[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E671-E672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 22, 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, March 22, 1995, into the Congressional Record.

                 Improving Congressional Reform Efforts

       The House got off to a good start this session by passing a 
     series of internal reforms aimed at making the institution 
     more open, efficient, and accountable. Yet in some ways the 
     reforms are not working as well as expected. We need to 
     revisit the changes made, as well as expand the scope of our 
     reform effort into new areas.
       Procedural reforms: On the first day of the 104th Congress, 
     the House passed several procedural reforms--including 
     measures to open up floor procedures, simplify the committee 
     structure, and require Congress to comply with the same laws 
     it passes for everyone else. These will not revolutionize the 
     House, but they do move us in the right direction. Many were 
     based on the work of last session's Joint Committee on the 
     Organization of Congress. Yet there is some disappointment 
     about the overall impact of the reforms. In many ways the 
     House is less open and deliberative that it was last session.
       A central theme of the reforms was to improve the work of 
     congressional committees, since that is where the real work 
     of Congress takes place. Yet the effectiveness of the 
     committee reforms--reducing Members' committee assignments, 
     banning proxy voting, and opening up committees further to 
     the public--has been undermined by the new leadership's 
     desire to pass key legislation within 100 days. The new 
     congressional compliance bill, for example, passed the House 
     without a single day of consideration by a House committee, 
     even though much of the language was entirely new. No 
     committee hearings were held on the highly complex unfunded 
     mandates bill and only cursory hearings were held on the 
     crime bills. Passing reforms to ban proxy voting or to open 
     up committee deliberations makes little difference if an 
     important bill simply bypasses the committee.
       Another major reform was the promise by the new leadership 
     to open up floor proceedings by allowing Members more 
     opportunities to offer amendments. Yet this has simply not 
     happened for several key bills. Many bills--from 
     congressional compliance to the balanced budget amendment--
     came to the floor with limited or no opportunity for Members 
     to amend them. The spending cut bill considered by the House 
     last week put four-fifths of discretionary spending off 
     limits to amendments--only those areas the committee wanted 
     cut could be cut. It is unrealistic to expect every bill to 
     come to the floor under open rules. That would be too 
     unwieldy, and most Members recognize that. What is needed is 
     that we have generous enough rules so Members can vote on the 
     major policy issues on a particular bill; and that has not 
     happened several times this year.
       Rushing legislation through leads to mistakes. Sometimes we 
     need to slow down to do things right and to make sure that 
     all voices have been heard. We need a balance. The pace of 
     legislation is important to the work product--too slow and 
     the result is gridlock, too fast and the result is mistakes 
     and unintended consequences.
       Hearings are expected this summer on how well the new 
     reforms are working. That is 
     [[Page E672]] certainly appropriate. We also should consider 
     additional procedural reforms. One change I favor is having 
     the House regularize the congressional reform process--taking 
     reform up every Congress rather than having one-shot, omnibus 
     packages every twenty years. Reform should be a continual, 
     ongoing process. We should also streamline the budget 
     process, publicize hidden spending projects and tax breaks, 
     and take steps to improve public understanding of Congress.
       Ethics reforms: Although we have made some progress on 
     procedural reform in the House, not enough attention has been 
     given to other kinds of institutional reforms--in particular 
     various ethics reforms. It is worthwhile to change our 
     committee or floor procedures, but at a more basic level we 
     need to ensure the basic integrity of the legislative 
     process. We need to pass strong lobbying reform and a ban on 
     lobbyists' gifts to Members, as well as pass campaign finance 
     reform that reduces the role of PACs and monied special 
     interests. Such measures will make it clear to the American 
     people that special interests are not getting favored 
     consideration from policymakers.
       We also need to improve our procedures for enforcing House 
     ethics rules. I have introduced a proposal to set up an 
     outside panel of citizens to investigate Member misconduct. 
     That will give our disciplinary proceedings much more 
     credibility. Another priority should be broadening our 
     `'preventive ethics'' efforts--greater informational, 
     outreach efforts by the Ethics Committee to head off possible 
     cases of Member or staff misconduct before they occur.
       One of our top priorities in institutional reform should be 
     making sure that the American people have confidence in the 
     integrity and accountability of the legislative process.
       Excessive partisanship: I am also concerned about the 
     heightened partisan tensions in Congress and the increased 
     interest among Members on both sides of the aisle in scoring 
     political points and embarrassing the other side. Many 
     observers feel that the House has become too negative, too 
     bitter, too contentious. That has a clear impact on our 
     ability to come together to pass legislation for the good of 
     the country--indeed it can be a much greater roadblock to 
     effective governance than many of the procedures we reformed 
     on the first day of this session.
       Excessive partisanship is not easily addressed through 
     rules changes or reform packages, but it is a problem that we 
     need to start thinking seriously about. One option might be 
     to ask the Ethics Committee to issue clearer guidelines for 
     Members on when spirited debate has stepped over the line and 
     is bringing discredit upon the institution. Another step 
     would be better enforcement of rules now in place to 
     encourage basic civility among Members.
       Conclusion: The House has taken some initial steps this 
     session toward reform, but much more needs to be done. To 
     really improve the way we do business, our reforms need to be 
     more effective and much broader in scope.
     

                          ____________________