is often brought to the floor for a vote without a committee report and before any member has had a chance to read it, much less understand it. Perhaps the most important procedural change that should be made is to fundamentally revamp the budget process. The budget resolution approved by the Congress each year should be BINDING. Unauthorized appropriations should not be protected by closed rules. While I realize this reform may be beyond the scope of this committee, I believe that to ensure more accountability and fiscal responsibility, Congress should eliminate automatic cost of living increases for all entitlement programs, except Social Security. Increases in entitlement programs and congressional salaries, which are fueling this country's budget deficit, should not be on auto-pilot. Congress must be held accountable for voting on any spending increase that plunges this country further into red ink. While it is critical that Congress reform its legislative structure and procedures, we also must continue efforts to change the public perception that Congress isolates itself from the problems and responsibilities of the average American. Congress has made some administrative changes to clean up its act, but there are many more perks that should be eliminated. For example, every Representative and Senator should reduce their franking costs by eliminating unsolicited mass mailings. Finally, Congress must be subject to the laws it enacts. There should be no double standard exempting Congress from laws that all other Americans must comply with. In conclusion, to make Congress more effective and restore public confidence in this institution, we must streamline the structure of Congress, simplify procedures, debate more issues in the full House and end the perks and privileges that isolate Congress from the problems of the majority of Americans. CONGRESSMAN BILL GOODLING STATEMENT BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS FEBRUARY 4, 1993 MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE I AM HONORED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE TODAY TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL TWO AREAS THAT I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE SHOULD ADDRESS AS PART OF ITS EFFORTS TO REFORM THIS CONGRESS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I BELIEVE WE WERE ELECTED THIS PAST YEAR TO LEAD, REPRESENT, AND REFORM. TESTIMONY TODAY WILL FOCUS ON THE TWO ISSUES OF CONGRESSIONAL COVERAGE UNDER THE LAW AND SELECT COMMITTEE REFORM. MY AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, I HAVE SEEN REFORM EFFORTS BEFORE, AND I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE LOOK AT ALL THE ISSUES AND DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE AS A RESULT OF ALL OF OUR EFFORTS TO REFORM CONGRESS. AS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS SOLE JURISDICTION OVER ALL LABOR RELATED LEGISLATION, I AM ANGERED AT OUR ARROGANCE AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. TO SUGGEST THAT WE IN CONGRESS CAN KNOW WHAT LABOR LAWS ARE GOOD FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND IMPOSE THESE BURDENS WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO THEM OURSELVES IS NOT SATISFACTORY FOR AN INSTITUTION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE PEOPLE. THIS PAST ELECTION SHOULD HAVE SENT A MESSAGE THAT WAS LOUD AND CLEAR TO ALL MEMBERS. THE MESSAGE THAT I HEARD FROM MY CONSTITUENTS IN SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WAS "DO AS I SAY AND DO AS I DO", BUT TOO MANY TIMES IN CONGRESS OUR MESSAGE IS "DO AS I SAY, AND NOT AS I DO, AND YOU CAN PAY FOR IT TOO. WE PASS ON TOO MANY UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES TO OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE IMPACTS OF THESE ACTIONS. . FOR DECADES, THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY EXEMPTING ITSELF FROM NEARLY EVERY MAJOR LABOR LAW WHICH IT IMPOSES ON PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. FOR INSTANCE, CONGRESS IS EXEMPT FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935, THE MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 1938, THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963, THE AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1967, THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970, THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1972, JUST TO STATE A FEW. THESE LABOR LAWS PLACE A TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL AND PAPERWORK BURDEN ON BUSINESS, WHILE THE LEADERSHIP OF CONGRESS SNUBBS THEIR NOSE AT ANY MENTION OF CONGRESS COVERING ITS OWN OPERATIONS UNDER THE SAME LAWS. I BELIEVE THE FACT THAT THE CONGRESS HAS EXEMPTED ITSELF FROM LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS JUST ANOTHER SYMPTOM OF HOW OUT OF TOUCH WE ARE WITH THE REAL WORLD. THERE ARE THOSE WHO MIGHT SAY THAT "THE HOUSE IS A UNIQUE INSTITUTION WHICH SIMPLY DESERVES SPECIAL TREATMENT." OTHERS HAVE ARGUED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY PROHIBITS JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR LAWS. THE CONGRESS COULD HAVE SET UP A THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE BY THE SAME RULES IT IMPOSES ON OTHERS. IF THE HOUSE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER THE SAME LAWS, AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS EVERYONE ELSE, IT WOULD RESULT IN A MORE THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE MANY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE CONGRESS. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO FOCUS MY ATTENTION ON HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEES, ANOTHER AREA OF CONGRESS WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE REFORMED. THE FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION, JAMES MADISON, ONCE STATED: HIS POINT WAS CLEAR: SELECT COMMITTEES ARE WHOLLY UNLIKE STANDING COMMITTEES IN THAT THEY ADDRESS IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS, IN A LIMITED TIMEFRAME, WITH A PARTICULAR SCOPE. WE DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK THAT FAR BACK TO FIND SOME MORE RECENT OPINIONS ON SELECT COMMITTEES. LEON PANETTA, NOW THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, SAID IN JANUARY 1987 THAT HE RECOGNIZED, "THAT SELECT COMMITTEES BY THEIR VERY NATURE ARE TEMPORARY. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT." (CONG. RECORD, JANUARY 8, 1987, H 224). SENATOR MIKULSKI, WHILE A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE IN 1982, SAID ON BEHALF OF THE PROPOSED SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES THAT, "THE COMMITTEE WE PROPOSE DOES NOT CREATE A NEW BUREAUCRACY, BUT RATHER, STREAMLINES AND CENTRALIZES AN EXISTING BUREAUCRACY. COMMITTEE WOULD BE LIMITED IN SCOPE AND DURATION.... "1 RECORD, SEPTEMBER 29, 1982, H 7960). IF ONLY THESE STATEMENTS WERE TRUE. THESE SELECT COMMITTEES HAVE IN FACT BECOME A PERMANENT FIXTURE OF THE CAPITOL HILL BUREAUCRACY. (CONG. THE NO MEMBER CAN JUSTLY ARGUE AGAINST THE MERITS OF THE SUBJECTS EXAMINED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEES. HOWEVER, IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT PRECIOUS FUNDS CAN BE USED IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER TO THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA. FUNDING FOR THE FOUR SELECT COMMITTEES IN FISCAL YEAR 1992 (SUPPORTING NEARLY 100 STAFF MEMBERS) EXCEEDED $3.8 MILLION. THE SELECT COMMITTEES HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. SOME MEMBERS WILL ARGUE THAT A DECISION SHOULD BE PUT OFF UNTIL THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS CAN CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE ISSUE. I RECALL THAT IN 1977, THE RULES COMMITTEE BECAME SO INCENSED WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION ISSUED A REPORT ENTITLED, "GUIDELINES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEES." IN THE REPORT, THE COMMITTEE OBSERVED: Special circumstances sometimes justify the creation of select committees (but) the proliferation of such committees adds to the spiralling congressional costs, exacerbates already serious space problems, imposes additional committee burdens on members, and may interfere with the effectiveness of the standing committee system. (cited in Report of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Process of the Committee on Rules, February, 1983, p. 3) I WISH TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I AM NOT ANTI-SENIOR CITIZEN, NOT ANTI-CHILDREN, YOUTH OR FAMILIES, AND THAT I AM NOT PRO-HUNGER OR PRO-DRUG ABUSE. INSTEAD, I AM PRO-REFORM AND ANTI-BUREAUCRACY. I URGE THIS JOINT COMMITTEE TO JOIN ME IN REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THESE NON-PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEES. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CONGRESS TO ABOLISH THESE COMMITTEES WHICH HAVE BECOME PERMANENT BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURES. AT A TIME IN OUR COUNTRY WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE CRIED OUT TO US AS LEADERS TO LEAD AND REFORM THE CONGRESS, WE SHOULD HEED TO THEIR ADVICE AND DO JUST THAT, LEAD, REPRESENT, AND REFORM. LEADERSHIP IS A LONELY BUSINESS, BUT I BELIEVE THE CONGRESS NEEDS TO SEND OUT SOME NEW SIGNALS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO END THE HYPOCRISY OF NOT COVERING OURSELVES UNDER LAWS THAT WE MANDATE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR. WE SHOULD ALSO DISSOLVE THESE NON-PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEES WHICH WILL SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ARE READY TO BEGIN TIGHTENING OUR OWN BELTS, WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE TIGHTENED EVEN MORE. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR RECEIVING MY TESTIMONY AND GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. The Honorable John Edward Porter Testimony before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress February 4, 1993 Mr. Chairmen, Mr. Vice Chairmen and members of the Committee, I am grateful to have the opportunity to testify before you today. I would like to raise two issues which I believe are important for you to consider as you undertake the essential yet tremendously difficult task of making recommendations for reforming the House. First, I would like to discuss the important role that Legislative Service Organizations (LSOS) play in meeting unmet needs in the House. I understand that at least one witness who testified before this committee last week urged you to consider abolishing LSOS. I strongly disagree with that recommendation for the following reasons. As some of you may know, I am Co-Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, a bipartisan LSO comprised of 220 members who represent all sides of the political spectrum. The purpose of the Human Rights Caucus is to serve as a resource for Members and their staffs for information on a variety human rights issues and to coordinate congressional concern on behalf of victims of human rights abuses around the world. Over the years, our membership has grown steadily which we believe demonstrates widespread support for our efforts among House members. The Human Rights Caucus is motivated by the belief that human rights are the birthright of every person regardless of their race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, beliefs or any other characteristic. As a nation who's existence is predicated on the belief that individuals have certain inalienable rights, the United States has an obligation to show concern for individuals who are living in countries which do not respect human rights. 65-477 O 93-5 |