[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 97 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7460-S7461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CONFERENCE PROCESS
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to follow on with the comments of
my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and praise him for pointing
out that the conference system is becoming bankrupt.
Way too often conferees put in measures and take out measures that
have nothing to do with the underlying bill that goes to conference. It
is becoming so bad that I think sometime--my hope is in the next
Congress--the Senator from Iowa, myself, and others should meet with
our leadership to prevent this from continually happening. It bankrupts
the process. It also causes more Americans to become even more
concerned about the political process. We, as Senators, cannot go home
and say what is or is not happening. Rather, we have to go home and
report just what the Senator from Iowa reported--that somehow, by magic
or by mystery, things sort of appear and disappear. It does not make us
feel good as Senators because we like to know what is occurring. It
certainly doesn't help our constituents feel any better about the
process because they hope we know what is happening. More than that,
they hope we are fighting for their case. But if we don't know the
contents of the conference process, we don't know how something gets
put in or taken out, and we look foolish. It is a major abrogation of
our responsibility as a Senate to the American people for whom we work.
They are, after all, our employers. At times, the Senate is too
secretive.
It reminds me of an incident I was involved in when I first came to
the House more than 20-some years ago. At that time, I was a freshman
House Member. I had a few free minutes one afternoon--about an hour or
two. I thought that I would go to the conference on the tax bill; I
might learn something. I thought I would go to the conference and learn
a little about tax law and the conference process.
I called around to try to figure out where the conference was
meeting. Nobody would tell me. At that time, Mike Mansfield from
Montana was the majority leader of the Senate. I thought I could call
Senator Mansfield's office; certainly they could tell me where the
conference was meeting. They did. They told me. It was in the big
hearing room over in the Longworth Building. There was a policeman
standing at the door leading to the executive room. I knew what was
going on. He challenged me. I said I was a Member. I intended to reply
that I was a member of the conference, but, rationalizing, I said I was
a Member of Congress, and he waved me in.
I walked back into the executive room. There were Senate Members in
the hearing room on one side of the table with conferees, and Russell
Long was at the table with House conferees. Russell Long was talking
about when he was a kid in Louisiana. It was great listening to it.
There was a sea of executive branch people. In the hearing room with
Treasury Secretary Simon was a sea of Treasury employees.
I took an out-of-the-way spot. I found a chair over on the side, and
I sat down out of the way to watch. After about 10 minutes, Congressman
Jim Burke from Massachusetts shuffled over to me--an elderly man. He
came to me and said: I am sorry. I have to ask you to leave. Leave?
Why? He said it was just the rules. I said respectfully that I would
like to know what rule was requiring me to leave. He said, well, it is
the Senate rules. So I said, well, I appreciate that. As a House
Member, I wanted to know which Senate rule it was that prohibited my
attendance as a Member of Congress watching this conference. He said,
well, it is just the Senate rule.
I thought for a while. I thought: That is wrong; it is not right. I
am not going to make a big fuss about it right here; I will later. I am
going to leave because he asked me to leave, but I will see what I can
do about it. It is the rule.
For example, Congressman Bill Green couldn't be there either. Bill
Green was then a Congressman and the member of the House Ways and Means
Committee in the House who authored a provision to delete the depletion
allowance that was in the House bill. Even he could not attend, the
rule then being nobody could attend a conference except conferees--
nobody else. But there were more people from the executive branch. They
were there, along with Treasury Secretary Simon.
I came over to the House floor. I mentioned this to Congressman Mikva
from Illinois. He said: Max, you are entirely right. That is wrong. I
have been fighting that rule for years.
A few of us stood up on the House floor that afternoon and explained
how we thought it was wrong. In the next session of Congress, the rules
were changed. Afterwards, all conferences were totally open to the
public.
I know some Members of Congress don't like that. They do not like the
sun shining in conferences. But that was the rule. We started it back
then. I think it is in the public interest. It is a good rule.
It seems things have changed slowly; conferences should not be
secret. They are bipartisan. Both political parties attend, but often
the minority party is shut out. One wonders what is happening. The real
danger is, if and when the Democrats are in the majority, the Democrats
are going to be tempted to do the same thing. It is wrong. Neither side
should do that. They should be
[[Page S7461]]
much more open and much more closely should enforce that rule, and
matters not pertaining to the conference should not be included in the
conference report. It is something we have to stand up and enforce for
the good of the Senate and for the good of the country; otherwise,
there will be chaos, or anarchy, or a dictatorship--whatever it is.
Based upon the comments of my good friend, I am very inclined to work
with him next year to see if we can do something about that. I think
there are many others in the Senate who share the same view. It has
gotten out of hand.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for the statement.
____________________