Objectives

Although the Rules Committee’s primary role is to serve as legislative “gatekeeper” for the House, Rule X of House rules assigns to the Committee the general oversight duties pertaining to House rules, the internal structure and organization of the House, the Congressional budget process, and relations between the Congress and the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

In the past two Congresses, the Committee has been active in exercising its oversight responsibilities, and in addressing matters of original jurisdiction. A primary focus of the Committee has been to improve the legislative process and the internal workings of the House to promote effectiveness, efficiency and public involvement. Most recently, the Committee, in conjunction with the House Parliamentarian, completed a major review and recodification of House rules. This process resulted in a streamlined and simplified rules package that reduced the total number of rules from 51 to 28. On opening day of the 106th Congress, this new package was adopted by the House, including several modifications of the rules to continue the process of making the House work more smoothly. The fact that little substantive change was necessary in these modifications to the rules emphasizes the success in the process of modernization that has occurred over the last four years.

The statutes that fall within the Committee’s oversight jurisdiction are the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the process-related provisions found in Part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (and amendments thereto). The Committee has been active in pursuing efforts to reform the Congressional budget process outlined in these laws and corresponding House rules. The Rules Committee also has jurisdiction over expedited procedures that may exist in current laws, such as the Trade Act of 1974, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.

The Committee played a central role in the comprehensive restructuring and oversight of the rules and organization of the House that began in January of 1995. In addition, the Committee took a leading role in implementing the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the Line Item Veto. The Committee also initiated several important internal changes, including the establishment of the Corrections Calendar. The Committee conducted extensive oversight of those changes and developed further refinements of internal procedure that were put into place in the opening day rules packages of the 105th and 106th Congresses. The Committee also played a central role in the review of the congressional budget process, the examination of private sector mandates, and the implementation of constructive changes to the ethics procedures of the House. All of these efforts have been undertaken to effectuate a more responsive, innovative, and flexible legislative process that enhances public participation as well as the ability of Congress to operate effectively in the information age.

The Committee sets for itself the ongoing goal of updating and refining the procedures by which the House operates whenever such change is necessary to further promote public interest and participation in the legislative process. The Committee will continue to rely on its two subcommittees -- Legislative and Budget Process and Rules and Organization of the House -- to generate and conduct proactive oversight activities.

In offering this Oversight plan as required by House rule X, the Committee outlines a broad range of areas on which it expects to focus during the 106th Congress. This plan should not, however, be construed to preclude consideration of additional matters should the need arise.

Mandates Information Act

In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), which requires the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of unfunded mandates proposed to be placed on both local governments and the private sector. These cost estimates are required to be included in the committee's report that accompanies a bill reported to the House. UMRA also established a point of order mechanism for legislation that imposes an unfunded mandate on state and local governments in excess of $50 million.

On October 30, 1997, and March 27, 1998, the Committee on Rules held original jurisdiction hearings and reported legislation (H.R. 3534) to amend the UMRA in an effort to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal private sector mandates. This legislation, which passed the House, would establish a point of order against bills which contain mandates on the private sector in excess of $100 million.

In the 106th Congress, the Committee will continue to work to ensure the suitability of House procedures governing compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The Committee has already met to review and craft legislation to improve congressional deliberation on bills containing private sector mandates and examine the effectiveness of this potential measure in conjunction with UMRA. On February 2, 1999, the Committee reported H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act, which was subsequently considered by the House.

Budget Process Reform

For many years, the Committee has worked to improve the Congressional budget process, which is nearly universally viewed as cumbersome, confusing and unnecessarily complex. There is general agreement that no process in and of itself can force the Congress and the President to commit to and meet the goals of fiscal responsibility, discipline in decision-making and public accountability. However, it is also generally agreed that the current process makes it more difficult to achieve those goals over the long term. Throughout the 104th and 105th Congresses, the Committee held briefings and hearings specifically to solicit the input of a broad range of experts about what works in the current process, what does not work, and what proposals should be considered for change.

In conjunction with a task force of the House Budget Committee that was established specifically for the purpose of reviewing the budget process, a comprehensive legislative proposal for reform was crafted and introduced with bipartisan support as H.R. 4837 in the 105th Congress. This proposal was developed with an eye toward making significant, positive change in the current process by forcing early decisions, enhancing enforcement of budget constraints, boosting accountability, improving planning for the future, and recognizing the changed dynamic in the process caused by budget surpluses resulting from taxpayer overcharges.

In the 106th Congress, the Committee plans to move ahead with specific reform efforts, conducting additional hearings on the new proposals and attempting to bring a legislative package to the Floor for consideration by the full House. Given the momentum that now exists in the House and the Senate, the Committee sees a real opportunity to accomplish meaningful change.

Among the specific proposals that likely will be considered in this effort are:

In addition, the Committee expects to continue its effort to monitor proposed budget process changes in the Senate, which has also signaled its interest in effectuating comprehensive budget process reform during the 106th Congress.

Oversight of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China

In June 1998, the House passed H. Res. 463, establishing the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China. The Select Committee was deemed necessary to investigate disturbing reports regarding the impact of technology transfers to China on U.S. national security. The Select Committee completed its investigatory work and final report prior to the conclusion of the 105th Congress, as had been envisioned by H.Res. 463. However, because of the highly sensitive nature of the material under investigation, the report remained classified and therefore could not be publicly disclosed upon its completion.

Given the public interest in this topic and the desire to have a public discussion of the Select Committee’s findings and conclusions, all 9 members of the Select Committee asked the House to reconstitute the panel for a limited time at the outset of the 106th Congress for the specific purpose of declassification of the panel’s report. On opening day of the 106th Congress, the House approved a resolution to reconstitute the Select Committee for this purpose, which is to be completed within three months (by the end of March, 1999).

Because of the complexity of the declassification task, and the magnitude of information involved, this is expected to be a difficult process. The Rules Committee, which has the responsibility to oversee the establishment and conduct of select committees, will monitor the progress of the Select Committee in meeting its deadline, and will be prepared should further Committee action become necessary.

The Rescission Process

The Rules Committee was a lead player in the enactment of the Line Item Veto Act, and actively exercised its oversight jurisdiction during the time the law was in effect. When the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, members of the Committee pledged to carefully review the Court’s decision and renew their efforts to devise legislation that is constitutionally sound and that could achieve the goals of enhanced accountability and fiscal discipline over federal spending.

The Committee intends to pursue this commitment, reviewing the existing rescission process (title X of the Budget Act), and examining its strengths and weaknesses in achieving the goals of fiscal discipline and accountability for spending. The Committee will consider proposals to strengthen that process, including those that envision a system that has become known as “expedited rescission.”

Executive Orders

As part of its oversight responsibility for monitoring the relationship between the Congress and the Executive Branch, the Rules Committee will explore the issuance of Executive Orders by the President. There has been much public discussion about the process by which the President implements policy through Executive Order and the questions of whether and how such actions have impacted upon the prerogatives of the Congress. The Committee will explore this issue from an institutional perspective rather than a policy-specific one, considering the impact the issuance of Executive Orders has had on the duties and conduct of legislative business by Congressional committees and the Congress as a whole.

Fast Track Procedures in Trade Legislation

Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 establishes a "fast track" procedure for the consideration of legislation implementing trade agreements negotiated by the President. Section 1103(b) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 provided the last "broad" extension of trade negotiating authority with "fast track" procedures. This extension applied to implementing bills submitted with respect to trade agreements entered into before June 1, 1991, and was further extended until June 1, 1993, through operations of provisions of section 1103(b).

Following the expiration of "fast track" authority on June 1, 1993, Congress provided an additional extension of "fast track" procedures solely for an agreement concluding the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations through H.R. 1876 (P.L. 103-49). This "narrow" extension provided for "fast-track" consideration under Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a bill implementing the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, if an agreement was reached by December 15, 1993. An agreement was reached within that time frame, and the Congress overwhelmingly enacted legislation implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements in December 1994. The Administration has been without "fast track" authority since December 15, 1993.

Fast track procedures limit the capacity of Congress to amend legislation implementing trade agreements. In order to offset this limit on congressional authority once implementing legislation is introduced, the Administration is directed by statute to undertake significant consultation and cooperation with Congress during trade negotiations.

In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House and the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade began a comprehensive review of Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974. The subcommittees held public hearings focusing on the policies, conditions, and negotiating objectives of fast track, as well as on fast track procedures. The subcommittees also began examining Administration plans to undertake trade negotiations under a new grant of "fast track" authority, as well as the implementation of trade agreements recently enacted under "fast track" procedures, to determine if the "fast track" process has led to successful trade negotiations, and if "fast track" authority should be further granted to the Administration. While H.R. 2621 was considered on the House floor during the 105th Congress, this bill providing for “fast track” trade authority failed by a record vote of 180 to 243 on September 25, 1998.

In the 106th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine the prospects for either a broad extension of "fast track" or a narrow extension relating to specific trade negotiations either already underway or scheduled to begin in the coming two years.

Civility in the House

On March 9-11, 1997, approximately 200 Members of the House of Representatives and their families attended a Bipartisan Congressional Retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the retreat was to develop better relationships among Members, reduce partisan rancor, and improve the productivity of the House. The retreat was paid for primarily from a grant to the Aspen Institute from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Funds from the Pew grant were also given to the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania to undertake a study by Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson on the level of civility in the House of Representatives. Dr. Jamieson’s findings were published in a report entitled “Civility in the House of Representatives,” which was distributed to the participants of the Bipartisan Congressional Retreat. The report analyzed historical changes in the level of civility in the House, explained a number of internal and external factors that the author asserts contribute to an increase in incivility, and offered recommendations for improving civility in the institution.

Following the 1997 retreat, the Rules Committee examined the findings generated at the retreat and held a hearing on April 17, 1997, to review a number of issues raised by the Jamieson study.

A second bipartisan retreat is scheduled for March 19-21, 1999. Recent contentious national issues and testimony from the hearing in the 105th Congress regarding a decline in debate decorum in the House of Representatives indicate potential obstacles to productive legislative activity or an undesirable tone for political discussion. In the 106th Congress, the Committee may review the results of the second Congressional Bipartisan Retreat and work closely with the Bipartisan Retreat Planning Group to develop a long-term process of improving civility, the overall work environment in the House, and general discourse in American society, both public and private.

Impact of New Information Technologies on the House

Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives has made a remarkable transformation into the information age. Emerging technologies with congressional applicability such as the Internet, e-mail, video conferencing, databases, talk radio and digitized television have begun to have a dramatic impact on the customs, culture, procedures and operations of the House and Senate. This new medium of communication has already had a profound impact on our federal system of representative government.

The Committee on Rules became concerned during the course of the 104th Congress that the institution was moving rapidly toward the information age without having a full appreciation for how these new technologies might impact the legislative process. The Rules Committee began to examine how technology may transform the institution, and what it will mean for our representative government. In the 105th Congress, the Committee held hearings that examined the effects of information technology on the legislative process in state legislatures, reviewed the impact upon the decision-making process in the House of Representatives, and considered recommendations for change.

In the 106th Congress, the Rules Committee will continue to examine the impact of technology (i) on the role and responsibilities of committees; (ii) on the dissemination of information electronically; and (iii) on deliberation as the institution becomes more accessible to the public. The Committee may review how recent acquisitions of these new forms of technology may affect House and committee rules and decision-making in committees and on the House floor. The Committee also plans to continue to review how the Internet and other information technologies will affect the way Members of Congress communicate with constituents and will continue to examine the advantages and disadvantages of providing immediate on-line access to various forms of congressional documents and information, particularly in light of the House rule requiring the electronic availability of committee publications.

Government Performance and Results Act

In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62), which requires the federal government to develop measurable performance goals for its agencies and programs. When fully implemented, GPRA has the potential to transform government by changing the focus of federal programs from inputs (money) to outputs (results). Unfortunately, measuring agency and program performance is often difficult because the goals or objectives of a statute may be vague, imprecise, or so general in character that it is difficult for committees and others to assess whether an agency, program, or intergovernmental grant is working to achieve its intended purpose. GPRA requires Federal agencies to consult with congressional committees in developing their performance goals and other criteria.

In the 106th Congress, the Committee may monitor the implementation of GPRA not from a management process perspective, but from the perspective of its impact on the duties, jurisdictions, and oversight responsibilities of the standing committees of the House. The success of agency compliance with GPRA will depend heavily on the ability of committees to define Congressional intent with respect to the missions and goals of agencies and programs, particularly those subject to overlapping committee jurisdictions.

Improving Public Understanding

On January 6, 1999, as part of its opening day rules package, the House passed H. Res. 5, a recodification of House Rules to create a more logical, orderly and comprehensive set of House rules without substantive policy changes. The overwhelming majority of the changes provided for in this package were developed by a bipartisan task force of the Committee on Rules. The recodification was the first comprehensive revision of the structure of the rules of the House since the 1880s. The recodification effort was designed to alleviate concerns that some House rules had become obsolete, confusing, and poorly organized. Working extensively over the past two years, with the non-partisan Office of the Parliamentarian, the Recodification Task Force developed a more rational and orderly set of House rules.

Previously, the outdated and confusing nature of the rules made the House of Representatives difficult to understand for Members, staff and the American people. In a continuing effort to make the legislative process user friendly, and to improve public understanding of the institution, the Committee plans to build on the success of the recodification process by developing a comprehensive parliamentary training program for Members and staff, and by expanding the Committee’s World Wide Web site to serve as a convenient source of parliamentary and legislative information for educational studies and political science programs, and for the general public.

Resolving Jurisdictional Disputes

As part of its oversight responsibility for monitoring the internal operational and jurisdictional issues of the House, the Rules Committee is interested in cooperative legislative efforts of committees on matters of overlapping jurisdictions. The Rules Committee may review opportunities to resolve jurisdictional disputes and work around these problems within the parameters of the existing committees and subcommittees. For example, in the 106th Congress, the Committee may review Congressional procedures with respect to national drug abuse policy and hunger and humanitarian issues, including fragmented committee jurisdictions, differences in jurisdiction between House and Senate committees, the appropriations process, and the oversight process as they relate to such issues.

Bicameral Cooperation

Despite their many differences, the House and Senate must cooperate if measures are to be enacted into law. Because they are constitutionally inter-connected and inter-locked entities, actions by one chamber trigger reactions by the other. The procedures and behaviors of each body are a significant force in shaping policy outcomes. Therefore, the Rules Committee may undertake a detailed examination of how each chamber affects or is affected by the other body.

Dissenting Views

Unfortunately, there were two comments in the majority views that we agreed to disagree on and we felt compelled to explain our differences.

Recodification: Republicans note that the opening day rules package adopted this January included only a handful of substantive changes and conclude:

The sentence is ambiguous. If it means that the absence of substantive change in the recodification package suggests a consensus that no further changes are needed, the statement is simply not true. The charge to the recodification task force from the outset was not to make substantive changes. The task force did not even attempt to address whether such changes were necessary. This is made abundantly clear in the January 5, 1999 letter signed by Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Moakley, presenting the recommendations of the task force to Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt. The letter begins:

The letter ends:

If, instead, the Republican majority is looking at the content of the modest changes they adopted and claiming these changes suggest the success of their efforts in previous Congresses, we must strongly disagree. The changes adopted in this Congress continue the trend begun in the 105th Congress of rolling back the excesses of the rules change package adopted in the opening days of the 104th Congress. In the 105th Congress, Republicans repealed their rules change to allow committees to sit during the 5-minute rule, returned the House Oversight Committee to sole control over the Chief Administrative Officer, narrowed the application of their supermajority-vote-on-tax-rate-increases rule, and returned “Education” to the name of the Education and the Workforce Committee. In the 106th Congress, the Republicans repealed their oversight-plans point of order and restored the names of the Armed Services and House Administration Committees. This is not an expression of success but an honest recognition that they went too far and made a number of mistakes.

Budget surpluses: In the context of the Committee’s plans to review the congressional budget process, the Republicans urge the Committee to recognize “the changed dynamic in the process caused by budget surpluses resulting from taxpayer overcharges.”

Of course we Democrats agree the Committee should explore how Congress can best respond to the pleasant fact of budget surpluses. But we object to the way the Republicans want to frame and limit that review.

Republicans say the budget surplus has come sooner than expected because of taxpayer overcharges. Do they contend Americans’ tax burden is rising?

We Democrats instead give credit to the economy that has outperformed every expectation and to legislative efforts to cut back spending. It’s the economy, not taxes. The tax burden on ordinary Americans has been falling, not rising.

Three simple facts explain the surplus: (1) we would not have a surplus without the Social Security trust fund, (2) our economy has enjoyed robust growth and job creation, along with low unemployment and the lowest inflation since the early 1960’s; and (3) Congress and the President have agreed on laws so that federal spending relative to GDP has fallen significantly and steadily since enactment of the FY 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, as the chart below shows:

[See Hard Copy]

We think it is necessary to comment here in the Committee’s oversight plan for two reasons. First, if Republicans plan to present their own peculiar view about the source of budget surpluses, we want to signal our intention to engage in the debate without rehearsing all the arguments now. Second, if Republicans intend to limit the committee’s review of budget surpluses so as to preclude any discussion of Democratic proposals to save Social Security first and the President’s tax cut proposals, we must vigorously protest.

________________________		________________________
John Joseph Moakley			                           Martin Frost


___________________________		      ___________________________
Tony Hall				                                           Louise Slaughter