[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PUBLIC HEARINGS IN COMMITTEES ARE CONSISTENT WITH OPENNESS, 
                   PARTICIPATION, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern 
over the bypassing of an important legislative process, public hearings 
in committees. I would suggest that this need not unduly delay the 
Republican's 100-day agenda, if each bill is appropriately scheduled.
  I realize that some of the proposals on which you seek prompt 
legislative action were the subject of hearings in the last Congress. 
However, that does not provide an adequate legislative record.
  We have many new Members to Congress and some who are new to 
committees. Without hearings, Members are being asked to vote on 
legislation without the benefit of input from constituents, interest 
groups, the administration, or their colleagues.
  This seems inconsistent with the recent reform of House rules which 
are intended to increase openness, participation, and accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record 2 letters which address the two 
committees which have planned or have markups without hearings this 
week or next week.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 10, 1995.
     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     Chairman, Committee on Science,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Committee begins its legislative 
     work for the 104th Congress, we wanted to express our concern 
     about reports that the Committee is considering marking up 
     bills without the benefit of prior public hearings on 
     legislative proposals.
       Hearings are an indispensable part of the legislative 
     process. They provide Committee Members the opportunity to 
     learn about the legislation, to ask questions, and to 
     understand the impact of the legislation on interested 
     parties. We realize that some of the proposals on which you 
     seek prompt legislative action were the subject of hearings 
     in the last Congress. But hearings in prior Congresses cannot 
     provide an adequate legislative record for several reasons. 
     First of all, fully half of the Committee Members are new to 
     the Committee. Without hearings, they would be asked to vote 
     on legislation without the benefit of hearing from 
     constituents, interest groups, the Administration, or their 
     colleagues. Such a procedure would hardly be fair to the new 
     Members on either side of the aisle.
       In addition, even if the bills have not substantially 
     changed, the context of those bills within the broader agenda 
     has changed considerably. For example, in the light of 
     expected cuts in DOE's energy R&D programs, it will be 
     difficult for Members to assess the importance of increasing 
     funding for hydrogen research without a better understanding 
     of how the hydrogen program fits into overall energy research 
     and development budget priorities.
       Finally, moving legislation without public hearings would 
     seem to be inconsistent with recent Republican reforms 
     intended to increase openness and accountability. We do not 
     believe that either the Members or the public will be well-
     served by legislating in the absence of a record.
       We understand your desire to begin the Committee's work 
     quickly. Holding hearings need not be inconsistent with 
     moving legislation expeditiously. Indeed, markups are likely 
     to be far smoother when Members have had an adequate 
     opportunity to understand the measure before them.
       We know that you share our hope that we can move Committee 
     legislation in a bipartisan fashion. To foster this 
     cooperation, it is essential that both Majority and Minority 
     Members have the opportunity to participate in a thorough, 
     open legislative process that includes formal hearings on 
     legislation that will be reported from the Committee. We 
     appreciate your consideration of these concerns.
           Sincerely,
     George E. Brown, Jr.
                                                                    ____

                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1995.
       Dear Chairman Clinger: We understand that you have 
     scheduled a full committee mark-up of H.R. 5, the Unfunded 
     Mandate Reform Act of 1995 for 10 a.m., January 10. We 
     respectfully request that you honor the request of members of 
     the Government Reform and Oversight Committee for a hearing 
     on this important piece of legislation.
       Under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, your party has 
     instituted a number of changes that are meant to ensure that 
     Members of Congress and the citizens that they represent are 
     fully informed about the legislation that is acted upon in 
     the House of Representatives. We agree, and therefore, 
     believe that a full committee mark-up of this legislation is 
     premature. The hearing process allows interested constituent 
     groups and Members of Congress an opportunity to express 
     their views and familiarize themselves with the details of 
     the legislative proposal under consideration. This is a 
     fundamental and important step in the democratic process that 
     should not be by-passed, especially in the case of 
     legislation that addresses an issue as important as the 
     relationship between federal, state, and local government.
       We realize that hearings on unfunded mandates legislation 
     have been held by the committee in previous Congresses. 
     However, we understand that H.R. 5 contains new provisions. 
     Returning members should have an opportunity to consider the 
     new proposal prior to proceeding to the committee amending 
     process. Also, there are many new members in the House who 
     should be given an opportunity to examine the details of this 
     proposal, to ask questions, and to hear the views of their 
     colleagues and constituents through a formal hearing process.
       Our hope is that we can work in a bipartisan fashion in the 
     104th Congress to develop sound legislation that will provide 
     the greatest benefit to the American people. In order for 
     this to occur, both majority and minority Members of Congress 
     must be able to participate in a thorough, open legislative 
     process which includes formal hearings on important 
     legislation such as H.R. 5. We trust that you share our 
     appreciation for the importance of maintaining an open, 
     thorough democratic process within the House of 
     Representatives and committees, and we thank you for your 
     consideration of our concerns.
           Sincerely,
     George E. Brown, Jr.
     John D. Dingell.
     John J. LaFalce.
     William L. Clay.
     David Obey.
     George Miller.
     Joe Moakley.
     Henry B. Gonzalez.
     Martin O. Sabo.
     Norman Y. Mineta.
     Ronald V. Dellums.
     Norm Dicks.
     Vic Fazio.
     David Bonior.
     

                          ____________________