[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            POSITION ON VOTE

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while my vote would not have changed the 
outcome, I rise to say that had I been present for yesterday's vote on 
the Legislative Reorganization Act, I would have voted ``aye.'' I have 
long supported biennial budgeting, limiting post-cloture debate, and 
other measures contained in that bill. In testimony I submitted to the 
Rules Committee during their consideration of this legislation last 
February, I outlined key reforms that I favor to increase the 
efficiency and accountability of the Senate. The Joint Committee 
accomplished a difficult tasks in developing reasonable changes to 
improve the working of this body, and I am particularly gratified that 
some of my recommendations were included. In this context, I request 
that this statement be inserted in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Remarks of Senator Charles S. Robb on the Congressional Reorganization 
                              Act of 1994

       I want to thank the members of the recently adjourned Joint 
     Committee for making such a concentrated effort at what is 
     largely a thankless task. I believe that if Congress is to be 
     improved through these proceedings, the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act will have to be strengthened and expanded 
     to contain more of the good ideas explored by that body. This 
     is one of those frustrating situations where the provisions 
     in the bill do not measure up to the exciting ideas contained 
     in the committee report. However, I understand the 
     difficulties the Joint Committee encountered in reaching 
     consensus, and hope the Rules Committee is able to break some 
     of the logjams.
       I would like to point out that public disapproval and 
     distruct of the institution is based primarily on Congress' 
     failure to carry out its most important responsibility--
     managing the public purse. In my mind, popular disapproval of 
     Congress relates back closely to the budgetary deficits that 
     we approve each year and the debt that we have accumulated 
     for our grandchildren.
       Democracy is intrinsically susecptable to fiscal 
     mismanagement. It is the nature of a legislature to spend, 
     and it is the nature of voters to reward those who provide 
     them with a piece of the treasury. In The Republic, Book 
     VIII, Plato decried this tendency over 2000 years ago. We 
     have checks on this pattern of behavior, many implemented in 
     the past 10 years, but it is crucial to the health of our 
     democratic experiment that these checks be periodically 
     reinforced and reformed. I believe this is central to the 
     effectiveness of this reform bill.
       The move to biennial budgeting and authorization would 
     constitute an effective retrenchment in the battery of checks 
     against spending. Long term planning is noticeably absent in 
     the present mad rush to approve the 13 annual appropriation 
     bills, and far too much time is spent debating the same 
     controversial provisions each year. With appropriations being 
     the focus only one year of a two year cycle, there will be 
     more time set aside for authorization and regulatory 
     oversight. I have supported a move to biennial budget in the 
     past, and welcome this renewed attempt to make the process 
     more ordered.
       In addition, I continue to advocate the creation of a new 
     ``budgetary leadership committee'' to replace the current 
     Budget Committee. While no such provision is currently 
     included in the bill, consolidation of budgetary 
     responsibility within a leadership committee, composed of the 
     majority and minority leaders along with the chairmen and 
     ranking members of the Finance and Appropriations 
     Committees, would bring a more realistic alignment of 
     spending versus receipts to the process. In a two year 
     budgeting system, this committee would meet, perhaps, only 
     in the first (odd numbered) year of a Congress, and would 
     set parameters for the authorizing committees in their 
     work.
       Much more could be done to streamline the legislative 
     process in areas beyond those budgetary. I would like to see 
     germaneness more strictly defined as it applies in Rules XVI, 
     XXII, and XXVII to avoid the tortured interpretation 
     currently employed. In addition, I support changes in the 
     rules to extend the germaneness requirement to amendments to 
     emergency appropriations and major, omnibus legislation. I 
     grant that the definition of what legislation is ``major'' 
     and which is not would be difficult to spell out. It would be 
     worth the effort, however, to end the current situation where 
     major legislation is passed onto the President covered with a 
     host of ``Christmas tree ornaments'' of non-germane 
     amendments that, more times than not, benefit only a narrow 
     constituency.
       There are other areas I would like to see addressed in this 
     package of reforms. We are all aware that unnecessarily 
     burdensome federal regulations fuel the public perception of 
     Congress as out of touch with the people we serve. While I 
     believe the time set aside for authorization and regulatory 
     oversight in a two year authorizing process would have a 
     salutary effect, there is a step that we can take right now 
     to clear up our greatest regulatory sin--Congressional 
     exemptions. For a small business owner plowing through the 
     federal forms and mandates handed down from this body, the 
     true insult comes with the discovery that the body which 
     initiated such regulations also is exempt from them. This is 
     contrary to the express intentions of the framers and an 
     unhealthy trend.
       There is no provision in the current draft to address this 
     issue, and there should be. The House version of this bill, 
     specifically Chapter 3, Subtitle C, is stronger in this 
     regard, and has elicited the support of nearly 250 members. 
     On the Senate side, I support the efforts of Senator 
     Lieberman in his work on the Congressional Accountability 
     Act. I understand he is working to introduce a stronger 
     version of this bill with Senator Grassley, and I would like 
     to see it considered as a part of the entire package of 
     reforms.
       This bill is in response to public criticism of the way 
     Congress does business. Some of this criticism is based on 
     misconceptions, and some is spread by people who serve their 
     own interest by bashing Congress. Most of the criticism, 
     however, is based on a very real perception that Congress has 
     systemic problems in managing the national budget and in 
     regulating its own internal affairs. While Congress rarely 
     enjoys high ratings, I believe that some lasting good can 
     come of the current down-turn in public confidence in this 
     institution. We should capitalize on the political momentum 
     behind this bill, and implement well-reasoned and far-
     reaching reforms.

                          ____________________