Statement of Congressman Joel Hefley before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress Mr. Chairman: In many respects, I think the debate surrounding congressional reform is very similar to the debate over health care reform. That is, you can always identify the source of a reform proposal by the proposal itself. For example, in health care, if you see a plan that requires fee-for-service, you can be sure the American Medical Association is behind it. Likewise, proposals to mandate employer-provided insurance are presented by insurance companies and efforts to create universal, government-funded health care are supported consumer groups. by With congressional reform, it's much the same. The Republicans propose reforms that protect the minority and give it more say in what happens on the floor while the Democrats insist upon changes that would streamline the process and allow them to complete their legislative agenda with less debate. We need to move beyond those divisions and target our reforms toward increasing public confidence in the democratic process. Regardless of what reform package is passed, if the public still perceives that Congress is inefficient, unresponsive, and corrupt, then it will be a failure. The following reforms I am going to endorse are varied. Some will slow the process down, others will speed it up. But they all have one idea in common. Make Congress and its members more accountable to the American people. PROXY VOTING at my town No current practice of Congress raises more eyebrows meetings than the practice of using proxies at committee markups. Aside from the political implications of proxy voting, I think it's, if you'll excuse the expression, "just bad politics." Traditional opposition to proxy voting has taken two forms. it's inherently unfair. It allows a majority to control a vote even though those casting for the majority aren't even present. First, Second, it's inconsistent. We don't allow proxy voting on the House floor but we do in our committees. Yet, many times the vote a member casts in committee has more influence over a bill's future than a vote on the House floor. still, I think there's a more important reason to oppose proxy voting. My constituents sent me to Congress to represent them at all levels of the legislative process, including committee meetings. If I'm not there to vote, chances hear the debate over what I'm voting on either. are I'm not there to Permitting proxy voting undermines the public's confidence process and it encourages lazy legislating. in the JOINT REFERRALS One criticism I've heard from my Republican colleagues is that the Democratic reforms being considered by this committee all emphasize quantity over quality. In other words, the Democrats seem more intent upon passing lots of legislation than passing a few, good bills. To a certain extent, I believe that this criticism is on the mark-with one glaring exception; joint referrals of legislation. Former Congressman Dennis Eckart said it best when he said "We have balkanized the power of the Congress into dozens of competing fiefdoms and thus made it more difficult... to define a congressional agenda." During my tenure in Congress, every major reform bill presented to Congress has been held up by competing committee chairman attempting to protect their turf. This situation is unacceptable and, while Americans may not understand all the closed-door infighting that is taking place, they perceive that gridlock that results from it. We need to end the practice of joint referrals. I suggest we require the Speaker of the House to refer newly introduced legislation to only one committee. While this reform may not make the Speaker popular among committee chairmen, it will certainly improve the legislative process. LIMITING TERMS Another way to end the gridlock and destroy the fiefdoms is to limit tenure on committees. The current practice of permanent committee assignments and unlimited chairmanship has divided the House and produced several unnecessary layers of obstruction. By requiring committee membership to rotate every two years, we can open the process to new ideas and directions and allow members to have a more rounded legislative background. I propose that we limit committee tenures to committee chairmanships to four. EXEMPTION eight years and Congress has always been criticized for exempting itself from the mandates it imposes on other employers. Responding to this criticism, both the House and the Senate have recently acted to apply certain civil rights and labor laws to their employees. While the intentions were good, the actual practice has been less than successful. There are two reasons why we need to take additional steps to comply with the laws we pass. First, our employees deserve the same protections that all other employees currently enjoy. Second, by requiring Congress to comply with the regulations it imposes on the rest of the country, individual members will have the opportunity to experience how oppressive and expensive many of these laws are. I propose that Congress end the practice of exempting itself from the laws it passes and that it amend the National Labor relations Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to Congress. Critics of this proposal claim that the separation of powers clause in the Constitution prohibits Congress from applying the laws it passes to itself. Personally, I think this argument is more of a convenient excuse than a legitimate constitutional issue. Furthermore, there are several ways to circumvent this question if Congress were really serious about improving its image and complying with its own laws. TWO FOR THE MINORITY To this point, I think the reforms I've proposed are fairly non-partisan. If anything, I think prohibiting joint referrals and limiting committee tenure should be more helpful to the majority than the minority. They would certainly allow for a smoother consideration of legislation. I strongly support, however, two needed reforms that would benefit the minority only. First is the ability for the minority to offer a Motion to Recommit with instructions. Second is the requirement of a two-thirds majority to waive points of order. There is a cockiness in the current Democratic Leadership that comes from being in the majority for 19 uninterrupted Congresses. That cockiness is most evident on the House floor, where it has become routine for major bills to be considered under closed rules that prohibit any amendment or objection what-so-ever. Frankly, I think this hurts the rank-and-file Democrat as much as it does the minority, but most of all it hurts the credibility of the institution. What's the point in having rules if we're just going to exempt ourselves from them everytime they might take some effect? And what harm is there to allowing the minority to offer one alternative to major legislation? We don't have the votes to win-that's why we're in the minority! The obvious answer is that the Democratic Leadership has become So entrenched that they believe they are immune to any repercussions from flaunting the House Rules or the rights of the minority. The result is that certain of my Republican colleagues have adopted the practice of obstructing the floor proceedings every opportunity they get. I think we'd be better off just sticking to the rules and allowing the minority the small privilege of one vote per bill. CONCLUSION When the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution two centuries ago, they created a lasting document that has withstood the test of time. Unfortunately, House rules have failed to be so durable. What's missing is a sense of balance. Both parties have an interest in reforming Congress to suit their present circumstances. The Republicans want to strengthen the rules to allow them a stronger voice while the Democrats seem intent on creating a fast-track Congress that passes the entire Democratic agenda in short order. Both sides should beware. The purpose of Congress is to pass GOOD laws, not just laws. It is not the role of the minority to be a It certainly won't help the Republicans gain constant obstruction. a majority. On the other hand, streamlining a gridlocked Congress is a positive step, but it can go too far if it prevents legitimate debate of legitimate issues. The surest way for Republicans to take back the House is for a Democratic Congress, with the cooperation of a Democratic President, to pass a bunch of bad bills that harm the country and anger the populace. I think the above reforms strike the correct balance and I hope the committee will adopt them. TESTIMONY OF U.S. REP. JIM BACCHUS BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and discuss the important issue of congressional reform. I believe that the work of this committee is critical to restoring public confidence in the Congress and making the Congress more responsive to the needs and realities of our country today. The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress will allow us to take a bipartisan, deliberative approach to streamlining and modernizing our committee structure and improving the work of the federal government as a whole. are My primary goal in appearing before this committee today is to urge your consideration of two reforms that I believe critical to regaining the people's trust. One reform pertains to open meetings rules as they are applied to committees of the Congress, and the other reform pertains to financial disclosure requirements for members of Congress and candidates for Congress. While there have been laudable improvements in these areas recent years, both our open meeting and financial disclosure rules are riddled with loopholes that tend to erode public confidence in this body. Closing these loopholes and increasing the openness of the Congress, in my view, are essential to our efforts to regain the trust and support of the people we represent. in Let me first address the issue of our open meetings rules. The Congress in the last two decades has made remarkable progress in opening up hearings and markups that previously had routinely been closed to the public. However, our current rules still contain a giant loophole in that committee members can vote to close meetings for any reason. I am refiling legislation to allow meetings to be closed only for two reasons: if disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger the national security; or |