[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E20]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           REFORMING THE HOUSE

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 4, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, December 28, 1994 into the Congressional Record.
                          Reforming the House

       In early January, the House of Representatives will 
     consider and likely pass the most significant reforms of its 
     internal operations in decades. These changes were proposed 
     by the new leadership, but many are drawn from the reform 
     plan of last session's Joint Committee on the Organization of 
     Congress.
       More generally, the reforms continue a tradition of 
     institutional renewal, dating from the mid-1970s, which aims 
     to open up congressional deliberations, increase the 
     authority of party leaders, and make the House leadership 
     more accountable to rank-and-file Members of Congress and the 
     public. My sense is that most of the new reforms are 
     constructive, and will lead to meaningful improvements in the 
     way business is conducted in the House.


                        joint committee reforms

       Many of the reforms in this package were derived from the 
     work of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 
     a bicameral and bipartisan panel which I co-chaired. The 
     Joint Committee made its recommendations for reform in 
     November 1993, and last year the House did pass one of its 
     major recommendations--requiring Congress to live under the 
     same laws it applies to the private sector.
       Unfortunately, the remainder of the Joint Committee's 
     reform plan was not considered by the full House during the 
     103rd Congress. But the new House leadership has adopted or 
     built on many of the key reform recommendations: First, again 
     require the application of private sector laws to Congress. 
     It is critical that Members of Congress follow the laws they 
     pass for private citizens. Second, streamline the bloated 
     congressional committee system, by reducing the total number 
     of committees and restricting the number of committee 
     assignments Members can have. The leadership also adopted a 
     Joint Committee proposal to significantly reduce the number 
     of subcommittees. Third, cut congressional staff. The 
     leadership has proposed a one-third reduction in committee 
     staff. It recommended no reduction in Members' personal staff 
     or in large congressional support agencies such as the 
     General Accounting Office. The Joint Committee recommended a 
     reduction in the entire legislative branch of up to 12%. 
     Fourth, open up Congress to enhanced public scrutiny by 
     publishing committee attendance and roll call votes, 
     requiring that the Congressional Record be a verbatim account 
     of congressional proceedings, and requiring that special 
     interest projects included in spending bills be publicized, 
     thus providing additional barriers to wasteful spending.


                           additional reforms

       The new leadership has also proposed changes that were not 
     included in the Joint Committee package, some of which are 
     constructive, others of which are problematic. For example, 
     to streamline the House it has proposed that three standing 
     committees be abolished. The Joint Committee adopted a more 
     flexible, ``attrition'' approach to committee abolition, 
     providing incentives for Members to leave less important 
     committees through strict assignment limitations and a 
     requirement that committees losing one half of
      their members be considered for abolition. The basic 
     approach of the leadership proposal should modestly 
     improve the committee system, but it does not address the 
     fundamental problem of several committees having huge 
     jurisdictions.
       Drawing on the proposals of an earlier reform commission, 
     the leadership would create a new chief administrative 
     officer for the House who would be responsible for managing 
     its non-legislative functions. I support this attempt to 
     reduce patronage. But the leadership has made the chief 
     administrative officer a partisan position, appointed and 
     supervised by the Speaker. Instead, the administrative 
     functions of Congress should be handled in a bipartisan 
     fashion, with the chief administrative officer reporting to 
     leaders from both parties.
       Another proposal would require a three-fifths 
     ``supermajority'' in the House to increase income tax rates. 
     However, almost all substantive issues in the House are now 
     settled by majority rule, and it is unclear why a three-
     fifths vote is appropriate for revenue matters but not for 
     other legislation. If such supermajorities proliferate in the 
     House, the result would be more legislative gridlock in 
     Washington. In addition, the constitutionality of this 
     proposal is in question.


                            Reform Omissions

       From my viewpoint, a number of important reform 
     recommendations in the Joint Committee plan are not included 
     in the proposals made by the new leadership. I intend to work 
     for the passage of these reforms during the 104th Congress. 
     Among the omitted recommendations are proposals to: First, 
     include private citizens in the ethics process in a 
     meaningful way. The Joint Committee proposed that private 
     citizens investigate ethics complaints against Members of the 
     House, but major ethics reforms are not included in the 
     package under consideration.
       Second, publicize the special interest tax breaks included 
     in revenue bills and the budget resolution. My sense is that 
     special interest loopholes should be treated the same as 
     special interest spending projects. Such items should not be 
     hidden from the public in huge bills. Third, streamline the 
     budget process by shifting if from an annual to a biennial 
     cycle, reducing redundant decisions and allowing more time 
     for oversight.


                               Conclusion

       The new House leadership has made a good start toward the 
     passage of meaningful congressional reform. Their efforts 
     have been assisted by the work of prior reform commissions, 
     as well as the public demand for change and the transition to 
     a new leadership with less invested in the institutional 
     status quo. I intend to introduce and push for additional 
     reforms aimed at making the House more efficient and publicly 
     accountable. Reform is an on-going process. And reform is no 
     panacea--many difficult issues are on the agenda. But 
     sustained and meaningful institutional change is crucial for 
     the restoration of public confidence in Congress.
     

                          ____________________