[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 AUSPICIOUS CHANCE FOR HILL'S FRESHMEN

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 23, 1994

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of 
all of my colleagues an enlightening article in the Washington Times on 
February 8, 1994. The article was written by Congresswoman Jennifer 
Dunn entitled ``Auspicious Chance for Hill's Freshman.''
  I think that she hit on some extremely vital points in regard to 
reform within Congress. I hope that all of my colleagues will take some 
time to read what the Congresswoman from Washington has to say and 
learn from it.

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 8, 1994]

                 Auspicious Chance for Hill's Freshmen

                           (By Jennifer Dunn)

       Most American citizens thought 1993 would be the ``year of 
     reform'' in Congress. To drive the message home, voters sent 
     114 new faces to the House of Representatives to improve the 
     way Congress conducts its business. But 1993 yielded little 
     reform.
       Now, early in 1994, those reform-minded freshmen have the 
     opportunity to fish or cut bait on reform. As early as March, 
     the House will take up the pallid recommendations of the 
     temporary reform panel, known as the Joint Committee on the 
     Organization of Congress.
       This committee, which was formed over a year ago amidst 
     House bank and post office scandals, was charged with seeking 
     improvements in the operation of the House and Senate. Unlike 
     most committees in Congress, it was comprised with complete 
     fairness in mind. It was bicameral--with 14 members from the 
     House and 14 from the Senate--and composed equally of 
     Democrat and Republican members.
       Over the course of the year, the committee heard hours of 
     testimony from hundreds of current and former members of 
     Congress, journalists, and other congressional scholars on 
     what bold and sweeping changes were needed to improve how 
     Congress conducts its business. Many reform-minded freshmen, 
     both Democrat and Republican, have already supported various 
     bold proposals to get at the obvious problems that plague the 
     Congress. For instance:
       The present committee structure is an inefficient, 
     ineffective tangle. The House and Senate do not have 
     coordinated structures. In each, jurisdiction over 
     legislation is shared by so many committees competing for 
     political ``turf,'' that issues of national priority can 
     become bogged in gridlock.
       The chaotic scheduling system now forces members of 
     Congress to race back and forth from one hearing to another, 
     often interrupted to go to the floor for votes, then back to 
     committee hearings or meetings with constituents. Using 
     ``proxy'' votes, members don't even have to be present when 
     major decisions are made in committee.
       One result of the helter skelter on Capitol Hill is that 
     Congress frequently fails to adequately follow up on, or 
     oversee, effects of legislation. A painful example was the 
     savings-and-loan debacle.
       There should be more turnover among committee chairmen. At 
     present, chairmen exercise far too much power over the 
     shaping of legislation, Committee staff, unelected and 
     entrenched, hold too much power, as well.
       (The committee discovered that more than 80 committee staff 
     members received salaries above $110,000 a year. That's more 
     than Gen. Colin Powell made as chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff.)
       Too many public-policy decisions are made behind closed 
     doors. (House Resolution 237, The ``Sunshine bill,'' would 
     force virtually all committee action decisions to be made in 
     open session.)
       For democracy to work effectively, there's need for more 
     thoughtful deliberation of issues and for the voice of the 
     minority to be heard.
       Congress has become a place where debate is often stifled 
     by rules that endow the majority party with overwhelming 
     power. Minority Republicans and reform-minded Democrats are 
     often prevented from offering amendments or alternative 
     ideas.
       That unnecessarily inflames and raises the level of rancor 
     in the House.
       In late November came the moment for the Joint Committee's 
     decisions. In a series of party-line votes, House Democrats 
     thwarted significant reforms. Primarily cosmetic changes were 
     recommended.
       There was no bold reform of the committee system, no change 
     in the overlapping jurisdictions of committees that 
     contribute to gridlock (As one example, more than 40 
     committees and subcommittee will continue to claim 
     jurisdiction over surface transportation.)
       There was refusal to require computerized scheduling, to 
     avoid conflicts of meetings. There was refusal to have the 
     House adopt the Senate schedule--three weeks of work per 
     month, with a full week to spend with citizens in the home 
     district.
       There was broad committee agreement on a two-year budget-
     appropriations cycle, rather than the present one-year cycle. 
     That can afford better oversight of programs.
       The final report of the Joint Committee, drawing public 
     criticism for the mostly pale, pastel changes it recommends, 
     is on the action agenda now that the House has reconvened.
       Clearly, powerful committee chairmen, and other senior 
     members of the majority party have a stake in preserving the 
     status quo and will continue to attempt to thwart any effort 
     to bring real change to our legislative process. Republicans 
     (especially the freshmen among them) have led the reform 
     charge since they owe no fealty either to the White House or 
     Democratic committee chairmen.
       This leaves only one hope for reform: the Democratic 
     freshmen.
       Stuck between the rock of their campaign promises and the 
     hard position presented by leaders of their party who prefer 
     the status quo, Democratic freshmen will be on the spot. But 
     there is evidence that many of them will rise to the 
     occasion. Many of them privately express great frustration 
     with the lack of reform in 1993. Many have assured me that 
     they will support open meetings, bans on proxy voting and 
     other bold reforms anathema to senior Democrats.
       Should the Democratic freshmen take up the cause and join 
     with their Republican counterparts as they did when the veil 
     of secrecy was lifted from the discharge petition, we may yet 
     achieve the significant improvements in the operations of 
     Congress largely disdained by their senior colleagues. Then, 
     regardless of which party controls the House, Congress will 
     be the better for our efforts.

                          ____________________