Page images
PDF
EPUB

before we vote on it, with the exception of, obviously, national emergencies.

Just last night was very confusing in terms of what we were actually voting on, the Family and Medical Leave Act. I think we should protect the budget process. I clearly have some concerns about that. I don't know enough about it yet to be constructively critical, but I do criticize it based on what I have seen so far.

I, for one, favor eliminating practically all automatic cost-ofliving increases. I have always accepted social security, simply be cause I think we should be compelled to vote on budget matters in this place and make the budget be balanced. That may be beyond the scope of this committee, but I think it is important.

Another concern of mine as far as Congress is concerned frankly is the franking privilege. I believe it is too expensive. I think that we should eliminate unsolicited mass mailings. If you just cut back all of the mailing costs of the Members in half, you save some $50 million a year. I think that clearly needs to be looked at in the Congress of the United States, and I think that we should live under the laws that everybody else lives under.

I know it can be complex in putting it into effect, but, by God, if everyone else has to do it, why shouldn't we have to do it? Thank you for listening to me.

[The statement of Mr. Castle is printed in the Appendix.]

Chairman HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Castle. I must say, have you learned a lot in the few days you have been here. You have made some very good suggestions for us. Thank you

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I might, could Mr.-I can't resist responding to Governor Castle's suggestion that we not have to vote in the House on everything that has been voted on in the Committee of the Whole, if you would. That is a reform, Governor Castle, that you might facilitate instantly coming into being, since you might ask those on your side of the aisle who insisted that we vote on every amendment not to do so.

We don't need a reform or recommendation from this committee to accomplish this; we just need some parity and some comity and some greater collegiality in this body, thank you.

I think we could get into a superficial side to this argument, that we could get into—but I understand what you are saying. I would like to eliminate unnecessary votes, too. I have some serious questions about the delegate concerns, but I do think the Committee of the Whole is duplicative, and maybe we should resolve the delegate problem some other way if that is really what drives the Committee of the Whole. I don't know the whole structure and function of the Committee of the Whole.

Chairman HAMILTON. Mr. Dreier.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say to you, Mike, that I don't believe that you will regret anything that you have said here today in the coming months, because you have offered some very helpful and beneficial recommendations which some of the rest of us have considered, too; and I thank you for your testimony.

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, sir.
Chairman HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Castle.

[ocr errors]

We will go to Mr. Goodling. I might have Mr. Skelton and Mr. Porter, if they would, come up; Mr. Hutto also. Are you with Mr. Skelton, Mr. Hutto? I want to keep it flowing:

Mr. Skelton, why don't you join Mr. Goodling there at the table, and Mr. Porter, he is on my list at least, and then we will get you in line early.

Mr. Goodling, it is good to have you, sir. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A U.S. REPRE

SENTATIVE FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had to laugh when the Governor was talking about scheduling, because I think when I came the first year I was saying the same thing. I had just come from scheduling thousands and thousands of students and hundreds of teachers, and we never had any conflicts; and here I was finding that not only was I having a conflict between committees, but even on the same committee_a subcommittee was meeting at the same time the full committee of that same committee was meeting, and it was just mind-boggling.

Let me very quickly mention two concerns that I have. I have a statement for the record, but I will just very quickly mention a couple of concerns that I have, and one that comes up in my committee constantly, because as the Ranking Member, we have the jurisdiction on the labor issues, and I try each time to present an amendment that would indicate that the Congress should be under the same laws as the rest of the people for whom we write the law. And I do that for two reasons.

First of all, I think that if we were, perhaps we would be a little more careful the way we write the laws, if we realized all of the paperwork and all of the expenses, et cetera, et cetera, that we put on the private sector, or local school districts or whoever it may be. If we had to follow the same rules and regulations, perhaps we would think a little more clearly when we are writing that kind of legislation.

I was just looking over some of the labor laws—the Labor Relations Act of 1935, the Minimum Wage Act of 1938, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972_and we don't cover ourselves with any of those kinds of things, which I think the public finds very arrogant on our part.

The other that I would like to turn to quickly, and this may be something that has already been dealt with or is going to be dealt with, simply by letting them die.

You know, I don't want anyone to think that I am anti-children, because my whole life has been working with children and families. I don't want anyone to think that I am anti-hunger, because I think Chairman Perkins is the father of school lunch and child nutrition; but I would like to think that I am the son of school lunch and child nutrition, and many times have had to fight my side of the aisle to keep those kind of programs going.

But we give an awful lot of money and an awful lot of staff to select committees that have no jurisdiction whatsoever, and have no power whatsoever. And it is duplicative. Everything that they do in most of those select committees, we should have the oversight responsibility in the committee in which I serve, we should have the responsibility to get the legislation sought; and I just don't think we can afford to have that kind of bureaucratic nightmare.

They were supposed to be select committees, and I can remember a note that Panetta made not too many years ago where he said that these were supposed to be very temporary. Well, you know how temporary they have been, and I think we really need to take a look at that. If we are not going to, we should. And as I said, perhaps they are going to die simply because their time has come to die. But we can't afford it, and we can't afford duplication.

So those are the two areas that I would suggest you might look at, and I think it would make us much more acceptable in the eyes of the public if we would take action on both of those.

Chairman HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodling. Those are excellent suggestions and come out of a long experience here. We appreciate it very, very much.

Any comments?
[The statement of Mr. Goodling is printed in the Appendix.]
Chairman HAMILTON. Mr. Skelton.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. IKE SKELTON, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. SKELTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this opportunity to testify before your committee, because it is most important work that you do.

Last summer the Democratic Forum put together a task force to come up with several recommendations on congressional reform, and I have the privilege of chairing that task force and I mention it is the same as yours—to make a complete study of the operation of Congress, make recommendations to help us operate more efficiently and effectively. And I along with Charles Stenholm and our former colleague, Liz Patterson, testified before the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Rules Changes late last year before the end of the session.

I am here to give you a very brief outline today and ask that my full statement be entered into the record.

Chairman HAMILTON. Without objection, that will be done.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend that during all of your hearings and your deliberations that you have one pole star in mind, besides, of course, making this a more deliberative and more representative body here on Capitol Hill. But this one polestar in mind should be that of saving time.

Mr. Goodling mentioned when he first came to Congress the conflicts he had, and we live in conflicts. Committee hearings, people coming in testifying, Floor votes and some piled on top of each other.

We find ourselves more and more, Mr. Chairman, having to rely on staffs for their thoughts, ideas, input and the like, and Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience that the Members of Congress that are here are some of the hardest working, brightest, dedicated people I have ever run into.

But what we need is more time to think, not to have to rely upon the brightness of a young college graduate, but our own experience through the years; and I think that were we able to have some time for reflection, I think that you would find our work product all the better, the language and the laws that we pass more cleanly written, and I think our Nation would be the beneficiary thereof.

So I urge you, sir, to use as your polestar, how do we save time of the individual Member as we go along?

Some of the recommendations and I will be brief because of the very reason I stated—the Floor scheduling, this seems to be a source of frustration with all of us. We generally adjourn on schedule for holidays and district work periods; monthly vote calendars, currently issued by the leadership, frankly are seldom followed. And the same old predictable floor schedule, establishing a reliable vote calendar one month in advance would help create, quite honestly, a more family-friendly work environment and make it easier for Members to schedule trips home, improve the relations with one another in the House, and allow someone to see his or her family all the more.

Another area is that of commemorative legislation. It consumes hours of staff time, money, floor debate, creates printing problems in the amount of paper flow in the Congressmen's office. It is estimated that the cost is up to a $100 million a year. If the government continues to play a role, it should be delegated to a commission similar to that outlined in H.R. 204, which was introduced by Representative Dave McCurdy some time ago. I urge you to take a look at my testimony in that regard, because there are some statistics that are rather amazing.

Joint referrals, I think, committee should be designated, time limits placed on other committees that have jurisdiction. The Speaker already exercised this option on sequential referrals, but barely on ultimate referrals. In all the Congress, a design and deliberative body, it should always be that the practice might help us to move important legislation more expeditiously.

Select committees, I know you have heard a great deal about that. I urge you to take a good, strong look at that. The select committee spending a total for the-$18,542,000; the children's centers, $64,000; youth and families, $654,000; and hunger, narcotics, $729,000. This is where this should be eliminated by your thoughtful deliberation as opposed to the rush to judgment that we have experienced on the floor.

These are some of the recommendations, Mr. Chairman. I would lay my entire testimony in the record before you. This is important work that you do, and decades of future Congresses will benefit. Just remember, sir, the polestar that I suggested you should always keep in mind.

[The statement of Mr. Skelton is printed in the Appendix.]

Chairman HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Skelton. You have given us a good target to aim at. I think a lot of Members would

be in agreement with you. Any comments to Mr. Skelton?

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skelton, thank you for your testimony. It was very helpful. But I am a little perplexed by some of the things that you have talked about, because on our opening day we heard from Speaker Foley, who referred to the fact that the framers wanted this institution to be deliberately inefficient, and while we do want to save time, I think that we have to recognize that this is the greatest deliberative body known to man, and we have got to be careful to ensure that we don't streamline things in such a way that legislation rushes through that might not be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Dreier, you misunderstand me. This is a deliberative body. We, Members of Congress, should have more time to think and deliberate on the issues, prepare our own speeches a little bit more, rely less on some of the bright, able staff sitting behind us. And I think the work product will improve.

I think you and I are on the same playing field, because I want excellent deliberations. I have had the opportunity to read some of the great speeches in both the House and the Senate of yesteryear. I don't think a staff touched any of them. Daniel Webster wouldn't allow a staff to write his, nor would Senator Paine and the like. That is what we need. A bit more time on reflection.

Mr. DREIER. I couldn't agree with you more. I think that that is an excellent proposal.

It seems to me, and I would like your response, the best way to deal with that is to really do two things. No. 1, bring about—and I know this is painful for many—a major reduction in the number of staff on Capitol Hill; and No. 2, a reduction in the number of committees on which Members serve. If we have right now there are 299 committees in the Congress. If we are going to allow you and our colleagues to have some time to reflect, to write our own speeches and to deliberate, if you will, it seems to me that the best way to deal with that is to get a reduction of staff and a reduction of committees.

That is going to be a painful thing to do, and that is going to step on a number of toes.

Do you believe that that is really the best way for us to get at some of these problems, or do we continue to have, as one of my colleagues told me last night, service on eight subcommittees. I hear the average Senator serves on 12 subcommittees.

Mr. SKELTON. That is pretty hard to make ends meet, 12 or 8 subcommittees. We are not, unfortunately, in the simple days of Daniel Webster. The issues are just as weighty, but technology, international relations, as well as the economic problems of our country are so complex, you need some pretty bright staff to help us; and I have been assisted through the years by, I think, some of the finest.

My suggestion is to allow me

Mr. DREIER. By the way, I should say, I want to keep the bright staff.

Mr. SKELTON. All mine are. I think that what we want to do is to use their work product and give us more than the study that was done a few years ago, the average of 11 minutes by ourselves each day to think and reflect. We can do it, you can do it, and if we have any hope at all of saving any time--you know, we are going to work. I will work, you will work, to think, plan, come up with ideas to some of these great complexities, but we need time to think and deliberate more than we have, sir.

« PreviousContinue »