
reform has to be able for Congress to swallow. If a reform is
palatable but not strong enough to cure, it will not do any
good.
Congress is its own doctor. Neither the Supreme Court nor
the President can save us. We are our own physician here. Now,
if we do not act, I am confident that the public will.
When you ask Democratic and Republican leaders how to fix
the institution, their answer is always the same: ``Elect more
Democrats'' or ``Elect more Republicans.'' I wish the answer
were that simple. Unfortunately, neither political party has
been doing a good job. Neither party is willing to compromise
for the good of the Nation. Both parties, as we all know,
pander to the base and do all they can to blame the other.
Meanwhile the Nation suffers.
My favorite nonpartisan group, No Labels, has offered a
package of 12 reforms, and I am going to speak on the No
Budget, No Pay reform, but a number of these reforms deserve
attention, and I appreciate this Committee taking out time to
focus on these.
My colleague, Senator Isakson, mentioned biennial
budgeting, as did Senator Collins. I think that is a great
idea. I support it. But I am worried that without the No
Budget, No Pay Act, instead of Congress missing its annual
deadline, it would just miss its deadline every other year. We
still need an enforcement mechanism.
As we all know, Congress has missed so many budget and
appropriations deadlines now that really no one takes them
seriously. We have run government too long by continuing
resolution instead of annual appropriations. We have run
government almost on a month-to-month, sometimes a week-by-week
basis. That is no way to run a superpower. That is inexcusable.
Essentially, we have lost ``one Nation, under God,
indivisible,'' and we have gained ``one nation, yet again,
interrupted.'' I am afraid that our start/stop government is
giving everybody whiplash. America is the victim. And Congress
is simply not able to get away with this reckless driving
anymore.
We heard the warning last summer from Standard & Poor's
when they downgraded our credit rating for the first time in
history, and they warned us it is not just due to our budget
deficits, it is due to our political bickering. The ratings
outlook is still negative, and we could face yet another
downgrade unless we behave quickly.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could legislate civility and
wisdom in this body. Unfortunately, as you know, that is
impossible. But we can, at a minimum, force ourselves to meet
our most basic financial deadlines. That is what No Budget, No
Pay is all about, and we have to admit, most congressional
activity is difficult to measure. But our duty to meet key
financial deadlines is clear, achievable, and enforceable.
The idea of deadlines to me came from a constituent in
Nashville, Tennessee. He was completely fed up with Congress
and asked me why Congress was so shameless in repeatedly
missing our deadlines. He wondered why the members of the
public had to pay their taxes on time when we do not pay the
Nation's bills on time. I did not have a good answer for the
gentleman. Congress must come up with a good answer this year.
No principle is more basic to American values than no work,
no pay. The saying in Tennessee, often mentioned by a beloved
former governor of ours, is, ``If you don't want to work, you
ought not to hire out.'' People get it. And it is time that
Congress gets it, because the public expects Congress to lead
by example. If we shirk our duties, we should not get paid. No
budget, no pay. No appropriations bills, no pay.
Now, it is obvious that the No Budget, No Pay Act is not
popular with all of our colleagues, although we do have a
growing list of several dozen co-sponsors in the House. Some
concerns about the bill are certainly legitimate, but most of
our colleagues are simply running out of excuses for why
Congress is chronically late and irresponsible
In a normal year, we have to admit, reform efforts like the
No Budget, No Pay Act would not have a chance of becoming law.
It would have a zero chance of passage. But I think this year
is different. Instead of business as usual winning as usual, I
think that the public is so tired of our blame games, we are
going to act. Congress has not been this unpopular since
polling was invented.
I am confident that those of us who revere Congress as an
institution love it enough to tell it the truth, even when that
truth is painful to hear. I am confident that in this election
year, many of our colleagues will see that the real choice is
between reform or defeat, and I think they will choose reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Congressman
Cooper, for that statement. I thank both of you. I know, again,
you have very busy schedules.
We have a second panel which will testify on No Budget, No
Pay, also on the broader No Labels platform of proposals, and
we will have questions for them. But thanks for your
leadership, thanks for your statements, thanks for your time.
We wish you a good day.
Now we will call the second panel: Tom Davis, co-founder of
No Labels and currently the Director of Federal Government
Affairs at Deloitte and Touche; William A. Galston, co-founder,
No Labels, and senior fellow, Governance Studies at the
Brookings Institution; and Donald Wolfensberger, Director of
the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars.
I thank all of you for being here. We will give our Members
a moment to depart from the room.
Congressman Davis, apparently the rules of seniority go
even after you leave Congress, even though Bill Galston looks
so much older than you. [Laughter.]
Congressman, it is great to welcome you back. It was a real
pleasure to work with you when you were here, and I appreciate
very much your continuing interest in matters of public policy,
including particularly through the No Labels group.
TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS,\1\ CO-FOUNDER, NO LABELS;
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Chairman Lieberman. Senator
Collins, thank you for being here. We worked together on a
number of issues when I was in the House, and it is good to see
Senator Coburn and Senator Johnson here as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the Appendix on
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I
ask that my entire statement be part of the record.
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection.
Mr. Davis. And I am happy to be part of the discussion
today.
First of all, I want to start by congratulating this
Committee on several reform accomplishments that you have
already completed. Last June, S. 679, sponsored by the two of
you, cleared the Senate floor. Your bill took about 300
positions that currently require Senate confirmation, and
either took confirmation away or expedited the procedures,
allowing presidential appointees to be able to get to their
places on time and start work. And I am going to talk a little
bit more about that, but you have already moved on this.
Second, you have worked to establish a working group to
simplify the paperwork requirements for Federal appointees so
that the vetting process can proceed more expeditiously and
these appointments can get into place quicker, particularly
with new administrations.
And finally, and I think most importantly, you have
established a bipartisan mantra for this Committee, something
you do not see throughout the Congress. The two of you working
together, in your seating, you have set, I think, a tone for
Members working together. Those are the kinds of things I think
the public wants to see, and so you are doing your part already
to bring this about. This is not a Committee where you walk in
with a red jersey or a blue jersey, and as I said, even your
seating shows that.
But you are bucking some macro trends that we see growing
politically that tend to heighten and reward partisanship and
brinkmanship and punish compromise. We have seen just from the
National Journal's ratings an ideological sorting of the
parties now where the most liberal Republican votes more
conservative than the most conservative Democrat, and this is
reinforced in the House by the way Congressional Districts are
drawn. Now it is generally either a blue district or a red
district.
In 2010, you had the largest midterm turnover since 1938,
and yet as you approached election day, less than a quarter of
the House seats were really in play. That means most Members
look to their primaries as their major race, and primaries do
not reward bipartisanship. They tend to punish bipartisanship.
They tend to reward ideology.
Also reinforcing this is the fact that news media models
now crop up and just thrive on polarization. Their financial
models call for this kind of thing. We call it ``cognitive
dissonance'' in psychology. And on the Internet, with no
filters, you are getting the same kind of polarization.
Finally, I would just add, on a macro trend, the way
campaigns are financed today. Parties have been starved for
dollars and soft dollars have been taken away from parties.
This money has moved elsewhere into the political sphere, and
not to centering groups like political parties but out to
interest groups, which tend to be much more ideological.
So these are macro trends that have affected the way
Congress does its business, and you are trying to deal here
with changing some rules. The end result of all this is we are
turning into a parliamentary electoral system, as Congressman
Cooper noted, in a balance-of-powers government. And it has not
become a very good fit. It is an electoral model that our
Founders rejected, but it is just what has evolved.
So I want to address just three issues today that I think
would add to the discussion.
The first is that today presidential appointments are
routinely held up for oftentimes trivial and unrelated reasons.
Presidential appointees become collateral damage as part of
larger issues. Advise and Consent is often turned into Delay
and Obstruct, and this has discouraged qualified people from
entering government service and people getting to government
service on time, particularly for new administrations.
Our solution is pretty simple. Presidential nominations in
the Executive Branch would receive up-or-down votes within 90
days. It could still be 60 votes. You could keep that
threshold. But at least they would get some certainty, and not
left dangling out there after they have severed their business
ties, given up their stock options to wait in turn to try to
enter government service.
The second proposal deals with the filibuster. No one wants
to do away with the filibuster, but maybe just making the
filibuster a filibuster would help. In the first 50 years of
the filibuster, when a two-thirds vote was required, it was
used only 35 times, and that was when, as I said, two-thirds
was needed to invoke cloture. In the last 2 years alone--and
this has been with both parties--it was used over 100 times,
and Senators do not even have to show up on the floor now to
explain themselves. They just signal their intent to
filibuster, and it effectively stalls legislation. The upshot
is that even routine legislation has to clear 60 votes, and
constant filibustering also gums up the Senate calendar.
Look, I recognize that the filibuster is a powerful tool
and empowers the minority to force consensus on complex issues.
But the No Labels filibuster fix and what I suggest today, if
Senators want to filibuster, just show up. Go through it. Make
them stand up and talk through that time. Do not just file a
vote. They can go through this, and I think that would be a
discouraging factor.
And, finally, another idea that as Washington debates
finds, we often deal with different facts. What we want to put
forward is that every year our nonpartisan leaders, like the
Comptroller General, would come up before Congress and deliver
a televised address, where we could at least agree on the
facts. Today so often in the political sphere, we are not even
reading from the same set of facts. Everybody has their own
facts. Being able to do that to a joint session, televised,
would set, I think, a groundwork where, despite our
philosophical disagreements and partisan disagreements, we
would at least be reading off the same set of facts.
So, again, I appreciate being part of the discussion today,
and thank you both for holding this hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Congressman Davis. Thanks
for those three very thoughtful proposals, which really ought
to be adopted.
I take liberties with Mr. Galston because I have known him
so long, and without belaboring the point, I have great respect
for him, but also because he spent his formative years in
Connecticut, he brings to the table the spirit of Roger Sherman
and Oliver Ellsworth.
Mr. Galston. And other more roguish characters.
Chairman Lieberman. I was leaving that out. [Laughter.]
If anybody in the room is interested, see me later. Welcome
Mr. Galston.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. GALSTON,\1\ CO-FOUNDER, NO LABELS;
SENIOR FELLOW, GOVERNANCE STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Mr. Galston. Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, and
Members of the Committee, I am William Galston, a senior fellow
in Governance Studies at Brookings and one of the co-founders
of No Labels. I want to join the other witnesses in thanking
you for holding this hearing, and on a more personal note, I am
honored by this invitation and am grateful for this opportunity
to present my views on congressional reform. I will summarize
my written remarks, but I would respectfully submit them, along
with supplementary materials, for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Galston with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Galston. I begin with a brief description of No Labels.
We are a classic American grassroots organization--Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents united in the determination to
make our country better. We began 15 months ago with a meeting
that 1,000 citizens representing all 50 States attended at
their own expense. Since then, our membership has grown to
nearly half a million. We have bipartisan teams of citizen
leaders in every State and in all 435 congressional districts.
Our mission can be stated in a single sentence: We want to
help move our country from the old politics of point scoring
toward a new politics of problem solving. And I know that this
goal is widely shared in this room by the Members of the
Committee, and we are grateful for that.
A number of No Labels members are here today. As I think
you can see, they are not carrying torches and pitchforks. They
are worried but not angry, disappointed but still hopeful. They
want a government that makes progress on the country's real
problems. They are not from Washington--and they are here to
help. [Laughter.]
No Labels is a movement that meets a distinctive moment in
our Nation's history. Political scientists have confirmed what
pundits, elected officials, and citizens have long suspected:
Our party system is more divided than it used to be; indeed, to
judge by voting patterns, more deeply divided than at any time
since the 1890s. This has had consequences for the ability of
government at every level--but especially at the national
level--to reach agreement even on routine matters, let alone on
the challenges that require our system to break new ground.
Robust debate on fundamentals is, of course, the life blood
of a healthy democracy, but not if that debate yields mostly
gridlock and recriminations. In the eyes of most citizens,
regrettably, that is what has happened.
Now, while some citizens may have lost confidence in the
Members of Congress as individuals, No Labels has not. We
believe that our Senators and Representatives came to
Washington to promote the common defense and general welfare
and that they are as frustrated as anybody by the obstacles
that they have encountered. In our view, our elected
representatives are public-spirited individuals trapped in an
increasingly obsolete and dysfunctional system of congressional
rules and procedures designed for a very different era. The
correct response, No Labels believes, is to fix the system.
Just last week, one of your colleagues, Senator Olympia
Snowe, stunned the political world by announcing that she would
not seek a fourth term. She described a Senate that was no
longer capable of finding common ground, and in an op-ed in the
Washington Post, she said:
``I do not believe that, in the near term, the Senate can
correct itself from within. It is by nature a political entity
and, therefore, there must be a benefit to working across the
aisle.'' That benefit can come, she believes, only if the
American people raise their voices and demonstrate their desire
for a less polarized, more problem-solving brand of politics.
And that is precisely what No Labels seeks to do.
Our focus this year, as you know, is congressional reform.
Our 12-item agenda is summarized in the booklet, ``Make
Congress Work.'' Its title expresses the judgment that an
overwhelming majority of the American people has reached. These
12 recommendations collectively address three central elements
of congressional dysfunction: Hyper-polarization, gridlock,
and, as has already been noted, the dwindling of productive
discourse across party lines.
Now, it is fair to ask: If congressional polarization
reflects divisions in the country, how can procedural reforms
make a difference? And here is the answer: Although the
American people themselves are more divided than they used to
be, they are much less divided than are the political parties
that purport to represent them. This helps explain why so many
citizens feel unrepresented and left out, and it suggests that
by allowing their sentiments to find fuller expression,
procedural reforms could help reduce polarization.
Our Founding Fathers established a representative system.
They did not believe in government by plebiscite, and neither
does No Labels. Nonetheless, the sentiments of the people are
hardly irrelevant. An independent poll we commissioned after
shaping our congressional reform agenda found that every one of
the 12 items enjoys super-majority support. The least popular
proposal is supported by 74 percent of the people; the most
popular, which happens to be No Budget, No Pay, by 88 percent.
These finding suggest that there is a large untapped demand for
congressional reforms--especially when the people can
understand them and believe that they would make a difference.
In short, we are at one of those junctures in American
history when good government and good politics coincide. For
your sake and for the country's, we urge you to seize this
moment--by moving to a markup for the No Budget, No Pay Act and
by giving serious attention to a broader range of congressional
reforms.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Galston, for a
characteristically thoughtful statement, and I look forward to
the question-and-answer period.
The final witness on this panel is Don Wolfensberger, who
is a widely respected expert on Congress and our government,
and comes to us today as Director of the Congress Project at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Thanks
for being here, and please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD R. WOLFENSBERGER,\1\ DIRECTOR, CONGRESS
PROJECT, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Mr. Wolfensberger. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman. And thank
you Senator Collins--by the way, best wishes on your
engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfensberger appears in the
Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a pleasure to be here today, and Members of the
Committee, to see you, and to testify on what is wrong with
Congress and what might be done to improve its performance and
its image.
I have been involved in congressional reform efforts for
nearly a half-century now--I was just adding up, about 43
years, 28 on the Hill, 15 down at the Wilson Center--both
working directly on reform efforts and studying the Congress
and writing about it. And one of the observations I bring to
the table as a result of all this work that I have done is that
no matter how much Congress tries to reform itself, it
eventually finds itself back in the same trough of public
disfavor.
Very rarely does Congress enjoy overwhelming public support
or confidence. It is a very convenient whipping post for all
manner of national problems, some things it is responsible for,
some things it is not. And I indicate in my testimony that
while I do not think that there is a silver bullet that will
magically transform the institution, I, nevertheless, think
that going through a reform process periodically is good for
the institution. As I mention in my statement, it is like the
proverbial 2-by-4 upside the head of a mule. It gets Members'
attention and forces them to consider behaving better
institutionally and working harder to achieve some constructive
things for the Nation.
And I warn against making any bold, brash, ill-considered
reforms because they can have very adverse consequences for the
institution. They would make things worse. The Germans have a
word for this: ``schlimmbesserung''--an improvement that makes
things worse. We call it ``a reform that goes bad.''
I have provided 10 guiding objectives for use in shaping
any reforms and 10 things to avoid. Among the things that you
should want are ending gridlock, ending bitter partisanship and
incivility, strengthening the Legislative Branch vis-a-vis the
Executive Branch, better balancing committee powers with party
leadership powers, addressing real problems and not just
politically appealing issues, enhancing Congress' oversight
role, and better informing the people about the activities of
their government.
I will not repeat the 10 things that I tell you to avoid.
Many of these are mirror images of the 10 positive objectives,
but I will mention just two: First of all, do not punish the
Congress for its failings; and, second, do not diminish further
the public's respect for Congress by belittling it. How many
Members of Congress do we know that run for Congress by running
against it and then, when they get here, wonder why the people
are down on it?
Finally, I would mention four things that I think can help
improve things in some of the areas that we are concerned with.
First and foremost, restore the regular order in committees
and on the floor. You do not need a whole new set of rules.
Just adhere to those that exist, and I think you will go a long
way to restoring comity, deliberation, and fairness.
Second, restore conference committees between the House and
Senate, and thereby eliminate what I call ``leadership ping-
pong matches''--that is, batting amendments back and forth
between the Houses. Let committees and their members do this
work. Leadership is not good at it. They have neither the time,
the inclination, nor the expertise to be good legislators.
Third, focus on doing your principal job right, and to this
I commend No Labels and Mr. Galston for bringing this to
people's attention, and that is, managing the purse strings.
Here I think leadership should lead in making sure that budget
resolutions and appropriations bills are all passed on time.
I recommend in my testimony going with a biennial budget
resolution with binding 2-year spending ceilings that would be
spun off into law, similar to what we had last year with the
Budget Control Act, while retaining the annual appropriations
process as a means to maintain control and scrutiny of the
Executive Branch.
Finally, I recommend disentangling campaigning from the
legislative process. The perpetual campaign is polluting what
was once a culture of lawmaking. I particularly single out in
my statement leadership political action commitees (PACs) as
driving too many important decisions within the Congress, such
as how committee and subcommittee chairs are chosen in the
House. You must find ways to de-escalate what I call ``the
money chase'' in Congress and turn that money machine under the
dome back into a lawmaking machine.
I will be happy to elaborate on any of these or any of the
other proposals that have been brought up today, and with that,
I thank you again for your attention and for inviting me here.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We will go to questions from the Committee Members, and let
us do 6-minute rounds so we make sure everybody gets an
opportunity.
I have been over this document, ``Make Congress Work.'' I
think it is really an excellent document, and I want to note
for the record what Mr. Galston has said. This No Labels group,
in my opinion, is a genuinely grassroots movement. It is
obviously started by leaders; otherwise, it would not take
shape. But the growth that it has shown over the relatively
short time it has been in existence is another message to us.
And I think this is a series of very constructive proposals.
I would guess, most Members of Congress would say, ``That
is a good idea.'' Some of them, a couple, would probably have a
hard time going beyond, ``That is a good idea,'' such as not
campaigning against colleagues from another party, because both
party committees pressure Members to campaign against
colleagues, which is a terrible and destructive idea. But I
want to begin my questioning by going right to No Budget, No
Pay because that is--as you have indicated in the polling you
have done--the most popular of the 12 No Labels proposals. You
will not be surprised to hear, not as a result of a socially
scientific poll but an informal random poll of Members of
Congress, it is the least popular of the 12 proposals among
Members of Congress.
But to be fair about it, I want to ask you--and, in fact,
people have said to me, ``I cannot believe you are holding a
hearing on this.'' Well, as I said before, I view it as a
legislative scream, which I mean it is a shout for attention.
And to use Mr. Wolfensberger's metaphor, a classic one, it is a
2-by-4 to get attention, in this case, may I say, not only of
the recalcitrant mule but of the recalcitrant elephant as well.
But let me ask this question, and these are the critical
questions, that is, the questions that are negative. So it
makes you feel good if Members of Congress do not get paid
unless they adopt a budget, but is that really the problem?
Isn't the problem, to some extent--all of you and we have
said--this decline in bipartisanship, increase in ideological
rigidity, the kind of macro issues Congressman Davis talked
about? Or isn't the problem the budget process, which clearly
does not work? So why adopt No Budget, No Pay? Maybe I will
start with you, Mr. Galston, and then go to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Galston. Well, let me begin by stating the problem as I
see it. In 1974, the Congress adopted a very good Budget Act,
and I am not surprised to hear that it had a Maine provenance.
We would be in a much better place if the Congress of the
United States were able to adhere to the terms of that Act. It
not only prescribes a series of steps, as everybody knows; it
also prescribes a timetable.
It has been more than 15 years, since 1996, that the
Congress of the United States actually complied with that
timetable. And you have heard a description, which I am sure is
very familiar to all of you, as to what usually ensues to
replace that timetable--an endless series of continuing
resolutions, stop-and-go budgeting, etc.
Speaking for a minute as a political scientist, it is hard
for me to resist the conclusion that the incentives pulling
against complying with the 1974 act are a lot stronger than the
incentives pulling in favor of complying with the Act. And that
leads to a classic Madisonian question: If men, and even women,
are not angels, how do you arrange institutions and procedures
to make it more likely that compliance with rules and
institutional norms will, in fact, come to pass?
We have put forward the No Budget, No Pay Act as one way,
we believe a powerful tool, for changing the incentives that
individual Members feel and the institution as a whole feels.
We would not be disappointed if men and women of good will on
both sides of the aisle who are not in the leadership felt
impelled to put more pressure on their leadership than they now
do in order to induce a more reasonable agenda and a more
timely agenda for the fulfillment of what Mr. Wolfensberger
quite properly called ``the most basic function of our
government.''
But let me make it clear. We are not here to end a
conversation. We are here to begin a conversation. If there is
a better way of doing this, the citizens of the United States
are eager to hear it. But let me tell you what they are not
eager to hear. They are not eager to hear that some cultural
transformation of this institution, a new spirit of good will
and comity, will break out all by itself. I think people are
beyond believing that that is going to happen.
Chairman Lieberman. Well said.
Mr. Davis, let me ask you to focus on the other criticism
of the No Budget, No Pay Act, which I am sure you have heard,
simplistically speaking, it imposes a system of collective
guilt, and people in Congress who are wealthier could get along
without pay, people who are not will suffer from it; the ones
who suffer from it may not be the cause of the problem, or at
least not fully.
Mr. Davis. It would probably have more effect in the House
where the Members are not as wealthy as in the Senate, if you
look at the facts. [Laughter.]
Chairman Lieberman. I am so glad I gave you the opportunity
to say that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. But I am in the private sector now, so I can
take a different view.
Just a couple things. What people want are results. It has
been back in 1996 the last time that we passed the budgets on
time, and that was following two government shutdowns in 1995.
So there was at that point an incentive. Just keeping the
lights on through continuing resolutions (CRs) means innovation
does not start. Middle-level managers are afraid to do anything
until they know what their budget is going to be for the year.
And the year before last, it was May before we received the
appropriations done for an October 1 start time.
What people want are results, and I agree with Mr. Galston,
if you can find a better way to do it, do it. But this is
untenable.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. My time is up. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to take up the challenge of a better way to
accomplish the goal. I mentioned two in my opening statement. A
third is an idea that actually the bipartisan Gang of Six came
up with, and I am going to propose to you a variation of it,
and that is, to empower a small group of bipartisan Senators to
force consideration of the budget under the rules. A budget
resolution could be introduced by at least three Senators from
each side of the aisle, and we could change the process so that
it would automatically be put on the calendar for floor
consideration if the Budget Committee fails to report a budget
by April 1, 2012.
In other words, instead of putting up with the
dysfunctional process we have now, which is completely
dependent on the Budget Committee acting and the leadership
acting, why not empower a bipartisan group--so six Senators,
three from each side of the aisle--to be empowered to bring
forth a budget resolution if the leadership fails to do so and
make it a privilege motion? I mean, there are all sorts of ways
to ensure its consideration. It seems to me that would
accomplish the goal of either forcing the Budget Committee and
the leadership to act, or you have this alternative budget on
the floor and it has to be bipartisan.
So I would like each of you to quickly comment on that idea
so I can get to a second one also.
Mr. Davis. How would it work in the House? The House is a
different animal and, as you know, much more partisan in terms
of the way it operates on that. I just throw that out. So the
Senate may be handled, but we have tried super committees and
other things. They have not seemed to be able to work.
What is clear is the current system is not working, Senator
Collins, so that is my comment. It may work, something
different, where you can have some independently empowered
Members. But let us just look at these macro trends, bucking
your party on this, and it takes, I think, some Members who
have some courage to do that.
Senator Collins. Mr. Galston.
Mr. Galston. Off the top of my head, it sounds like one
promising way of promoting timely consideration of the budget
resolution. That leaves the problem of the 12 appropriations
bills to be dealt with, and the inability of Congress to
complete those before the beginning of the next fiscal year is
perhaps the more fundamental problem that the No Budget, No Pay
Act addresses.
Senator Collins. Mr. Wolfensberger.
Mr. Wolfensberger. Yes, I am not as familiar with the
Senate as the House, though I know that a few people can get a
lot done over here in the Senate, and I think it is still a
matter, though, of finding a way to work with leadership to try
and get something on the floor. I agree with you that it is
very frustrating.
If I could go back to the question, though, on No Budget,
No Pay, I think it is a great 2-by-4, but I disagree with it.
And I do so because I think it goes against the first of my no-
no's on what you should be doing in congressional reform, and
that is, this humiliates, it demeans, it diminishes the
Congress. It makes it sound as if Congress is not working
because it has not completed all of its work on time. The fact
is Congress is still working very hard at a lot of things, not
just trying to get the budget process finished but other things
as well. And so I think to dock Members' pay--because the
leaders on appropriations or the party have not been able to
move things forward in a timely way is very unfair.
But let us assume that it is, in effect, No Budget, No Pay.
I will give you three scenarios which would really be bad.
First of all, let us say that you have no budget resolution
this year. Senator Harry Reid does not want one. The House may
well adopt one. Let us say the House does. Let us say that all
12 appropriations bills are still enacted. They can go forward
on May 15, even if you do not have a budget resolution. Let us
say they are all enacted by September 1. If Senator Reid sticks
by his guns, you are going to dock every Member's pay for the
rest of this year because they have not gotten a budget
resolution.
Scenario two, let us say a budget resolution is adopted by
April 15. Let us say by September 30, the last three
appropriations bills are sent to the President, the other nine
have already been signed into law, and the President vetoes
those. For every day then that the Congress does not get a new
set of bills up, it is going to be docked its pay because the
President has vetoed the bills.
Last, the House passes a budget resolution by April 15. It
passes all 12 appropriations bills before the August recess,
but only three bills clear the Senate. The House has passed all
of them, and they are signed by the President, the three bills.
But the House is going to be punished for having done its work
even though the Senate has not been able to get the other nine
bills to the President on time.
So those are, I think, practical ways in which you are
going to have some difficulty with this proposal. I do think
that it is great that the issue has been raised. I think there
are ways, though, to get the leadership in the appropriations
committees to do a much better job, both on budget resolutions
and on appropriations.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I would point out that the
House did pass a budget resolution. The problem has been much
more on the Senate side, which is why I think the proposal I
advanced might work.
My time has expired, so I am not going to be able to go on
to my other questions. Let me just say one sentence, and that
is, No. 8 on the No Labels list calls on Members to take no
pledge but the Oath of Office and the Pledge of Allegiance. I
happen to follow that rule. I am one of very few Republicans
who did not sign the Grover Norquist pledge, for example. But I
have to say I think that raises real First Amendment questions,
and that is something I am going to submit for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The witnesses' responses to Senator Collins questions for the
Record appear in the Appendix on page 93-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
adjusting a little bit. I am actually the Ranking Member on the
Veterans' Affairs Committee. I will be leaving right after
this. But I did want to come and participate. I know there are
folks here from Massachusetts, so thank you for taking the time
to come.
I know, Mr. Galston, we met and I enjoyed our meeting very
much. I will just convey some of the things that I conveyed to
you. I want a budget. I have been asking for it since I got
here. I have only been here about 2 years now, and you are
talking to two of the most bipartisan Senators in the entire
Senate. I vote with my party 54 percent of the time. And,
Congressman, you said we need a better way to do it. Sure, the
better way to do it is just to read the bills, understand them,
see how they affect your State, your country, your debt, and
your deficit, and you vote regardless of party, regardless of
special interest, as we do. And I encourage my party and
Members of the opposite party to do the same thing. I mean,
that is the easy answer, to just step back and be Americans
first and do what is important, because we are in trouble right
now and we need to work together.
The things that we have done, Mr. Wolfensberger, I
appreciate your referencing that, we are working. Three of us
have spent 600 hours trying to save the post office, and so we
are trying to do things in a truly bipartisan manner. And this
Committee is evidence of that bipartisanship and the fact that
we do that on a daily basis.
I do appreciate your efforts, some of the things you are
working on, and I have been doing since I got in my elective
office. So I am glad that you are moving forward with that.
I had a question for the Congressman and for Mr. Galston,
if I could. As you know, since I came to Washington, as I said,
I look at every bill and I vote yes or no on the merits. I do
not care if it is the bill of a Democrat or Republican, from
North, South, East, or West, it really does not matter. If we
all just had the courage of our convictions rather than
following the leader of our party, think how much we could do.
Isn't that the meaning of No Labels? Isn't that what you are
trying to convey as the stuff that Senator Collins and I and
others are trying to do up here?
Mr. Davis. Senator, that is exactly what No Labels referred
to, is you park your party. Elections are for elections, and
after the elections, act like grownups and work together to try
to solve the country's problems.
I was fortunate to be from a very swing district where I
was not punished in a primary when I went against my party, and
you are from a State where you probably get the same thing. But
a lot of these Members, as I noted in my opening remarks, are
from very safe seats and their races are their primary. And we
have seen in some recent elections where Members who buck the
party get held accountable. So the incentives are get through
your primary elections and keep that red shirt or blue shirt
on. And that is a macro problem, reinforced by the media and
the way campaigns are financed that make it harder.
Senator Brown. Do you have any comments at all, Mr.
Galston, on that? Isn't that the intent of what you are trying
to do?
Mr. Galston. I do not think that any member of No Labels,
including the two who happen to be seated at this podium, could
summarize it any better. That is absolutely what we intend to
do.
Senator Brown. Great. Well, thank you.
Mr. Wolfensberger, I agree that the gridlock in Congress
is, as I have said, disgusting at times, that is my
phraseology. As someone who has worked on several major
bipartisan congressional reforms, most recently the insider
trading bill, my bill that passed 96-3. I encouraged the
Majority Leader to do just that, and we have been waiting for
those types of good government initiatives to hopefully
partially re-establish trust with the American people.
What do you think the biggest hindrance is in bringing the
parties together? And what created bipartisanship in the past?
And what can be done to restore it now, do you think?
Mr. Wolfensberger. That is something I am still studying
quite a bit. [Laughter.]
Senator Brown. I think we all are.
Mr. Wolfensberger. But, no, the turn to a more partisan
Congress, I trace it back really to the late 1960s, mid-1970s,
when there was a great deal of criticisms that the parties
stood for nothing. Political scientists were part of this, too.
The parties should stand for something. And now we have gotten
to the point where they are standing at either pole and not
really talking to each other or getting together on much. So
perhaps they stand for too much and do not really act on
enough. I do not know.
But how you get back is the thing that I have been trying
to wrestle with, is how you re-establish more of a bipartisan
atmosphere on things where the parties should be able to find
common ground. I cannot believe that we cannot find common
ground on a highway bill, on an education bill, or on an energy
bill. There have to be ways that they can get together on
things where there is not a clear ideological thing but there
is something called ``the good of the country'' that overrides
any considerations of party or ideology. But it is a work in
progress for me.
Senator Brown. It is interesting. I believe you are right
on that. I mean, the hire-a-hero veterans bill, the 3-percent
withholding, the most recent insider trading bill, things that
I spearheaded and we are pushing through, essentially passed
100-0. I agree. We can find that common ground. And I am a
little bit concerned also about the nomination process, the
advice and consent that I take great interest in and I consider
it one of the most important duties that I have.
This would be to Congressman Davis. Can you explain any
other ideas you have to make that process go a bit more
smoothly?
Mr. Davis. The nomination process? Again, I think if you
set a limit on these where they get an up-or-down vote after a
given period of time; 90 days is what we suggest for vetting. I
think you could still require 60 votes, but at least at that
point you get a vote. Many of these nominations are just
dangling out there.
Senator Brown. Yes, well, I know Senators Lieberman and
Collins have actually spearheaded----
Mr. Davis. Exactly.
Senator Brown. And I think many of us are up here were co-
sponsors, and it would eliminate a lot of those. Part of the
problem is actually just the process itself, how it starts. You
have so many different agencies. The applications are
different. They do not have enough investigators to investigate
the backgrounds and do the background checks. We have actually
pushed for legislation to allow for a certain amount of
appointees to actually not be in that same category. I think
that is a great first step, and I want to commend Senator
Collins and the Chairman for doing that.
I am listening. Like I said, I think I am trying to lead by
example, and I think that is really the key. We just need to do
our jobs.
I have to get back downstairs, Mr. Chairman, but I will try
to come back. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Brown, for
coming back. Senator Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. It is an important one, and I guess I bring a slightly
different perspective to the table here. I did not run for the
U.S. Senate because I wanted to be a U.S. Senator. I ran
because we are bankrupting this Nation, and to respectfully
disagree, I think the American people want results, but also
what they want is some fiscal discipline here. They also
realize that we are bankrupting this Nation.
My background is in manufacturing, and you have a problem,
you have to identify the root cause. If you have an engine
leaking oil, I mean, you can keep adding oil. But you are
better off changing the gasket. And our problem is not that
Congress has not done too much. Our problem is Congress has
done way too much with very little thought on how we are going
to pay for it.
A number of people have mentioned our Founding Fathers. I
think America has really forgotten what our Founding Fathers
knew, that, sure, we needed government, but that, by and large,
government was something to fear because they understood that
as government grew, our freedoms receded.
And so they set about to try and set up a system of
government to limit the growth of government, and to me that is
the root cause. The root cause of what is ailing this Nation,
the root cause of what is bankrupting this Nation, is the size,
the scope, all the rules, all the regulations, all the
intrusion into our lives, and the resulting costs to
government.
One of your reforms is filibuster reform. I have a graph
here.\1\ It was interesting. When I came here, I started
reading about the history of the filibuster and, of course,
somebody mentioned that initially when it was instituted to
bring cloture to debate, it was a two-thirds limit. And so I
asked, it would be interesting to graph. As we made it easier
for government to grow, what happened to government? Well, it
went from 2 percent, 2 cents of every dollar filtering through
government. And now we are up to about 24.5 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP), and we are on a trajectory to hit
almost 35 percent by the year 2035. So we have made it easier
for government to grow, particularly in 1975 when we lowered
that filibuster threshold to only three-fifths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The graph submitted by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, it took 30-some years for one party to gain that
super-majority control, and what happened? We went from about
20 percent of GDP of government to about 24 in 2009, and,
again, you can see the trajectory.
Do you agree with that root cause, that it is the size of
government, first and foremost, that is more important than if
are we getting along here in Congress?
Mr. Davis. Senator, I will start. As a former House Member,
I think we are an airplane flying into a mountain, and you want
to steer it here or there, but it is unsustainable borrowing 40
cents on the dollar. I agree with you.
Senator Johnson. Would it be better off if we actually
instituted some real fiscal controls here? I have always
thought this was a two-step process. What would be wrong with a
constitutional amendment to limit the size of government to a
certain percentage of GDP? Wouldn't that provide the fiscal
control the American people are really looking for? What would
be wrong with that?
Mr. Davis. We have tried that. When Senator Coburn and I
were in the House, we passed constitutional amendments on
balanced budgets and the like, and they could get through the
House, but they could never get through over in this body.
Senator Johnson. How about if we put everything on budget?
In the 1960s, about 68 percent of every budget dollar was
appropriated. It was subject to some level of control. Last
year, only 38 percent was actually appropriated, and in 10
years that will only be 25 percent. So 75 percent of our budget
in 10 years will be totally off budget, not appropriated, out
of control. How about if we put everything on budget? Why don't
you propose that? And, oh, by the way, when we put the
entitlements back on budget, why don't we put a requirement for
a 75-year solvency requirement for those entitlements? Mr.
Galston, would that be a good idea?
Mr. Galston. No Labels has chosen to begin with process
reforms. Let me put on a different hat that I also wear. I am a
member of a clandestine, bipartisan fiscal sustainability
conspiracy that includes representatives from far right to
considerably to the left of me. We actually put out a proposal
called ``Taking Back Our Fiscal Future,'' which tried to create
a 5-year budget for those portions of the budget that you are
referring to that are not now part of the annual budget
process.
When Alice Rivlin was here a few weeks ago to testify
before Congress, she made exactly the same point, that when the
1974 act was adopted, the percentage of the budget represented
by discretionary spending and, therefore, the annual
appropriations process was much more than 50 percent, now it is
way less than 50 percent, that is a serious problem. And in
another venue, I would be happy to discuss it in as much length
as you have time for.
Senator Johnson. Let us talk about process control. From my
standpoint, I am new here, never been involved in politics. I
come from a business background with accounting. We do need a
good process because in the manufacturing process, if you do
not have a good process, you have an awful product, and that is
our problem.
Everything here in Washington is additive. What is a new
piece of legislation? Let us slap it on the books here. Let us
do it quick. How about if we institutionalized a process of
subtraction? How about a sunset committee? That is one of the
things I am working on, a joint sunset committee whose only
mandate is to look at the Federal Government, let us take a
look at the laws, rules, and regulations that do more harm than
good, and let us remove those. Let us start figuring out a way
we can reduce government's intrusion in our lives. What would
you think about that proposal?
Mr. Galston. It is sometimes said that the only true
example of immortality is a Federal program, and there is
clearly a problem that a lot of obsolete programs that were
good for their time but are good no longer linger out of habit
or because they have gathered some political barnacles that
encrust them. And so my personal view is that we ought to think
much more aggressively about sunsetting and sunset procedures
than we do.
Senator Johnson. I would love to work with your group on
that type of proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Johnson. Those were
good exchanges.
Senator Pryor, and then finally Senator Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. My understanding is that not all of our
colleagues were encouraging you to have this hearing, but I am
glad that the two of you decided to have it.
I think there is some good news here, and that is the idea
there is nothing wrong with Washington that we cannot fix. It
is just a matter of political will. And one thing I appreciate
about No Labels is you are putting ideas out there for us to
talk about, to think outside the box, to think about doing
things differently, and maybe to build national consensus on
getting the political will necessary to get some good reforms
done here in the Congress.
But, really, there are lots of different ways to do it. You
could do it by rule changes. You could do it by changing laws.
You could just do it by changing the way we commit to each
other that we are going to do our business here.
But on the budget itself, let me say this: One of the
things that I have been working on, Mr. Chairman, is to
actually go back to the Budget Reform Act of 1974, and since I
have been here for 9 years, it has never really worked exactly
the way it is supposed to work. Maybe one year out of those
nine, I think we have actually followed that law to the letter.
And it is time for us to look at that. That law is now 40 years
old, and we ought to look at it and figure out a better, more
workable, more realistic way to budget. And that means change.
And there are a lot of folks who resist change, but I do think
that we should put that on the table as well.
One idea that I like actually comes from Arkansas, and we
have been doing biennial budgets there, which I know you all
support. Actually, the people just a year or two ago voted to
go back to an annual session so we do not have to do biennial
budgets anymore. So we are trying that for a while. I always
thought the biennial budget worked pretty well, and I am
certainly open to looking at that on the Federal level.
But one of the things we do in Arkansas is balance the
budget every year. Unlike most States, we do not have a
balanced budget provision in the Constitution. We have a law,
and it is the Revenue Stabilization Act, and what we do is at
the end of the legislative session, the legislature
prioritizes. They work with the governor, but they prioritize
the spending into three different categories, and basically you
connect your spending to your revenues. If it is not coming in,
you do not spend it. It is a very simple way to do it. There is
a formula. They now have been doing it there for 40 or 50
years. It works great. But, again, that gets back to political
will.
I guess that theoretically if Arkansas wanted to, they
could go into deficit spending, but they do not. We are one of
the few States that actually had a fairly hefty budget surplus
during the recession, and we actually cut taxes. We actually
cut our sales tax on food during that same time.
So it really does come down to leadership and will, but you
have to have the right systems in place to get it all done.
I mentioned the Arkansas approach because I think it is
something we should consider as we are looking at new ways to
budget. We ought to consider good ideas from the private
sector, from States, and wherever else the ideas come from. Let
us put them on the table and talk about them and see if we can
get those done.
With regard to the No Budget, No Pay Act, I love the
conversation that we are having about this. Mr. Davis and Mr.
Galston, I would like to hear from you about the response that
you are receiving around the country. I know that the No Labels
group has done some op-eds, and you all have been on some talk
shows, and you have been promoting this idea around the
country.
What are you hearing from the country? Is it an unqualified
``Amen,'' or do people actually have other constructive
suggestions that go along with this? Mr. Davis, would you want
to answer that?
Mr. Davis. I think Mr. Galston noted it. It polls very
well. It is almost a two-fer for the voters. You get a budget
on time, and you get a shot at Congress. But it just shows the
frustration at this point at Washington's inability to get
anything meaningful done and just kicking the can down the
road, whether it is budget, whether it is energy policy,
whatever, and the mounting deficits just keep going up, and it
does not appear anybody wants to do anything of a controversial
issue. So I think it is really reflected in that.
There may be other ways to get to that end, but I think
there is just a frustration that they do not see any outcomes
coming out of Washington.
Mr. Galston. It is an interesting question, Senator Pryor,
whether we are promoting this to the country or the country is
promoting this to us. I think it is at least as much the latter
as it the former. I can tell you, when I speak, the response is
instant and electric. I can barely get to my second sentence.
But let me say something else, and I will refer back to my
opening testimony. I am not here to demean anybody, and the
folks in back of me are not here to demean anybody. They are
here to help, to lend their voices to the creation of a system
of rules that will actually help the Congress and the country
work better and get the people's business done. And if I
thought that anything in this proposal or any of the other 11
proposals were demeaning, I would not be sitting here defending
it, which gives me an opportunity to make one more point.
I do not think that anything in this package takes away
anybody's First Amendment rights. I think that some of the
pieces of this package are designed to the question of how we
ought to exercise our First Amendment rights, which is a
different proposition. You can have the right to do something
and it would still be wrong to do it.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I
look forward to continuing the conversation.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Pryor. Senator Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Collins, for having this hearing. Thank you all for testifying.
I have to tell you, I very much agree with No Budget, No
Pay. I would split it between the Senate and the House because
I think the House is more inclined to do that and get it done
on time. And I think where 2-by-4 is needed really is in the
Senate. No matter who is running the House, what we have seen
is because they have a Rules Committee, they actually get it
done.
The other thing I would note, you all mentioned earlier
about nominations. According to the Congressional Research
Service, the problem in the Senate with nominations was not a
filibuster on the floor. The problem is they did not go through
the committees, and that is a report I would direct you to do,
because what that says is leadership is not demanding
committees get their work done.
I guess I would make a couple of points and then ask a
couple of questions.
I do not think it is all process. I think what is sorely
lacking in Washington is leadership. This country is facing the
largest catastrophe it has ever faced. It is going to come much
sooner than everybody thinks. It is going to be much more
painful that anyone can imagine, and not anything we are doing
is addressing that problem right now. And that is leadership.
That is ignoring the real world, and embracing the next
election is far more important to our country than what is
about to happen to us.
And, actually, the best thing that could happen to us is
for the Congress to say, ``Here are the problems in front of
us. We are going to fix this this year and all go home and send
somebody else up here.''
I have my own views. I am a vast supporter of term limits.
I think it is the kind of thing that limits your ability to
think in a partisan manner and causes you to act more in a
constructive manner for the country. I think it is helpful.
When we talk about bucking a party, what is happening in our
country is we are bucking the Constitution. And when you take
one for your team instead of taking one for the American
people, you have failed already, and that is failed leadership.
The questions I have for you go along the line of what
Senator Johnson said. Mr. Wolfensberger's testimony said follow
regular order. What would the Senate look like today if we
actually followed regular order instead of manipulating
everything--and I am not talking about here, I am talking about
both sides of the aisle--to create an advantage in the next
election? What happens if we actually followed regular order?
Since I left the House, we used to have an open amendment
process on appropriations. I actually used that to filibuster
in the House for the first time in its history, put 172
amendments up on an agricultural appropriation bill. But I was
allowed to do that because the House's history was you have an
open amendment process.
We do not have an open process because we have converted
everything to the next election. We are always going to fix
what is wrong with our country after the next election, and
that is a lack of leadership. That is a failure of leadership
both for us individually and our party leaders in the Senate.
It is a failure. And the American people are anxious and upset
about it, and rightly so.
But here is my question. Let us make every change that No
Labels wants to make. How do you take this culture of careerism
out of the mix that will not, in fact, negate the very things
that you are recommending? Mr. Galston, do you want to go
first?
Mr. Galston. Senator, I have no good answer to your
question. Let me start by saying that. I will say this, and I
would say this even if I were not in this chamber addressing
you: If there were more committees in the Congress like this
Committee, we would not be having this discussion. And if there
were more Senators who were willing to do what you did on the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, we would not be having this
discussion.
Senator Coburn. Well, that right there is the point. It
matters who is here.
Mr. Galston. I could not agree more.
Senator Coburn. It matters who is here. It is not just
process.
Mr. Davis. Senator, the voters bear some responsibility,
too, in terms of who they are sending and what they are paying
attention to at this point.
Senator Coburn. Sure, but what we do is allow
gerrymandering in this country where the Congressman picks his
district rather than the district pick their Congressman.
Mr. Davis. Well, you have looked at what they have done in
California where you not only have----
Senator Coburn. I am very supportive of what they have done
in California.
Mr. Davis. And the runoff election provisions where it is
between the top two, and that brings a different segment in,
and you will see political behavior change with that. Instead
of focusing on a narrow segment of the electorate, you talk to
everybody, and that changes everybody's perspective in terms of
how they do it.
Mr. Wolfensberger. Yes, I think your point is very well
taken. You mentioned the culture of careerism. I call it the
``culture of the perpetual campaign,'' and that is closely
linked. If you ask Members to look long term, what is long term
for most Members of Congress? The next election. It is not what
might be best in terms of really getting the debt down,
deficits down, or anything else, and I think that is the big
problem. How do you get that leadership that you want? I am not
a term limit supporter, but I do think the voters bear some
responsibility for paying some attention and turning out people
that do not exercise the will to get things done.
I do not think process is the solution. Rudy Penner used to
say when he was CBO Director, or thereafter, talking about the
deficits, ``The process is not the problem. The problem is the
problem.''
It is a matter of will. It is a matter of leadership. And I
think that is something to keep in mind. How you get there, I
am not sure. Maybe term limits ultimately will come back as a
big issue. I do not know.
Senator Coburn. I would just put forth in a final statement
the fact that we have the budget situation we are in today
would be a sign that we get along way too well rather than do
not get along well enough. Otherwise, we would have fixed the
problem.
A final point. I agree with you also on the filibuster. If
you are going to filibuster, you ought to be out there talking
and have people who agree with you willing to carry out a
filibuster rather than the threat of a filibuster.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Coburn.
The votes have begun on the floor, so I think we are going
to call this to a close. But I view it very much in the terms
that I think you, Mr. Galston or Mr. Davis said. This is the
beginning of a conversation. I think it has been a very
thoughtful and constructive beginning, and if I may say so in
praise of No Labels, I think that has been the tenor of the
movement since it began.
People are really angry at the Federal Government, and we
know why. We have all talked about it. And, therefore, a lot of
the political reactions to government have been angry and
negative. I understand it, but it does not really get us
anywhere. In fact, one could say that in the last two national
elections, the people of America have expressed either a
combination of anger and hope for change in very different ways
in 2008 and 2010, and I do not believe that either one of the
results of those expressions at the voting booth has gotten the
government where the people want it to be. Self-evidently, it
has not because we are now in probably the most partisan
session of Congress since I got here 24 years ago.
So I want to praise No Labels because No Labels really has
been constructive and thoughtful in response to the crisis in
American Government. And I would also say that in doing so you
have given voice to the largest part of the population whose
voice is not reflected well in our political system today. As
some of you have said, there is disproportionate influence by
the most ideologically intense groups in both political
parties. Independents have trouble working their way through
the political system--as I can tell you. [Laughter.]
But out there, there is this vast--I do not even want to be
too descriptive, but it is a middle ground. It is a third
force. And I think your numbers have grown so rapidly because
you are giving voice to that force, and fortunately for the
country you are doing it in a constructive way.
So let us consider this the beginning of a conversation.
Since this is my last year in the Senate, I hope we can
accelerate the conversation because I agree with you that we
cannot just hope and pray for a miraculous, what might be
called, ``political awakening''--thinking of the religious
awakenings that have occurred in American history--here in
Congress. There is not just going to be some spontaneous
cultural change. It has to be forced, and so I look forward to
working with you and others to see how we might try to do that,
hopefully in this session of Congress.
Senator Collins, do you want to add anything?
Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I just want to second your
concluding comments and thank all of our witnesses today for
appearing and for sharing their very thoughtful testimony.
Thank you all.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
As is normally the order here, we will keep the record of
this hearing open for 15 days for any additional questions or
statements that people want to submit for the record.
I thank everybody for being here, and with that, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46, the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------