[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 14, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E298-E300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E298]]
                  IMPROVING PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 14, 2000

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my 
colleagues an address by the distinguished former Member of the House, 
Lee Hamilton. I had the honor of serving with Lee for a number of years 
and he was widely respected as a reasoned and perceptive voice on how 
to improve the image and public understanding of Congress. The topic of 
his speech, ``Improving Public Trust in Government'' is especially 
timely. I encourage all Members to give it careful consideration and 
submit it for the Record.

                  Improving Public Trust in Government

                   (By the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton)


                              Introduction

       I am honored to be speaking at this John C. Whitehead 
     Forum.
       John Whitehead is one of the preeminent public servants of 
     our time. He has been a friend for many years, and on 
     countless occasions I have had reason to appreciate his 
     constructive, problem-solving approach to national 
     challenges. He will go into my Hall of Fame of distinguished 
     public servants. His accomplishments in the private, public 
     and nonprofit sectors make him a ``triple threat'' kind of 
     performer. Our nation is deeply indebted to him for his 
     remarkable service.
       It is also a pleasure to be here because I have the highest 
     esteem for the work of your Council. Your goal of improving 
     the performance of government is tremendously important. I 
     always think of such efforts as part of the quest for truth 
     and justice. So I commend and encourage you in your good 
     work.
       Your partnerships with other organizations and the private 
     sector help build the kind of large base we need to push for 
     positive change in government performance.
       I especially want to thank Pat McGinnis for her 
     extraordinary leadership at the Council. She has done a 
     remarkable job advancing the cause of good governance.
       Pat has asked me to speak today about trust in government--
     with a particular emphasis on the Congress.
       I approach the task with trepidation. I am only too aware 
     of the low esteem in which the public holds the Congress--we 
     rank only slightly above drug dealers and other felons. 
     Having served in Congress for 34 years, that reputation does 
     not fill me with confidence about my credibility on the topic 
     of trust in government.
       My constituents would often tell me just how awful my 
     colleagues and I were. They would say to me fondly:
       ``You must be a bunch of idiots up there.''
       ``You are irrelevant. Get out of my life.''
       ``I know you have your hands in the till, Hamilton. Come 
     clean!''
       ``Hell must be full of politicians like you.''
       Public distrust of government--always present in our 
     history--has been on the rise over the past few decades. In 
     the mid-1960s, three-quarters of Americans said they trusted 
     the federal government to do the right thing most of the 
     time. In the Council's poll this year, that number was down 
     to 29 percent.
       This decline in public confidence in government is deeply 
     worrisome to all of us. It signals a great chasm between the 
     government and the people, and makes it all the more 
     difficult for government officials to carry out their 
     responsibilities.
     I. Reasons for public cynicism and distrust
       The reasons why Americans are turned off by American 
     politics today are many:
       (1) Declining trust generally: Declining trust in 
     government reflects a broader trend in our society of 
     diminished confidence in authority and institutions 
     generally--not just government. Since the 1960s, Americans 
     have become less deferential and more skeptical of authority. 
     Our government's involvement in Vietnam, Watergate, and other 
     scandals contributed to this broad societal change. But many 
     other institutions--including even our churches and 
     synagogues--have suffered a drop in public trust as well.
       (2) Changing economy: Even though the American economy has 
     done exceedingly well in recent years, economic anxieties run 
     high for many Americans worried about how to pay for 
     education, health care, and retirement. Workers feel the 
     threats of globalization and technology, and growing income 
     inequality. I have always been impressed how economic 
     pressures bear down on families, in good and bad times. To 
     many people, government seems less relevant and not 
     particularly helpful with their difficult work transitions 
     and burdensome costs. Many Americans see the government as an 
     obstacle rather than a helping hand to achieving the American 
     dream.
       (3) Poor leadership: There is disillusionment with the 
     personal flaws of political leaders. This disillusionment is 
     felt most strongly with respect to the misconduct of some of 
     our presidents, but is also felt towards Members of Congress, 
     cabinet members, and many other public officials. Many 
     Americans believe public officials look out for themselves 
     and pursue their own agendas rather than the interests of the 
     people and the nation.
       (4) Money and special interests: Americans feel that money 
     and special interests have excessive influence in politics. 
     Most Americans believe their own representative has traded 
     votes for campaign contributions. They know our system of 
     financing elections degrades politician and donor alike, and 
     arouses deep suspicion of undue, disproportionate influence 
     in exchange for the large contributions.
       Special interests often contribute to public distrust of 
     government by portraying government negatively--by using 
     overblown rhetoric to convince people they are being 
     endangered by sinister politicians and corrupt government. 
     These groups excel at making themselves look good and the 
     government look bad.
       (5) Negative campaigns: Americans dislike the dirty, 
     negative election campaigns that have become so common. They 
     are turned off by personal attacks, and the view held by many 
     politicians that to win a close race you must tear down your 
     opponent. Americans disapprove of the way politicians attack 
     other politicians' motives and criticize the very 
     institutions they are seeking to join and lead. Candidates 
     run for Congress today by running against Congress and often 
     against government, too. It is really rather easy for a 
     candidate for Congress to go before any audience in America 
     and make himself look frugal, wise and compassionate and the 
     Congress look extravagant, foolish and cold-hearted.
       (6) Partisanship: There is a widespread belief that 
     politics has become too partisan, too sharp-edged, too mean-
     spirited. The messy political process and the constant 
     bickering signal to many Americans that partisan 
     considerations take precedence in Washington over sound 
     policy formulation.
       (7) Performance of government: Large numbers of Americans 
     are simply disappointed by the performance of government. 
     They think it spends their money wastefully, is ineffective, 
     or too intrusive. In a survey taken a couple years ago, 42 
     percent of Americans couldn't name a single important 
     achievement of the federal government over the past 30 years.
       (8) Media: The role of the media in politics exacerbates 
     public disdain of government. The media accentuate 
     differences and conflicts between politicians. I can remember 
     many times when I was rejected for a TV talk show because my 
     views were too moderate. The media focus on the personal 
     lives of politicians, on style rather than substance, 
     entertainment over education. Since the 1960s, newspaper and 
     television coverage has become increasingly negative, cynical 
     and adversarial.
       So it is not surprising that many people think there is 
     nothing right with our political system at all.
     II. Consequences of skepticism
       What are the consequences of this public distrust and 
     skepticism of government?
       Skepticism is healthy: To an extent, skepticism is healthy. 
     Voters should not take everything politicians say at face 
     value, or blindly trust everything the government does.
       Skepticism is part of our American heritage. We can trace 
     it back to the battle for independence, which was triggered 
     by a growing disillusionment with British rule. The 
     Constitution is based on assumptions of wariness of 
     government and the need for checks and balances to restrain 
     the branches.
       Skepticism indicates an attitude of questioning, of 
     independence of thought, of challenging the status quo. It 
     suggests to our leaders that people will not believe them if 
     they do not fully explain their views, or, of course, if they 
     lie or act deceitfully. In this sense, it serves us well.
       Too much skepticism is unhealthy: The program arises when 
     skepticism becomes so deep that Americans have no trust in 
     government.
       The effectiveness of our public institutions depends on a 
     basic foundation of mutual trust between the people and 
     public officials. When skepticism turns to cynicism, our 
     political system works only with great difficulty.
       If politicians' character and motives are constantly 
     attacked, reasoned debate and consideration of their views 
     becomes impossible. The dialogue of democracy, upon which our 
     system depends, comes to an end.
       Often when I was meeting with a group of constituents, I 
     could feel a curtain of doubt hanging between them and me: I 
     took the positions I did, they believed, because of this or 
     that campaign contribution, not because I'd spent time 
     studying and weighing the merits of issues. I would often ask 
     myself what I had done to prompt such profound doubt about my 
     motives and actions. For whatever reason, those constituents 
     had given themselves over to cynicism, and cynicism is the 
     great enemy of democracy. It is exceedingly difficult for 
     public officials to govern when their character, values and 
     motives are always suspect.
     III. What to do?
       So how can we improve public trust in government?
       I want to focus on what government--especially the 
     Congress--can do.
       Some of the factors contributing to the decline in public 
     trust are not easily changed. The government cannot readily 
     affect the negative tone of the media or the broad decline in 
     confidence in authority and institutions.
       But there is much that government can do to restore and 
     build public trust.

[[Page E299]]

       1. Improve the way government works
       The most basic and important way to restore confidence in 
     government is to make the government work better and cost 
     less--to make it more responsive, accountable, accessible, 
     and efficient.
       On this subject, let me say a few words about the role of 
     the Congress.
       In a number of ways, current practices of the Congress help 
     alienate people from the political process, and weaken trust 
     in government.
       Several trends have made Congress less deliberative, less 
     transparent, and less accountable.
       Omnibus legislation: Congress is increasingly unable to 
     pass its spending bills on time, and then makes major 
     legislative decisions through huge omnibus measures that are 
     shaped in a great hurry and in secret by a limited group of 
     congressional leaders and staff. 5 of 13 appropriations bills 
     were dumped into one omnibus bill this year, totaling $385 
     billion and composed of 2,000 pages. These bills--often 
     gauged more by weight than the number of pages--are--from the 
     standpoint of good process, if not content--an abomination.
       Riders: Congress increasingly loads appropriations bills 
     with legislative riders dealing with controversial policy 
     measures that should be dealt with in other committees. These 
     devices short-circuit deliberation and accountability.
       Earmarks: There has been a proliferation of appropriations 
     ``earmarks,'' which target federal money to specific projects 
     favored by individual Members. Many earmarks are just 
     wasteful pork barrel spending inserted into an appropriations 
     bill by a powerful Member, often without the knowledge or 
     consent of his colleagues or the executive branch--on 
     everything from the production of fighter aircraft to 
     manufacturing chewing gum.
       Circumventing committees: It has become common practice to 
     bring bills directly to the House and Senate floor without 
     full committee consideration. In 1995, for instance, a major 
     Medicare reform package was crafted in the Speaker's office, 
     rather than the appropriate committee which had jurisdiction 
     over it. This practice excludes the main sources of policy 
     expertise, cuts short deliberation, expands the influence of 
     powerful lobbying groups, and places decisions more tightly 
     in the hands of the congressional leadership and their staff.
       Restrictive rules: Restrictive rules for the consideration 
     of bills in Congress undermine debate. He who controls the 
     rules of procedure almost always controls the results. 
     Procedures are often used that sharply restrict debate, 
     reduce the amendments and policy options that can be 
     considered, and greatly advantage the leadership.
       Scheduling practices: Selecting practices in the Congress 
     weaken accountability. There is typically a rush of major 
     legislation in the closing days of a session. Major policy 
     choices are made with little advance notification, often late 
     at night, and with inadequate information. The Congress now 
     works a 2\1/2\ to 3 day week, except in the closing days of a 
     session. The result is too little time for committee 
     deliberation and floor consideration.
       Senate filibusters: Senate filibusters, or the threat of 
     them, have become too common. On many issues, the Senate no 
     longer operates by majority rule because 60 Senators are 
     needed to prevent an individual Senator from blocking 
     consideration of legislation. Thirty years ago, filibusters 
     were rare, and primarily occurred on issues of major 
     constitutional importance. Today, the filibuster may be the 
     single most important way in which the majority will is 
     frustrated, and the greatest source of institutional gridlock 
     in Washington.
       Congress should make reforms to remedy these practices and 
     make itself more efficient, accountable and transparent. It 
     should:
       Streamline and strengthen the committee system;
       Reduce the use of omnibus legislation, riders and earmarks;
       Adopt fairer rules and a more reasonable schedule; and
       Diminish the number of Senate filibusters.
       Campaign finance reform: Also critical to restoring trust 
     in government is enacting campaign finance reform. Poll after 
     poll shows that most Americans believe our campaign finance 
     system corrupts the political process, and should be 
     reformed. If Congress enacts serious campaign finance reform, 
     it will make itself more accountable and boost public trust.
       Oversight: Congress should also do a better job of 
     performing its important task of overseeing executive branch 
     operations. Monitoring executive branch implementation of 
     legislation is one of the core responsibilities of Congress. 
     If done properly, congressional oversight can protest the 
     country from the imperial presidency and bureaucratic 
     arrogance. It can maintain a degree of constituency influence 
     in an administration, encourage cost-effective implementation 
     of legislation, ensure that legislation achieves its intended 
     purposes, and determine whether changing circumstances have 
     altered the need for certain programs.
       But in recent years, congressional oversight has declined 
     and has shifted away from the systematic review of programs 
     to highly politicized investigations of individual public 
     officials--looking at great length, for instance, at Hilliary 
     Clinton's commodity transactions or charges of money-
     laundering and drug trafficking at an Arkansas airport when 
     Bill Clinton was governor. These personal investigations, 
     while sometimes necessary, have been used excessively. They 
     exacerbate partisan tensions and reduce the time and 
     political will available for rooting out flaws in public 
     policy.
       A renewed commitment to congressional oversight will show 
     that Congress is taking its responsibility seriously and help 
     restore public confidence in the institution.
       Tackle issues that concern voters most: Congress, and the 
     government in general, can also strengthen public trust by 
     tackling the big issues that concern voters most. In recent 
     years, public confidence in Congress rose as Congress took 
     tough steps to reduce the government's deficit and balance 
     the federal budget. Today, the public is most concerned about 
     the long-term outlook for Social Security and Medicare, 
     education, and health care. In each of these areas, most 
     Americans are looking to the government to act in a 
     substantial and productive way. If the government addresses 
     these issues, even if with only partial success, public 
     perceptions of government will improve.
       2. Improve public understanding of government
       Yet improving the way government operates is not enough. We 
     also need to do a better job explaining to Americans what the 
     government does--how it works, why it is important, how it 
     affects their everyday lives. We need to clear away 
     misperceptions, and strengthen public appreciation for the 
     political process. So we need to make government reforms, but 
     we also need to educate people about the government's 
     activities and importance.
       I have often been struck by the extent to which Americans 
     have incorrect assumptions about government spending and 
     programs. For instance, Americans frequently complain about 
     the large amount of money our government spends on foreign 
     aid, which they think is around 20 percent of the total 
     federal budget and say should be closer to 10 percent. It is 
     small wonder, then, that foreign aid is a much criticized 
     program. Yet only one percent of the federal budget actually 
     goes to foreign aid.
       We should better explain to people that most government 
     spending goes to programs, such as national security, Social 
     Security and Medicare, that are widely popular and beneficial 
     to Americans. Support for the federal government improves 
     considerably when people appreciate the influence of 
     government and are informed about the government's role in 
     improving health care for seniors, insuring food safety, 
     discovering medical cures, and protecting the environment.
       We should also work to improve public understanding of the 
     way our system works. We should emphasize that the political 
     process is adversarial, untidy and imprecise. Politicians may 
     not be popular, but they are indispensable. Politics is the 
     way that we express the popular will of the people in this 
     country. At its best, our representative democracy gives us a 
     system whereby all of us have a voice in the process and a 
     stake in the product.
       While we should work to make government as efficient as 
     possible, we should explain that legislative deliberation and 
     debate--even heated debate--and delay, are important parts of 
     the legislative process. Delay occurs because the issues 
     before the government are very complicated and intensely 
     debated. It's an incredibly difficult job making policy for a 
     country of this vast size and remarkable diversity. It's the 
     job especially of the Congress to give the various sides a 
     chance to be heard and to search for a broadly acceptable 
     consensus. The founders established our system of checks and 
     balances so that policies could not be rammed through the 
     government with little debate or deliberation.
       The Council for Excellence in Government, of course, plays 
     a critical role in the area of public education about 
     government. I have been trying to contribute to the effort 
     through The Center on Congress, which I direct at Indiana 
     University. The central mission of the Center is to help 
     improve the public's understanding of Congress--its role in 
     our country, its strengths and weaknesses, and its daily 
     impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Through newspaper 
     columns, a website, videos, radio segments, and other media, 
     we seek to explain to ordinary people the role and importance 
     of Congress.
       Finally, we must also include a dose of civic 
     responsibility. Citizens must understand their own 
     responsibility to be involved in the political process. I was 
     particularly pleased the Council's poll found that a majority 
     of Americans believe citizen engagement is the single most 
     important change necessary to improve government.
       My observation is that participation is the best antidote 
     to cynicism. A person who is deeply involved in fighting for 
     a better school board, a safer railroad crossing, or a more 
     effective arms control treaty, is rarely cynical.
       Effective government is a two-way street. Our system of 
     government simply does not work very well without popular 
     support and participation.
       Freedom is not free.
       IV. Optimism
       I've recommended a lot of changes today, but let me not 
     mislead you. Like you, I have concerns about declining trust 
     in government. But I am confident that our political system 
     still basically works. It has a remarkable resilience and 
     underlying strength.

[[Page E300]]

       Our government needs reforms, and we need to work to 
     rebuild confidence in government, but we do not need a 
     radical overhaul of our institutions.
       Given the size and diversity of our country, and the number 
     and complexity of the challenges we confront, it seems to me 
     that representative democracy works reasonably well in 
     America. The system may be--and at times is--slow, messy, 
     cumbersome, complicated, and even unresponsive, but it has 
     served us well for many years, and continues to do so.
       Just think about the condition of our country today. In 
     general I think America is a better place today than it was 
     when I came to Congress almost four decades ago.
       The Cold War is over, and we are at peace.
       Our economy is thriving and is the envy of the world.
       We have greatly improved the lot of older Americans with 
     programs like Social Security and Medicare.
       Women and minorities have had new doors opened to them as 
     never before.
       The Internet has brought a world of knowledge to the most 
     remote classrooms and homes.
       And, most important of all, this is still a land of 
     opportunity where everyone has a chance, not an equal chance 
     unfortunately, but still a chance to become the best they can 
     be.
       We must be doing something right.
       As I look at the government today, I'm not cynical, 
     pessimistic or discouraged. I'm optimistic about the 
     institutions of government and about the country. I am 
     confident that our government will continue to meet the 
     important challenges we will face in the coming years.
       This was indeed the most encouraging finding in the 
     Council's poll this summer--that despite their distrust, 
     Americans still believe that government has an important role 
     to play in the next century, particularly in defense, 
     education, helping senior citizens, medical research, 
     reducing violence and cleaning up the environment. Americans 
     still recognize the importance of government, and look to 
     government to better their lives and our nation.
       So the opportunity for improving the relationship between 
     government and the people is clearly there for all of us to 
     seize.
       Thank you.

       

                          ____________________