[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] is recognized during morning business for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about one aspect 
of the contract, something we do not need a contract for, we should be 
doing, and most of us agreed we wanted to do, and that was 
congressional reform.
  Mr. Speaker, with just a few weeks to go before elections, the House 
is close to losing a golden opportunity to enact true congressional 
reform. Instead of voting on the Joint Committee's broad package of 
reforms, the Democratic leadership decided to split the reform bill 
into several pieces.
  The last time each Chamber debated internal reforms the effort turned 
out to be largely unsuccessful. That was 20 years ago. This time, 
things were supposed to be different. Unfortunately, as the taxpayers 
know all too well, it is very, very difficult to bring change to this 
place.
  After the House post office scandal, I thought 1993 might be the Year 
of Reform. We had 110 new Members each of them elected to the House on 
a reform platform. Those new Members had campaigned on platforms saying 
they were going to reform everything from ethics and campaign finance 
to budgeting. The status quo was no longer going to be tolerated.
  So what has happened? Politics has found its way into a process which 
was supposed to be void of partisan wrangling.
  Mr. Speaker, what has changed is that the Democratic leaders fear a 
comprehensive reform bill has the potential of passing the House if 
they presented it. In fact, they give all sorts of reasons for 
splitting the bill up, including that it might be easier to pass 
segments than the whole thing, but they will not even let those, it 
looks like, come to the floor.
  Those of us who oppose splitting the bill up are concerned that doing 
this only waters down the legislation.
  While the Joint Committee's recommendations provide for a sound basis 
from which significant reforms must begin, it falls far short of 
establishing the strong measures needed to ensure real reforms in the 
House.
  First and foremost, the committee system should be at the heart of 
any comprehensive reform package. Unfortunately, the Joint Committee 
failed to outline a strategy to adequately address committee and 
subcommittee assignments, and the realignment and consolidation of 
committees.
  While the House and Senate committee reforms are similar, the House 
proposal lacks strong enforcement measures. For instance, the current 
Joint Committee report limits each Member to a total of six 
assignments--two standing committees and four subcommittees. However, 
this plan may increase the number of assignments for those Members 
sitting on exclusive committees.
  Additionally, the Joint Committee's report directs the Rules 
Committee to consider a resolution to abolish committees, not to report 
such a resolution to the floor. In other words, just consider it, they 
do not really have to bring it to the floor.
  An ideal way to consolidate committees may be to require a floor vote 
on a resolution to abolish certain committees.
  The last major flaw with the Joint Committee's work fails to focus on 
substantial reforms of floor procedures. In the past few years the 
House leadership has taken a more aggressive approach in their use of 
restrictive rules.
  Although the Joint Committee recommends the restoration of the motion 
to recommit by the minority, it only reaffirms the right of the 
minority to offer a final amendment to a bill prior to passage.
  It is unfortunate for the American public that closed or modified 
rules have become the standard by which most legislation is considered. 
Because of this abuse by the majority, much tougher steps are needed to 
prevent further erosion of the rights of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the recommendations of the Joint 
Committee will provide the catalyst needed to push through significant, 
long-term reforms.
  Congress has an opportunity to alter the public's perception of this 
institution. On the other hand, failure to enact meaningful reforms 
will only provide cannon fodder for those who preach hatred for this 
institution.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the distain and distrust the American people 
have for this institution is not good for our system of Government even 
though it is often deserved.
  We have an opportunity to restore confidence. This kind of 
opportunity comes along only rarely. We dare not squander it.

                          ____________________