Mr. MCHALE. I think there is a high probability of it. I have sensed among the new Members a different attitude toward the political process when compared to some of our predecessors. For instance, I can tell you that at least on the Democratic side of the aisle, an issue that commands overwhelming support is campaign finance reform.

I am not sure that all of the senior Members share that perspective, but among the newly elected Members, those who have spent the last year concentrating far too little time on public policy and far too much time raising money, a process that most of us find distasteful at best, there is a very strong momentum, completely nonpartisan in nature, toward meaningful campaign finance reform.

And so I think if we approach this issue with responsible rhetoric, if we avoid pointing fingers and instead look toward the future of this institution, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, newly elected Democrats will be extremely supportive.

Mr. DREIER. Mike.

Mr. CRAPO. I would just add to that that one of the questions, in fact, probably one of the questions foremost in my mind after I was elected was the one you just posed. What would be the makeup of this new group of freshmen that I was reading about. And I would say to you that I was delighted to find out, as I got together with my Republican counterparts in the freshmen class, to find out the remarkable, remarkable consensus among them about the need for reform of Congress and, again, I think, like you said, whatever the recommendations that come out, I think-I am hoping that they will be very meaningful recommendations. Some that will require sacrifice, not only on our part, but which may end up calling on the American people to also participate in the sacrifices necessary to restore the strength and integrity to our government that is needed, and I will tell you that I think there will be strong consensus among the freshmen Republicans for that kind of reform. Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much. Mr. Spratt.

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you both for your testimony. I have no questions.

Mr. DREIER. Ms. Dunn, one freshman Member who serves on this panel.

Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman, and I am delighted to welcome two of my freshmen colleagues to testify here. It is a very important symbol to us of how much this whole quest to reform means for-to the freshmen. We have been out in thetoiling in the vineyards and we have had it burned into our psyches that the public wants these things we are talking about.

We have been following several threads through the development of this committee, and one that has come to us several times, and several times even today, is the possibility of limiting the length of terms of committee chairmen to 6 years, and on the Republican side, as you know, we have voted to do that with our ranking Republican Members.

One of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents is the concern about the power given to staff or to the bureaucracy take away from the unelected-or the elected Member who is very, very busy during his or her congressional day and simply isn't

there to gather the information on his or her own and is fed this information and so forth. And I noticed, Mr. Crapo, in your remarks you talked about fairness in staffing.

I was very surprised to learn on the House side that there is not proportional staffing on some of these committees. Have you both been in situations enough to know why that exists or what the effect of that is and what we can do about that?

Mr. MCHALE. I would simply say that I support proportional staffing. In very limited areas that are beyond the scope of this committee, some lack of proportion can be justified, but the norm that I think should be followed, both in terms of committee membership and allocation of staff is proportional representation. I happen to think that is democratic, with a small d, and I would advocate that.

I have not, in the committees where I have served in the last 30 days, experienced the opportunity of discovering the inequity of disproportionate staffing, but I can tell you as one newly elected Democratic Member, I certainly would not approve of that.

Mr. CRAPO. With regard to your question as to the source or the justification for it, I don't know what the source or justification of it is. I do think that I have seen at least some indication of the impact, and that is simply an unfair impact on the ability to handle the work that is necessary for those allocated to do the work of the committee.

On the other part of your question or your earlier comments with regard to term limits for committee chairmen and ranking Members, I believe that the American people would very strongly support that kind of reform, because one of the most significant concerns that is voiced to me is concern over the centralization of power in one or in a small number of individuals over a long period of time, and that is what we see in Congress in control of some of these very powerful committees.

When the centralization of that control is maintained in a small number of individuals over a long period of time, whether it be Republicans as ranking Members or Democrats as the chairman or vice versa, that to me hits right at the core of the strong support for term limits generally in this country.

Ms. DUNN. Could I just do one follow up, Mr. Vice Chairman? Mr. McHale, do you think that you could put together a coalition of your freshmen colleagues on the Democrat side to support a fairer staffing if that were to be a recommendation to come from this committee?

Mr. MCHALE. Let me first ask, has that been a problem on the majority side of the aisle? I am teasing as I say that. I would certainly support an effort that would be led by appropriate Members on the minority side of the aisle, pointing out any inequity and seeking a redress of the balance on a committee staff.

I think appropriately that is an issue that should be led from the minority, but I can and do pledge to you publicly I would support that. There are certain institutional reforms that I think should survive short-term partisanship or short-term balances of power.

It seems to me that regardless of who the majority party is or who might happen to be in the minority, the proportional representation on a committee and proportional representation among com

mittee staff is a matter of basic democratic principle. I wouldn't lead to that fight. I think appropriately it should come from the minority, but you have at least one majority Member who would support you.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Doesn't look like there are a lot of Members who are here, but I will assure you that your testimony will be distributed to all who are on this committee and I think you make some recommendations which should be incorporated in our final package.

We thank you for that.

Mr. MCHALE. Mr. Chairman, I am sure more Members are here but they are probably at their committee meeting.

Mr. DREIER. Believe it or not, that is a joke we have heard several times during this meeting. Thank you very much.

And we now have Mr. Linder, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Canady and Ms. Fowler here. So if you all would like to come forward. And Mr. Kim has just joined us, so we would like to have Mr. Kim join the panel if he would, and we are trying to stick by this five minute requirement. We will only be in session, the House, until midnight tonight, so we and you are in fact our last panel for today, so we will start our timer, but I think we will be rather lenient with it. So if you would like to begin, Mr. Zeliff.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILLIAM ZELIFF, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr. ZELIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I certainly congratulate your efforts to reform Congress. It is vitally needed and very timely, and it gives all of us great hope for the future. As some of you may know, I am a small businessman who never held public office before being elected to Congress 2 years ago. I was shocked when time after time we voted on major pieces of legislation with no copies of the bill available for individual Members to study or even to scan.

For example, we passed the $95 billion bailout of the FDIC and the RTC with one copy available for all 435 Members to examine early in the morning hours the day before Thanksgiving.

Another example is when we passed H.R. 11 in the final hours, I believe it was some 4:30 in the morning, of the 102d Congress. I don't believe there was a single Member on the Floor that night who knew what was really in the bill. And when we deal with major tax bills that affect many millions of people and certainly the jobs out there, I think it is very critical that we know what we are voting on.

In the business world, a CEO or board member who proposed a major undertaking of that important nature, without making written copies available for each participant, would be fired on the spot. My legislation, House Resolution 26, simply amends the Rules of the House to prohibit putting the question on final passage of any measure until printed copies of that measure have been available to all Members for at least one day.

This measure makes so much sense that within a very short period of a few days, we have already got 46 cosponsored Members

with very little salesmanship or effort on my part. This simple change in the rules allows Members an opportunity to review the provisions of a bill before they vote on the measure. Guaranteeing Members this right to be informed of legislation we are voting on would move us light years ahead.

My bill also contains a provision which allows this rule to be suspended only on the joint request of a Speaker and minority leader based upon a determination of a national emergency and affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members. I have heard from many freshmen Members who were surprised that there was not a provision in the rules requiring that printed copies be made available. Many of them came here from State legislatures who have this rule in force. I know that my State of New Hampshire has the same rule. State legislators I have talked with said that at first implementing this rule caused some problems for staff and old school politicians but it was so well received by rank and file members and media and public interest groups that it is enthusiastically complied with today.

I hope that the members of the Joint Committee will endorse this simple rule change and support a measure aimed at true reform.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and, again, I would like to echo some of the comments I heard earlier. This pin that I wear, I worked awfully hard and am very proud to wear it. I am looking forward to the day that we can all change some of those ratings because it is kind of funny. We have some interns that volunteer for our staff and it is amazing their impressions on the way in versus the way out. There is an awful lot of dedicated, hard working people here, and I think that the opinions need to be changed and should be changed and I look forward to working with you and I congratulate you for your efforts. Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Zeliff. Ms. Fowler.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TILLIE FOWLER, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Ms. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for allowing me to address you today for what I think is paramount to the future of this institution, congressional reform. During my campaign, the salary of the deputy doorkeeper here became an issue. The voters of my district could not believe that this position paid $104,000. And everywhere I went, whether it was Rotary, Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, were outraged and expressed time and again about the abuses of the system and this just being one of the examples.

On the tail of bounced checks, unpaid meal tabs and the Post Office scandal, I think the voters are demanding that we do more than just hire an administrator for the business of the House. They expect us to implement real reform. This is the only way that we will be able to regain their trust and be able to get on with the business of being citizen representatives.

Citizen representation, that is what this House is supposed to be all about, but how can we be true citizen representatives if we have

a system that allows committee chairmen to serve an unlimited amount of time? I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to adopt rules similar to those adopted by the Republican Conference stating that committee chairmen can only serve 6 years.

As you may know, I support term limits for both the House and the Senate. In fact, I have filed a bill limiting Members of the House to 8 years and Members of the Senate to 12 years. I would urge Members of this committee to promote term limits for committee chairmanships as well.

Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of rotation in office. Today more than ever I believe we need to heed President Jefferson's wise advice. Yesterday I was witness to another needed reform that needs to be instituted. Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to have access to the committee report for a bill. We don't even get the bill, we don't get the committee report. We should at least get it three days prior to vote on the final passage, or at least 24 hours.

When I worked on the Hill 20 years ago, committee reports came with the bill. It is beyond my comprehension why Members today cannot receive a committee report in a timely manner. This Congress has more than doubled the staff in the past 20 years, but it can't seem to perform the same level of work. Does the fault lie with the staff or a system that has become victim to political manipulation depriving Members access to information?

I also think that a complete review of committees, subcommittees and their staffs should take place. A zero based budget approach, if you will, should be implemented to review each committee, subcommittee and its usefulness. I believe that this Congress would be able to operate just as efficiently with a few less committees and subcommittees and less staff.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you and the members of this committee for taking time to solicit our views. As I see it, you lead one of the most serious tasks facing this Congress. I wish you well in your deliberations and look forward to working closely with you to institute the reforms needed to give the American people a Congress which they can be proud of it, a Congress that is truly responsive to the needs of the American people.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Ms. Fowler.

Mr. Canady.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES T. CANADY, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. CANADY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. It is a privilege to be here today and I want to start by praising the mission of this committee and congratulating you on your selection to serve on this committee. I am convinced that the work of this committee is some of the most important work that will be undertaken by this Congress this year or certainly during this 2-year session of the Congress, and I come today to focus on one particular issue that has already been addressed in the last few moments, and that is the issue of limiting