[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    RESTORING A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC THROUGH NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND 
                               REFERENDUM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dooley). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, Americans are frustrated with their 
government and their elected leaders. This is evident in the large 
turnover in 1992 congressional elections, in low public regard for 
Congress, in little public interest in political affairs, and in 
widespread disbelief that government programs can create positive 
outcomes or be run efficiently. If these trends and frustration 
continue, our republican form of government, already crippled, will 
cease to function.
  At the root of this frustration is the perception that, no matter how 
many incumbent politicians lose to eager newcomers, the most important 
issues on the voters' minds are not addressed. Campaigns and elections 
come and go, but major issues never see the light of day in Congress. 
One hundred ten new members of the House have done little to advance 
issues like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, or reducing the 
size of government. Public opinion on these issues is starkly 
contrasted with congressional inaction.
  Voters were told that their 1992 votes sent a message to Washington 
to get its fiscal and political houses in order, yet no one in 
Washington seems to have understood this. The 1992 election results 
disproved the assumption that electoral turnover means political 
change. No wonder public trust in government has, if anything, 
deteriorated since the 1992 election results.
  When it comes right down to it, the bond between our citizens and 
their government in Washington has been damaged because elected 
officials are unresponsive to critical issues. After my first year in 
office, I see nothing that gives me hope that things will dramatically 
change. Yet, things need to change.
  A major source of public anger is that politics has become less 
substantive. Issues and parties have less effect on voters' decisions. 
Personalities, money and narrow interest have far too great an impact. 
Through deliberate tactics and funded by special interests, politicians 
personalize their appeal to voters, avoiding controversial or divisive 
issues. While this may win elections, the result is that politicians 
elected on such personality centered campaigns believe the way to 
govern is to avoid responding to issue agendas, merely presenting a 
pleasing personality and satisfying the parochial needs of individuals 
and narrow interests.

  Thoughtful people should be increasingly concerned about such a 
crisis of confidence. If unchecked, declining confidence will destroy 
the credibility of national institutions so much that governing 
sensibly will become nearly impossible. The most important question for 
those concerned with these problems is how to restore confidence in our 
republican form of government.
  Policy making, at the national level and elsewhere, is a two step 
process. First, an issue agenda is set; then, these issues which make 
it on the agenda are debated and, hopefully, settled. Elections should 
allow voters to set the agenda, as candidates courting their votes 
debate the relative importance of issues and their positions on them. 
In casting their vote for a particular candidate, voters choose both 
what issues they want debated and whom they most trust to resolve them.
  After the election is over, the most important task is for the chosen 
political elites to settle the issues raised in the campaign. Through 
deliberations in Congress and through negotiations between Congress and 
the President, these elites settle these key questions. Their secondary 
task is, of course, to debate and resolve both routine legislative 
items and any new issues which may arise.
  The great challenges of the Civil War and the Depression show how 
useful this definition is. Just before the Civil War, voters knew the 
issue of slavery had to be decided with finality. The election of 
Lincoln and Republicans assured that the issue would be settled, 
although few knew the extent and outcome of the ensuing Civil War. In 
1932, voters clearly wanted FDR to do something about the Depression. 
Even though FDR's New Deal legislative program was far different than 
the platform on which he ran, he was rewarded for acting on the 
overriding public call to action and was forgiven for not adhering to 
all the particulars of a campaign pledge.
  The point is that at these key times successful political elites 
correctly interpreted broad electoral change in issue-oriented terms. 
Major election changes placed new items on the critical list for action 
by Congress and the President. They acted, issues were resolved, and 
elected representatives eventually moved on to new agenda items. 
Elections don't work that way any more. Individual members of Congress 
have devoted their staff and financial resources into doing 
individualistic favors and avoiding positions on broader national 
issues. The personalization of campaigning means that the agenda 
setting function of elections has been short circuited. Voters no 
longer vote issues, or even parties, they vote the candidate.
  A major corrective step would be to restore the connection between 
national elections and national issues. Unfortunately, one cannot rely 
on individual candidates to do so since the current campaign strategies 
are so effective, at least in the short term.
  Allowing voters to instruct Congress, through indirect initiative 
elections, is the one most important and effective way to restore that 
connection. An indirect initiative process would reconnect issues to 
congressional elections without violating the basic form of the 
Constitution, or the Founders views of proper government.
  The Constitution is a mixture of elements forming our representative 
democracy--a form of government in which people freely choose their 
decision makers but do not make the decisions themselves. We are and 
should remain a republic, not a pure democracy. The Founders rightly 
feared the momentary passions of even the limited, property-owning, 
male and fairly well-educated electorate of the time. For them, 
democracy meant rule by the demos, or mob--a volatile situation to be 
avoided for its tendency to trample minority rights.
  Madison believed a republican form of government would ``refine and 
enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a 
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true 
interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice 
will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary and partial 
considerations.'' In large measure, the main constitutional elements of 
separation of powers, federalism and bicameralism are all designed to 
allow time for the passions of the masses to cool, hopefully turning 
dangerous impulses into more reasoned effective change.
  Madison is usually considered one of the more level-headed of the 
Founders, and his critique of direct democracy is sound and broadly 
admired. His optimism, however, about the ``wisdom * * * patriotism * * 
* and love of justice'' of elected representatives seems, in light of 
current events, naive.
  The brakes against mob rule written by the Founders into the 
Constitution should not be lightly dismissed. There are, on the other 
hand, constitutional elements to promote the democratic impulse. These 
include a wide suffrage, short election terms for House members, and 
the required origin of money bills in the House. Constitutional 
amendments added since have expanded the vote, made the Senate directly 
elected, guaranteed participation rights to excluded groups, and 
preserved and promoted individual freedoms. Extraconstitutional 
developments such as the rise of mass political parties, and the 
expansion of offices filled by elections have further enhanced the 
voice of the people.

  Sadly, these changes to broaden participation have not improved our 
government. The changes clearly have made elected officials more 
responsive to the immediate opinions of individual votes, yet major 
issues remain unresolved. Individual citizens have more opportunities 
to participate in political debate, but see little substance in what is 
being debated. Institutional developments and campaign changes have 
made members of Congress almost invulnerable to mass public judgment, 
while at the same time empowered them to manipulate the opinions of 
isolated constituencies and individuals. Representatives cultivate 
individuals through casework, and narrow constituencies by targeted 
mail and political action committee solicitations. The power to appease 
constituents on an almost individual basis has empowered 
representatives to ignore larger issues and place the blame for 
inaction on the institution. Thus, today we have a far more responsive 
government than ever, but its officials are far better able to evade 
responsibility for inaction and gridlock.
  To return to the Founders' original intent for our constitutional 
government, we need a new constitutional mechanism that lets voters 
help set the national agenda. I have introduced three bills in the 
House of Representatives which provide two basic indirect initiative 
processes. Either process would let voters set issue agendas in 
national elections, reconnecting elections and candidates to issues. 
Indirect initiatives restore substantive debate on real policy while 
preserving key constitutional checks on mass democracy.
  The first bill I have introduced, H.R. 3835, provides for a 
nationwide advisory referendum on term limits for members of the House 
and Senate. This advisory election would be held on November 8, 1994, 
the next general election for U.S. House and Senate members. Voters 
would vote on the question whether Congress should pass a 
Constitutional amendment limiting service in the House and Senate. 
While current opinion polls suggest such a referendum would be 
overwhelmingly in favor of term limits, a nationwide vote would clearly 
have more impact than a mere public opinion poll. A nationwide debate 
would be much better, then the current legal maneuvering in the courts. 
All representatives would be challenged to act upon such an amendment 
in the 104th Congress, or be prepared to explain their inaction in the 
1996 elections.
  H.R. 3835 is admittedly a test run for initiatives--the results would 
be nonbinding and Congress could choose to ignore, as it too frequently 
does now, the voters' choice. But the political dynamics of a national 
referendum, even one that is non-binding, are such that Congress will 
be hard pressed to avoid issues subject to such wide public discourse.
  As a further inducement to restore democracy, I have introduced two 
other pieces of legislation which would make the indirect initiative 
process more powerful. House Joint Resolution 180 is an indirect 
initiative process for legislation, and provides for the placement of 
citizen-sponsored initiatives on a national ballot. An initiated 
measure must first pass stiff petition rules for being placed on the 
ballot, and then, if it receives a majority vote in three-fifths of the 
States, it goes before the Congress. Congress is then given 15 months 
to enact the approved proposal, pass legislation with changes in it, or 
ignore the bill. If Congress approves the legislation and the President 
signs the bill into law, the process ends. If Congress takes no action, 
the same initiative is placed on the next general election ballot and, 
if it passes, becomes law. If Congress passes a different but related 
bill, both versions go back to the people for a second vote. The 
measure which receives the most votes becomes law. If neither receives 
a three-fifths vote, the initiative fails.
  House Joint Resolution 181 provides a similar mechanism to propose 
Constitutional amendments. A citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 
proposal must meet the same rigorous petition and vote requirements as 
H.J. Res. 180. It must also, however, gain a super-majority (sixty 
percent) of the votes in a majority of states. If it meets these 
hurdles, the amendment is proposed to the states for ratification. At 
that stage, the ratification procedures provided for in Article V of 
the Constitution take over.
  These National Citizens Initiative (NCI) proposals will help citizens 
set the agenda in Washington without changing the essential nature of 
the way decisions are made. H.R. 3835 is a modest means to induce 
congressional action. If such a process bears fruit, the constitutional 
amendments I have proposed would prove unnecessary.
  More likely, however, the more forceful mechanisms in the joint 
resolution proposals are necessary to redirect Congress attention back 
to the interests of the people. House Joint Resolution 180 is designed 
to give citizens the right to enact laws through an initiative process 
without disrupting the structure of our representative form of 
government. The petition requirements, the super-majority vote 
requirements, the 15 month congressional review, and the second vote 
requirement combine to make House Joint Resolution 180 a prudent method 
of reconnecting the American people with their government at a time 
when the trust between the two is at an unacceptably low level. Like 
House Joint Resolution 180, House Joint Resolution 181 is designed to 
help citizens set the agenda in Washington without changing the 
essential nature of how decisions are made. It is designed to stimulate 
debate on constitutional amendments, while leaving intact the 
ratification process that has been established in Article V of the 
Constitution.
  Initiative and referendum opponents have traditionally made many 
arguments against various forms of national initiatives. Although most 
of the attacks have been leveled against direct initiatives, not 
against the indirect processes I propose, these arguments deserve to be 
considered.
  The first argument against initiatives is that direct lawmaking by 
the people may undermine the legitimacy of elected government by taking 
power away from elected representatives. But this legitimacy is already 
questioned by a large segment of the electorate, and indirect 
initiatives still involve the legislature. A Congress finally working 
on issues of major public concern would enhance, not harm, its 
legitimacy.
  Another argument against initiatives is that they encourage 
legislative inertia, that the legislation will wait for the public to 
act on controversial matters to avoid blame. Again, this avoidance is 
occurring now--indirect initiatives will force action but not 
predetermine the outcome. Opponents of initiatives have argued that 
such lawmaking avoids the important steps of deliberation, compromise, 
and refinement, but again the indirect process resolves those concerns. 
Any ballot measure that is hasty, too strident, oversimplified or 
poorly drafted can be halted and corrected by Congress, subject to the 
approval of voters that Congress would have had two years to convince.
  Some critics of initiatives have said that they are potential tools 
of special interests which cannot get their way in the regular 
legislative process. That comment is ironic at the least, given the 
current corruption surrounding American politics. Now, narrow interests 
can easily get items on Congress's legislative agenda or, in the case 
preserving previously arranged special interest deals, keep reform 
efforts off. Witness the difficulty of killing honey, wool and mohair, 
or tobacco programs, or the failure to enact real campaign reform. The 
petition requirements are large enough to ensure that special interest 
or frivolous measures would rarely, if ever make it even to the initial 
vote. A harmful special interest will have a far more difficult time in 
organizing support for two nationwide votes two years apart than in 
obtaining closed-door favors from a few congressional leaders.
  Some critics contend that a national initiative destroys federalism, 
and its important protections for states and regions. To the extent 
federalism is not already destroyed by federal mandates and the 
shrinking power of the Tenth Amendment, the supermajority requirements 
and legislative review of these proposals limit the possibility of 
specific regions or states gaining unfair advantages in the process.
  Finally, critics of the initiative process say that proponents have 
undue faith in the masses and lack of respect for elected elites. 
Admittedly, indirect initiatives display more faith in the average 
voter and put more power into their hands. I believe it restores an 
appropriate balance between the electors and the elected. It is clear 
to me, our current system places too much faith in elected elites to 
address issues which are of broad concern.

  Indirect initiatives preserve many of the advantages of the current 
system--preserving our representative form of government, protecting 
minorities, preventing hasty decisions, fostering compromise and 
conciliation.
  New benefits they bring include the potential to stimulate the 
dangerously flagging public participation in civic affairs. Elections 
would once again be about both issues and candidates. Voters could go 
to the polls confident that they are sending a signal to Congress on 
which issues they want addressed. Candidates would be more likely to 
take positions on ballot issues, and less able to go into office based 
merely on name recognition and slick campaign styles.
  The underlying contemporary malaise, alienation and cynicism toward 
politics is all too apparent today. Unchannelled into productive 
expressions of citizen control, it is likely to erupt in ways far more 
dangerous to our Constitutional principles and longstanding political 
traditions such as political parties.
  A further benefit of indirect initiatives and referenda is to provide 
national leadership for the legislature. Such leadership has been far 
too absent from the current congressional power structure. A national 
initiative of either the advisory referendum type or the more powerful 
legislative proposals would provide a national, publicly-developed 
agenda of issues with which Congress would be forced to grapple in the 
next 2 years.
  Congress would be transformed from an assemblage of parochial agents 
to a body forced to debate and define the public good. Other attempts 
at more enlightened debate like ``Oxford-style debate'' are puny and 
hollow because they do not require a resolution of any issues. Forced 
debate on, say, term limits would guarantee an open and educational 
debate on an issue otherwise inadequately considered.
  The initiative process realizes the Constitutional provision for the 
public to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Special interest 
lobbyists defend their access to Congress on these same petition 
grounds. Sure, individuals can write, call or meet with their 
representatives. But the wealthy have the means to organize in a 
collective voice, and their ``petitions'' are more likely to be heard. 
The National Citizens Initiative gives the average voter greater clout 
to compete with the current powerful interests.
  A fundamental purpose of persons seeking to preserve and strengthen 
public confidence in our institutions is to make them more responsive 
to items on the public's agenda. At the same time, enhanced 
responsiveness must not harm the positive contribution of 
representative institutions--the time for deliberation, modification 
and improvement. The question is how to make our system more responsive 
and more responsible. I believe that a system of indirect national 
initiatives along the lines of legislation I have introduced would do 
both.
  A national indirect initiative process is not a conservative or 
liberal issue. Experience from the states and other nations that have 
initiatives shows both liberal and conservative victories. Indirect 
initiatives are a democratic response to restoring republican 
principles. By linking national elections with agenda setting, they are 
a return to our roots, not a departure from them. National Citizen 
Initiatives provide two useful functions that elevate public debate and 
reinvigorate our traditional institutions--separating issues from 
personalities so one focuses on issues, and facilitating communication 
between the electorate and the elected representative.
  NCI is a balanced and reasonable measure. It will make the 
institution of Congress more responsive, preserve its deliberate role, 
and the same time curb the excesses of populism which can at times turn 
ugly. It serves as an incentive to get Congress to set priorities--to 
focus on problems of pressing interest and hopefully set aside more 
narrow and parochial concerns. NCI combines the best democratic and 
republican virtues.
  As with any major reform, national indirect initiatives and referenda 
will disrupt comfortable relationships and break up cozy alliances. It 
may well mean the end of business as usual in Washington, DC. But 
business as usual is not what this nation needs--nor what the voters 
want--at this point in our history. Enacting an indirect initiative 
process provides an opportunity to restore the democratic nature of our 
republican institutions, before growing public frustration brings even 
greater alienation or a stampede to more radical measures of change.

                          ____________________