the length of time a Member may serve as chairman of a given committee.

Many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives were sent here on a mission similar to your own. The mission of reforming Congress.

This mission was defined by a rolling tide of voter dissatisfaction with the Congress. Evidence of that dissatisfaction can be found in the broad-based support of the people for limiting the length of service for their elected representatives. It has often been observed that public office is a public trust.

As such, public office must be used only for the good of the country, and not for individual benefit. That message echoed resoundingly in the land just this last November. It is time for us, the Members of Congress, to listen to that message.

Thus far, 15 States, nearly one third of the Union, have enacted some form of term limits on elected officials. In my own State of Florida, a term limits referendum passed with overwhelming support. Seventy-seven percent of the voters, three-and-one-half million people, voted in favor of limiting the length of time any one politician may hold a particular office.

I am here today to speak on behalf of those people in urging you to consider reforms of our rules that will be in line with their sentiments. If elected officials have the public trust, then we owe it to the people to be worthy of that trust.

We owe it to the people to insure that the committees serve the will of the people and not the whim of individual Members. We have all seen committees that have been dominated by the same chairman for many years. Chairmen obtain a proprietary interest in the subject matter of their committees. They dominate policymaking in a given area over extended periods of time.

Such committees often become fiefdoms for the individuals who chair the committee. Rather than it working exclusively for the public good, the committees often become mired turf battles, and the petty infighting serves only to promote the personal desires of the Chairman. Such an environment is not conducive to considering new ideas and it certainly hampers efforts to end old ideas that have outgrown their usefulness.

We can reduce one of the causes of legislative gridlock if we put an end to the fiefdom building that comes with unlimited terms of service for committee chairmen. If we take the general lesson of the ballot box this past November in support of term limits and apply it to our own rules, we will make this institution more responsive to the people.

I would urge that this committee focus its attention on this critical issue, because I believe this is an issue that the people have clearly spoken on. We need to heed their call for reform in this critical area.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Canady.
Mr. Linder.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LINDER, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me disabuse you of any notion that Mr. Canady and Ms. Fowler and I got together on this issue. We happened to pick the same targets.

Thank for letting me appear here today. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony as this committee works towards its mandate of reforming the Congress. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison wrote that one of the main concerns of the American public was that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minority party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

In constructing the foundation of our Federal Government, the Constitution resolve fears of tyranny of the majority. In the United States Congress, however, the unlimited terms for committee chairmen and ranking committee members, Democrat or Republican, continue to perpetuate the existence of an overbearing and unchecked power.

In order to contain the uncontrolled power of committee chairmen and ranking committee members, I propose a rule on the Republican rules package to limit ranking committee members to three executive terms in their position. By adopting this measure, Republican Members have imposed restrictions on our own party leadership, even though the majority party would not consider it for the committee chairman.

The rule, I must confess, has been called the Linder rule in my local papers. I wish it was called that more often and in more papers, but the fact of the matter is, it was passed by all the freshman class who worked behind it. That rule is going to achieve the desired effect of term limits by reducing unchecked power without having to go through the process of amending the Constitution or passing a law.

This proposal would end cozy relationships with special interests, create the free flow of new and innovative ideals between all Members in the committee system, and conclude the days of entrenched career politicians holding needed legislation hostage for their personal agenda. This plan would trim the influence of special interest groups by reducing long-term fiefdoms which give the chairman omnipotence over survival of legislation.

Countless proposals that could make a real difference in the lives of the American people are languishing hopelessly in Congress' committee system. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility for change in this system stifled by entrenched power and return our government to the people.

I know that placing limits on your own leadership is not easy in any business, especially in Washington. But our business is the well-being and liberty of an entire nation. It is our responsibility to create a working Congress that is more interested in the future of our own Nation than in maintaining power and securing future elections.

It is unfortunate that this proposal was never allowed on the Floor for a vote, much less a discussion. And I hope that this reform issue will receive a better response in the future.

It is time for those of us in Congress to face the facts that term limits have become a national priority. Fourteen States have passed referenda this year to limit terms, forcing 156 Representatives and 30 Senators to retire in 6 to 12 years. Congress cannot dismiss the term limitation movement.

The American public has made its decision and as a member of the freshmen class bent on carrying out the will of our fellow Americans in order to reform the way government does business, I truly appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this important issue of change.

Thank you again for the opportunity. Thank you for the service you folks have given to this Congress on this issue. We give you our support and our sympathy.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Linder. We certainly appreciate that and welcome you here. Mr. Kim is scheduled to be our last witness and I should say that we are moving into unchartered waters here. We think we have set a record here as far as numbers of Members who have testified before one committee.

We have had many before upstairs in the Rules Committee, but before a committee like this I don't think we have had-we have had between 40 to 50 Members testify today. So with that, I am pleased because with anticipation, I call on our last witness, my very dear friend and fellow California colleague, Mr. Kim.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAY KIM, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. KIM. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate this opportunity. As many witnesses who have preceded me already presented many of my concerns and recommendations, I would like to summarize the points of greatest interest to me.

First, committee and staffing reforms; second, reforms to the legislative process; the third one is congressional discipline; the fourth, term limits, which is mentioned already; and campaign financing reform.

Having served in the House only one month, I am new to the Federal legislative process. Most of my life I have been a businessman, having created my own successful business starting from scratch. Over the past years, like many of my neighbors and business partners, I have become very disappointed in Congress.

I have been upset with both what Congress has passed for laws and how it has been passing them. A majority rule with a minority protection is what our democracy is all about, but the gridlock, an arrogant attitude of Congress has become an outrage to ordinary citizens like myself.

That is why I decided to do something about it and I gave up my lifelong business and ran for Congress. Here I am. I am encouraged by the election of so many new Members this year.

If we remain true to our electoral convictions of wanting genuine, responsible reform, I believe a fresh outlook and new approaches can foster the kind of institutional changes the public demands and deserves. I am sure that-does that mean we got toMr. DREIER. You go ahead.

Mr. KIM. Overwhelming responses of Members to testify on reform today is not lost on the committee. I believe many and comprehensive reform is needed in all eight areas that the Joint Committee is reviewing. I look forward to working with the committee and developing and implementing a serious reform package.

While we may not agree on all the specifics, my bottom line message is, I stand for comprehensive reform, but first, we need to reform the committee system. There are too many committees we have and subcommittees with overlapping jurisdiction.

The situation creates gridlock, inefficiency and needless repetition. I am a member of Public Works and Transportation Committee. This committee is supposed to oversee transportation but railroad legislation is jealously guarded by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

How is the Public Works Committee supposed to effectively work on a comprehensive transportation infrastructure plan in a place like Los Angeles County when it can only directly affect part of the transportation system?

I will skip some of those lines. I will skip a lot of them. I may skip a whole page.

Let's take the Appropriation Committee as an example. Today it is essentially a small exclusive club of Members elected by only relatively few Americans. This club appropriates the entire country's money.

Many committee members have served on it for many, many years at great benefit to their districts and special interest. It seems very telling that its leadership is called the "College of Cardinals." Instead, we should rotate the committee's membership so that many Representatives from all over the country get a chance to serve on it, including myself. They will bring new ideas and new interest with guaranteed frequency.

We need to reduce congressional staffing. Some committees alone have more than 100 staff. What do they all do?

It appears to me that lots of tax dollars are wasted by very partisan staff trying to justify their existence. Excessive staff has led to excessive micromanagement and gridlock.

Second, the legislative process needs more fairness and better organization. No more waiving the requirements of prenotification for bills coming to the floor. How can I responsibly review a major tax bill that is hundreds of pages long when it was only finalized by the Ways and Means Committee 2 days before, rushed through the rule, rushed to the Floor overnight?

No wonder Congress passes legislation with a lot of hidden loopholes. We need more open rules to ensure real deliberation by all Members on the Floor.

Third, Congress needs some discipline. The past 20 years of poor congressional budgeting proves new measures are needed. They include, but are not limited to, a balanced budget amendment, line item veto, and super majority vote on tax increases.

I recognize there is a legitimate issue of constitutional separation of powers. But instead of trying to accommodate this unique right, Congress uses it as an excuse for inaction and abuse. Last night, as you know, the Majority mandated family leave on business to sup

posedly protect employees rights, but the House refused to give our own employees the same rights.

As a professional engineer, I am shocked to see so many OSHA violations throughout the Congress. I don't know what it is going to take to fix these problems. A major accident that kills someone? The laws we pass should apply to all or none.

Finally, I view Congress as a way for citizens to serve this country, not a career. We need term limits. We have limited the term for president, why not Congress?

I strongly supported the successful congressional term limit measure in California and regardless of the outcome of any constitutional challenges, I intend to abide by the limits. Just as with limiting terms on committees, limits on congressional terms will bring Congress back closer to the public where it belongs.

Again, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to reforming with you together.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kim, and thanks to all of you for your very helpful testimony.

Let me say to those of you who are new Members, we do have plenty of time to get over to the House Floor for a vote. I would like to first call on Ms. Dunn and see if she has any questions for

you.

Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to brag a bit. I think this freshman class is something spectacular and I think you all have got to agree. The fact that they have been in office for less than a month and are willing to come with their beepers to this hearing and testify with very, very thoughtful testimony, I think that tells the American public that we have some people sitting in this House that are very conscientious, they are very, very high quality.

That should give great strength and great hope to the chore that we are trying to do here. I think the question I would like to address to you, if we do have time, and I guess this proves our conscientiousness.

We are all watching the clock because we are not quite sure, but I would like to know if this freshmen class, in your opinion, can hold together on some of these reforms over a period of time and whether if this committee comes out with a very strong report that includes substantive change, that will, as a result, enhance the reputation of this Congress, will there be a body of people out of this class to support that report?

Mr. LINDER. Unfortunately, you are looking at one side of the aisle here. One of the most-I spent 14 years in the legislature. When I first went in, there were 19 Republicans out of 180 people in the House, and yet we were able to get things done because you legislate, you participate in committees. The system here has removed the Members from actual participation on the Floor and committees.

Things are decided ahead of time. Closed rules are issued or suspension rules. Those things need to be addressed to begin to reduce partisanship and the partisan nature of the House. We have simply got to reach across the aisle, make friends with Democrats or Republicans who are of like mind and begin to pull together.

That is the largest disappointment I have so far in the House.