Page images
PDF
EPUB

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, be

cause 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.

Mr. DREIER. I guess what I am asking, Ike, is are you prepared to make some of these tough decisions? We are going to have to make the decisions here. In our recommendations are we going to reduce the number of committees and subcommittees in the Congress? Are we going to make a major reduction in the number of people who work here?

Mr. SKELTON. I think we already have.

Mr. DREIER. Should we do it?

Mr. SKELTON. I think we already have, and I think the issue of the subcommittees will be before you, and I think that is going to come to pass, and they will be eliminated as well.

But we have already cut back on the subcommittees, at least on the two committees in which I serve, that is a step in the right direction. I don't think you will find people hesitating to make tough decisions. We have to make this place more deliberative, more reflective, more responsive; and I again say, the best way to do this, sir, is to give the Members a few more minutes a day to think and reflect on our own.

Mr. DREIER. OK. Thank you very much.

Chairman HAMILTON. Any further questions for Mr. Skelton? Thank you very much, Mr. Skelton.

Chairman HAMILTON. The Chair is going to have to leave in order to join in hosting-in order to see one of our foreign visitors for a few minutes. I will ask Mr. Dreier to take the Chair.

Mr. Porter, we are delighted to see you. I have already had an opportunity to read your testimony. That, of course, will be submitted into the record in full. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Spratt and Mrs. Norton, thank you for being here and listening to all of us today.

I think you can define frustration as-this is for a person that is used to getting things done-frustration can probably be defined by being elected to a legislative body. That is the first point. The second one, having no seniority, and each of us have gone through that; and finally-and David will relate to this, as I do--being in the Minority Party. Those three for a new Member, and two of them for those in the Majority Party maybe, define frustration; and I want to talk about two things that I think reflect the need for an outlet for the creative energies of our Members.

Bill Frenzel was in here and I think told you that we ought to eliminate legislative service organizations. Now, I agree with Bill Frenzel on lots of things and our voting records, when he was here, were very, very similar; but I disagree vehemently with Bill about legislative service organizations.

1

Ten years ago I founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, one of the largest caucuses in the Congress now, 220 Members. It does wonderful things, and it has provided a wonderful outlet for its Members who are concerned about human rights abuses all across this world, for young Members to get in, get rid of their frustrations and address the very bedrock issues on which

this country was founded, the rule of law, living according to basic human rights standards all across the world. And the Human Rights Caucus does briefings for its Members and their staffs, reports on human rights situations; it interfaces with human rights organizations where Members can learn what is going on across the world. It intercedes for individuals whose rights are being abused everywhere in the world with the force that only Members of Congress working together can have. It tracks thousands of cases through a computer system to continue to keep pressure on-and each of us, each of us in our lives as Members of Congress have interceded and worked together on human rights issues.

So my experience has been one that is very, very positive, and I think the Members of the caucus have had a very, very positive experience in being able to actually work on something and make a difference, even though you may be a young Member of Congress with no seniority, working in the legislative body that is at times filled with frustration, or being a part of the Minority.

I do believe that this group ought to look very carefully at putting legislative service organizations under the direct control of House Finance, of divorcing them in some cases where there is some kind of relationship with outside organizations, and defining them as strictly legislative service bodies within our body, and defining exactly what their role is more carefully, so that all of us know what they are what we are supposed to do and not supposed to do. And I think those kinds of criticisms are, in many cases, very relevant and you ought to pursue it.

The other thing I want to talk about very briefly is a similar frustration. I believe that we ought to seriously consider putting term limits on the time that a Member can serve as Chair or Ranking Member of a committee or subcommittee. I would suggest 6 years is a good term limit. I think one of the great problems of this body is the frustration of serving long, long times under other chairs who remain in office for 10 and 20 and 30 years with no change at all. It destroys the dynamic nature that the body ought to have, and we ought to have a system not of creating more subcommittees, but of moving people through the subcommittees and through the committee leadership positions in some defined way. It seems to me that 6 years is an ample time for anyone to get their agenda adopted in the Congress, and then make way for a new Member to take over and work their agenda for the next 6 years. I think turnover is very, very essential for real participation in this body. And everyone will tell you-and I think it is true that where you get entrenched leadership in a committee or subcommittee chair, essential interests that deal only with that entrenched leadership, and the bureaucracy that does the same thing, you have a body that is not responsive to the public needs and really ought to be changed.

So I strongly suggest to this body that you look into the situation of how we can move people into positions of leadership more rapidly, and not have the frustration of waiting years and years and years for someone to step aside so that one can have any degree of participation at a leadership level.

I only suggest to you that I think it is not a real thing, and this is not a criticism in any way of the Dean of the House, but Bill

Natcher has served on the Appropriations Committee for almost 40 years and is now 83 years of age before he has a chance to serve as chair of this committee. It seems to me that something is wrong when you have a system that allows people of talent to sit in waiting for that long a time; and we could easily correct that with some good, sensible rules about moving people through more rapidly.

Mr. DREIER [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Porter. Your testimony is very helpful.

I am very pleased that you advocate at the very least reform of LSOs. It seems to me that the debate which we have embarked upon is frankly very similar to the one on the select committees. I am very honored to be a Member of the Human Rights Caucus serving under your leadership. But at the same time I do believe that we need to make-I personally would advocate elimination of LSOS.

I have cast that vote and we have addressed that. But that doesn't in any way diminish my respect for your work, the work of Mr. Lantos and other legislative service organizations. But I will say that I am pleased that you at least do advocate reform in those areas so that we can, in fact, again at the very least improve them. Thank you for your testimony.

Any questions? Mr. Spratt? Ms. Norton? Ms. Dunn?

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Porter, your comments on term limits are very interesting to me, and when I was out in my district I shared-last year I heard a lot of comment from folks who believe that connected to term limits, if you limit terms of Members of Congress or terms of committee chairmen, has you have just suggested, that you put a great deal of power into the hands of staff.

Could you explain to us how this works, and whether the limiting of committee chairmen might also create a turnover in the staff?

Mr. PORTER. Well, I think that there is a difference between limiting the terms of Members, how long they can serve in the Congress, and limiting the time during which a Member can serve as chair of a committee or subcommittee. In almost every instance that I can think of, it takes some number of years for a person to work their way up in seniority to reach a position where they would be the Chair, so that they have had experience; they know the subject matter by the time they arrive there; and the staff influence, it seems to me, is lessened by the fact of the knowledge of that Member.

Now, if you talk about Members being run through in a revolving door through the body itself, where you come in and serve for 6 or 8 years and you are gone, there I think you really have to worry about the power of staff simply taking over; because it does take a period of time in order to get knowledgeable in general and in specific areas, and there the staff I think would have inordinate power. And I oppose that, very frankly. But here we can internally, without thinking about amending the Constitution, without thinking about even passing a law, simply amend the rules of the House and the Senate, and create a much more dynamic body, and it seems to me, gain a great deal of what people see out there across the country in terms of a body that is stagnant and not responsive.

« PreviousContinue »