[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frost). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about an 
issue which was addressed here on the floor earlier today and, quite 
frankly, it will be addressed by me and several other Members in a 
bipartisan way until it is resolved. That is the issue of congressional 
reform.
  In August 1992, in a clear bipartisan effort, both Democrats and 
Republicans joined together to establish for the first time in nearly 
half a century what has become known as the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress.
  The committee was established in a bipartisan way because of the fact 
that we in this House were in the midst of a number of scandals. 
Frankly, as we look at those items, which led to the establishment of 
the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, the House 
Restaurant, House Bank and the Post Office scandals, many of the 
problems continue to loom.
  They led to the establishment of the committee, and I believe that we 
have, unfortunately, ignored not only those but many of the other 
institutional issues which desperately need to be addressed as we move 
towards the 21st Century.
  In the early years of this country, when the Census was taken, 
following the Census, that 10-year period of time, the committee 
structure for the Congress was modified. Unfortunately, if we look at 
the reforms that took place in the 1940's, under what is known as the 
Monroney-La Follette Committee, we have seen virtually no reform of the 
committee system.
  That is nearly half a century, and we have not, as we have observed 
tremendous changes throughout the world, changed this institution.
  Earlier today one of my colleagues on the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, the gentleman from Cape Girardeau, Missouri 
[Mr. Emerson] talked about the fact that we in the Congress have spent 
a great deal of time talking about reform of the health care system, 
reform of the welfare system, reform of wetland policy, reform of the 
educational structure, reform of virtually every area. And yet, while 
there has been a great deal of talk, there has been no action here in 
the Congress.
  Now, this committee was put into place to serve for 1 year and 1 year 
only. I was very enthused about the prospect of serving on a committee 
in Congress which would actually go out of existence because it is a 
real rarity around here. Once a committee is established, it is like 
moving heaven and Earth to try and bring that committee, even if it has 
completed its work, to a close. So when I was asked to serve on this 
committee that would go into effect on January 1, 1993, and out of 
existence on December 31, 1993, I thought, wow, what a terrific 
opportunity to buckle down, work hard and spend every moment that I 
possibly could outside of my work on the Committee on Rules and other 
items that I had, focusing on reform of this institution.

  It was a wonderful experience. We worked in a bipartisan way. The 
great thing about this committee was that there were an equal number of 
Republicans and an equal number of Democrats, an equal number of House 
Members, an equal number of Members from the Senate.
  With that 28-member committee, we were presented with this chance to 
come forward and be bold and do the kinds of things that the American 
people and, I sincerely believe, a majority of the Members of this body 
want us to do. We had, on our side of the aisle, my colleagues, Mr. 
Solomon, Mr. Walker, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Allard. We had people who spent a 
great deal of time focusing on this issue of congressional reform, 
along with Mr. Emerson who I mentioned earlier. They very sincerely 
wanted to do it.
  On the other side of the aisle, many of the Members, I believe, 
sincerely recognize the need to bring about institutional reform and 
they want to do something. Some of the items that we wanted to address 
in that committee and, in fact, did address in a positive way were 
issues like congressional compliance.
  Now, it is not what I believe should be the case. It is, frankly, 
rather weak. But it is a step in the direction of congressional 
compliance.

                              {time}  2220

  There are other things that I think were, unfortunately, not 
addressed in the Joint Committee, but based on conversations that I had 
with Members on the other side of the aisle, they wanted us to address 
those things right here on the House floor, allowing the House to work 
its will on issues like proxy voting.
  For anyone who has followed the debate, and my colleagues know, Mr. 
Speaker, that proxy voting is a system where Members are allowed to 
have their votes cast while they are not in the room. Unfortunately, as 
we look at that pattern which has gone on, we often see committee 
chairmen and others cast the votes for many Members who are not present 
at all, do not know about the debate on an issue, when a vote is being 
taken, and Members who are in the room, in the minority, who are there 
working, listening, participating in the markup of legislation, are 
overruled by proxies in a virtually empty room.
  We believe, Mr. Chairman, that since the American people have to show 
up for work, that Members of Congress should have to show up to their 
committees if their votes are going to be cast, and in our Committee on 
Rules, as you know, Mr. Speaker, where you and I sit, we have no proxy 
voting. Sometimes we have to wait to get a quorum into the room so that 
we can cast the votes that we do, but I think that it works out rather 
well. If I am not upstairs on the floor just above here, on the third 
floor, my vote is not cast.
  We have that same provision in the Committee on Appropriations, which 
I believe is the largest committee in the House. We have that in the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs and in the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct, but on the other committees, unfortunately, proxy 
voting is allowed, and we have often seen real abuse of that.
  I think that the American people recognize that their Members of 
Congress should be on the job, should be in the committees working, 
rather than allowing their votes to be cast by someone, and they have 
no idea how that vote is being cast.
  Another thing that I believe needs to be addressed is the issue of 
committee structure reform. Mr. Speaker, there are 266 committees and 
subcommittees for the House and Senate. That is for 535 of us who serve 
here.
  I often joke, Mr. Speaker, that if I am walking down the hallway and 
happen to see a Democrat whose name I do not quite remember, I just 
say, ``How are you doing, Mr. Chairman,'' because chances are he or she 
chairs some committee or subcommittee. The proliferation has been very 
great, and I believe needs to be addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have jurisdictional overlap and a desire by 
Members to serve on so many committees that that is used often as an 
excuse for proxy voting, because if they have markups in three or four 
committees taking place at the exact same moment, how can they possibly 
be in all of those committees at the same time?
  Obviously, it is impossible, so I believe that the responsible thing 
for us to do would be to reduce the number of committees and 
subcommittees so that we could do what I believe is really the major 
charge of our Joint Committee, and that is, enhance the degree of 
accountability and our ability as Members of Congress to deliberate on 
these public policy questions which we face.
  Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned jurisdictional overlaps, my friend, the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, New York [Mr. Solomon], in our debate 
earlier today, when we were attempting to defeat the previous question 
and move congressional reform forward, referred to the fact that on the 
health care issue alone, we have had three committees and about 10 
subcommittees involved in the issue of health care reform.

  There are a wide range of issues which, with referrals to many 
committees, create a great many problems. Those problems, Mr. Speaker, 
tragically hurt the American people in their attempt to get responsible 
legislation moved from the Congress of the United States. As they do 
that, Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis, as we see that obliterated, 
people, unfortunately, are not getting the kind of representation which 
they deserve.
  As we look at one of the other items which has been discussed, it is 
congressional compliance. Virtually everyone here knows, Democrat and 
Republican alike, that if we go out to a town hall meeting, if we talk 
to any audience, virtually any audience, there is one way to guarantee 
that we are going to get a standing ovation. How is that? We say, ``The 
Congress of the United States of America should not exempt itself from 
the laws which we impose on the American people.''
  Yes, everyone stands up and cheers and believes that that is the 
case. Democrats and Republicans alike have found from their public 
meetings that that is the issue, which is a real hot button with the 
American people.
  What is it that has happened? What has happened is, there is an 
attempt by the leadership to simply bring up the issue of congressional 
compliance, passing what tragically is a very weak plan that emerged in 
our legislation. As I said earlier, the issue of congressional 
compliance calls for the establishment of basically a committee that is 
going to a compliance office, we call it, which is going to make 
recommendations back to us on what regulations we might consider 
imposing on ourselves. They want to be able to call that congressional 
compliance.
  Obviously, that is riddled with loopholes and creates a situation 
which allows Congress to continue to exempt itself from the laws which 
we impose on the American people. One of the things that is very 
controversial, I know, is this issue of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act. A number of my colleagues, some in the other body, have 
raised real concerns about the cost that would be imposed on the United 
States Congress if we had to actually comply with OSHA here.

  As we look at that, the very simple and basic response is, ah ha, 
maybe we should realize the cost which we are forcing American 
businesses to shoulder to comply with these onerous and duplicative 
regulations which are imposed. It seems to me that we have a real 
responsibility to strike a balance on that.
  The leadership, knowing that people out there are concerned about 
congressional compliance, want to pass this very weak package of 
congressional compliance and all that congressional reform. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think they may get their way, because I 
have heard of some meetings which have taken place over the past 
several days in which the leadership wants to maintain the status quo 
when it comes to issues like proxy voting, budget process reform, 
looking at the line item veto, looking at the committee structure 
reform, and they want to maintain the status quo, but they know that 
something needs to be done in the name of congressional reform, so they 
will pass that one hot button, congressional compliance.
  That would be an outrage, and I believe a major attack on the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], who served as the chairman of 
the committee from the House side, and my colleagues in the other body, 
Dave Boren and Pete Domenici, who are our counterparts in the Senate 
working on this issue. It really would be basically saying that 
calendar year 1993 went for naught because of the fact that we have 
ignored the findings of this effort, which put together the largest 
compilation of information ever gleaned in the history of the Congress.
  We have 243 witnesses, 37 hearings. We heard from people in the 
private sector, we heard from academicians, we heard from former 
Members of Congress. I find it rather interesting that some in the 
Majority leadership have argued that there is really not a great deal 
of interest for congressional reform here in the House. We had scores 
and scores of Democrats and Republicans come before our committee and 
talk about the necessity to bring about real congressional reform.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at that challenge, it is 
one which we cannot ignore. It is my hope, and I have been working very 
closely with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
who shares my concern about the fact that attempts are being made to 
break up this legislation, H.R. 3801, and deal with it in a piecemeal 
way and call that congressional reform, he is concerned about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the fact that we work together in 
a bipartisan way. Earlier today when I was speaking on the rule, trying 
to defeat the previous question so that we could make our reform 
package in order, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
was saying that I was attacking the institution, demeaning the 
institution. It seems to me that as we look at that, we should 
recognize that this truly is the greatest deliberative body known to 
man.

                              {time}  2230

  We all know that Winston Churchill described democracy as the worst 
form of government of all except for all of the rest. And we know that 
there are problems. We know that the approval rating of this place is 
extraordinarily low.
  What I want to do in bringing about congressional reform is not to 
trash this institution. It is to improve it, to improve it so that the 
American people can once again have respect.
  I know that there is always going to be a degree of cynicism as they 
look at the institution. We all know that Will Rogers, whose statue is 
outside the door there, regularly poked fun at the institution, you 
know, one criminal class is the Congress and all of these great 
stories. And it is fun to poke fun at the institution itself. But we 
need to recognize that it is the greatest deliberative body known to 
man, and we should be doing the kinds of responsible things that the 
American people want us to do to make our Representatives and Senators 
more accountable to the American people.
  So often around here when tough issues want to be swept under the 
carpet they use our Rules Committee to deny consideration of 
amendments. One of the amendments that I offered in our Joint Committee 
on the Organization of Congress was a requirement that we have a three-
fifth vote if we are going to waive the rules, which for those who 
regularly follow the proceedings here now happens day in and day out. I 
say pass the rules of the House by a majority vote, change the rules of 
the House by a majority vote, but when we are going to come from our 
Rules Committee down here to the House floor to waive the Budget Act, 
to waive the 3-day layover provision which gives 3 days for Members to 
consider legislation before it is voted on, if we are going to waive 
those kinds of rules, let us have a supermajority and say that this is 
so important that we have to get a three-fifths vote to waive the 
rules, because tragically what we regularly see is violations of the 
standing rules of the House. In fact, during several of our hearings I 
said that the greatest reform of the United States Congress would be to 
see us simply comply with the existing rules of the House. That would 
be a great reform for us, because unfortunately we regularly waive the 
rules by simple majority vote. It seems to me that that is a real 
violation of this issue of accountability,
  The reason for that is that tough questions are left upstairs, so the 
full membership does not have to vote on them, because we deny the 
opportunity for Members to offer their different proposals here on the 
House floor. So it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to 
increase the accountability. Members should be accountable for votes 
that they cast.
  I always say to my constituents and other groups when I speak, 
``Don't listen to what a Member of Congress says, look at how he or she 
votes. That is really the key.'' But, unfortunately, because people 
have started to look at the voting record, we often have very tough 
votes that are never faced right here on the floor of Congress. They 
are left upstairs in the Rules Committee where we deny in the Rules 
Committee the opportunity for those ideas to even be heard.
  The issue of budget reform is something that also has been a real 
concern to a wide range of Members and I believe the American people. 
We have looked at this question of baseline budgeting and baseline 
budgeting basically creates a situation where the inflation rate that 
is built in actually can be called what is an increase to comply with 
inflation, they can call that a cut, because they begin the next year 
based on that rate of inflation. I happen to think that we should have 
zero-based budgeting as everyone else does out there. We start from 
where we left off the year before rather than starting at a rate that 
is at the level of inflation. I mean, a 3-percent or 4-percent increase 
to comply with the rate of inflation is considered a cut, and that I 
believe is a real mistake and should not be utilized. That is just one 
of the proposals for budget process reform.
  We dealt today here with this issue of the line-item veto. I think 
that is a very important item, to provide the opportunity to deal with 
the profligate spending that is emanating from this institution on a 
regular basis. Unfortunately, we have not gotten the other body to deal 
with an enhanced rescission proposal, and yet they have looked at the 
question of reform, and we had included the reform package, which had 
the enhanced rescission process in it, and I frankly am more sanguine 
at the prospect for action on enhanced rescission over in the other 
body. So it is going to be a tough battle. I hope that my colleagues 
will join with us and urge the majority leadership to keep the 
congressional reform package together.

  Why is it that we put this committee together, all of these 
Republicans, Democrats, Senators, House Members to look at this issue 
and then come back with nothing more than a cosmetic modification of 
the congressional compliance issue? It seems to me that that is a great 
attack on the major mandate of the election of 1992 which was to bring 
about reform of the Congress. One of the things that my predecessor who 
served as a cochairman briefly before he chose to retire, Bill 
Gradison, said, was that with what were now 117 new Members of Congress 
who ran, most of whom ran on this issue of congressional reform, that 
unfortunately they really do not want to go back to their voters 
without having voted for congressional reform. So unfortunately a 
number of them who want to be able to have a vote on congressional 
reform have now joined with the status quo forces around here and 
indicated that they would be just as happy with this very mild, weak 
congressional compliance package. And they will go home and say yes, I 
voted for congressional reform, when it has been anything but that.
  I think Members have a responsibility, because most all of those new 
Members, because the television cameras were on regularly, came to the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and testified about the 
need for the elimination of proxy voting and congressional compliance 
and committee structure reform and budget process reform, all of these 
different items on a regular basis, and yet now a number of them have 
said, ``Oh yeah, well, I think we should probably break that up because 
we cannot put a consensus together here to deal with the full issue of 
congressional reform.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe very sincerely that if we were to hold 
together the whole package and bring it to the House floor, allowing 
for a generous rule which would take each of the major categories that 
we addressed and have votes up or down on those, that we would pass 
meaningful congressional reform. I believe that we could get the 
majority of this institution to vote in favor of the kind of reform 
that they campaigned on when they ran in 1992 and that the American 
people truly want them to pass.
  We do not have much time left, and as I said earlier today, it was 
rather ironic that we dealt with the enhanced rescission measure again 
after we did it last year, and yet people say, ``Well, we've got a 
schedule which is too busy to deal with the whole issue of 
congressional reform.'' There have been many people who have put a 
great deal of time and effort into it. Let us not cast it aside. Let us 
insist that the leadership keep H.R. 3801, our reform package intact 
and have an up or down vote.

                          ____________________