[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]

 
       NATIONWIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ON REFORMING CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, tonight I intend to update my colleagues 
on the work that has been going on on some proposals and a process that 
I started 18 months ago, the process of initiative and referendum on a 
nationwide basis. The things that have been going on around the country 
are much more exciting than the things that we have been doing here in 
Washington. We have had communications with citizens in over 40 States 
who are now working to help influence this institution on the 
initiatives and the bills that we have been working on.

                              {time}  2240

  Here is what people around the country are saying about our efforts 
to get this body to move and to start working and implementing real 
reforms that will reconnect the American people with the agenda that we 
are setting here in Washington. ``Those of us that are working on 
initiative and referendum were putting into words many of the issues 
that I feel strongly about,'' is what somebody in Indiana writes. ``The 
views and the perspectives that you are taking are very refreshing. I 
support referendum. All Americans should have a voice in government'' 
is what somebody from West Virginia writes. ``Thanks for trying to get 
national referendum, even if it is unpopular in Washington'' is what 
somebody else in Indiana writes. ``It is just what we need'' is what 
someone writes from Minnesota.
  Here is what the national poll numbers say: The Washington Post, 
April 20, 1994, says 64 percent of those interviewed favor conducting 
national referendums on major issues and want the Government or want 
Congress to give a referendum approved by the majority the same weight 
as legislation passed by Congress.
  In addition, 66 percent favor submitting tax increases that pass 
Congress to a vote of the people in the next general election. A tax 
hike would become law only if a majority of voters approved it. This 
comes from the Americans Talk Issues Foundation. It is apparent that 
the issue of reconnecting Congress, the agenda here in Washington, with 
the American people through some form of an initiative and referendum 
process is something that the American people strongly support, and I 
believe that they strongly support it because I think that they believe 
it will not only make us more responsive to their agenda but will 
overall improve the effectiveness of our Government and will move us to 
a point where today over 61 percent of the American people believe that 
Congress is not doing a good job, that we can get back to a situation 
where the majority of people have a high agree of faith and confidence 
in what is going on here in Washington.
  I can also tell my colleagues that organizations--organizations that 
are organizing at the grassroots level--have taken this on as a primary 
agenda item for their members because they really think it can make a 
difference. The National Tax Limitation Committee, they are doing 
nationwide mass mailings. They are coordinating State-based referendum 
groups to help us and to force us to change the way that we do business 
here in Washington. Citizens Against Government Waste, the topic has 
been featured in a national newsletter. It is featured on their 
Taxpayers' Action Network. It is featured at their regional 
conferences.
  Specifically what Citizens Against Government Waste has been talking 
about, they have been talking about the proposal here in Washington 
that I have introduced to allow a nationwide advisory referendum on 
term limits, the balanced budget amendment, and the line-item veto in 
the November elections of 1994 so that the American people can let 
their feelings on these issues be known to this Congress. They believe 
that term limits will change politics. People will have a direct link 
with Washington, and they believe, Citizens Against Government Waste 
believe that this advisory referendum process will give Americans the 
opportunity that they should have, which is an opportunity to have a 
voice on what the agenda is here in Washington.
  The Heritage Foundation in their policy review have published an 
article that talks about breaking the congressional lock grip, the case 
for a national referendum; it talks about the problem. What is the 
problem? The problem is that there is a crisis of confidence in 
National Government, one that threatens to permanently cripple our 
republican democracy. That is the problem.
  We have a serious trust deficit between the American people and this 
institution in Washington. Perhaps the best way to restore confidence 
in the political process is to rebuild the connection between national 
elections and national issues. We need a new constitutional device that 
lets voters help set the Nation's agenda. I propose, through a process 
of indirect initiatives and elections, voters should be allowed to 
instruct Congress about Government priorities and goals.
  We are not talking in this article about pure democracy, but we are 
talking about, again, an opportunity for the citizens of this country 
to help set the agenda in Washington. It is something, a change, that 
we do not take lightly.
  James 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 
interests of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice 
will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary and partial 
considerations.
  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, and think about the words used there. 
Think about how often the American people are describing this body in 
using these terms: the deliberative body, about the wisdom, the 
patriotism, the love of justice of elected representatives now seems 
naive and anachronistic.
  The brakes against mob rule written by and into the Constitution 
should not be lightly dismissed. There are, on the other hand, a number 
of constitutional changes that promote the democratic impulse. These 
include a wide sufferage, short election terms for House Members, so 
what we are saying here is the process of becoming a more open 
government is not inconsistent with what the Founding Fathers 
envisioned and where they thought this country might move to.
  But what are some of the other criticisms of this initiative and 
referendum? What are some of the problems that many of you have, or 
have expressed to me, about why letting the voters into the process 
just will not work? Criticisms that I hear, the first criticism is 
direct lawmaking by the people may undermine the legitimacy of elected 
government by taking power away from elected representatives. But I 
believe that in many cases we are already losing this legitimacy 
because we are not responding to the agenda that the American people 
have set for us.
  Another argument against initiatives is that they encourage 
legislative inertia, that the legislative will wait for the public to 
act on controversial matters to avoid blame. I believe many people in 
America today would describe that situation as exactly what is 
happening in Congress today. We are not dealing with the tough issues.
  What do other critics say? They say that initiatives are potentially 
the tools of special-interest groups. I think many people in the 
country today would say that the way this Congress works today is the 
result, or the decisions we make or that we have become a creature of 
special-interest groups.
  Let us open up the process and let the American people into the 
process.
  Some other critics contend that a national initiative destroys 
federalism and its important protections for States and regions. We are 
already destroying federalism by the actions we are taking here with 
Federal mandates, the shrinking power of the 10th amendment, the 
supermajority requirements; and legislative review of proposals limit 
the possibilities.
  But the thing, the process, is we are already implementing and 
mandating to the States.
  And, finally, critics of the initiative process say that proponents 
have undue faith in the masses and a lack of respect for the elected 
elites. I will have to say that that is absolutely true.
  Admittedly, I have a lot more confidence in the masses, in the 
American people's ability to understand the issues and the pressures 
that are facing this country; I believe that they could provide a 
powerful insight into the types of decisions and the direction that we 
should be setting for this country.
  The initiative and referendum process: What are some of the many 
benefits other than helping set the right agenda? It will help 
stimulate the voters. Turnouts for elections in this country are 
dismal, and in a Presidential election we get excited when 55 percent 
of the voters decide to participate in the election. In a 
nonpresidential election year, the turnout may go down to 40 
percent.
  We need a process that is going to get voters back involved in the 
election process.

                              {time}  2250

  I think initiative and referendum will help stimulate voters to 
become more active in the process. And what else might initiative and 
referendum do? They will end, I believe, business as usual. After being 
here for 18 months, if there is anything more important for this 
Congress, we need to end business as usual.
  As with any major reform, national indirect initiatives and 
referendum 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 or what the 
voters want.
  Indirect initiative process will help restore the Democratic nature 
of our Republican institution before growing public frustration brings 
even greater alienation or a stampede to more radical measures of 
change.
  I think the Heritage Foundation has done us a great service. I will 
send this out in a ``Dear Colleague,'' this article about breaking the 
congressional lock grip, the case for a national referendum. What else 
is going on at the grass roots? There is an intellectual argument for 
changing the process. But also, United We Stand, United We Stand 
America started a national petition drive so voters in every 
congressional district can let you know how they feel about the 
opportunity to vote on term limits, to vote on a balanced Federal 
budget and vote on a true presidential line item veto. They are 
gathering signatures around the country right now which they are going 
to be sending to you to encourage you to sign a discharge petition 
which will bring this bill to the floor and allow us to vote to change 
the process and then allow the American people to vote on those issues 
this fall.
  Let us talk specifically about the different kinds of ways that I 
have seen that we can use initiative and referendum here in Washington 
and around the country.
  I talked about House Resolution 3835, which would allow a national 
advisory referendum on term limits. We now have House Resolution 409, 
which seeks to discharge that bill that was filed by Congressman Jim 
Inhofe. The rule would allow us to add to that bill an advisory 
referendum on a balanced budget and a line item veto.
  So that is one way that we can use initiative and referendum, that we 
can use it to get an advisory in a nonbinding format, the opinion of 
the American people on some critical issues that we want their input 
on. It is more than a poll, it is a debate on these issues before the 
vote takes place.

  Think of our role in an advisory referendum, as Members of Congress, 
to understand the issues, to then debate, to information and educate 
the American people about the positives, the negatives of these 
advisory referenda, worthy educators, worthy informers.
  The American people then would have the opportunity to express their 
opinion to us at the polls in November. The advisory referendum, this 
is again published by the American Political Report, the advisory 
referendum, you take what is happening with term limits and imagine 
what we are doing, moving the issue from Washington. We think we are 
moving it to the American people, but really where has the issue on 
term limits gone? Moreover, the advisory referendum, if implemented, 
would effectively preempt a court decision and keep the debate 
political rather than judicial.
  Why do we say that? Because term limits with, all the States that 
have passed term limits for Congressmen, they are now being challenged 
in the courts. The issue of term limits is not now a political 
decision. We are giving away our responsibility for taking the lead and 
deciding that issue, and the decision is going to be made by the 
courts. That is wrong. Congress should take the responsibility for 
dealing with these issues.
  We should not turn it over to the courts.
  More recently, in the Committee on Education and Labor we came up 
with another place where an advisory, in this case it would be a 
binding referendum, would work. Think about this: We are going through 
the Committee on Education and Labor and debating a National Health 
Security Act. One of the amendments that comes up says we should exempt 
Hawaii. I am a freshman, and I am not sure exactly what is going on, 
but it is a little surprising to me we have a National Health Security 
Act and we are starting to go exempting people specifically, not by a 
set of criteria but by name. So surprisingly we exempt Hawaii from the 
national health care plan. So now we do not have a national health care 
plan, we have a continental health care plan.
  So we take the next logical step in committee, which I think is a 
logical step, and say rather than exempting just Hawaii, let us take 
and identify the criteria as to why we believe Hawaii should be 
exempted and let us make that a generic set of criteria and say that 
whatever State meets this set of criteria, like Hawaii does, will be 
exempted had from the national health care plan.
  Surprisingly enough, well, maybe not surprisingly, that amendment is 
defeated.
  Then when you really start taking a look at the essence and you 
recognize that the 50 States, the county governments, the local 
governments have been the ones that have been doing all the 
experimentation on health care, how to solve our health care crisis. So 
maybe not trying for everyone--not for everyone to try to meet the 
criteria for Hawaii, which they cannot do anyway, but it is maybe a 
plan that works for Hawaii, is legitimate, but perhaps the plan that 
works for Michigan is legitimate for Michigan's needs and that the plan 
for Florida is appropriate for Florida's requirements and that for 
Arizona is appropriate for Arizona's.
  So what right does the centralized Washington Government have for 
dictating a plan that now is going to be imposed on 49 States? Perhaps 
we should allow the States the right to opt into the system. So we 
propose--and remember what was done is done after Hawaii was exempted--
we proposed an amendment that said no State shall be considered to be a 
participating State for purposes of this act unless a majority of 
voters in the State, by State referendum, approve the State becoming a 
participating State.
  Now, that is the legalese, What does it mean in plain English? In 
plain English it means that Washington will not be imposing on the 
State of Michigan a national health care plan. We in Washington can 
develop a framework for a health care plan, but then the people in the 
State of Michigan would have the opportunity through a statewide 
referendum, analyzing the plan that we have come up with here in 
Washington, that is, the generic plan that is going to work for all 49 
continental States, and compare it to what we have. If they want to opt 
into the Federal system, they can have that and they can have their 
statewide referendum and we can become part of the plan. If the 
majority of the people in Michigan like what we have, think that we are 
making progress in addressing the problems that we in health care, are 
confident that the solution that we have developed in Michigan is more 
appropriate for our circumstances than what was developed in Washington 
as a generic national model, we stay with the Michigan system.
  If that is what the people is Florida decide, they stay with the 
Florida system. But we are empowering, at that point, the people in the 
States to study an issue, which I am not even sure the Federal 
Government has a right in doing, determining where in the Constitution 
does it say the Federal Government will take over health care. What 
this now says is that the people in the States will have the right to 
determine whether they want to be a part of the national health care 
system. Those are some of the areas that we have been experimenting 
with, that we have been moving on, that we are trying to find a way to 
get initiative and referendum into the process so that we can connect 
Washington with the American people.
  We are also beginning to write legislation in one additional area. I 
believe this maybe perhaps the most promising area of all of the 
different items that we are working on in National Initiative and 
Referendum.

                              {time}  2300

  And what this says is that, if Congress passes a tax increase, and it 
passes it without a super majority, and we are thinking right now about 
defining that super majority as a 60-percent vote, if Congress passes a 
tax increase without a super majority vote, without a 60-percent 
majority of the House and without a 60-percent majority of the Senate, 
that before that tax increase is implemented; that is, before the 
American people, before our constituents, have to start sending more 
money to Washington, they will have the right to either approve or 
disapprove that tax increase.
  Like I said, that is a proposal that we are now currently working on. 
We think it starts to fill out and round out the packages of where an 
initiative and referendum might be most appropriate, and, like I said, 
I believe that it, perhaps, has the greatest potential of all of these 
suggestions to actually become a piece of legislation that can come to 
the floor of this House to be voted on.
  I would like to say that I am optimistic that, through the efforts of 
United We Stand, through the efforts of Citizens Against Government 
Waste and other groups, that we will have the opportunity to vote on 
the floor of this House about whether we want the American people to 
have the right to vote on term limits, and the balanced budget 
amendment, and the line item veto this November. But I am not at all 
that optimistic that we are going to be able to do that. I would like 
to say that with a national health care plan, that when it comes to the 
floor of this House that we will have the opportunity to vote on an 
amendment that says, ``No State will be a participating State until the 
voters approve that through a national referendum.'' We may have a shot 
at doing that, and I say to my colleagues, ``I hope you support the 
effort to let that be a part of the national health care debate.''
  But I really think that this third item now provides an opportunity 
for all of us to work together, for all of us to start a process that 
reconnects us to the American people by allowing them the opportunity 
to vote on any future tax increase that we here decide to impose on 
them, and, when we cannot do it with a super majority, when there is 
not a strong consensus to increase taxes, to increase spending in this 
House, that the American people will have the final say, initiative and 
referendum, strong support at the grassroots level. I think over a 
period of time it will generate strong support here in Washington. The 
grassroots effort is going to continue putting pressure on all of us 
because we are not dealing with an agenda that the American people want 
us to deal with.
  I believe in the coming months, and I believe in the next Congress, 
we are going to have a deal with this issue. Get ready. Start getting 
ready to debate the intellectual arguments. Start considering how best 
to implement this process. The American people want it. It will help. 
It will help restore confidence in this institution because we will be 
reconnected to the American people in a way that is genuine and will 
have a genuine impact on the way that we do business here in 
Washington.

                          ____________________