if evidence or testimony at an investigative hearing would defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. I believe that the public's right to know is fundamental and overrides any other reason for a closed meeting. After all, it is the public's business we are conducting. Secrecy can be especially dangerous at a time when there is so much public concern that government is working for special interests and not for the people. One way to help restore public faith in the integrity and accountability of the Congress is to improve our rules governing open meetings and open records. My second concern involves our financial disclosure rules. Currently, members of Congress are required only to list assets and liabilities within broad categories of value. The ranges are so broad, in fact, that it is impossible to tell from a report whether a member received a large increase in income from particular sources. I am refiling legislation to require much more detailed financial disclosure by members and candidates for Congress. This bill calls for the listing of exact amounts and sources of all assets and liabilities. It also would require members and candidates to file an annual statement of net worth and copies of their tax returns from the previous year. These changes would provide the public with information that ensures that members of Congress are not benefitting financially from holding office. The public deserves to know what we own, what we owe, and who we owe. Only then will they know that we are working for them and not for ourselves or for some special interests. a The two bills I am refiling may not be the ideal approaches for addressing these issues. However, I do believe that successful effort to regain the public's trust must address the issues of open government and comprehensive financial disclosure. When I addressed the Rules Committee last year, I was assured that these two issues fell within the purview of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. I now urge you to address these issues in your deliberations and recommendations. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and attention and I look forward to working with the committee on these and other issues. STATEMENT OF Congressman Dave McCurdy Before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress February 4, 1993 1 CHAIRMAN BOREN, CHAIRMAN HAMILTON AND MEMBERS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE; Since 1990, I have met regularly with a group of moderate Democratic colleagues called the Mainstream Forum. We are united by a desire to make a difference in Washington in a way that our constituents can understand and support. We want to be relevant in their daily lives. Today, we are frustrated. Our constituents feel detached from Congress. Washington presents a confusing array of debate and work product. We announce deadlines and break them. As individual members, we keep impossible schedules, running from one appointment to another, but our institution appears to move at a glacial pace. Thus, the ideas that I bring forward today are aimed at efficiency and accountability. I first want to reiterate what a growing chorus of Members and Congressional experts have previously stated regarding the need to reform House committee structure. Reducing the number of committees and subcommittees to eliminate overlapping jurisdiction is essential to a more efficient House. We simply have too many committees with too much staff for 435 Members of the House to capably manage. In fact, they manage us. Prior to this year, the average Member of the House served on seven various panels. 2 While I acknowledge that the House agreed last month to limit the number of subcommittees, this achievement has had With the latest virtually no impact on the problems of redundant jurisdictions and excessive demands on the time of Members. reduction of subcommittees, we still have 22 standing committees and more than 120 subcommittees. In addition, House members serve with Senators on five joint committees, each containing more subcommittees. with 11 subcommittees. The House also has five select committees My colleagues, I'm afraid we don't make decisions here anymore. In some cases, it is difficult to find the committee with proper jurisdiction. The Public Works & Transportation Committee, for instance, has no authorization responsibility for railroads. The number of committee staff has ballooned to over 2,000. It is likely that, rather than help to cope with the demanding workload, excess committee staff is creating more work. Reduction of overlapping committees and elimination of "makework procedures" should clear our schedules for the substantive challenges of the day. 3 I draw your attention to my proposal, reintroduced every year since 1985, to transfer the responsibility for. commemorative designations from the Congress to a commission similar to the postage stamp panel. The designation of special days, weeks, months and years is an act of Congress that requires too much staff and Member time and too many taxpayer dollars. Commemoratives amounted to 25 percent of all public laws passed by the 102nd Congress. Designations like National Dairy Goat Awareness Week are crowding our legislative schedule. The proposed 11-member commission would give a more complete and impartial review of proposals that are generated by a wide variety of interests. I would also appreciate the committee's attention to my proposal to limit the terms of committee chairs and ranking minority members and make them appointed by their respective party leaders in the House. While I recognize that this is not a popular idea with committee chairs, it is not intended as a commentary on the performance of any chairman. Instead, it recognizes the abundance of political talent that exists within this body and provides more members an opportunity to serve in a leadership role. More importantly, it provides the Speaker and Minority Leader with a necessary tool to demand accountability from committees, for which they in turn will be held accountable by |