WPC 2 BJZCourier#|xx6X@CX@NEC Silentwriter LC-890NESILC89.PRSx  @hhhh<UTX@#|x2o< Q ZUCourierCourier Bold-)NEC Silentwriter LC-890NESILC89.PRSx  @hhhh<UTX@MACNormal44   $x6 @    $x6 @ 2XFZT?xxxx6X@CX@?xxxx `CX2-year budgets, 2-year appropriations. Repetition, we do not need repetition. Thisnot very sexy politically. But I think it has the opportunity of changing the way  United States Senate,  Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, DC 205106325 d HEARING ON S. 1824, THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1994 Thursday, February 24, 1994 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in Room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Wendell H. Ford, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Ford, Feinstein, Mathews, Stevens, Warner, and Cochran. Staff Present: James O. King, staff director; William McW. Cochrane, senior adviser; John L. Sousa, chief counsel; Gail S. Martin, chief clerk; Albert L. McDermott, Republican staff director; Carole J. Blessington, assistant chief clerk; and Mark C. Mackie, Minority Counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WENDELL H. FORD, CHAIRMAN, @ COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, the committee begins a series of hearings on S. 1824, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. This bill, introduced by Senators Boren and Domenici, embodies the recommendations of the Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. In August 1992, the Senate joined with the House of Representatives in establishing the Joint Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the legislative branch. The Joint Committee met its mandate to report recommendations by December 31, 1993. It is now the responsibility of this committee to review those recommendations. Only twice before in Congress's history--in 1945 and 1965--was a bipartisan and bicameral panel created to undertake a systematic and coordinated appraisal of the operation of both Houses of Congress. The work of these joint committees led to enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970. This year we have an opportunity to adapt Congress to the demands and responsibilities it will face in the 21st century. I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee with my colleague, Senator Stevens. The leaders, Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole, were ex officio members of the panel. The Senate members were ably led by our first two witnesses, Senators Borenh)0*0*0* and Domenici. I want to commend both of them for the extraordinary diligence and commitment that they have demonstrated to this project. Although the Senate members of that panel voted unanimously to report the recommendations contained in S. 1824, no one should be misled. All provisions of this bill do not enjoy unanimous support. Some will say this bill goes too far, but others will argue that it does not go far enough. Some will argue that this bill should include provisions on Senate coverage by certain laws and the Senate ethics process. These recommendations are not included in this bill because the task forces addressing those matters have submitted or will submit their recommendations directly to the leaders, not to the Joint Committee or to this committee. The Senate can be better. We can make improvements. It will require the skill and support of many Senators to achieve a legislative reorganization that is practical and effective. I am confident that we will act this year in a thoughtful and responsible manner. The hearings on S. 1824 that we begin today will continue during March and April. On March 10, we will receive testimony from Members of the Senate on Title I (Reform of the Senate). On March 17, we will hear from outside observers of the Senate. We also have planned at least three hearings to begin in April, probably two on the budget process and at least one on joint committees, the legislative support agencies, and other matters. Depending on the issues that need to be considered and the witnesses who want to be heard, our hearings may continue into May. But this committee will act in a timely manner to bring to the floor of the Senate a package of reform proposals that builds on this outstanding work begun by our first two witnesses. Before we begin this hearing, I have a few announcements. The witness list includes two members who will not testify. Senator Inouye's staff has advised us that he will be unable to attend this morning and will submit a statement for the record. Senator Wofford may submit a statement instead of appearing today. Last, the text of submitted statements will be available on Internet via the Senate's FTP server. As soon as they are available, full transcripts of this series of hearings will be available on the Government Printing Office's FTP bulletin board. The hearings will also be printed. Senator Lieberman now has notified us that he will not be here to make a statement. Senator Cochran, do you have any statement you would like to make this morning? Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. h)0*0*0*Ԍ$ STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Let me first of all commend you and Senator Stevens for responding in a timely way to the introduction of the legislation from the special committee chaired by Senator Boren and Senator Domenici for reorganization of the Congress. It is appropriate that we consider changes in the organization to enhance the effectiveness of the Senate as an institution of our Government. I hope that while we go about it, we will not lose sight of the role of the Senate and not try to re-create or reinvent the Senate as another House of Representatives. We have some special responsibilities under the Constitution, and any reorganization or changes in rules ought to reflect the recognition of the importance of these responsibilities, such as the responsibility to confirm nominations by the Executive to the Cabinet and to other high-level positions in the administration, and also members of the judiciary, officers of the Armed Forces, and to participate in a very active way in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy through the treaty-making process, the ratification process. These are special responsibilities that belong to the Senate under the Constitution. We are not another House of Representatives. We were created to share in the role of developing administrative policy for the country, in helping to assure that those who are nominated by the Executive are qualified for the offices for which they are nominated, and in many ways the role of the Senate cuts across all three branches of Government. It is unique. And so I hope that remains in our mind as we undertake to review the recommendations of this committee. The committee has done a lot of hard work. We all recognize that. The hours spent in hearings and in discussions of possible changes and suggestions for changes have been quite impressive. The time devoted to it, the energy by a lot of people, both inside the Senate and outside, has been remarkable. So I welcome the opportunity to participate in a review of the suggestions and commend those who have led the effort and pledge my best efforts to work with the members of the Rules Committee to respond to this challenge in a way that will enhance the role of the Senate and continue the recognition of the fact that this is a very special institution in our Federal system, and we hope that it continues to be even after we have reorganized it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. I would ask unanimous consent that a full statement of mine be included in the record as if given. [The prepared statement of Senator Ford follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. WENDELL H. FORD, CHAIRMAN, @ COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATIONh)0*0*0*ԌToday, the Committee on Rules and Administration begins a series of hearings on S. 1824, the proposed Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, introduced on February 3rd by Senator Boren and Senator Domenici, which embodies the recommendations of the Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. In August 1992, the Senate joined with the House of Representatives in establishing the Joint Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the organization and procedures of the legislative branch. The Joint Committee met its mandate to report recommendations by December 31, 1993. It is now the responsibility of this committee to review those recommendations, carefully and expeditiously. Only twice before in Congress's historyin 1945 and 1965was a bipartisan and bicameral panel created to undertake a systematic and coordinated appraisal of the operations of both houses of Congress. The work of these joint committees led to enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970, which are often thought to have marked the beginning of new eras in the history of Congress. This year we have a comparable opportunity to adapt the organization, procedures, resources, and management of Congress to the changing demands and responsibilities it will encounter as we approach the beginning of a new century. I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee as was my Rules and Administration Committee colleague, Senator Stevens. In addition, the two party leaders, Senators Mitchell and Dole, were ex officio members of the panel. The Senate members of the Joint Committee were ably led by our first two witnesses, Senators Boren and Domenici. As one who fully understands the frustrations and difficulties involved in reorganization efforts, I want to commend both of you for the extraordinary diligence and commitment that you have demonstrated. Without your efforts, we would not be here today to consider this congressional reorganization package. From its start in January 1993, the Joint Committee embarked on an ambitious agenda. It conducted hearings from January until July 1, listening to nearly 250 witnesses present over 500 reform recommendations. In addition, the Joint Committee undertook an elaborate informationgathering process, arranging for many surveys, interviews, roundtables, and studies. The fruits of all that labor are embodied in S. 1824, the Senate version of the proposed Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, that is before us today. Although the Senate members of the Joint Committee voted unanimously to report the recommendations contained in S. 1824, no one should be misled. The specific provisions of the bill do not all enjoy unanimous support. Everybody may endorse the principle of ``reform,'' but ``the devil,'' as they say, ``is in the details.'' Some will say this bill goes too far but others will argue that it does not go far enough. Some will want to take things out andh)0*0*0* others will want to put things in. Suffice it to say that the road to reform can be rocky and even tortuous, and that it will require the skill and support of many Senators to craft a winning plan for legislative reorganization that is practical and effective. Every member of the Senate undoubtedly has his or her own agenda for reform. Each of us also must be very concerned by the degree of public disenchantment with the institutions of their government. I am confident that we will act this year to respond to these concerns, but we must act thoughtfully and responsibly. It is the job of this Committee to focus in detail on S. 1824 and related proposals``to look under the hood,'' so to speak, and thoroughly study and assess the various suggestions for change. We must be particularly careful to guard against ideas that may seem appealing at first glance, but that would not work, that would be more trouble than they are worth, or that would do more harm than good. We want to insure that this Committee reports meaningful and significant reform to the Senate. We also must be realistic in not promising too much, and especially in avoiding changes that are incompatible with the fundamental purposes and character of the Senate. The Congress, and especially the Senate with its unique traditions and procedures, is not a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. institution, nor can it be. Lawmaking is inherently a lengthy and often messy process. Reconciling diverse interests and strong viewpoints simply takes time, sometimes more time than any of us may like. There is an inherent conflict between the often repeated desire for more predictability and certainty in our proceedings and our concern to really be the greatest deliberative body in the world. How to achieve a better balance between these conflicting values, especially in a body as unique as the Senate, is a difficult but not impossible challenge. We can do better. We can make improvements. But as Senators, we also have a responsibility to better inform the public that efficiency was not the ultimate value of those who drafted our Constitution. If efficiency was their primary concern, we would probably have a unicameral and not a bicameral national legislature. Congress is not an institution built for speed or efficiency. Our Founding Fathers did not want Congress to easily pass into law illconceived or bad ideas. There are, in other words, virtues in acting deliberately, in tempering the passions of the moment, and in bringing thoughtful analysis to bear on national problems. The world has been filled with efficient and powerful executives, presidents, and dictators. But only a few political systems have produced durable and truly coequal legislatures. So as we examine the various proposals for change that are before us, we need to ensure that any reorganization plan strengthens rather than weakens the effectiveness and capacities of the Senate and the legislative branch. h)0*0*0*ԌThe hearings on S. l824 that we begin today will continue during March and April. On March l0th, we expect to receive testimony from our two Leaders, Senators Mitchell and Dole, as well as other Senators. On March l7, we will hear from several panels of wellinformed observers of the Senate. We also have planned at least three hearings to begin in April: probably two on the budget process, and at least one on joint committees, the legislative support agencies, and other matters. Depending on the issues that need to be considered and the witnesses who want to be heard, our hearings may continue into May. But this Committee will move as quickly as the importance of our task permits to bring to the floor of the Senate a package of reform proposals that builds on the outstanding work begun by my two friends and colleagues who are here with us today to begin this process. The CHAIRMAN. We are very pleased to have the Chairman and Cochairman of the Joint Committee here this morning. I would hopefully suggest that you have a brief statement and then file the balance of it for the record. Senator Boren? Senator BOREN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator Domenici may have to leave during our proceedings, and with your consent, I would like to defer to my co-chairman to proceed first with his opening statement. Then I will follow him. The CHAIRMAN. I might say to my distinguished friend, he has been here since 9:30, and so half of his half-hour is gone. Senator BOREN. I think it would be appropriate to let him proceed. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici, we will go with you this morning. 4TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR \ FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. Senator Cochran, let me commend you for your observations with reference to the Senate. I do not think that a thorough investigation of the bill and what we have recommended would change the United States Senate from that very unique organization--institution, I should say, within our Government. The only thing that would even come close is the proposition made by this Senator and most Republicans, and I think most of those on the committee, that we were willing to change the motion to proceed with reference to filibuster if we got something like this whole package. But beyond that, I think everything about our process is left intact, and just by way of an aside, I think the changes weh)0*0*0* recommend in reconciliation on the budget process probably move more toward what the Senate would like reconciliation to be, because reconciliation is used as an instrument of legislating and avoiding the Senate rules with reference to germaneness, which is wide open, and with reference to the filibuster. Having said that, obviously Senator Boren will speak to some of these proposals in more detail than I. Let me first say it was a real privilege to have been appointed and to work on this. I have been on three of these. When I first came, somebody put me on a reorganization one, and then I was on one that did get something done. And I started this assignment with my good friend from Oklahoma, who did a marvelous job, with the notion that populists were ready for us to reform and that the Congress was ready to be reformed. And I must tell you, however, that it did not take a lot of time for that enthusiasm, as I saw it, to diminish greatly. I believe the enthusiasm for reform has diminished with the passage of time. I hope this committee, which does a lot of things for this United States Senate and this Congress, will take this as a serious challenge. It is your responsibility, your job, I should say, and I hope we can generate enough enthusiasm from the people of this country to back you up in some very, very earnest and sincere efforts at reform. We need some reform, no doubt about it. I am going to yield on committee reorganization and committee structure and just let Senator Boren do that, but I would tell you that I believe you could have some questions about that. You could say why didn't you go further. You might even say this was the time to build a committee structure so that it matched up with the executive branch so that we had more consistency between Cabinet members and committees. We are aware of all that. We took testimony on all that. I guess we ended up with a document that is real reform but that we thought was practical and could get passed and would make a major, significant, positive change. So we did less than that. But I think in reducing the number of assignments and letting the Senators with reference to special committees and B committees vote with their feet and their minds by saying if enough of you join a committee as your third committee, it will exist. If enough do not, it will merge, its responsibility will merge where it originally was with some major committee. I think that is a novel approach, and it very well might be the way the Senate can streamline and reduce the number of committees. You might also ask us why didn't we do something on ethics. Let me just say without fear or trepidation, the chairman and I would say with one voice we wanted to; but our leadership said let another group report, and they did not report in time for us to include it. So hopefully, Mr. Chairman, they will be reporting to you before you are finished and the bill that comes to the floorh)0*0*0* will include ethics, an ethics committee and ethics activities on our reform measure. Secondly, a very exciting issue for the American people and one that they get very worked up about is the issue that has been led in the Senate by Senator Grassley. There are many on board at this point that say let's apply all the rules, all the laws to the Senate that we apply to the private sector. Again, we would have done that, my friend from Oklahoma and I, but there, again, you had a committee appointed by the leadership, a small committee that was going to report. I hope they report in time for the bill, too, in how we ought to in a logical, reasonable manner apply that. I would like to put my full statement in the record as if I gave it, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. It will, without objection, be included in the record in full. Senator DOMENICI. I want to talk a little bit about the three systems that we have that almost everybody recognizes as integral to the Senate today. One is the authorizing process. It changed rather dramatically, I believe, when the Budget Act was passed, not because the Budget Act had anything to do with it, but because we do not have enough time to do all three processes annually, and so one is suffering greatly and the Senate is suffering immensely by having all three working at the same time. The second one is appropriations. You cannot survive without it. Most of what we do has to be appropriated. The third is the budget process. Frankly, if there has been anything that confuses the American people so that they cannot understand what we are doing--and I think we ought to try to make ourselves understandable--it is that in the same session of a Congress, which is made up of 2 years, we may very well vote 6 times on the same issue in one Congress. Let me just give you a couple of examples: Defense authorization--and you will argue SDI, and five other things, four of which we could almost repeat each time, Senator Bumpers' issues that come up every time. And he does an eloquent job. He is not alone. But then we will have the budget come up, and because defense is a big-ticket item, people will try to use the budget to say we can reduce defense by taking out these things, and so they proceed to make us vote there. And then, lo and behold, here comes the 13 appropriations bills and much the same vote again. What has happened is that the Senate is using all of its time every year for that which they are going to do over and over again the very next year, even though we are a 2-year Congress. I have been an advocate, and Chairman Ford joined early on in advocating for 2-year budgets. We carried it one year further here today in our recommendations to you. h)0*0*0*ԌNumber one, we would say that if you do not have 2-year authorizations, the bill is not in order. Secondly, we would say that this is a 2year budget resolution, and some provision will be made to make technical and economic changes in the second year if need be. Third, we have come to the conclusion that there is really no need to appropriate every year. In fact, I would challenge the Rules Committee to ask that a study be done on how much of a budget, how much of an appropriation bill is just literally reoccurring from year to year. I am going to give you an intelligent guess. I am going to say 92 percent, between 89 and 92 percent. If you look through and see from year to year, you really are appropriating the same thing, the same agency, the same increase. You could cumulate the two increases for the 2 years and appropriate it all in one year. Some will say that will eliminate oversight without--again, I do not want to step too hard on the feet of our great chairman, Senator Byrd, who will say this is the only oversight opportunity. It is the only oversight opportunity because we have so structured the Senate and the House that there is no time for oversight. Each year, just think of it, by the time you are finished with appropriation, budgeting, and a few authorizing bills, you go out and you are back. What are we doing now? We are having hearings on the budget. We are going to have subcommittee hearings on appropriations, and we just finished them. So obviously what we are doing poorly is oversight. We get oversight activities, regrettably, as much from newspaper accounts of what is going wrong with our activities as we do from oversight by committees who decide to truly look at what is working and what is not. So we suggest that in a 2-year Congress we appropriate for 2 years, we budget for 2 years, and we mandate authorization be for 2 years at least. And then we put some strong support in for using a year, the second year of the 2 years, for oversight. In fact, we mandate that the General Accounting Office refocus its attention and that its primary mission be a year of oversight to devote all of its responsibilities to helping committees and subcommittees establish their oversight activities and be one of the principal sources of review and information. In my opinion, this is a drab, dead issue--2-year budgets, 2-year appropriations. Repetition, we do not need repetition. This is not very sexy politically. But I think it has the opportunity of changing the way we do business for the better more than anything that has come before us in my 21 years being a Senator. And I am willing to take some risks. I am on appropriations. It is really neat to have an appropriations bill every year. No doubt about it. And there are appropriators here. I see two of them on the panel. Nonetheless, I believe you will save money. The agencies will run better, and I challenge you to bring some in and ask them. I challenge you to bring in some agencies that we fund and say whath) 0*0*0* if you only had to get funded every 2 years, how would it change your life in operating an agency on behalf of the people of this country? I think they will tell you it will make it better, and I think they will tell you you could save money just because everything would be known for 2 years instead of the mess we have of barely completing appropriations and we are back in the muddle again trying to do it over again. So there are a lot of things in this proposal that I believe are good, that we ought to do, and that will make us able to focus our time better. I would close by saying no more succinct remarks came before us in our 6 months of hearings, where almost half the Members of the Senate appeared one way or another--is that right? Senator BOREN. Yes, that is right. Senator DOMENICI. That no more succinct remarks came from anyone as came from Senator Byrd, who said one of the big problems with the Senate is--and I have used them over and over, and I suggest that you think of them as you work this bill through. He called it ``fractured attention.'' We have so many assignments, so many things we are charged to do that we have lost our ability to work in-depth and spend focused time on things. Now, that does not mean he agrees with my approach of 2-year appropriations, but I use his own statement to say that exactly. The fractured attention is that we have to do things every year and do not have time to do other things we ought to be doing. Also, we have built this system, with reference to committee assignments, such that today as I appear before you--and I thank you for hearing me first--we have the Secretary of Treasury in the Banking Committee on Whitewater. We have Secretary Babbitt of Interior on oversight on the Interior budget. And we have the Secretary of Transportation on transportation oversight. That is a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. So I do not think I am going to do my job very well on all of those. Needless to say, this is more important at this particular moment in what I am supposed to be doing around here, so I am glad to be here. I thank all of you for your attention, and, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Boren, it was a pleasure working with you. I hope you found me to be one who was willing to work in a bipartisan way, and I found that to be the case with reference to you. We have a bipartisan bill here, and something like it ought to pass. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:] 4STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR \ FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and members of this Committee,h) 0*0*0* it is a pleasure to be here before you again regarding congressional reform. When we were last here, Senator Boren and I were asking you to support the creation of a bipartisan, bicameral committee to take one year to study the operations of Congress and to report back recommendations for improving its operations. You joined us in that effort, and now today, Senator Boren and I are back before you with legislation to implement the unanimous recommendations of the Senators serving on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. I won't repeat everything Senator Boren has already discussed. I would like to make the following points regarding our legislation: The number one complaint we heard from Senators throughout the year was that Senators have so many demands on their time and attention that they are unable to focus on any one matter for any significant amount of time. Senator Byrd, you put it best, I believe, when you said Senators suffer from ``fractured attention.'' Now, there are many reasons for this, and our committee did not try to solve all of that problem. We couldn't have if we had tried to. But, we did focus on looking at the structure of the Senate to see where we could make changes that would alleviate this problem of ``fractured attention.'' A year and a half ago, while testifying before the House Rules Committee on this very subject, I mentioned that, while I was before that committee, I was supposed to be in three other meetings with cabinet secretaries at the same time. This morning, I must tell you things are a little better: I should be at a Banking Committee hearing with Secretary Bentsen and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. So, when I leave here, I will rush over to one of those committees, spend some time, and then try to get to my third hearing of the morning. I believe the changes we propose in the committee system will help. Senators currently serve an average to 12 committees and subcommittees. This bill, excepting the Appropriations Committee, will limit Senators to a maximum of eight assignments: three full committees and five subcommittees. Furthermore, we set up a scheduling regime that should greatly reduce the difficulty of Senators trying to juggle competing committee hearings. This change in assignments will be harder for some than others. I am one of the Senators who serves on more than his share of committees. So, this is a change that will force me to cut back. But, I think it is an important change. We also heard from Senators that they are frustrated with voting on the same matter time and time again, and that too much of any given year is spent budgeting and appropriating, and not enough time is spent on authorizing and oversight. Agency officialsh) 0*0*0* testified that they spend a great deal of time working on one budget, only to turn immediately around and begin working on the next one. Our legislation proposes a 2year cycle for budget resolutions, reconciliations, and appropriations. The first session of the Congress will be devoted to budgetary matters covering a 2year period. Then, in the second session, Congress will focus on authorizations and oversight. We believe that with biennial budgeting and appropriating, the budget process will be less complicated, less repetitive, and therefore more understandable and meaningful. Mr. Chairman, during our hearings, I believe you said that a 2year cycle was ``not a gimmick, but rather a management tool'' that would lead to greater efficiency, greater cost savings, and peace of mind about future funding. We also heard from executive branch officials that it would save money because it would allow for greater longterm planning by agencies. I believe these are very important points. It seems that, with all the time we spend today on the budget, precious little time is spent on longterm planning. This 2year cycle is not the sexiest of issues, and it is not a cure all. But, I do believe that it could fundamentally change how we operate around here. The first year we could debate and then decide budget priorities. Agencies then could plan for 2 years, and we could spend the second year evaluating the entire federal government. Now, there are concerns that circumstances or priorities could change in the second year of a budget, and the Congress would be locked into a budget. But, we can provide for contingencies and include the flexibility necessary to deal with national emergencies. As for changing priorities, I have had my staff look at the differences from year to year in appropriations bills, and we have found that more than 90 percent of the funding remains unchanged. But, despite that, we spend nearly 40 percent of our time on the Senate floor in any given year debating budget resolutions, reconciliation bills, and appropriations. There is no reason why we cannot handle this process once a Congress. If we have a 2year process, we can deal with another concern we heard from Senators time and time again. The Congress does not spent enough time reviewing the operations of the federal government, and the oversight we do is, frankly, not very good. Mr. Chairman, it is said that a 2year cycle will reduce the ability of the Appropriations Committee to do oversight. Well, I serve on that Committee, and I would agree that we do the most oversight. But, what we do is far short of what should be done. We do not do systematic oversight. We do crisis oversight. The crisis hits, and then we look at it. The authorizing committees must start doing more oversight,h) 0*0*0* and they need to become better at it. So, with this legislation, we are trying to create an atmosphere that encourages and rewards good oversight. The entire second year of any Congress will be devoted to authorizations and oversight. We require the General Accounting Office to make it a priority to help committees with oversight during the second session. In addition, we require committees to file oversight agendas with this Committee when they come before you at the start of each Congress for their funding. Those agendas will include plans for the coming Congress as well as a summary of the oversight conducted in the last Congress. This Committee can then take that information into account when considering budget requests. Perhaps, then, we can avoid scandals in federal programs like Senator Nunn discovered in the Pell Grant program in New York. For years, I have argued that this was one of the great success stories of the federal government, and now we find that, through all these years, hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone to nonexistent students and nonexistent programs. Mr. Chairman, we should not kid ourselves. We do not do good, effective oversight today. Our legislation is designed to foster the opportunity for oversight and to give your committee the stick to prod those committees who seem reluctant to get started. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that ``hope springs eternal.'' This was not my first congressional reform committee. I have been involved in other efforts that were derailed in the end. So, when I agreed to take this assignment, I knew that history was not on our side. But, I took this assignment because of my deep respect and affection for this institution, my fellow Senators, and my determination to try to improve the Senate. As we said in our report to you, we were guided by the following principles:  * Strengthen the ability of Senators to legislate and deliberate; * Make Congress more effective and credible; * Enhance accountability, responsibility, and openness in decisionmaking; * Streamline the institution, reduce overlap, and eliminate redundancy; and * Reduce the problem of ``fractured attention.'' I believe we have put together a package of reforms that, when taken together, help the Senate become a stronger, more accountable, and more understandable legislative body. That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy toh) 0*0*0* respond to any questions you might have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator, and I understand that you need to go to the Energy Committee. There may be a question or two that I might have or other members might have. We will submit those to you in writing and hope that you can answer them in a timely fashion. Senator BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield before I make my opening statement, particularly on the budget matter, if there was a question on the budget matter for Senator Domenici before he has to leave. The CHAIRMAN. If the Senator has the time, Senator Cochran would like to ask a question. Senator COCHRAN. Just one question? Senator DOMENICI. Absolutely. Senator COCHRAN. In connection with the 2-year budget process, which I support and have cosponsored Senator Ford's legislation and others to establish that 2-year budget process, the suggestion you make that we do not need to appropriate every year--we can appropriate I guess every 2 years. Senator DOMENICI. Yes. Senator COCHRAN. That is the assumption that I drew from what you said. Why should we not suggest that multiyear authorizations should also be the norm rather than the exception? For example, you talk about the Armed Services Committee and the fact that we vote on issues one after another maybe up to 6 times each during the course of one legislative session and that many of those are defense issues. Why not have the authorization a multiyear authorization? Not necessarily just 2 years but we have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is pending now in the House and will be taken up later this year in the Senate with a 5-year authorization. Agriculture legislation has now come to be 5-year cycles, 1985 bill, the 1990 bill, and we will begin work on the 1995 bill next year. I think the authorization for the Department of Defense ought to have been included in your work, and it may have been. Why is not that part of the recommendation? Senator DOMENICI. It is, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran. We said all three processes are too redundant, including authorization. This is my own paraphrasing of our bill and the report. They occur too often. And so we said none will occur more frequently than every 2 years. So you will have authorizing that would be out of order if it was not 2 years or longer. If you canh)0*0*0* think of a way of making authorization even longer, you will have my support. If you want to write in that authorization has to be 5 years or cover 5 years, you might run into some problems that something should not be authorized for 5 years. But, nonetheless, we do not differentiate on these three processes. They all should be at least 2 years, multiyear in substance and in purpose. Senator COCHRAN. But I presume there is a proviso for a supplemental appropriations process to cover emergencies like the California earthquake, the special need for funds that have not been anticipated, the overspending in one program or another for various reasons. We know that we must continue to have a supplemental process. Senator DOMENICI. Absolutely. Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Either of the other Senators, Senator Mathews, Senator Feinstein, do you all have questions of Senator Domenici before he leaves? Senator FEINSTEIN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank both Senators very much. I think the suggestion of a 2-year process is really an excellent one. As a freshman, I think the most difficult part of the Senate is the lack of specificity of time, and, it is true, fractured attention. Probably, more than anything else, systemically going to a 2-year process will ease that. So I think that is very important. I also note in reading the legislation that you did provide some specificity in terms of fixed committee meetings, limitations of numbers. I have not seen it, but I trust there are notice requirements for the public, which I think is useful and very, very helpful. Thank you very much. I think it is a major contribution. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mathews? Senator MATHEWS. Mr. Chairman, let me also commend both Senators for the work that they did in this area. This morning I do not know whether you could say that I happen to be a victim of what he has been talking about or an example of what he has been talking about. All three of the committees that I serve on are meeting at this hour, and I need to be voting at one upstairs, need to be over asking Secretary Babbitt some questions, and voting on another bill. I think you have done an outstanding job, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will be included in the record as if given, Senator Mathews. h)0*0*0*Ԍ[The prepared statement of Senator Mathews follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. HARLAN MATHEWS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I would like to make some brief remarks concerning the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 as introduced by Senators Boren and Domenici (S. 1824). Thoughtfully acting on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress is important to both the institution of Congress and to the way the public perceives the important work that we do. Just as Vice President Gore's National Performance Review has led the way in making government work better with limited resources so has the Joint Committee done this body and the American people a real service. As a citizen who came to the Senate after a long career in public service with the State of Tennessee, I want to make a few comments concerning the provisions of S. 1824 on time management and deficit reduction. I know that all of my colleagues here share a commitment to make Congress more effective and credible as a legislative body. If we manage our time more effectively and if we show that as individual members we care about reducing the deficit through efficient management, then we do the people's business a little better, make our own lives a little less harried, and take important steps towards raising the standing of Congress in public opinion. First, since I arrived in the Senate, one of the most frustrating aspects of my service has been the insane schedule that we keep. To the outsider and the newcomer it is amazing that we get as much done as we do. With all of the committees and subcommittees setting conflicting schedules, I often find myself scheduled to be in, not two, but three places at once. As much as we are able to rely on our staffs, we also need to focus personally on the issues being debated. We ought to ask ourselves: is our product as good as it needs to be when we spend all our time shuffling between the floor and multiple committee meetings? I believe that S. 1824 makes real progress in helping us tame this scheduling beast by limiting the number of committees and subcommittees that a member can serve on. But more importantly, it sets a livable schedule for committee and subcommittee meetings. Under S. 1824, certain committees will be scheduled to meet on Tuesdays, some committees will be scheduled to meet on Wednesdays and certain other committees will meet on Thursdays. This change would concretely help our scheduleswe might only have to be two places at one time. While this proposal may seem mundane, anything that assists us in focusing on the important policy issues that we hold hearings on (rather than where does staff say that I have to be in five minutes) will help us carry out our duties more responsibly.h)0*0*0*ԌSecond, deficit reduction is a critical priority for Congress as it should be. We need a healthy dose of fiscal responsibility in both the legislation that we pass and in the way that we manage our own house. Passing a budget bill which reduces the deficit sends a real message that we are serious about the deficit. Similarly, dedicating the unexpended funds from personal office or committee accounts to be applied toward deficit reduction would make a modest contribution toward reducing the deficit. It would make each member aware of the importance of efficient management to reducing the deficit even as it communicates to the public that members of Congress take deficit reduction seriously. That is a statement that we need to make as often and as strongly as we can. Finally, we need to take a long hard look at the Senate's own operational needs. When I began my service with Governor Ned McWherter in Tennessee, we took that kind of look at Tennessee state government. We went back to basics, to the ``three R's'' as we called them``review, reduce and reorganize.'' This program has served the State of Tennessee well. I think we as a Congress should take the lead presented by S. 1824 and look at our own ``three R's.'' Maybe we are still in the review stage in the Senate, but we need to move on to reduce and reorganize. I came to Washington 14 months ago to work as hard as I could for deficit reduction and health care reform on behalf of Tennesseans. Over these past months I came to share some of the frustrations of both my colleagues and of everyday Americans about Congress. We can work more efficiently and take both our work and the deficit seriously. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 takes important steps in this area. I just wanted to add my voice to the call for a more efficient Congress by commending the Joint Committee's proposals relating to scheduling and deficit reduction. Senator MATHEWS. I thank the committee for its work. The CHAIRMAN. We are doing a little more research, and hopefully very soon we will be able to clone, and we can be in all places at the same time. [Laughter.] Senator DOMENICI. We will not need this anymore. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Pete. We certainly appreciate your patience in being here this morning. Senator Boren, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID L. BOREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator BOREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As Vice Chairman Domenici goes out the door, let me just thank him again.h)0*0*0* We did not have one single moment in the committee's action that became partisan. We did not have one single division that was partisan. We all worked together as a team, and that simply would not have been possible without the dedication of Senator Domenici to the task and his dedication to what he saw as the national interest and the interest of the Senate. I want to thank him very, very much, and thank the members of the committee for their comments, including the examples they have already given of the kinds of problems that we are trying to deal with in terms of fractured attention span and the division of our labor so that we can organize the institution more effectively to do our jobs. I agree in some ways with what Senator Domenici said about the difficulty of passing reform legislation. It is very difficult, and every year as the Congress winds down and we are all caught in that final few weeks of activity in which we become so frustrated, we leave here year after year vowing that when we come back in January we are going to reform this institution. And then the recess sets in and the good feeling of the Christmas and New Year holidays and being back at home with family, we come back and we have forgotten, as we begin the year, how bad it was when we left. And our will and our resolutions to bring about reform sometimes flag. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we all know what the polls have been showing in terms of public attitude toward the institution. We have been at historic lows in terms of the approval and confidence expressed in this institution, which is ultimately the people's institution, a critical part, the building block of our whole democratic representative system of Government. I had the opportunity to spend virtually all the time during the recess between the two sessions, and then again this last week, back in my home State, and I am sure you and other members of the committee had the same experience. I have to say that in talking with people at the grass-roots, listening to them in particular, I do not believe that I have ever heard such a deep expression of concern and in some ways alienation toward our own Government, the sense that it no longer truly reflects their thinking, this division between the people and the Government instead of a feeling that it is theirs. This feeling is so deep it has turned almost from anger into cynicism--which is perhaps even more self-defeating in terms of the way we interact with our own constituents and the confidence that is necessary in the sense of teamwork and partnership that is necessary for all of us to be able to get together as Americans in and out of Government and solve our problems--that I come back this year with a feeling that is even stronger than the feeling that I had when I left and the feeling that I had during our year of hearings on this matter that we must succeed in this task. It is an historic opportunity, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Senator Stevens, for scheduling today's hearing so quickly in the year. h)0*0*0*ԌI know our two leaders, the Majority and Minority Leaders, hope to bring this matter to the floor as soon as we can and get action on it, and I know that you as chairman of this committee have been pushing hard to see to it that we take timely action, just as you were a very valuable member and leader in terms of your own participation in the work on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. And I want to thank you especially and also pass on my thanks to Senator Stevens for your participation. Mr. Chairman, just over a year ago, the Joint Committee started what became the most comprehensive set of hearings and consultations ever carried out by a reform committee, including the first Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress of 1945, which has really been our model. We held 6 months of hearings, heard from over 240 witnesses, received over 500 different recommendations. Our hearings ended on July 1st. Over the following months, members of the committee held extensive consultations among themselves, House and Senate leaders, and other interested Members of Congress. We set up a series of task forces on specific reform issues. We held a 2-day retreat in Annapolis. We distilled all the suggestions, views, and concerns into a markup bill. Finally, the committee conducted markup, made additional changes and refinements, and reported out the bill by unanimous vote of 12 to 0 of the Senate Members, again, a total bipartisan recommendation which I think indicates the commitment of the members of that committee to reform. Let me say I appreciate also the work of our House colleagues, Chairman Hamilton and Vice Chairman Dreier, and we were very pleased with the fact that they reported out a set of recommendations that very closely parallel the recommendations made by the Senate Members of the committee. In our bill and the accompanying report, we make 33 specific recommendations, and I will try to go through the highlights very quickly. Each Member of the Senate could find something in here with which to disagree, no doubt about that. But this comprehensive, integrated package will, if implemented, significantly improve the ability of every Senator to meet the constitutional responsibilities which we have. The need to reform this institution, as I have said, is all too obvious to those of us who serve here. The overriding theme throughout the year-long deliberations of the Joint Committee was that Senators today are spread too thin, as we have just heard several examples given, including the Vice Chairman who had to leave and Senator Mathews who had to leave, with three other meetings going on at the same time. We must be able to focus our attention on our various responsibilities and committee assignments in a reasonable way. Since the last major reform era, committees have grown in size and subcommittees have proliferated. The vast structure in turn has generated more legislative proposals, hearings, and interest-grouph)0*0*0* activity, while rarely leading toward actual lawmaking. So we are busier than ever with more hearings, more legislative proposals, more activities than ever, and generating less real solutions of a major kind to the problems which we face in the country. More bills are proposed. They are far longer, on the average, than they were 20 years ago, 8 times as long, and yet fewer are enacted. That was the case last year than ever before in Congress's history. Instead of assisting the Congress, the committee system, the subcommittee system, and the staffing growth have gone beyond the point of improving our efficiency, and they have now become part of the problem, increasingly preventing Congress from focusing on the major issues and performing its legislative and oversight responsibility. The average Senator sits on 12 committees and subcommittee panels. Some of our members sit on well over 20 committees and subcommittees. These panels often meet at the same time. Members are running from hearing to hearing and meeting to meeting, and throughout all of that, being called to the Senate floor for votes. They are often unable to listen to their colleagues. It is impossible to have real deliberation with each other, to stay in the same room long enough to have a real meeting of the minds and to come up with the best judgments that we can put together. Since the Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974 was enacted, budgetary issues have grown more complex and have come more to dominate the activities of Congress. And as has already been said--and I will not repeat it--we, of course, are duplicating our work. Every year we pass a budget resolution; every year we pass appropriations bills; every year we pass authorization bills; every year a reconciliation bill. And this overlapping process confuses the public, even Members of the Senate, very few of whom I would think could recite intelligently all the rules which bind us in the budget process. Ironically, while Congress spends a great deal of time debating budget matters, many issues are not being resolved, and the Senate instead is voting on the same matter time and time again, as we have indicated. Former Vice President Mondale, the last witness to appear before the Joint Committee, and himself a leading figure in earlier Senate reforms, echoed the sentiments of Senator Byrd and called for a review of all reform proposals under a single standard. This is what Vice President Mondale suggested: ``To what extent will it enhance this institution's ability to think, to learn, to reflect upon, debate and decide the pressing issues facing our country?'' These recommended reforms are aimed at helping the Senate address exactly those problems. The proposals range from the reform of the committee system to fundamental changes in the budget process. And let me just mention them very quickly in a comprehensive way. h)0*0*0*ԌFirst, streamline the committee system. It would limit Senators to three full committees and to five subcommittees. No Senator could be serving on more than eight total--three standing committees, five subcommittees. It would limit each committee, with the exception of the Appropriations Committee, to having no more than three subcommittees. Now, we would not tell the standing committees what those three subcommittees should be because the members of that committee would be able to better devise how to divide those responsibilities. But to stop the proliferation of subcommittees, we say that standing committees, except for Appropriations, should not have more than three subcommittee. It would abolish the four joint committees that we now have. In order to grant a waiver to the assignment limitations, a resolution offered by the leaders would have to pass on a recorded yea-and-nay vote. And I think we all know that what is happening now is these waivers are granted willy-nilly, almost automatically. We do not really even know when it happens. I noted that in the beginning what always happens, the leaders put up a resolution that is voted on by voice vote. There are 53 Senators right now that have 62 waivers, and it just happens without any of us even being very aware of it. So this would require a recorded, roll-call, up-or-down vote, and we would focus upon the granting of waivers. And we have heard from both of our leaders that they really hope this will tighten the procedure and prevent the voting of these waivers. The committee sizes would be reduced. For any committee which falls below 50 percent in size, by the way, of the last Congress, it would be abolished, with this committee, the Rules Committee, redistributing its jurisdiction with an aim toward greater parallelism with the House. So there are some committees--we heard a lot of appeals from select committees that we not take the action to abolish them. But when you say to Members of the Senate you can only serve on a certain number of committees and all these committees are going to count, members are going to decide what are the most important functions. And some of these committees will fall below half of their current membership. They would then be abolished, and their jurisdiction would be assigned to other appropriate standing committees by this committee. Second, in addition to reform of the committee process, we call for reduction in congressional staff. The Joint Committee proposes that Congress make comparable reductions as the staffing reductions proposed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore for the executive branch. This would call for about a 12 percent reduction in the course of the next 5 years. We have had some reductions already. It would count those reductions that have already been made by the leadership over the last 2 years with the help of this committee. We also propose that unused funds from a Senator's office budget be returned to the treasury, so that when we save money, that money would go back into an account that would help reduce theh)0*0*0* budget deficit and would not simply go back into a revolving account for the use of Congress, still that money being spent on this institution. We call for improvements in floor procedure to make the Senate schedule more predictable. I heard Senator Feinstein mention this. This, by the way, is a suggestion that was made by her and by others, and we particularly appreciate the suggestions made by the Senator from California. We propose that committees meet only on certain days, that the Senate leadership have more authority to set the legislative schedule. We set forth--I will not go into the detail here, but the Super A committees would meet on certain days, A committees would meet on other days, and B committees on other days, and that way Senators would not have the situation we had this morning where three of their committees were all meeting at once. Our proposal would also limit debate on the motion to proceed, and this would allow the leaders to bring up bills without requiring the consent of all 100 Senators. This will greatly reduce the problem that the leadership now has with holds on bills, oftentimes anonymous holds being placed on bills, so the whole Senate is inconvenienced because one or two Senators sometimes anonymously do not want bills brought up for a certain period of time. We include additional recommendations made by the majority leader to require a three-fifths vote to overturn the Chair in a post-cloture situation, to count the time of quorum calls during cloture to the Senator who suggests the absence of a quorum, to permit dispensing with the reading of conference reports as long as that report has been available for a day before action in the Senate, and finally propose that a sense of the Senate resolution should have at least 10 cosponsors to be considered by the Senate unless it is offered by the majority or minority leader. We also call for the creation of a more responsible budget process, as has been indicated, that would be less repetitious, less complicated, more understandable, give us a greater opportunity for oversight with multiyear appropriations and multiyear authorization. A minimum of 2 years. Additional recommendations would improve the budget process, improve relations between the branches of Government, and reform governmental printing. We also intended to include specific proposals to reform the ethics process and to bring Congress under labor and other laws which we have applied to the executive branch and the private sector. Two separate Senator task forces addressed these issues, as has been indicated, during the last year, and I hope that this committee will have the opportunity to consider their proposals. Senator Domenici and I and others felt that we shouldh)0*0*0* seriously consider adding outside members to the ethics process, at least in the first phase of the ethics process, what might be called the grand jury phase. We were also prepared to suggest that there be one single enforcement agency to look at labor compliance laws, safety laws, as well as the civil rights law implementation that would cover all the support agencies to Congress, and that as we apply labor and safety laws to Congress as well as civil rights laws, that we adopt a common standard of judicial review as the Senate now has on appeal, appellate judicial review--not review de novo but appellate review--as we now have in the case of the Senate with civil rights compliance. We would broaden that to cover the entire Congress under our informal recommendations, and we would include safety and labor laws as well. We withheld putting that specifically in the report because we did have the task force that was working on it. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you and members of the committee will look carefully at those recommendations and also at some of the data developed by the Joint Committee on both of these subjects so that we can include them in our final version. As I mentioned, we heard from over half the Members of the Senate, including a number of members of this committee. Senator Ford and Senator Stevens were members of the committee. Senator Dole, who is minority leader, served along with Senator Mitchell as ex officio members of the committee. Senator Byrd was one of our first witnesses, and his thoughtful testimony stayed with all members of the committee throughout our deliberations. Many of his recommendations were included by the Joint Committee. He recommended limiting committee assignments. He recommended limiting committee size, strengthening the 5-day work week, and improving deliberations on the floor. And, in fact, the provision for discouraging waivers to the committee assignment limitation, using a cloture-like procedure in requiring a floor vote to grant a waiver, was Senator Byrd's proposal. He helped us draft that particular proposal to put some teeth into it. He also said the Senate should consider instituting an advisory panel made up of private citizens to advise the Ethics Committee on ethics matters, mirroring what I just said about the involvement of outsiders in the process, distinguished outsiders in the process at what we might call the grand jury stage. Senator Pell recommended we limit committee assignments, ease the conflict between authorizing and appropriating committees, and fix a number of jurisdictional disputes. Again, we endeavored to have those recommendations included. Senator Inouye and Senator McCain presented a strong argument for retaining the Indian Affairs Committee to us. We did retain it, but we did propose making assignment to that committee count as a B committee, as would be the case of all committees except for Intelligence and Ethics. So it will count in terms of determining the number of committee assignments, and we will see if there ish)0*0*0* sufficient interest in the entire Senate as members select committee assignments to maintain it. Senator DeConcini argued against created a Joint Intelligence Committee. We heeded his proposal, and we did, as I indicated already, take the suggestions from Senator Feinstein that we should set specific days for committees and subcommittee hearings. We proposed that Super A committees would meet on Tuesdays, A committees on Wednesdays, B committees on Thursdays. And since Senators will typically serve on only one of each of these type of committees under our new rules, this recommendation should end scheduling conflicts. Senator Feinstein also recommended that the filibuster procedures be reformed, and as I have indicated, we have made some steps in that direction. These are only a few examples of how some of the specific recommendations of Democratic and Republican Senators were incorporated into the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Throughout the year, members of the Joint Committee heard from members, both Senators and Representatives, and members of the public who feared that Congress had lost its ability to focus on the major problems that our Nation faces. We must improve its efficiency and accountability if we are to regain that confidence. I could not feel better than to have the fate of this proposal in the hands of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I know from your work on our committee that you deeply share this concern. I believe that the package crafted by the Joint Committee will change for the better the way Congress does its business. We have not solved all the problems by any means. We have tried to strike that balance between what might be a perfect solution and what we thought had a chance to be enacted into law. What we have presented to you we feel goes a long way, but should have a chance of being enacted, a good chance of being enacted into law. And with the strong and timely action of this committee, I think we would have an excellent chance of passing these proposals. As this committee in its wisdom sees fit to modify them, I hope in some cases as I have indicated strengthen them, and then bring them to the floor for action as soon as possible. I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving us an opportunity to present these findings so early in the session so that we can have timely action. [The prepared statement of Senator Boren follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. BOREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA First of all, I want to thank Chairman Ford and Senator Stevens for scheduling today's hearing, the first of a series of hearings on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. Your participation and leadership as members of the Joint Committee onh)0*0*0* the Organization of Congress were crucial to the committee's work. I also want to thank Senator Domenici, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee, for his leadership, diligence, and commitment to congressional reform. I enjoyed working with him, and I look forward to seeing our effort reach fruition later this year. Mr. Chairman, just over a year ago, the Joint Committee started what became the most comprehensive set of hearings and consultations ever done by a reform committee, including the first Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress of 1945. We held 6 months of hearings, heard from over 240 witnesses, and received over 500 different recommendations. Our hearings ended on July 1. Over the following months, members of the Joint Committee held extensive consultations among themselves, House and Senate leaders, and other interested Members of Congress. We set up a series of task forces on specific reform issues. The Joint Committee held a twoday retreat in Annapolis. We distilled all of these suggestions, views, and concerns into a markup bill. Finally, the Committee conducted a markup, made additional changes and refinements, and reported out the bill by a unanimous vote, 12 to 0, of the Senate members. Mr. Chairman, in our bill and the accompanying report, we make 33 specific recommendations to improve the operations of the Congress. Each member of the Senate could find something in here with which to disagree. But this comprehensive, integrated package will, if implemented, significantly improve the ability of every Senator to meet the constitutional responsibility to serve their state and country. The need to reform this institution is obvious to all who serve here. Public confidence in Congress continues to hover around historic lows. We here know that with the challenges facing our country, we must improve the efficiency and accountability of the Congress if we are to regain the confidence of the average citizen. The goal of the work of the Joint Committee was to demonstrate to the public that we intended to merit their trust. The overriding theme throughout the yearlong deliberations of the Joint Committee was that Senators today are spread too thin among all their various responsibilities and committee assignments. There are many reasons for this. Since the last major reform era, committees have grown in size and subcommittees have proliferated. This vast structure in turn generates more legislation proposals, hearings, and interest group activity while rarely leading towards actual lawmaking. Today more bills are proposed and fewer are enacted than ever before in Congress' history. Instead of assisting the Congress, this committee, subcommittee, and staffing growth has increasingly prevented Congress from focusing on the major issues of the day and performing its legislative and oversight responsibilities. h)0*0*0*ԌThe average Senator sits on 12 committee and subcommittee panels. These panels often meet at the same time, and cause members to run from hearing to hearing, meeting to meeting, and throughout called to the Senate floor for votes. They often are unable to listen to their colleagues debate on the floor or to sit down and work together on an issue.( Since the Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974 was enacted, budgetary issues have grown more complex and have come to dominate the activities of Congress. Every year, the Congress passes a budget resolution, appropriations bills, authorization bills, and usually a reconciliation bill. This overlapping process confuses the public and even Senators themselves. Ironically, while Congress spends a great deal of time debating budget matters, many issues are not being resolved and the Senate is instead voting on the same matter time and time again. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the last witness to appear before the Joint Committee and himself a leading figure in earlier Senate reforms, echoed the sentiments of Senator Byrd and called for a review of all reform proposals under a single standard: ``To what extent will it enhance this institution's ability to think, to learn, reflect upon and debate the pressing issues facing our country?''( The recommended reforms in this legislation are aimed at helping the Senate to address these problems. The proposals range from reforms of the committee system to fundamental changes in the budget process. Specifically, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 will:  Streamline the Senate committee system. XIt would limit Senators to three full committees and five subcommittees. It would limit committees to no more than three subcommittees. It would abolish the four joint committees.(# XIn order to grant a waiver to the assignment limitations, a resolution offered by the Leaders would have to pass by a recorded, yeanay vote.(# XCommittee sizes will be reduced. For any committee which falls below 50 percent of its size in the last Congress, it would be abolished with the Rules Committee redistributing its jurisdiction with an aim towards greater parallelism with the House. (#  Reduce Congressional staff. XThe Joint Committee proposes that Congress make comparable reductions as the staffing reductions proposed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore for the Executive Branch.(# XWe also propose that unused funds from a Senator's office budget be returned to the Treasury.(#  Improve floor procedure and make the Senate schedule moreh)0*0*0*Ԍ predictable. XWe propose that committees meet only on certain days, and that the Senate leadership have more authority to set the legislative schedule. Our proposal to limit the debate on the motion to proceed will allow the leaders to bring up bills without requiring the consent of all 100 Senators. This also will end the leadership's need to honor holds.(# XWe include additional recommendations made by the majority Leader: to require a threefifths vote to overturn the chair, post cloture; to count time of quorum calls during cloture to the Senator who suggests the absence of a quorum; and to permit dispensing with the reading of a conference report as long as the report is available the day before. Finally, we propose that ``Sense of Senate'' resolutions must have ten cosponsors to be considered by the Senate, unless offered by one of the Leaders.(# o Create a more responsible budget process that is less repetitious, less complicated, and more understandable. XWe propose a system of biennial budgeting. A 2year process will permit Congress to spend one year on budget matters and the second year on authorizations, oversight and nonbudgetary legislation. Members will spend more time overseeing programs to make certain that taxpayer money is spent wisely. (# Additional recommendations would improve the budget process, improve relations between the branches of government, and reform governmental printing. We also intended to include specific proposals to reform the ethics process and to bring Congress under labor and other laws we have applied on the executive branch and the private sector. Two separate Senate task forces addressed these issues during last year, and this Committee or the full Senate may consider their recommendations later this year. As I mentioned, we heard from over half of the Senate, including a number of the members of this Committee. Senators Ford and Stevens were members of the Joint Committee and greatly contributed to our work. Senator Dole, as Minority Leader, served along with Senator Mitchell as ex officio members of the Joint Committee. Senator Byrd was one of our first witnesses. His thoughtful testimony stayed with all members of the Committee throughout our deliberations, and many of his recommendations were included by the Joint Committee. He recommended limiting committee assignments and committee size, strengthening the fiveday work week, and improving deliberations on the floor. In fact, the provision discouraging waivers to the committee assignment limitation, using a cloturelike procedure and requiring a floor vote to grant a waiver, was Senator Byrd's idea. He also said the Senate should consider instituting an advisory panel made up of private citizens to advise the Ethics Committee on ethics matters. While the Joint Committeeh)0*0*0* did not make specific recommendations in this area, Senator Domenici and I believe this is an area we should consider as well. Senator Pell recommended we limit committee assignments, ease the conflict between authorizing and appropriating committees, and fix a number of jurisdictional disputes. Senator Inouye along with Senator McCain presented a strong argument for retaining the Indian Affairs Committee, which the Joint Committee did. We did propose making the assignment to Indian Affairs count as a ``B'' committee, coinciding with the action by the full Senate last year to remove the committee's designation as ``select.'' Under our plan, the only two remaining committees which do not count under the assignment rules are Intelligence and Ethics, both of which are select committees and have limited terms of service. Senator DeConcini argued against creating a Joint Intelligence Committee, which was not included. He also proposed Senators be limited to three committees with no waivers, a limit on subcommittees, and a toptobottom performance review to reduce staffing, all of which are included in the Joint Committee's bill. Senator Feinstein said we should set specific days for committee and subcommittee hearings. We propose that ``Super A'' committees meet on Tuesdays, ``A'' committees on Wednesdays, and ``B'' committees on Thursdays. Since Senators will typically serve on only one of each of these types of committees, this recommendation should end scheduling conflicts. She also recommended that the filibuster be reformed, which we include. These are only examples of how the specific recommendations of Democratic and Republican Senators were incorporated by the Joint Committee. I believe this package is comprehensive, integrated, and represents true, bipartisan reform. Throughout the year, members of the Joint Committee heard from Senators, Representatives, and members of the public who feared that the Congress has lost its ability to focus on the major problems our Nation faces. We must improve the efficiency and accountability of this institution if we are to regain the confidence of the public. I believe the package crafted by the Joint Committee will change for the better the way Congress does its business. Again, thank you Chairman Ford for holding this hearing, and for all of your advice and counsel last year. I turn now to the Joint Committee's Vice Chairman, Pete Domenici. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Boren. I only have a couple of questions, and, of course, as Senator Domenici said, I have been a proponent of a 2-year budget for about 15 years now. Senator BOREN. Right. h)0*0*0*ԌThe CHAIRMAN. I have a little sign in my office where a frog is being swallowed by a crane. He has his legs wrapped around the bill, his head is down his throat, but he has his hands around the throat. It says, ``Never give up.'' And I look at that every once in a while when I feel down, so I will never give up. The 2-year budget, we hear so much ``we want to operate like the Stateswhere the Governors have a balanced budget. Oh, we need to operate like the States.'' Well, let's operate like the States. Where you do not have annual sessions, you have to have a 2-year budget and it works very well. The Constitution of my State says that if you are going to run short, the Governor has the responsibility of reducing by the amount necessary to become a balanced budget. And he can take it by discretion. He does not have to cut it straight across the board. He can take it out of education, highways, or wherever it goes. Let's talk about Governors in 48, 50 States. We have got all that laying out there. In this committee, this year we will not listen to the budget proposals of the various and sundry committees because we have them on 2-year budgets. We have saved more money because of a 2-year budget that, when you end in a year, you do not try to spend it to show that you really needed all the money that you asked for. So if you are going to slide over into next year, you do not go ahead and spend it. You let it slide into the second year. They do not spend to meet a deadline; it saves money. Thanks to Senator Cochran and Senator Feinstein and others, we now have that 2-year budget. So this year, instead of listening to all the budget proposals from all the committees, we are having oversight. We are listening to legislation. We are working in this committee because this year is not a year to try to budget the committees. So I will just make little bitty points, and I think they will come together as a whole. And I certainly hope--and I understand the Appropriations Committee. They do not support this proposal. That is fine. I understand that. But we have got to somewhere make them understand that if you have a 2-year budget, you have personal oversight, not just one committee. Senator BOREN. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. You could have various committees with oversight. You can call them in and talk to them and say we want to know, and in the next 3 months we want you back up here to tell us how you are doing, or 6 months from now you come up here. So oversight becomes not just one committee; it becomes all committees and all Senators' responsibility. This is the case in point. The committees and now the Rules Committee, we are not having to look at all the budgets this year. So that is just a minor point, but it is as part of it. Both you and Senator Domenici mentioned the provisions on ethics and application of laws in Congress, and I believe Ih)0*0*0* understood that you would have considered this had the two committees reported to the leadership sooner. Senator BOREN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Now, if legislation on these topics is introduced and referred to this committee, should these matters be folded into this bill? Senator BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I think they should be. In fact, on the House side, where they did not have these task forces working, they went ahead in the work of the Joint Committee and made recommendations as to compliance. And they already, by the way, have a two-phase ethics process on the House side where they have separated what we might call the grand jury phase, to see if there is sufficient cause to proceed, and then the final deliberative phase. I think we should. I personally -- and I know this is controversial, but I personally would like to see us have a bifurcated process on the Senate side on ethics, with the grand jury phase separated from the final determination and recommendation of punishment phase. I think the second phase most of us would feel constitutionally is required to be done by members only, the recommendations as to punishment, but since we are judged to be responsible for the qualifications of our own members, I personally think that we would strengthen public confidence by having some very distinguished citizens, whether they are former members or not, serve in the first phase. On the recommendations on the application of laws to Congress, we were preparing to make fairly specific recommendations on that. A number of members of the committee agreed, and that would be that we do apply the labor and safety laws as well as the civil rights laws to Congress, and that we follow the Senate procedure of allowing judicial review, not trial de novo but judicial review, on an appellate basis to make sure that our process-- The CHAIRMAN. I apologize to the Senator, but I have never had in 20 years more than two A's and one B. So I have got to go to another committee. Senator BOREN. I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I will be right back. Senator BOREN. I think that probably more effectively than anything we have been able to say today has been the actual demonstration of the fragmented attention problem that we have had by witnesses, my own vice chairman and by the chairman of the committee, Senator Mathews and others, because this shows exactly what we must do. But I would say to members of the committee that we hope youh)0*0*0* will include these two proposals. We hope that you will adopt application of labor and safety laws to the Congress. We hope you would adopt the current Senate standard on civil rights in terms of judicial review, and we would hope that you would consider bringing all the support agencies of Congress, be it the General Accounting Office, the Library of Congress, and others, under one centralized review process. In other words, one compliance office that would provide a due process investigation and hearing into any complaints of discrimination of violation of these standards by all the support agencies, and then with the same kind of appellate review as would be the case of the Senate office. Let me say also in response to Senator Ford's comments on the budget, I think he is absolutely right in what he said, and I think the example of this committee in providing 2-year budgets for the individual committees is indicative. It is a more efficient way to operate. It does not diminish the power of the Rules Committee by appropriating or calling for a 2-year authorization or appropriation of funds or allocation of funds to the various committees to do their work. It has improved, it has increased, in fact, the power of the Rules Committee in a way because it has given this committee more time to really go in and provide oversight committee by committee instead of just redoing the same thing every year and reinventing the wheel every year. I think that is true of the Appropriations Committee. I think that those who fear that this will diminish the ability of the Appropriations Committee to hold executive branch agencies in line -- in fact, it is just the opposite. When you are spending 80 or 90 percent of your time on busy work -- and as Senator Domenici has just said, he estimates 92 percent of the budget is the same every year. We are spending hours a day -- I do not know; is it 4, 5, 6, 8 hours a day? -- simply shuffling the paper, not changing a thing, just busy work, taking away your time and your attention. That time could be spent focusing upon those things that really need to be changed in appropriations bills or authorization bills. Instead of having to gloss over and not look deeply, just look in a shallow way at everything because you are doing everything every year, you can begin to look in-depth at what is working and what is not. Now, I think that is what will give more influence, and I think it will really help. It will also reduce -- and this is another problem that many people pointed out. There has been a lot of stress between authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee. There has been the charge that the Appropriations Committee often tries to authorize in appropriating bills. And I think that having a 2-year process will help that because often the Appropriations Committee does have an argument. They will say, well, the authorizing committee did not get its work on time, and if we did not authorize the appropriations bills -- and often the chairman of the authorizing committee will run around to the Appropriations Committee and say please put in authorizingh)0*0*0* language, we did not get our bill out this year. Think how often we have not had a foreign aid bill, for example. Many, many times. Having a 2-year process will reduce that possibility. It is much more likely you will have an authorization bill, and, therefore, the stresses and strains between the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committees should be reduced. So it makes sense. I think we have a very good chance to have majority support for this proposal on the floor of the Senate, at least according to informal soundings that we have taken. It will be somewhat close. This will be not an uncontroversial matter. But I would urge this committee to report out the recommendations with the 2-year appropriation and the 2-year authorization in it for the reasons that Chairman Ford has indicated. I might say again I thank the members of this committee for their support of the Joint Committee, and as stewards of the funds and the resources you gave us, let me point out that we did do our work on time and we returned approximately a third of the funds, unused, that you gave us to do our work on the Committee on the Reform of Congress. We thought we should be the first temporary committee that remained temporary, that we should finish our work on time, and that we should do it under budget, and we have tried to do that and hope that that will set the example for others to follow. Senator COCHRAN. Let me say, in the absence of the chairman, that I certainly want to join him in commending and congratulating you and Senator Domenici for the outstanding work you have produced. The dedication to this task has been very impressive. The quality of the work has been outstanding. And you can be assured that this committee is going to give very, very careful consideration to all of your recommendations. One thing I must say, in response to some comments you made at the outset about the integrity of the institution and the impressions people in the country have of the institution and the way it goes about doing its work, I worry about that, too. I do not know that it has really changed markedly, though, in the 20 years since I have been in Washington. I remember one after another experience I had when I was first campaigning for Congress in 1972 which brought home to me that there was a tremendous disenchantment with the Government, and it had been a concern for a long time. We are going to continue to have problems, I think. You can call it a public relations problem, however you want to define it. And this reorganization is not really going to solve that problem. I think we could enact this as your committee has recommended, and still do little to deal with that problem. But we do have a challenge before us, and we need to work on it. This may not be the answer to that, though. One other thing concerns me, and that is the equating of efficiency with the quantity of our legislative enactments. Ih) 0*0*0* seriously disagree with the suggestion that that is a measure of either efficiency or proficiency or in any other way laudatory as a definition of work performance by the institution. I would rather argue that it is the quality of the measures that we approve rather than the quantity that ought to serve as the measure of the work product and the way in which we should be judged. Senator BOREN. I agree. I certainly hope that my comments were not taken to mean any difference of opinion with you on that. I, of course, agree with you completely. Here is the thing that worries me. As we have proliferated these subcommittees, what often happens is that to justify their existence and the staff assigned to them, we introduce bills, have hearings and so on to show that they are doing something, also I think sometimes for the sake of the press releases we can generate back home. And we have generated such a volume of unnecessary proposals that consume our time, and that even affects our mail load because these committees are having hearings and these bills are introduced and so on. People get alarmed who are affected by the proposals. They write us mail. It just keeps on and on. Then when we get down to these very -- and I would agree with you. I think some of the most useful service from time to time that any of us perform is stopping legislation, not passing it. But I think what happens is that our time is taken away then from really sitting down and working on those fundamental problems that are so important to the country. Senator COCHRAN. I think that is right. Let me ask you in that connection what suggestions, if any, have been made by the committee for handling on the floor in a more orderly way amendments that are offered by Senators to legislation, for instance, that amendments will be called up automatically if Senators are not there to call them up, or that after all amendments to one title have been considered, the title should be closed from further amendment. Are there any suggestions in connection with floor procedures that have been made in that way? Senator BOREN. I would say to my colleague that you have just given two suggestions that I personally favor, and I think that if this committee wanted to add some additional procedural reforms to those that we have suggested--we suggested here really five changes. I mentioned them just in passing, on counting time and the post-cloture situation, on the quorum calls, requiring a three-fifths vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair-- Senator COCHRAN. But that applies only if there is a time agreement. If there is no time agreement, quorum calls are not charged to anybody.h)!0*0*0*ԌSenator BOREN. No. We did try to reduce sense of the Senate resolutions. We did speak to this problem of motions to proceed to bills, not really having a filibuster possibility. But we did not go further, and I would tell you that the reason that we did not, frankly, these recommendations were negotiated out between the majority leader and the minority leader. And I urged both of them to view this as if they were majority leaders because you never know, it is impossible to know who will be in control of the Senate next year or 2 years later. We do not know. But we pretty well allowed them to give us the things that they could agree upon, and so these five recommendations were things that they agreed upon. We did not attempt to go further in this recommendation than that, but I think what you said -- I think one of the really frustrating things and one of the reasons we have no idea how long we are going to be in session during a day -- and it is just like holds -- not calling up amendments that have been filed and leaving it to one Senator's convenience to really inconvenience 99 in terms of the floor schedule, I think that is a bad thing. I know when I was in the State legislature, you could not get by with that. If your amendment was filed and you were not there to call it up, it was passed over for good or it was called up in your absence. Senator COCHRAN. One thing you said in your comments before, describing some of the changes, was that a greater flexibility would be given to the majority leader or the leaders in scheduling the Senate. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator COCHRAN. What is considered to be new power that is granted to the leaders under that suggestion? Senator BOREN. One of the powers is the committee scheduling. We have suggested that the leaders be vested with authority that it would--we are sort of in a routine situation now where leaders will ask consent for committees to meet during the session and so on. We would strengthen the hand of the leader by blocking in these meetings time, for example, Super A's on certain days, A's on others, B's on others, requiring a motion by the leader and approval by the body to allow committees to change that. On the motion to proceed, I think that is going to help give the leaders power in terms of scheduling legislation because you will not be dealing with the potential of holds anymore, at least on proceeding to a bill. Now obviously if there is a strong feeling, the bill itself might still be filibustered. That is an example. h)"0*0*0*ԌAnd, by the way, on assignment of members to committees, the whole waiver process, we heard privately from both of our leaders, in essence, to use an old-fashioned term, please throw us into that briar patch. Make it almost impossible for us to get waivers because we want to stop that process because we cannot appoint new members to committees very often because so many others have waivers, there are not slots. But I think the kind of thing you just suggested, that idea of giving the leader the power to call up amendments if they have been filed-- Senator COCHRAN. Well, the leader has that power. Senator BOREN. But to let them do it. Senator COCHRAN. He has that power now. Senator BOREN. It is not exercised, and I think to encourage them to exercise it. Those are a few of the things. We have not gone much further than that in our proposal. There are a number of things that- Senator COCHRAN. The suggestion you have for having a three-fifths vote in a post-cloture situation or overruling a ruling of the Chair in effect gives the leader a new amount of power, does it not? Senator BOREN. Yes, it does. It does, I believe. Senator COCHRAN. Because you can read that as saying that no decision by the majority leader on a point of parliamentary procedure shall be overruled except by a vote of three-fifths of the membership. Senator BOREN. Right. That is probably true. Although I would say that I think that it would not be exactly because I think there is integrity in the process in terms of ruling, advice from the Parliamentarian to the presiding officer. Generally, not every majority leader will have the Parliamentarian turn the rules on their head, certainly, or have some very strong violation of the rules. I think we know if there is a gray area and there is a doubt, probably the Parliamentarian is going to advise the presiding officer in a way that suits the wishes of the majority leader. There is no doubt about that. We all know the history of that. It has been true in both parties. But I think there would still be some restraint. Outrage against the rules I do not think would occur because I do not believe the Parliamentarian would advise that. Senator COCHRAN. I have just one other question, and that is what committee do you consider could be abolished under the de minimis rule that you mentioned? Certainly some would.h)#0*0*0*ԌSenator BOREN. Some would. Senator COCHRAN. Did you figure out in your deliberations which ones would be casualties? Senator BOREN. We kept all of that to ourselves, I would say to my colleague, because if we were to say -- we heard testimony from all of them. We heard testimony from Small Business, we heard testimony from Aging, we heard testimony from Indian Affairs, and I could go on. Needless to say, all of those that serve in leadership positions on those committees felt strongly that their committees should be retained, and so we did not take any action ourselves to do away with any of those committees, but members will vote with their choice of committees. In order that we maintain the enthusiastic support of the leadership of all of those committees, I will refrain from speculating as to which of those committees might end up with too few members to continue to exist. Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Feinstein? Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really think you have done an excellent job. It is very good work, and I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. Senator BOREN. Thank you. Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it is going to be make the future really much brighter for all of us. I am looking for the filibuster reform. Would you comment on it? Senator BOREN. It is that on a motion to proceed, as you know, we now have, in essence, two filibuster procedures now in the Senate, and not just one. You can filibuster the motion to proceed, which also gives any individual Senator the right to put a hold on the bill, because he or she can just say if you try to proceed to this bill, I will filibuster the motion to proceed, and even one or two members has the ability to tie up the Senate for at least 3 days if that happens, and so leaders are constrained. So we have said, in essence, you only get one bite at the apple, if you really intend to filibuster, and I for one -- it was very interesting, when we heard vice President Mondale, he said he came to the Senate fully prepared to want to do away with the right to filibuster at all, and he felt that it had been abused, partly a geographical perception. I think those from the South, this was from the old days, looking back at what happened in the 1950's and so on, and the 1940's, that they favored the filibuster, and thoseh)$0*0*0* that came from other parts of the country -- and this had been years on civil rights and other legislation -- had a different view. He said by the time he left the Senate, and when he considered the fact that very bad legislation, it did not matter whether you were a liberal or a conservative, a northerner or a southerner or a Democrat or Republican, it might have passed, because we get caught up in the emotion of the moment, had there not been the ability of 40 determined members to stop it, that he favored retaining the filibuster. But he did not think you should have two bites at the apple, that you should be able to have only one. I think that reduces the problem some. Secondly, the ruling of the chair, as Senator Cochran just asked me, the fact that it takes a three-fifths ruling to overturn the ruling of the chair, once you are in a post-cloture situation, also that you would have quorum calls counted against the person asking for it in terms of their time. You know, as get into post-cloture, you have this 100 hours, it still can be reduced by a super majority, and Senator Allen brought that to an art, that you could almost, even after cloture was imposed, have another filibuster that might be able to go on for another week or two, with people who could stretch out that time, and that would further reduce that time. So we do not do away with the filibuster. I think that would be a very difficult thing to get a consensus on. But we do reduce what I would call an abuse of the procedure. We limit it really to the situations where a justly large number of members have very strong feelings that we should not be moving quickly. Senator FEINSTEIN. And have you done anything to tighten germaneness? Senator BOREN. We have not really done very much to tighten germaneness, to tell you the truth. I think that we should. That is just a personal view. There are many members of our body, including some of the members of the committee, who feel that the ability to move without a strict germaneness rule is one of the things that separates the House and the Senate. The House, as you know, is so tightly battened down, amendments cannot be offered if they are not germane, and even germane amendments cannot be offered in many situations without a rule from the Rules Committee. So they have moved on the House side very often to taking up major bills, with virtually no amendments in order or only one or two or three amendments in order, and that really certainly gives very little power to the individual member. With 435, you can see why they might be moved in that direction. I think that there is such a jealousy on the part of individual members of the Senate who feel themselves unable to act on another vehicle. Perhaps the bill to which an amendment would beh)%0*0*0* germane might not even come up that year at all, or it had been killed in committee or they are without a vehicle, they feel strongly in a subject they want to express themselves, and so we get an amendment on, I don't know, foreign policy on an agriculture bill or whatever. I do not think that is a good way of doing business. I do think we should tighten it, perhaps require a super majority or something else. I imagine you will find in debate here in the Rules Committee some difference of opinion as to whether or not we should change the germaneness rule or not. We did not do it, simply because we could not reach consensus, but it is something I hope, just as Senator Cochran suggested, maybe putting some teeth into this idea of the leaders being able to call up amendments, if members are being -- how many times have we sat here and waited for hours and hours and hours, because some member, just for their own convenience, said I am sorry, I cannot come to the floor until tomorrow or the day after tomorrow to offer my amendment, and the managers of the bill cannot move until they do. I would hope that you would look at some of that, and I would put germaneness under that same rubric. It is an upsetting thing, because you come out here one day and you think you are dealing with an agriculture bill, and, as I say, all of a sudden you are dealing with nuclear disarmament, because someone offers such an amendment on the farm bill. Well, it makes it very difficult for you to prepare yourself for the day's work, and I would encourage you to bring that up in this committee during your deliberations. Senator FEINSTEIN. If I might just add, one of the things that becomes deeply troubling as the Senate is now discussing a balanced budget amendment, is we could end up with a school prayer amendment on the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Senator BOREN. I know. Senator FEINSTEIN. The lack of germaneness creates basic conflicts in the voting pattern for Senators, and I just frankly think it is plain wrong to be able to do this. So the question becomes really what to do about it. My hope was that this effort would resolve it. Senator BOREN. Let me say that if you ended up offering, and I would then go back to my capacity of this committee. What I tried to do, in working with Senator Domenici and listening to others, including the distinguished Chairman and ranking member of this committee, really we tried to form consensus and to bring out those recommendations that were consensus. As an individual Senator, I would have to say I would vote for your proposal, if it comes out of the Rules Committee this way or if you offer it on the floor, if you require some kind of super majority for a non-germane amendment. You could have a dire emergency situation where whatever wash)&0*0*0* pending on the Senate floor, a vast majority of members might decide we want to express ourselves immediately on some emergency in the form of a non-germane amendment. I could think of those situations. It would also require, I believe, some kind of super majority to do that, and that you could not just do it willy-nilly and without some restraint. That is my own view. We were really torn here, and I guess it is the kind of balance we all are used to striking around here, between what we thought would be a perfect product and what we thought might be doable, to push the envelope as far as we could toward making the body improve its quality of work. Really, that is the bottom line, as Senator Cochran has said, and I do think that would help with the public. If we do a better job of making policy, it will not instantly change the public perception, but over time it will improve. And if we do oversight in the way that they think, well, they have listened to our concerns about whatever it is, whether it is the IRS or some farm agency or something else that is not working well, that we have experience, that they are doing something about. But we did not do everything we would like to have done. We did not, for example, realign the jurisdiction of all committees between the House and Senate and make sure they were all the same as the executive branch, which would have been something ultimately needs to be done. Part of our problem is the executive branch was talking about reorganizing itself again, and you didn't know, you might do it parallel to the current agency structure, only to find it changed. But that is a job that still needs to be done. But what we tried to do is get as much as we could in terms of consensus in this proposal and hopefully get it adopted. I do believe if we could get these recommendations adopted essentially as they are, with additions hopefully from this committee on things like ethics and compliance with the law and some additional procedural changes as I have been hearing here, it would be a proposal that would go a long way, I think particularly on procedure. We knew this bill would come to this committee and we really feel that this Rules Committee is better positioned than we were in the joint committee to go beyond the consensus of the two leaders on procedure. The expertise on procedure is in this committee, and we felt we would be better off to defer to any additional matters to this committee, but we hope you will add some additional matters. Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator, it would be my intent to put together an amendment on germaneness. I would like to work with you on it, if that would be agreeable- Senator BOREN. I would be happy to do so.h)'0*0*0*ԌSenator FEINSTEIN. -and perhaps make it here, and if it fails here, make it on the floor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Stevens, do you have any comments you wish to make? Senator STEVENS. I apologize for my tardiness. If we can do something about Washington traffic, we might be able to do something about reorganization. The CHAIRMAN. I have a solution: All the northsouth traffic go south, all eastwest traffic go east. [Laughter.] Senator STEVENS. Maybe we can move the Capitol. [Laughter.] My good friend, I served with you in the committee, so I really do not want to go back into the arguments we had on the committee, but I still want to comment a little bit about what I call adverse selection. You really anticipate that by virtue of the restrictions on the number of committees a member can serve on, that there will be committees which will go out of existence by virtue of that. Senator BOREN. Right, there will. Senator STEVENS. A's, as well as B's. Senator BOREN. There could be. There could be A's. I think probably more likely there will be more B's than A's that would be affected, but there could be some A's. Senator STEVENS. Having survived the Stevenson round of reorganization, I think I am the last Senator that has a statutory waiver, because of the decision that was made at the time to incorporate committees into committees. For instance, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee was put into the Governmental Affairs Committees, and I still serve on that committee by virtue of a waiver. Your recommendation would eliminate that waiver, is that not right? Senator BOREN. It would. You would have to have consent on a rollcall vote by the entire Senate in order to maintain that. We do away with all current waivers and all current grandfathered waivers. h)(0*0*0*ԌSenator STEVENS. Being very pragmatic about it, I am sure you realize that the chairmen and ranking members of the committees that are going to be eliminated will be the last to vote to leave their committees, right? Senator BOREN. Exactly. Senator STEVENS. So the net result of what you have suggested is that those people who have the most service in the Senate will be the ones left on committees that face their demise. Senator BOREN. Possibly. Certainly those that -- let us say a committee that might rank in size, as you said, the chairman and the ranking member of that committee are going to be the last ones to not request that committee again. Senator STEVENS. Obviously, we would be the last ones to leave this committee, but if it were to fall, then what do we do? Senator BOREN. Well, if it were to fall, it would then become the--let us say the committee drops below half of its membership, then this committee, the Rules Committee would be given the jurisdiction to determine where the functions of that committee that has gone out of existence should then- Senator STEVENS. And we would go on the committee at the bottom of the list, right? Senator BOREN. Do you mean-- Senator STEVENS. As I did. Senator BOREN. Well, I suppose that would be the case, although you would probably--it would depend on how many other committees you were on at the time. Senator STEVENS. Well, your recommendations automatically mean--you know, I am on three committees, I am not going to stay on the committees where I am sitting down there where I was 25 years ago. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator STEVENS. So if this committee were to be eliminated, I then am going to be forced to go to the leaders and say, hey, somehow or other you have got to recognize the fact that I have been here 25 years, right? Senator BOREN. Right. Senator STEVENS. So there are going to be waivers again, are there not? Senator BOREN. There will be waivers again, no, I do not thinkh))0*0*0* there will be waivers. Senator STEVENS. Well, that is why I disagreed with you in committee and I disagree with you here. Senator BOREN. I really do not think there will be waivers. Senator STEVENS. I mean this has no chance of surviving, if the result of your adverse selection is those people who served the longest in the Senate are going to be the first to suffer because of reorganization. Senator BOREN. Well, I do not think that is the case. There might be, if there are two committees that end up being abolished as a result of this action, there might be four Senators that obviously they are no longer chair or vice chair or chair and ranking member of that committee and they are senior on that committee. But people who would be senior on that committee are very likely to be senior on other committees, as well. They are not likely to find themselves in-- Senator STEVENS. That is not so. The CHAIRMAN. By definition, let me join my friend, he is absolutely right. The Republican side, they go down the pecking order by seniority. We stay by committees. So he would be left to the pecking order on the next committee, if you keep that same system. If I leave here and you send this to a committee and I follow it, then I would be down at the end. Having been Chairman here for a good many years, good, bad or indifferent, I would then be down at the end, just as Senator Stevens said. Senator BOREN. It would be possible that-- The CHAIRMAN. You might make--and we would discuss this I think very thoroughly--a proposal that if there is shifting, that there would be accommodation for the senior members. Senator BOREN. For the senior members of that committee. The CHAIRMAN. and you do that one time around. Senator BOREN. To the new committee to which you would be assigned. The CHAIRMAN. And once that is done, then I think it would be eliminated. Senator BOREN. For example, let us say you were on the Aging Committee and the Aging Committee did not continue to exist and it got folded into -- I do not know which committee it would be folded into by the Rules Committee -- what you are saying is if you wanted to follow that function, if you were chairman of the Aging Committee and you wanted to then go into the new committee where ith)*0*0*0* had been assigned, you should not go to the foot of the committee, because you had been the senior person on this particular function. I think that would be something that could be looked at. The other possibility is this, that it may well become -- and this is left to the work of the receiving committee -- I would imagine that if any of these B committees were folded into other A committees, that they cease to exist, they would probably come in a new form as a subcommittee of the A committee, having been important enough to be a separate committee in the past. Perhaps there could be a way for the chairman of what had been a separate committee to become chairman of the subcommittee. I think you make a good point, although I would point out that there are several senior members that serve on 20 or more committees and subcommittees, several members of this committee do, several members of our reform committee served on not just 12, that is the average, several serve on 20 or more now by waiver, as I said, there are 60-some waivers now in effect. Most of those members are going to be very senior on other committees, and in some cases may be even in a position to decide to claim their seniority or even claim the chairmanship of another committee, if the committee on which they are serving goes out of existence. So I think it is very unlikely that anybody Senator STEVENS. How would you do that, Senator? How am I going to become the chairman of a committee when I am left off of a committee that goes out of existence? How would I do that? Senator BOREN. Well, you have not lost your-- Senator STEVENS. You would not do it under our system. Senator BOREN. You are a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Senator STEVENS. Right. Senator BOREN. You are not going to lose your seniority on that committee, if you were the chairman of the Aging Committee and it went out of existence. You are going to remain a senior member -- I do not know, I have not looked at your own committee assignments, but you are senior on certainly more than one committee. You are close to being senior on two or three committees. Senator STEVENS. That is a nice guess, but it is not so, because our group does not recognize that situation as far as seniority is concerned, because, remember, every 2 years we have to put back in the pot, if we have three A committees, we have to put one of them back in the pot, and that means, by definition, you end up down at the end when you finally start selecting. h)+0*0*0*ԌI see my friend from Arizona sitting there. Yes, I remarked to him, I have served on the Commerce Committee now for 8 years longer than the current ranking member, and are three people in between me and them, because of just that circumstance. Senator BOREN. You cannot-- Senator STEVENS. What you are not recognizing is that service in the Senate does not automatically give you seniority on a committee. Senator BOREN. No. Senator STEVENS. What happens is you have to decide every 2 years which are the two most important committees from the point of view of your representing your State. And when you do that, you by definition end up down at the end of the table every once in a while. Senator BOREN. Well, you still have the right, do you not, if, for example -- and we have had this situation I believe with Senator Thurmond, for example, recently deciding would he claim to be ranking member on one committee or another, if he was senior on both. You could not be ranking on both, like you could not be chairman of two A committees. So you decide which committee you are going to claim your seniority on, but you do not become-- Senator STEVENS. But I am not going to make the decision. The decision is going to be made by other Senators as to whether they serve on this committee, and the Senator from Kentucky and I are liable to be sitting here alone, right? Now, if we are sitting here alone and we then have to have another assignment by definition, because we have selected this as one of our two committees, then you are going to face some waivers. If you do not realize it, you are not going to get anything passed by the floor. Senator BOREN. Well, I would hope that Senator STEVENS. The seniority system is going to be heard in this, because of the fact we seek these committee assignments in the first instance because we think they will help us function as a Senator of the State we represent. Senator BOREN. I would say to my colleague that I would hope that individual circumstances, there are going to be individual sacrifices made all over the place. To give you an instance, if we follow these recommendations, we will do away with approximately half the subcommittees in the Senate, approximately half of them. Now that is going to affect a lot of Senators who are now chairmen of subcommittees. Many of them are now chairmen of full committees. They are going to be sacrificing some. If we give everyone a waiver, if we start down the waiver path, we are not going to change anything around here, in my view.h),0*0*0* It is going to cause some people to make some sacrifices. I do not think members can serve on 12, 13, 15, 20, 25 committees and subcommittees effectively. The one thing that came across over and over again, and over 85 members of the Senate, in a poll that we took, said stop waivers, limit the number of committees, limit the number of committee assignments, because we have what Senator Byrd described as fractured attention span. And I think if we were to act and go back into waivers again and say, well, we cannot afford to upset any individual Senator, because they cannot lose their subcommittee or they cannot lose their committee that no longer justifies existence, I do not think we will change anything, and I think we will be in the same situation that we are in, where we are viewed, and I have to say quite rightly in some respects -- I think that some of the public perceptions of the Congress is unfair, because I think the members of the Congress individually are better than they are given credit for being, and I think care deeply about what happens to the country and their constituents. But I think we have become so overburdened in the way that we function, and the people understand it to a degree. They do not understand the technicality of it, but they understand the bottom line in terms of the quality of what we are doing. I think that you make a point that we ought to attempt to address, if there is a way to address it, and that is by seeing if we can protect the senior members of committees that might be abolished. Let me say also -- and I say it not just because I am in front of the Rules Committee -- we exempted the Ethics Committee and the Intelligence Committee from that de minimis rule, and we did so because, obviously, you have to have an Ethics Committee. People serve on it only temporarily. They do not seek it. You have to have an Intelligence Committee, and that is a temporary assignment. For example, I lost all of my seniority on the Small Business Committee. I did not feel I could do justice to continuing to serve on more than two A's and the Intelligence Committee. So I got off my B committee, and the leader encouraged that and I did it, because that Intelligence Committee takes 4 or 5 hours a day, if you do your work right. And it is something you do not get much public credit for most of the time, because what you are doing is in secret. So the members are all affected that way, and so we exempted that. Now, obviously, there has to be a Rules Committee. There has to be a Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee may need to be -- it is one of those functions that has to exist. But there does not have to be an Aging Committee, there does not have to be an Indian Affairs Committee, there does not have to be a Veterans Committee, there does not have to be a Small Business Committee. We can all argue about whether those functions are important, and we will allh)-0*0*0* decide, those of us who are members of those committees, whether to stay on them or not, or whether those functions -- those functions have to be considered -- and whether or not they have to be separate or folded in, and the members will decide. Well, there has to be an Ethics Committee, there has to be a Rules Committee, and under our current structure, with the way intelligence is done, that really has to-- Senator STEVENS. Senator, I just want to cut in at this point. Mr. Chairman, before I do this, let me put my statement in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the full statement of Senator Stevens will be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:] ` STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, A U.S. SENATOR LFROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Mr. Chairman, I was pleased we had a chance to serve together on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress to develop this bill. Even though I disagree with parts of it, I voted for it in that Committee because I felt it was important to keep the process of Congressional reform moving. The Rules Committee now has a chance to consider these recommendations. We are likely to make changes. It is important, however, that the Rules Committee continue the reform process and that the full Senate gets an opportunity to take up a bill. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you plan an ambitious schedule of Committee actions on this bill for the weeks ahead. I look forward to our colleagues' testimony this morning which begins this schedule. Senator STEVENS. I have a statement of Senators Cohen, Kassebaum, Lott and Lugar that they wish to have included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included. [The submitted statement of Senators Cohen, Kassebaum, Lott and Lugar is included under ``Additional statements.''] Senator STEVENS. Again, Senator, we had long discussions at the meeting of the joint committee, and I had discussions with individual members. I just do not think you realize that the net result of having a selection of committees--if we had had a selection of committees at the height of the Cold War, everyone would have stood in line to get on the Armed Services Committee. As we now get into another period, there isn't as much desire to geth).0*0*0* on the Armed Services Committee. But somebody has to have the function of watching defense. The impact of this selection process that you suggest is a matter of where you are in the continuum of interests of the Senate in particular subjects. Aging now may not be as important as health, you know, ethics may not be as important to rules, depending how you come out on it. But the adverse selection is going to come about, because a lot of new members are going to want to get on one committee, and the more senior members will be on another committee. There is going to be chaos around here, if we follow your recommendation. So that is my suggestion to you, it has got to be changed. I told you that before and, again, I in this committee am going to try to change it. Senator BOREN. Senator Stevens, let me say I would hope you would change it by working on the seniority problem as you have identified it, finding some way for members who are displaced to follow their seniority, or have their seniority imposed in some way as a function of the transfer. I would urge you, and I would hope that you would not work on it by allowing people to have waivers again. Because I think one of the most fundamental things and a common theme that came through our work--and I would be optimistic that we could prevail on this on the floor--is that members simply cannot serve on more than 3 standing committees and 5 subcommittees. And when they attempt to serve on more than 8 committees in total, they are spread so thin that they cannot focus their work and their attention. And when we have so many committees that we do not need, and we have people spread across them, that we are also creating a lot of busy work for ourselves with unnecessary proposals. So I understand what you are saying and I am not disagreeing with you that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. But I would really urge you to address it from the point of view of how you preserve the seniority of that member, and not address it by trying to reopen the waiver problem, so that we have people running around here serving on so many committees and subcommittees. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warner? Senator WARNER. Thank you. I would like to take a moment to recount some personal experience. You are suggesting, and I support abolishing what we regard here as surplus in terms of committee assignments, but the problems come with taking a senior member of an abolished committee and integrating him or her into the successor committee. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator WARNER. On the Armed Services Committee, I wash)/0*0*0* privileged to serve 6 years as the ranking member. Senator Thurmond, completely within his rights, at that time exercised those rights and displaced me. I then experienced the most severe negative press in a public career of some 30 years. The headlines ran in my State day after day, first I was fired, then dumped, then demoted. No manner of explanation could convince Virginians that this was just the seniority system at work. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator WARNER. I just quietly did the best I could and rode out the storm, and today it is continually brought up from time to time wherever I go. In other words, the public back home does not understand how we operate. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator WARNER. So speaking for myself, based on personal experience, I will not be a part of a program of trying to integrate and bump Senators sitting on committees as you go back and integrate these members into a successor committee. It just does not work, Senator. Senator BOREN. I understand the problem. I guess my advice is that I hope you and Senator Stevens will find a meeting of the mind on this issue. Senator STEVENS. I will tell you, the same thing happened to me when Post Office and Civil Service went into Governmental Affairs, I would have ranked with Mathias. Mathias came and said you cannot do that to me, you are my old friend. I would have outranked Roth. Roth said you cannot do that to me, I am your old friend. So what ends up? It ends up where they are both chairmen of full committees during my lifetime, and I have not been one. The thing is, right, we will find some way to accommodate our friendships, but it will not work in the end, because I end up with a waiver, but you are going to do away with them now. I do not agree with you about workload. I have never had a person tell me, as I just told the chairman, that I was not carrying my load in any committee. And the real problem is you do your work if you want to do your work. And I have known Senators that had four full committees and did the work. I have known other Senators who had only two committees and did not do a damn bit of work. Senator BOREN. Well, I think that is certainly true, but we just have-- The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to get into that argument, that is for sure. [Laughter.] h)00*0*0*ԌSenator BOREN. We just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether it is as good thing to have waivers or not and-- Senator STEVENS. I do not like waivers either, but you are going to enforce it with that recommendation. Senator BOREN. I would hope not. I think that what we will force is something that you and I have a disagreement on, and that is we will force members to serve on fewer committees, and I think that overall is as good thing, not a bad thing, and I think it will cause--if you are as talented and as active as you are on all the committees you serve on, then-- The CHAIRMAN. We will get into this much deeper before time is over, and I prefer not to pursue it further at this time. [Laughter.] Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one final comment. You know, I asked you the question about which committees you thought would be casualties under the de minimis rule to try to find out which committees you thought should be abolished, and obviously you had some discussion of that in the committee. Senator BOREN. Right. Senator COCHRAN. What we are seeing now is you are passing the buck to the Rules Committee, because if we adopt the de minimis rule that you suggest, we are going to have the biggest mess you have ever seen. Nobody is going to know which committees from one year to the next will be in existence. Senator BOREN. Once a committee goes out of existence, it cannot be-- Senator COCHRAN. You cannot ever recreate a committee? Senator BOREN. No, it is not to be recreated-- Senator COCHRAN. Well, I think what is going to happen is-- Senator BOREN. --not unless there is a major change. Senator COCHRAN. --if we want to abolish committees, we have got to abolish committees. That is the whole point, and that is what Senator Stevens is saying. We are not going to abolish total jurisdiction of the Senate. Senator BOREN. No. Senator COCHRAN. We are going to retain the responsibilities we have as an institution, so it is a matter of how you divide it up among the committees, if you are going to have a committeeh)10*0*0* system, and your committee has not made a recommendation on that. Senator BOREN. No, we felt the fairest way is that once members are forced to decide, is to give so much time, and you are going to, in essence, spend your time by focusing in on a smaller number of committees. And we felt the fairest way to do that was, rather than us say Aging is more important than Veterans or more important than Indian Affairs or Small Business, I think you are going to see the major crunch in the B committees, not in the A committees, probably, that the membership of the committee and the members who are talking about where they want to spend their own time--and I was being somewhat facetious, somewhat giving you a statement of political reality, again in hope of passing the package, but that seemed to us to be a fairer way, to let individual members who are involved in these functional areas to make some judgments about how important they are. I am not on the Indian Affairs Committee. Those who serve on the Indian Affairs Committee testified before us, for example, that it was of such critical importance that they were not about to give up that committee, they wanted it kept as a separate committee. Well, we will find out when they are faced with those choices whether that is really an accurate statement or not, but they have served on it. Those that have served on Aging and the other committees and have strong feelings about the importance of it, they will sit down and weight that compared to the other responsibilities, and we will get an answer. We just simply felt that was a fair process. Now, none of these things are perfect, and there will be obviously some recurring matters before the Rules Committee to decide on implementation, and we were not intentionally trying to pass you the buck. But I do not think there is any way the Rules Committee can avoid some of these refinement questions. The CHAIRMAN. It was really unheard of for a freshman Senator to be chairman of a full committee, and under the circumstances I was assigned the Space Committee, which I did not want. That was one of those things of you take this one and I got Commerce, which was fine, but I did not want Space. Senator BOREN. Right. The CHAIRMAN. Buck Rogers, you know, was not my forte at the time. But within 2 years, under the circumstances, I would have been chairman of the Space Committee with 50-some-odd employees, NASA and all of that, because everyone on there was either a chairman or ranking member other than me. But I testified right here to Senator Stevenson that we ought to do away with it. It is now in the Commerce Committee as a subcommittee, and I think it is performing reasonably well. But we worked that out then and we are going to work this one out now. h)20*0*0*ԌSenator STEVENS. We will work it out. The CHAIRMAN. We will work it out and we will give you something to chew on. Senator STEVENS. But under your recommendation, Governmental Affairs goes away and Banking goes away. Senator BOREN. You think they will? Senator STEVENS. Right. What are the two functions that the Senate ought to be watching? The CHAIRMAN. Governmental Affairs. Senator STEVENS. Governmental Affairs and Banking. Senator, you had better wake up. Senator BOREN. I am not sure that those will go away. The CHAIRMAN. We will find out about it. We have got lots of time. I thank you, Senator, for your comments. We have been here now 2 hours on this one. Senator BOREN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The reason I am stopping is that the bows and arrows were out right behind you and I did not know whether he was aiming at you or me. [Laughter.] Senator BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I have always appreciated your sense of timing, and I think it is time for me to declare victory and retreat to my office. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. To declare victory and retreat. Senator BOREN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Senator McCain. John, I understand your colleague Senator Inouye is unable to attend this morning and he is filing a statement for the record. If you want to proceed, you may make a long statement or a short one, and we could put your full statement in the record, however you wish. ` TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.h)30*0*0*ԌAs you know, Senator Inouye had asked for this opportunity to testify and he is unavoidably ill today. I appreciate your including his and my full statements for the record. I will be very brief. We have been through this issue before. I would remind this committee that there is a certain constitutional responsibility that Congress has under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which is referred to as the Indian Commerce Clause, that authorizes the Congress to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations among the several States and with the Indian tribes.'' We have a special and unique obligation, as members of Congress, to Native Americans. I do not have to tell the members of this committee that, as a group, there is no one who is lower on the economic ladder than Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. There is no one who has been more mistreated. There is no group of Americans who have had solemn treaties and promises broken time after time. And there are no greater social problems in America than those which exist on Indian reservations today. As I have noted before this committee in the past, the rate of suicide on reservations is twice the national rate, the rate of diabetes is three times, tuberculosis four times, and the list goes on and on. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this committee or the Congress in its wisdom decides to do away with the Indian Affairs Committee -- and I share Senator Inouye's view that it should not--but if it does, we need to be very careful that we do not totally ignore Native Americans, as has happened in the years 1946 to 1984, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, was the only time that there was not a congressional committee for Indian affairs. Not by coincidence, during the termination era, which was one of the darkest chapters in Federal Indian policy, became the dominant Federal policy during that time. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest, a lot of interest, to the previous discussion-- The CHAIRMAN. We can tell by the enthusiasm of the overflow crowd we have here. Senator McCAIN. and I understand some very difficult choices have to be made, and I would strongly recommend that we recognize that there is a special obligation that the Congress, written in the Constitution, has to Native Americans. There are solemn treaties that have been made. There are issues before the Nation and the Congress today which are transcended, for example, the National Governors Association, the number one issue happens to be Indian gaming. The entire issue of Native Americans gets more and more visibility, I am happy to say. Movies like ``Dances With Wolves'' and others have heightened the awareness.h)40*0*0*ԌSenator Stevens was talking about lack of interest in the Armed Services Committee. When I first came on the Indian Affairs Committee, the ratio was 5 and 3. Now we are 10 and 8, and others are seeking membership on that committee, because of the heightened awareness and concern about Native Americans in the country. I am sorry that Senator Inouye is not here this morning, because he is perhaps the most passionate and dedicated advocate of Native Americans, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians of anyone I know. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would just like to digress for approximately 4 minutes to say that I have noted with interest the previous discussion. I would point out that my constituents in Arizona are not so concerned about the size of committees, subcommittees, or the filibuster rule. In fact, according to a recent poll, only 29 percent of the American people approve of Congress. More alarming is the increasing percentage of Americans who think that Congress is corrupt. They believe that, because of the practices that go on, such as the emergency supplemental bill to appropriate $8 billion to California, in which money was included to move an Amtrak station to a post office in New York City, as well as $1.4 million for a potato blight in Maine. On 6 June 1992, Congressional Quarterly reported, ``If history is any guide, would-be reformers face an up-hill battle. Congress has initiated at least eight formal studies of the House or Senate since 1946, and few resulted in major changes.'' Mr. Chairman, what my constituents want, and I feel compelled to mention it to you, is a line-item veto, as well as adoption of a balanced budget amendment, which we are not going to do, it is pretty clear now. They want Congress to live under the same laws that they have to, all of them, and there are approximately 20 laws that we passed, major laws, from which Congress has partially or totally exempted itself. They want the revolving door closed. Too many individuals serve in Congress only so they may trade on that experience in the private sector. They want the Freedom of Information Act applied to, at least some aspects of, Congress. They want the special counsel process, that is applied in the Ethics Committee made public, as well as the results of any investigations by a special counsel. They want to limit the tenure of committee chairmen. They want to end earmarking. They want to institute a biannual budget, and they want campaign finance reform adopted. They want the rules of the Senate to allow a point of order to be brought against unauthorized appropriations. They want all conference meetings open, and they also do not want midnight votes on pay increases for Members of Congress.h)50*0*0*ԌThere are other things that my constituents feel very strongly about. Those are just a few. But I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the approval rating of Congress by the American people is not going up. It is going down. Again, in all due respect to the efforts of the members of this committee and Senator Boren, I hope that some of the issues that I have raised here will be considered. I hope no member of this committee mistakes my zeal for reform as a lack of respect for the constitutional role of Congress or for the work of this committee. I consider membership in this institution to be one of the greatest honors of my life, but that honor is not derived from the opportunities for personal success that accompany election to Congress. It is not derived from the notoriety of being a public person. It is not derived from the comforts of public office or from any of the perquisites of political influence. The honor of congressional service, in my view, is derived solely from an appreciation for the trust reposed in me by the people of Arizona that I can faithfully act in their best interests in their national legislature. If, by omission or commission, we evade the public's unmistakable demand for Congress to reestablish a closer connection to the people we serve, then we will lose what measure of public trust remains for our work. I view a loss of that trust as a loss of personal honor, and that is a fate well worth fighting to prevent. I thank the Chairman and the committee for their indulgence. [The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:] ` STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Mr. Chairman, a half century ago our nation was at war. Times were hard. The public was looking to the Congress for leadership. Instead the Congress voted to give itself new pension benefits and unlimited access to gasoline at a time when the nation was rationing gas. In response to the actions of the ``Imperial Congress'', the Junior Chamber of Commerce spearheaded an angry response. The Jaycees instituted a ``Bundles for Congress'' program to collect old clothes, discarded shoes, and assorted rummage for the ``apparently'' destitute Members of Congress. After pontificating at great length that it was doing nothing wrong, the Congress could not escape the public's rage. In 1946, the Congress passed what many consider to be the most farreaching reform bill in its history. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are no longer living in 1946. But the Congress has not changed since then and the public knows it. Andh)60*0*0* the more the public learns, the more its dissatisfaction with the Congress grows. Recent polls show that only 29 percent of the public approves of the job the Congress is doing and nearly twice that number disapprove. Disenchantment, disgust and disapproval are on the rise. In 1985 and 1987 over 50 percent of the public believed the Congress was on the right track. How can one explain our precipitous fall from grace? The answer is unfortunately too simple. The Congress continues to ignore the world around it by perceiving public opinion to be in conflict with the public interest. Arrogance, isolation, and an imperial attitude are seen by our constituents as the defining characteristics of Congress. We have done little to change the way in which we operate. And Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I predict yet again we will do nothing. On June 6, 1992, Congressional Quarterly reported: X``If history is any guide, wouldbe reformers face an uphill battle. Congress has initiated at least eight formal studies of the House or Senate since 1946, and few resulted in major changes.''  X A 197374 panel led by Representative Richard Bolling (DMo) proposed radical changes to the House. The Democratic Caucus voted 11195 to kill the plan and adopt a plan that preserved the status quo.  X A 197677 House Commission on Administrative Review headed by Congressman Obey (DWI) developed broad recommendations which the House by a vote of 160252 refused to bring to the floor.  X In 197980, a panel headed by Rep. Jerry Patterson, (DCA) ``went down in flames'' when only one of its five recommendations even made it to the floor. The only result was that the House renamed the Commerce Committee the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  X In 1982 the Senate asked former Senators James Pearson (RKS) and Abraham Ribicoff (DCT) to recommend ways to improve the body. Nothing more than hearings were held on the subject.  X In 1984 Senator Dan Quayle (RIN) chaired the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System. Although adopting some of the Committee's recommendations, the vast majority of them were dropped.  X In 1970 the Legislative Reorganization Act made goodh)70*0*0* strides to break the power of some entrenched Committee chairman, but those reforms have now become outdated.  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the work of the Joint Committee and its Chairman Senator Boren and its Vice Chairman, Senator Domenici. They have undertaken a thankless task. But reform is as elusive as it is vital. The Heritage Foundation endorsed four basic principles for Congressional reform: (1) the legislature should legislate; (2) it must be accountable; (3) it should control spending; and (4) its members should act as representatives, not rulers. Allow me to note some specific solutionsmany of which the Joint Committee addressed, many it did not. I recognize that some of these reforms are outside the jurisdiction of this Committee, but I believe they should be mentioned in this forum. X Adopt a Line Item Veto. Republican and Democratic Presidents and 42 of our Nation's governors have endorsed such a policy. The national debt is now over $4 trillion dollars, the Federal Government will pay more than $200 billion in interest in Fiscal Year 1994 alone, or some $500 million each and every day, yet we still continue to spend money on wasteful projects the Administration has stated we do not need. The line item veto is one way to eliminate unnecessary pork barrel spending.  X Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The Senate is now debating this issue and I am hopeful it will pass. The Federal Budget has been balanced only once in the last 30 years (in 1960). This amendment would force the Congress to live within its means, just as families across this land must live within their means.  X Fully Apply all the Laws to Congress. The Congress continues to be exempt from the laws it passes. From the minimum wage to OSHA, it is time we treated ourselves as citizens, not as aristocracy beyond the reach of the law. There are currently some 20 major laws from which the Congress partially or in whole exempts itself.  X Close the Revolving Door. Too many individuals serve in the Congress only so that they may trade on that experience in the private sector for personal gain.  X Apply the Freedom of Information Act to the Congress. The Congress often acts in secret. We are the people's body and the people have every right to know what is occurring in their Representatives' and Senators' offices. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all executive branch activities. It is not only ridiculous that it does not apply to the Congress, it is a violation of the public's trust. h)80*0*0*ԌX Open the Special Counsel Process. The Senate has often turned to Special Counsels to resolve or investigate issues involving its members. This is an appropriate, nonpolitical action. However, many of the findings of Special Counsels have been sealed from the public for political reasons. The public has a right to know.  X Limit the Tenure of Committee Chairmen. One of the most important aspects of the 1970 reforms was a break in the power held by committee chairs. These chairmen have continually used their power to bring home pork projects that are not in the national interest. Additionally, a turn over in committee leadership will allow new ideas to prosper.  X End Earmarking. The Vice President in his report on Reinventing Government noted that 1993 was a record year for earmarking requests and he urged the Congress to end this ignominious practice. Congressional earmarking causes waste and such Congressional micromanagement hampers the Administration's ability to fund projects on the basis of need and merit.  X Institute a Biennial Budget. Twenty states currently adopt 2year budgets to bring efficiency and better planning to the budget process. The Congress should do the same. Legislation calling for this action has been languishing in the Congress since the mid 1970's.  X Adopt Campaign Finance Reform. We must adopt campaign finance reform to give challengers an equal footing with incumbents and restore public confidence in the integrity of the system.  X Change the Rules of the Senate to Allow a Point of Order to be Brought Against Unauthorized Appropriations. The Senate routinely, as is allowed under the rules, violates the authorization and appropriations process. This twotiered process is designed to safeguard the public purse. When it is circumvented, tax dollars are spent and wasted without public debate.  X Reverse the Rules that Require a Supermajority Vote to Lower Taxes and a Simple Majority Vote to Raise Taxes. Currently it requires 60 votes in the Senate to lower taxes. However, it only requires 50 votes to raise taxes. Raising taxes should be a last resort. We should not have policies that encourage tax increases.  X Open All Conference Committees. Unless security matters dictate that a meeting be closed, all Conference Committee meetings should be open to the press and the public. Routinely, the Congress closes these conference committee meetings and bills are larded with wastefulh)90*0*0* pork barrel spending and other unauthorized, nongermane items.  X Forbid Midnight Pay Increases for Members of Congress. In order to avoid the public scrutiny, pay raises for Members of Congress have been passed in the dark of night and without roll call votes. Any measure to increase pay should not be brought to a vote until it has been completely debated and then it should only be adopted by a roll call vote.  X Change the Rules of the Senate to Require that Reports Accompanying Bills Contain an Analysis of All the Costs Associated with the Measure. Current rules of the Senate require that reports only note the direct cost of legislation to the government. This does not take into consideration the costs to business in both paperwork and compliance. These costs should be noted so that the public will truly be aware of any costs the Congress is passing on to it.  Mr. Chairman, I hope this Committee will seriously consider the issues I have raised. If we are to recover the public's trust, we must do so. We are long overdue to reform this institution. I hope we will not miss our opportunity to do so. I hope no member of this committee mistakes my zeal for reform as a lack of respect for the constitutional role of Congress or for the work of this committee. I consider membership in this institution to be one of the greatest honors of my life. But that honor is not derived from the opportunities for personal success that accompany election to Congress. It is not derived from the notoriety of being a public man. It is not derived from the comforts of public office or from any of the perquisites of political influence. The honor of congressional service is derived solely from an appreciation for the trust reposed in me by the people of Arizona that I can faithfully act in their best interests in their national legislature. If by omission or commission we evade the public's unmistakable demand for Congress to reestablish a closer connection to the people we serve then we will lose what measure of public trust remains for our work. I view a loss of that trust as a loss of personal honor. And that, my friends, is a fate well worth fighting to prevent. The CHAIRMAN. We thank the Senator. Senator Cochran, do you have any questions? Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to join you in thanking the distinguished Senator for his comments. They are always very helpful and interesting.h):0*0*0*ԌThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Stevens, do you have any questions? Senator STEVENS. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warner. Senator WARNER. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator STEVENS. We appreciate your patience, my friend. Senator McCAIN. Thank you very much. Actually, I really did enjoy listening to the exchange, and I think it is important. The CHAIRMAN. I never heard of boring enjoyment. [Laughter.] Senator STEVENS. I hear your list of things that have to be done, and I agree that there are a lot of people who want to do that. I am constrained on the Freedom of Information thing. I think we would like to talk with you about that. Are you wealthy enough to defend yourself on Freedom of Information matters that people come at you when your constituents write you a letter and someone wants a copy of your constituent's letter? Senator McCAIN. I do not-- Senator STEVENS. The Constitution says the right to petition Congress shall not be abridged. Senator McCAIN. I think my constituent has a right to go under the Privacy Act to keep his or her correspondence with me private. I think there are many activities of Congress which should clearly be open to the American people, many of the things we do, many of the memos we write should be made public. I would say to my friend from Alaska that there is a great suspicion out there about what Congress does behind closed doors. There is enormous suspicion. If you do not believe me, get on one of the talk shows, and there is enormous anger and frustration out there. And as much information that we can make available without betraying the privacy of our constituents, which would clearly include not revealing correspondence which is sent to us, then I think we would be far better served. Senator STEVENS. I understand that, but I do not think anyone understands how large a staff we would have to have to handle that. I do not know how many letters you get that go straight to the files. Senator McCAIN. I think the American people would be interested in knowing what took place in the conference of the Banking Committee, when they came out of it raising the minimum federally guaranteed insurance on a deposit in an S&L from $40,000h);0*0*0* to $100,000. Senator STEVENS. You may be interested to know-- Senator McCAIN. I think they would be very interested in knowing how an emergency supplemental bill has included in it, funding for pork barrel, unnecessary and unwanted projects that have never had a hearing, never been authorized, but appear just the same. I think the public would be very interested in that, and I think they have a right to view that information. Senator STEVENS. At one time, I had an amendment adopted that became law that required conference committees to be on the record and transcript kept. That disappeared in the next session. But what you are talking about is a record of what went on, rather than having to be faced with a concept of someone coming and saying I want to see the letter you received from John Jones in 1971. Senator McCAIN. Clearly we are in agreement there, Senator Stevens. Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warner. Senator WARNER. I just want to say that I support the Senator on Indian Affairs. Clearly, I think it would be symbolically bad if this country turned its attention away from those categories of people that are suffering so much today. You will have my support on that issue. We might also mention, Senator, in the context of your colloquy with the Senator from Alaska, your initiative on the Armed Services Committee. I remain neutral at the moment on that, but that is an important step that you have recently taken. Senator McCAIN. Thank you. Does my friend from Virginia mean on the military construction or opening the conference? Senator WARNER. The conferences. Senator McCAIN. I believe that, with the end of the Cold War, we could have an open conference on the markup of the Armed Services Committee while keeping the intelligence aspect of it restricted, and I would hope that we could get the agreement of most members of the committee on that. Senator WARNER. Well, it certainly bears close study. Senator McCAIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, always for your very decent courtesy to me on many occasions. h)<0*0*0*ԌThe CHAIRMAN. We always want to do that, and we are going to continue to do it. Senator McCAIN. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We may not agree, but we are not going to be disagreeable. We thank you, John. I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Inouye be included in the record, and also a statement by Senator Lieberman be included in the record with the statement of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. [The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows.] 4STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, A U.S. SENATOR LFROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Rules and Administration, I am pleased to have the privilege of sharing my thoughts with you on the proposals of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Congress as they may affect the status of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Although we like to think of this body as having an institutional memory upon which we can call at any time, in fact, I must sadly report that some of the chapters of our historythe history of this nation and the history of this bodyhave been forgotten over time. And so, I am grateful to have been afforded this opportunity today to call upon my colleagues on this committee and in the Senate, to reflect on the origins of the Committee on Indian Affairsthe commitments it represents and is charged with carrying outcommitments that were made by our founding fathers and enshrined in our Constitution. Unlike many other committees of the Congress that have been established to deal with matters of contemporary concern or which reflect the great issues in this decade of the 1990's, the responsibility for Indian affairs has its origins in the Constitution of the United StatesArticle I, Section 3, clause 8in which the congress is vested with plenary authority over Indian affairs and the conduct of commerce with the Indian nations. This responsibility of the Congress for Indian affairs cannot thus be lightly taken, nor can the Congress divest itself of this responsibility in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. So this is where we begin. For over 160 years, the organization of the Senate has reflected its commitment to honor this constitutional charge by maintaining a permanent standing committee on Indian Affairs. The only aberration from this pattern was the 30year hiatus, from 1946 to 1976, when jurisdiction over Indian affairs was delegated to ah)=0*0*0* subcommittee of the Public Lands Committee, which in 1948, became the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. We begin with the premise that Indian nations are sovereignthe United States Constitution, the debates of the Continental Congress, and the writings of our Founding Fathers have recognized this sovereignty from the earliest days of our union. For the last 23 years, every President of the United States has reaffirmed this principle, in recognition of the governmenttogovernment relationship that the United States has historically had with the Indian nations. President Bush expressed his recognition of the sovereignty of Indian tribal governments by establishing as a matter of Federal policy that tribal governments are an integral part of the family of governments in the United Statesa family consisting of the Federal, State, and tribal governments. The 200year history of dealings with the Indian nations which preceded this enlightened policy were unhappily, not a history that we can point to with any pride, because our dealings with the Indian nations has been one of dishonorable dealings, deception and deceit. In the early days of our history, the conduct of our relations with the Indian nations was a matter of the highest priority in the Congress. We relied upon the support of the Indian tribes in our fight for independenceit was the Indian people who provided food to our troopswho fought side by side with revolutionary soldiersand who sustained General Washington and his men at Valley Forge. Years later, we declared war on the Indian nations, and for over 50 years, we undertook a concerted effort to exterminate the tribesthis was the era now known as the Indian Warsin which the War Department became the instrument of Federal policy toward the Indian nations. Anthropologists estimate that there were as few as 10 million Indians and as many as 50 million Indian people occupying the territory that came to be the United States at the time of first European contact. The decimating effects of the Indian Wars period reduced the Indian population to 250,000. But despite our best efforts to wipe out the native people of America, they survivedand so our next attempt to deal with the socalled ``Indian problem'' the problem of making room for white settlement in the eastern United States and later west of the Mississippiwas through treaties with the Indian nations, and later, the Federal policy of removal. And while the treaties, too, were a recognition of the sovereignty of the Indian nations and were construed to be as much a part of the supreme law of the land as our treaties with foreignh)>0*0*0* nationsof the 800 treaties that we entered into with the Indian nations, 370 of them were never ratified by the Senate. We were adamant in our insistence that the Indians abide by the terms of the 430 treaties that were ratified, but for our part, we proceeded toand have continued toviolate provisions in every single one of them. Nonetheless, in exchange for the cession of millions of acres of Indian land to the United States, we undertook commitmentscommitments of health care and education and the protection of Indian lands and resourcescommitments which were understood to be ``for as long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, as long as the rivers flow from the mountains to the seas, for as long as the grass grows green and the rivers run clear.'' We also adopted a policy of removal, in which we rounded up the remaining members of Indian tribes and forcibly marched them across the eastern half of the United Statesthere were many ``Trails of Tears'', not just oneand thousands of Indians died along the way from exposure and starvation. Oklahoma became the great ``dumping ground'' for Indians. Because the traditional ways of Indian existence were alien to the European experience, we adopted a policy of establishing reservations, followed by policies of ``civilization'' and ``allotment.'' We sought to control the traverse of Indians across the wide expanses that were their traditional hunting and fishing and gathering grounds, by placing them on reservations. We thought we could ``civilize'' the Indian by making him a farmer, and giving him agricultural implements to till the barren land on which we had placed him. We thought that the traditional communal existence of the tribes went against the grain of what we considered to be American, so we authorized the reservations to be broken up into small parcels for allotment to each tribal member. It was through the policies of treatymaking and of allotment that the 550 million acres of land over which Indians once exercised dominion and control was reduced to the 50 million acres of land held in Indian ownership today. All during this time of attempting to ``civilize'' the Indians, we actively undertook a campaign of eliminating any vestige of Indian culture, song, dance and artthe speaking of Indian languages was a punishable offense in public schoolsand for years and years, we took Indian children away from their parents and sent them to boarding schools, where they could be ``cleansed'' of anything Indian. h)?0*0*0*ԌForty years later, responding to the devastating results of the allotment era and our efforts to assimilate the Indian people, we shifted policy direction once again, and this time, called for the reorganization of tribal governments. But in less than 20 years, we adopted yet another policythis time, a concerted effort at assimilation known as the termination erain which relationships with the Federal Government were to be systematically terminatedand only a few years later, this effort was coupled with a policy of relocating Indians to the major urban centers of the country. Today, and for the last almost 25 years, we have managed to steer a somewhat more consistent course, in which the policy of Indian selfdetermination and selfgovernance has been the guiding philosophy. But I believe it is worth reviewing this history because it reveals why we cannot look at committee structure and congressional responsibilities in the absence of their historical context. Our relationship with the Indian nations arises out of our constitutional responsibilitiesbut our record in carrying out those responsibilities has been far from exemplary. The vacillations in Federal law and policy over the last two centuries are testament to the fact that we have expended considerable effort in developing ``Washington'' solutions to problems in Indian country. It has only been in this era of selfdetermination that the Federal Government has begun to listen and be guided by those who have the real and workable solutions to the problems which confront Indian communitiesthe Indian people themselves. Scholars of our history with the Indian nations are consistent in their view that there needs to be a focal point in the Congressa steady keel to guide the ship of state in Indian mattersboth in the formulation of policy and in the oversight and monitoring of the work of the Federal agencies. The Indian program responsibilities with which we have charged executive branch agencies are widely dispersedthey involve almost every department of the Federal Governmentthere is no central point of coordination and oversight of these efforts, other than in the Indian committees of the Congress. We pride ourselves as a nation that honors the human rights of all people, and yet the history of our relations with our own native people is a sad and embarrassing one. Even if we were not charged with legal obligations and a trust responsibility, we would still have to recognize the moral imperative that we, as a nation, are charged withwhen it comes toh)@0*0*0* improving the conditions of life in reservation communities. As to that latter objective, I don't think I need to cite statistics to anyone here. Most of us know that Indian communities have the highest unemployment rates in the Nationwith an average of 57 percent and a high of 90 percent in many areas of Indian country. The attendant social problems that accompany extreme povertysuicide and alcoholism, hopelessness and despairare higher than in any other segment of our population. Eleven percent of all Indian housing has no potable water. An alarming 56 percent of Indian homes have inadequate water systems or sewer systems not in compliance with pollution control law, or have no solid waste disposal facility. Housing needs are greater than those of any other group of Americans. Health care expenditures represent only onetenth of what is available to other Americans. These are the vestiges of our past. At a time when we are effectively engaged in a concerted, focused effort to address these pervasive problemsand at a time when we are further challenged with the reality that the resources to do so grow more scarce with each passing daywe simply cannot afford to return to the outmoded organizational structure of 20 years ago that dispersed the Indian responsibilities of the Senate across numerous committees, fragmenting its focus, undermining any effective comprehensive oversight of Indian programs, and thereby enabling the executive branch to lose sight of the goal of coordinating programs and services designed to address the grave conditions in reservation communities. Even assuming there was some merit to the jurisdictional arrangement of the 1970's, Indian issues are no longer natural resource issues. Today, the future of Indian people lies in the strength of Indian governments, and the consolidation of governmental authority in a manner that is designed to foster economicallyhealthy Indian communities. Twenty years of Indian selfdetermination and selfgovernance has changed the landscape of the FederalIndian relationship. The role of the Federal Government has changed and must continue to change to adapt to these changed circumstances. The old paternalistic guardianward relationship no longer obtains. Today, Indian governments administer the vast majority of Federal programs through the mechanism of self determination contracts. Today, tribal governments have assumed total responsibility for the operation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs agency offices, and are now preparing to assume responsibility for the administration of B.I.A. area office functions. h)A0*0*0*ԌToday, tribal governments operate eight hospitals and 332 outpatient health care facilities, 59 smaller health stations and satellite clinics, and 172 Alaska native village clinics. Today, Indian governments operate 87 schools and dormitories, slightly over half of all B.I.A. facilities, and administer a far greater number of education programs. Today, there are 21 triballycontrolled community colleges and one tribal university. Today, the conduct of gaming activities on Indian lands has become a major source of economic growth in Indian countrya $5 billion industry and growing. Today, Indian governments and triballychartered businesses are actively engaged in defense contracting and manufacturing. Today, Indian governments are forging new relationships with State governmentsto provide a comprehensive framework for the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdictionfor the taxation of business activities conducted on tribal landsand for the settlement of competing claims to water resources and land. Today, Federal law recognizes the authority of tribal governments to regulate environmental quality on Indian lands, to regulate hunting and fishing on Indian lands, and to regulate energy development on tribal lands. Today, the relevant expertise in the field of Indian affairs is not a knowledge of FederalIndian programs or natural resources, but an understanding of the governmental status of Indian nationstheir sovereignty and how it is exercisedand the relationship of Indian governments to the State and Federal governments. In short, the function of the Committee on Indian Affairs in today's Senate is one of assuring that the relationship of the United States Government and the Indian tribal governments is premised upon and is carried out in a manner that is consistent with the political and legal foundations that were first recognized in the Constitution. It is in this dynamic climate that the committees of the Congress must rise to the challenge of adapting Federal policy, developing and overseeing Federal programs, to meet the growing demands of the significant metamorphosis that is going on in Indian country today. Within this body, there is also a history of which we should be ever mindful. For the first 150 years, there were standing committees on Indian Affairs in both the House and the Senate. Then, for 30 years, from 1946 until 1976, the Indian affairs function was organized as a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. In 1976, the proposed legislativeh)B0*0*0* reorganization plan would have placed the Indian Affairs Committee in the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. However, the Senate chose to override the legislative reorganization recommendations with respect to Indian affairs and instead authorized the establishment of a Select Committee on Indian Affairs, primarily to oversee the enactment of the recommendations just issued by a joint commission of the Congressthe American Indian Policy Review Commission, which had been established in the 94th Congress and submitted its report to the 95th Congress in 1977. In the years which followed, the logic of consolidating jurisdiction over all of Indian matters in one committee soon became evident. From the time of its reestablishment in 1976, the Indian Affairs Committee, unlike most select committees, was given legislative authority over virtually all aspects of Indian affairs. And, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the Committee on Indian Affairs was made a permanent committee of the Senate in 1984, nearly ten years ago. Perhaps the authors misunderstood the Senate's action in February of this year, when it acted to remove the word ``Select'' from the name of the committeean action which was taken to reflect the reality that the Committee on Indian Affairs is a permanent committee of the Senate with substantive legislative authority over issues of concern to Indian country. In one of the reports that was submitted to the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Congress, the authors recommend that committees be organized to: (1) enable the simultaneous consideration of many important substantive matters; (2) enable the Congress to legislate, investigate, and oversee executive branch behavior across the range of issue areas and executive branch agencies and departments; and (3) assure the development of indepth knowledge and expertise. The authors note further that by structuring committees and creating centers of jurisdiction, the Congress can set priorities and indicate areas of greater or lesser importance. Each of these objectives has been achieved by the Senate in recognizing the need for a permanent standing Committee on Indian Affairs. This report also notes that ``jurisdictional alignments are criticalif an important priority is too fragmented, or gets no attention at all, it will be ignored or delayed.'' I fully agree. Dismantlement of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Indian Affairs would result in precisely the kind of fragmentation that the report's authors warn against. For to assure that the Congress did not abdicate itsh)C0*0*0* constitutionallymandated responsibilities for Indian affairs the oversight of Indian education and health and social services and welfare and employment would have to go to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Committee on Finance; the oversight of the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction by tribal governments would have to go to the Committee on the Judiciary; the oversight of Indian housing programs would have to go to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the oversight of the exercise of tribal governmental regulatory authority over environmental matters would have to go to the Committee on Environment and Public Works; the oversight of Indian agriculture, nutrition and Indian forestry programs would have to go to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; the oversight of Indian treaty fishing rights as they affect the regulation of fishing in international waters or as they are affected by the Magnuson Act or as Alaska natives are affected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act would have to go to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; the oversight of the National Museum of the American Indian within the Smithsonian Institution would have to go to the Committee on Rules and Administration; and the oversight of Indian lands and natural resources and water rights would have to go to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Having served on a few of these committees in my 34 years in the Congress, I know that these other committees are already overburdened. I doubt that even with the best of intentions, they could afford the kind of attention and focus that is enabled by consolidating this jurisdiction in one committee. And of course there are other issues, such as the conduct of gaming activities on Indian lands, Indian sovereignty, the exercise of taxation authority by tribal governments, the protection of Native American religious freedom rights, the economic development of reservation communities, border issues of Indian tribes located on the borders of Mexico and Canada, Indian grave protection and repatriation of sacred artifacts, to mention but a few, that would not easily lend themselves to the jurisdiction or expertise of the existing standing committees. Finally, the authors of this report have asked us to consider the following objectives for congressional reform (1) whether they improve Congress' capacity to deliberate; (2) whether they improve Congress' ability to identify and highlight important problems in society and to oversee the performance of other institutions, including the executive branch; and (3) whether they are able to act on Congress' agenda with competence, representativeness and appropriate dispatch. In addition, the authors observe that: (1) larger committeesh)D0*0*0* have more difficulty deliberating; (2) the appropriate focus for congressional committees should be on substantive areas of policy; (3) committees should be more equal in breadth and workload; (4) there is value in consolidating currently divided jurisdiction in important comprehensive policy areas; (5) it is important for committees to be able to identify and pull together important new policy areas; (6) committee membership must be representative of the institution as a whole; and (7) we should not punish arbitrarily committees that have been assertive and effective. I believe that each of these objectives and considerations are compelling reasons to maintain the Committee on Indian Affairs as a permanent standing committee of the Senate. Over the past 16 years, the committee has grown from a committee of five members to a committee of 18 members in the 103d Congress. I believe that this growth in membership is a direct reflection of the interest and importance that Members now place on assuring that this Nation deals honorably and effectively with its native people. And, while the Committee on Indian Affairs ranks 16th in amount of funds allocated for the operation of the 19 Senate committees, the committee ranks fifth in the number of reported bills and resolutions. The responsibilities of the Congress are to the Indian governments, not to individual Indian citizens as a constituent group. This is reflected in the fact that there is a whole title of the United States Code that spells out the nature of this governmenttogovernment relationship. So, let us balance 30 years of Indian Affairs as a subcommittee against 160 years of Indian Affairs as a permanent standing committee of the Senate and opt for the latter. Our constitutionallymandated responsibilities in the field of Indian affairs should dictate this result. This Nation's first Americans deserve no less. [The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows.] STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley to urge the Committee to incorporate into the congressional reform package strong provisions applying employment and information access laws to the legislative branch. We will introduce our proposal on this shortly as the Congressional Accountability Act of 1994. A summary of the bill is attached to my written testimony. Congress' approval ratings are now at an alltime low, hovering around 29 percent. That is bad for Members of Congress,h)E0*0*0* but it is worse for our country. As a democracy, our government functions well only with the consent of the governed. When people lose confidence in their elected leaders, our whole system of government is at peril. There is no reason why we should not be expected to live by the rules we impose on everyone else, particularly the private sector. If you were to ask the man or woman on the street why they feel this way, one of the first things you are likely to hear is that Congress passes laws putting regulations on people, then exempts itself. This makes the public cynical and sends them a message that we think we are above the law. Clearly we are not, and there is no reason why we should not live by the laws we make. But there is more at stake here than Congress' approval ratings or the symbolism of having Congress abide by the laws it passes. We are talking about the lives of real people. Let's take just one example. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was passed to prevent people from being killed, maimed or injured on the job. Congress' failure to meet OSHA workplace safety standards means that it is putting the healthand possibly even the livesof its workers at risk. The proof is in the pudding. Over the year from July 1992 to June 1993, the Architect of the Capitol's workers compensation claim rate was the second highest in the entire Federal Government. It was second only to the Peace Corps, which sends its workers abroad to live in underdeveloped parts of the world where they are exposed to disease we long ago eradicated. This state of affairs is not just bad public relations, it is bad government. Our employment discrimination laws, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act all similarly contain important safeguards for public and private employees. Collective bargaining has been the cornerstone of our labormanagement laws since the Great Depression. Our employees, those people who help us get our work done, deserve not to be treated as second class citizens simply because they work for us. The bill Senator Grassley and I will introduce is an updated version of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1993, which I sponsored in the Senate and which was first introduced in the House by Congressmen Chris Shays (RCT) and Dick Swett (DNH). Our bill outlines how the Congress, including both houses and all the instrumentalities, can apply to itself laws regarding employment discrimination, working conditions, and health and safety matters. Our bill establishes a legislative branchwide Office of Compliance. The Office of Compliance will be headed by an eight member Board of Directors. It will be bipartisan, appointed by the congressional leaders. To ensure the Board's independence, members will be appointed for a fixed term. They will not be eligible for reappointment, and they can only be removed for cause. h)F0*0*0*ԌThe role of the Board is to function as a legislativebranch equivalent of the executive enforcement agencies. The Board will issue regulations implementing congressional compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Labor Management Relations Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. The Board must issue final regulations within 180 days of the appointment of the Executive Director of the Office, and once issued, the final regulations are binding upon all members and entities of the Legislative Branch. The regulations may be disapproved only by a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses. The bill also will build on the dispute resolution procedures under the Government Employees Rights Act of 1991. Complainants must go through counseling and mediation before the Office of Compliance convenes a hearing board. However, once the hearing board makes a decision, the parties have the right directly to seek judicial review. The scope of this review will be dictated by the review available to private parties under the applicable law. In Title VII employment discrimination cases, for example, this would mean de novo judicial review. The Office is also allowed to seek the assistance of the Department of Labor and other Executive Branch enforcement authorities to conduct inspections or audits to assure compliance with, for example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Our bill will implement the recommendations of the Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Specifically: *XThe Senate members of the JCOC recommended that the Senate should ``adopt procedures for applying to itself, to the maximum extent possible, laws regarding employment discrimination, working conditions, and health and safety matters.'' This bill does that. (# *XThe Senate members wrote, ``The enforcement office and its procedures should be as independent as practicable, and [Senate] employees should have a right of judicial review comparable to the private sector.'' This bill does that. (# *XThe Senate members recommended that ``The Congress should adopt a single set of procedures for applying to the congressional instrumentalities, to the maximum extent possible, laws regarding employment discrimination, working conditions, and health and safety matters.'' This bill does that.(# *XThe Senate members recommended, ``There should be a single enforcement office, it should be as independent as practicable, and employees of such instrumentalities should have a right of judicial review equal to or greater than that currently enjoyed.'' This bill would do that as well.(# For clarity, our bill takes the approach of specifying theh)G0*0*0* laws which will apply to Congress. There are, of course, many more laws that we have passed. If we identify other laws that should apply, we can expand this list. But it is possible that, try as we might, we will miss some laws that should apply. The Board of Directors is required, therefore, to survey all other laws and to report back within 2 years with recommendations as to any additional laws that should also be applied to Congress. To protect our constitutional system of checks and balances, we need to observe the separation of powers. But the separation of powers cannot continue to be an excuse for inaction. In our bill, we have a strict separation of powers. The Office of Compliance, which is established as an agency of the legislative branch, is the only entity empowered to enforce the listed laws with respect to the Congress. The judicial branch is allowed to review these decisions, but only to the same extent as it reviews claims against the executive branch that have been adjudicated by an executive branch enforcement authority. It is time to move forward and eliminate what the American people properly perceive to be an outrage. To the fullest extent allowable under the Constitution, Congress must become subject to the very same laws it enacts. In that way, we can help rebuild the trust and confidence of the American people, and assure our workers that they will have a safer, more humane workplace. I also believe that Congress will pay more attention to the impact of the laws we write, knowing full well that those laws will apply to us, just as surely as they apply to the rest of the American people. That is the kind of accountability the American people deserve and justice demands. I urge the Committee to incorporate the Congressional Accountability Act of 1994 into whatever congressional reform legislation is passed out of Committee. The CHAIRMAN. We will stand in recess until the arrival of Senator Grassley, who is in the Finance Committee at the moment, and who I understand should be here around quarter to 12:00. [Recess.] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The distinguished Senator from Iowa Mr. Grassley is here. Senator, we are delighted that you are here and appreciate your patience this morning. We will take a short presentation and place your full statement in the record, or however you would like to do it. I would also like to announce that we will hold the record open until 5:00 this afternoon, if that is all right with Senator Cochran. There are some Senators who have not yet submitted their statements. I understand one member of the committee, Senatorh)H0*0*0* Moynihan would like to put a statement in the record, so I want to make that announcement. We will hold the record open until 5 p.m., in order to accommodate our colleagues. Senator Grassley, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, Senator Lieberman would have testified before I did on this very same subject. He had to go with the President to Connecticut today, so I am asking to submit a copy of his statement. The CHAIRMAN. That is already a matter of record, Senator, and his statement will be included. We appreciate your courtesy to Senator Lieberman. Senator GRASSLEY. He also would include a summary of the legislation. I am here today to visit with you on the subject that has a lot of familiarity to all of you on this committee, and that is congressional coverage under labor and employment laws. All of you who are here today know about our debate in 1991 on the Civil Rights Act, when Senator Mitchell and I worked out a compromise on that issue. Our amendment, for the first time, applies civil rights laws to the Senate. I said at that time that the Grassley-Mitchell amendment was just the start, that we would have to cover Congress with all the employment laws, and that we would need comparable enforcement mechanisms which exist for the private sector. I am pleased to introduce with Senator Lieberman, just as soon as we get the legislative language put together, something that builds on the efforts of the Grassley-Mitchell amendment. We hope that you will consider our bill as part of the comprehensive congressional reform initiative. I would like to tell you some of the features of the bill, which I believe are necessary, if we are to respond to the American people's interest in Congress living under the same laws that we pass for the rest of the Nation. First, the bill will include all employment laws, civil rights, wage and hour, collective bargaining and OSHA. Second, the bill will also include coverage under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts for the administrative offices of the House and Senate, like disbursing, the service department and others, and the instrumentalities of the Congress. Third, the provisions of the laws will be enforced by an independent agency which we will call in our bill the Office of Compliance. It is an eight-person board appointed by the leadership of both houses to oversee the office. The office will work toh)I0*0*0* resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment, minimum wage or overtime pay, denial of family/medical leave, unfair labor practices, health and safety violations. The procedures of the office will be the same as those now used by the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices, which include counseling, mediation and formal complaint and hearing processes. Fourth, there will be a right to proceed in Federal court, if either party is not satisfied with the results before the office. And where the law authorizes de novo review, as in the Civil Rights Act, the party may seek a trial. And where the law authorizes appellate review, as would be the case in labor relations law, the party then would seek the same appellate review in a Federal court of appeals that a private citizen would seek, if they had a similar complaint against a private employer. Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Americans With Disabilities Commission will inspect congressional offices at least once every Congress to ensure compliance with those laws. Senator Lieberman and I believe that the framework that we are proposing withstands any criticism on constitutional grounds. While I do not believe that there would be a separation of powers problem with executive branch enforcement, I know that many of my colleagues have such concerns. So we will have an independent congressional agency investigate and adjudicate these complaints in the first instance. Some may complain about the costs of creating a new congressional bureaucracy. We cannot avoid application of laws because it costs too much. I think that is plain and simple. Just like every American, we will have to make some choices about how to use resources, and they are scarce resources, to run the Congress. A portion of the congressional reform package deals with abolishing some committees and subcommittees. Some of the savings realized from restructuring Congress could go to funding our compliance provisions. There will be costs associated with congressional coverage, obviously, but every American and every business incurs costs in order to comply with the laws Congress passes. Now that Congress will feel the costs, perhaps Congress will be more cautious in imposing burdensome regulations. Now, I am not suggesting in any way that any of the laws that have been on the books for several decades and that we are applying to Congress would in any way be wrong or should be changed. But I am suggesting that if there are problems with the enforcement of these laws, we should find alternative ways of enforcing these obligations in a cost-effective way. Senator Lieberman and I look forward to working with you on our bill. We hope that it will have your support. We strongly believe this is the right thing to do, and the time for action ish)J0*0*0* long overdue. Covering Congress with these laws will begin to restore confidence Americans should have in their legislative branch. The people mistrust Congress for a lot of reasons, and probably this one is not the most important one, but this is one issue which always comes up, as you know, of an interest on the part of our constituents. I thank you very much for taking the time. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens: Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm here to talk about a subject that has some familiarity to you: congressional coverage under the labor and employment laws. You were both involved during the consideration of the 1991 Civil Rights Act, when Senator Mitchell and I worked out a compromise on this issue. Our amendment, for the first time, applied the civil rights laws to the Senate. I said at that time that the GrassleyMitchell amendment was just a start; that we would have to cover Congress with all the employment laws; and that we would need comparable enforcement mechanisms which exist for the private sector. I'm pleased to be here with Senator Lieberman to describe to you our effort to build on the 1991 GrassleyMitchell amendment. We hope that you will consider our bill as part of the comprehensive congressional reform initiative. Let me tell you about some of the features of this bill which I believe are necessary if we are to face the American people and tell them we are prepared to live by the same laws we pass for them. First, the bill will include all employment laws: civil rights, wage and hour, collective bargaining, and occupational safety and health. Second, the bill will also include coverage under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts for the administrative offices of the House and Senate (like Disbursing, the Service Department) and the instrumentalities. Third, the provisions of the laws will be enforced by an independent agency which we call the Office of Compliance. An 8person board, appointed by the Leadership of both houses, will oversee the office. The office will work to resolve complaints of discrimination harassment, minimum wage or overtime pay, denial of family/medicalh)K0*0*0* leave, unfair labor practices, health or safety violations. The procedures of the office will be the same as those now used by the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices: counseling, mediation and formal complaint and hearing. Fourth, there will be a right to proceed in Federal court if either party is not satisfied with the results before the office. Where the law authorizes de novo review, as in the Civil Rights Act, the party may seek a trial. And, where the law authorizes appellate review, as in the Federal Labor Relations Act, the party may seek appellate review in a Federal Court or Appeals. Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Americans with Disabilities Commission will inspect congressional offices at least once every Congress to ensure compliance with these laws. Senator Lieberman and I believe that the framework we are proposing withstands any criticism on constitutional grounds. While I don't believe there would be separation of powers problems with Executive branch enforcement, I know many of my colleagues have such concerns. So we will have an independent congressional agency investigate and adjudicate these complaints in the first instance. Some will complain about the costs of creating a new congressional bureaucracy. We can't avoid application of the laws because it costs too much. Just like every American, we will have to make some choices about how to use our scarce resources. A portion of the congressional reform package deals with abolishing some committees and subcommittees. Some of the savings realized from restructuring Congress can go to funding the Office of Compliance. There will be costs associated with congressional coverage. But every American and every business incurs costs in order to comply with the laws Congress passes. Now that Congress will feel the costs, perhaps Congress will be more cautious in imposing burdensome regulation. (I'm not suggesting that we abolish civil rights or employment laws. But I am suggesting we find alternative ways of enforcing these obligations in a cost effective way.) Senator Lieberman and I look forward to working with you on our bill. We hope it will have your support. We strongly believe this is the right thing to do, and the time for action is long overdue. Covering Congress with these laws will begin to restore confidence Americans should have in the Legislative branch. Senator COCHRAN. [Presiding.] Senator, let me say that the Chairman has asked me to preside and wind up this hearing of the committee. I want to thank you for bringing this suggestion to the attention of the Rules Committee. It is something that you have felt very strongly about, obviously, for a long time. You haveh)L0*0*0* offered amendments on the floor of the Senate and other legislation on this subject, and it certainly has provoked I think a greater degree of sensitivity in the Senate to these issues. I share some of the concerns that others have expressed that since we are dealing with a political institution in which we are directly responsible in the election process for all of our conduct and the conduct of our staff, it would be unwise to establish an adversarial relationship between staff and Senators. Let me ask you this: Would it be appropriate to extend the wage and hour laws and other worker protection regulations to Federal election campaign organizations, as well? What would be the difference in the rights of a staff member in an election campaign office and one who was working for a Senator after he was elected? Would you like to have your campaign staff, for example, subject to the wage and hour rules of overtime and promotion on the basis of-- Senator GRASSLEY. Are you saying that as a separate or as an actual extension of what I am proposing here? Senator COCHRAN. As an actual extension of what you are proposing. Senator GRASSLEY. I suppose the only honest answer for me to give you is I have not given it any thought, and I have not. You know, whatever we do in our campaigns we are not imposing on the rest of society. We are subject, as a business organization in a campaign, to a lot of the laws that are already applicable to all of society. On the other hand, what you and I do in our offices, we are, first of all, being supported by the taxpayers in that effort, and, secondly, we have specifically exempted ourselves from those laws that we apply to the rest of society. I will not go into the quote, but we always use the quote of James Madison who said that this system of exemption will not work. He believed the laws that we pass should apply to us as they do to the rest of society. That way, we are going to be in tune, and not become an elitist organization. Senator COCHRAN. Most people do not realize that we are all subject to the same laws as everybody. Some think that we are somehow exempt. You are not suggesting that we are exempt? Senator GRASSLEY. I would say that there would only be now 12 laws, if you include the civil rights laws as we reapply them through this bill. There would be 12 laws that we have exempted ourselves from. I try to be very explicit in that as I deal with my constituents, that there are X number of laws, I mean that there is a specific number. This came up in our press conference yesterday, as Senator Lieberman and I were discussing this. One of the people in theh)M0*0*0* press asked are you sure it covers all laws, would you be covered by all laws. We think we have covered ourselves by all laws we have exempted ourselves from in this bill. If anybody can find any, it is our intention to have them applicable, as well. Senator COCHRAN. So we would establish this as a rule of the Senate, sort of by reference, to incorporate the laws that we have passed dealing with employee rights, in effect, is that not right? Senator GRASSLEY. We could do it through rules, but this would do it through statute, as well. By the way, this is kind of a bicameral compromise, as well, as there were two members of the House that joined us in working this bill out over the last 6 months. This is one of these where we hope that we can do compromise enough so that we do not get into this argument that we have for so long: well, we can do in the Senate what we want to do, but the House will not let us tell them what to do. So we kind of do it by law, so it is applicable to both. But it can be done by rule or it can be done by laws. But to the extent to which it is applicable to both, it would be better to do it by law. Senator COCHRAN. Again, I sincerely congratulate you on bringing these suggestions to the attention of the committee in this context, in the reorganization of the Congress. I know that they will be carefully considered, and we thank you for being here and adding to the quality of the hearing. Senator GRASSLEY. We would hope that it would be included in your plan, and we hope that the reorganization plan goes ahead. If we do not have a reorganization plan that can be passed this year, I hope that as colleagues of ours, whether it is this committee's jurisdiction or not, we hope that we can move this provision separately, if it cannot be part of the overall package. Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. Inasmuch as the other witnesses are submitting their statements for the record, this hearing of the committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] & ă $ ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORDă STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am delighted to have the opportunity to submit testimony on this first day of hearings on the work completed last year by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. That committee took the first steph)N0*0*0* toward restoring public confidence in the U.S. Congress which is at an all time low point, and I applaud the committee's efforts and hard work. Now, it is up to the Rules Committee and the full Senate to make the hard decisions that will put us back on track with what the public expects and deserves from us. During the hearings before the Joint Committee, one of the witnesses, Roger H. Davidson from the University of Maryland, referred to a very troubling public opinion poll. According to that poll, a mere seventeen percent of all Americans have confidence in the work being done by Congress. Regardless of how sincere and steadfast our efforts are to reform the manner in which we conduct business, if steps are not taken to reduce spending on the operations of Congress, those efforts will fall short. The proposal by the Joint Committee for a Performance Review with the goal of downsizing staff deserves special mention. I agree that acrosstheboard reductions would be unfair, unwise, and possibly injurious to some. Whatever changes we choose to endorse, they must lead to a reduction in our operating expenses and a method of restraining what, to some observers, appears to be the unbridled growth of committee staff. Following is a chart that traces committee staff growth from 1950 to 1992: BR~ #҇YearO0*0*0* Number of Staff8O0*0*0*OO0*0*8ԯ1950O0*0*0* 3008O0*0*0*OO0*0*8ԯ1960O0*0*0* 4708O0*0*0*pOO0*0*8ԯ1970pO0*0*0* 6358pO0*0*0*8OpO0*0*8ԯ19808O0*0*0* 1,19188O0*0*0*O8O0*0*8ԯ1990O0*0*0* 1,2128O0*0*0*OO0*0*8ԯ1992O0*0*0* 1,2578O0*0*0*OO0*0*8ԯ XO0*0*0* 8O0*0*0* OO0*0*8ԯ O0*0*0* 8 O0*0*0*O O0*0*8ԯThis chart shows that the size of committee staff has quadrupled since 1950. In 1950 fewer staff did the work of all the Senate Committees than it takes to do the work of just three committees today. Now, some will argue that our workload has increased tremendously and the staff size has grown in concert with the workload. That is a very good argument, but it does not account for the disproportionate growth in size of the staffs of some committees. Since the beginning of the committee system as we know it today, we have seen a steady growth in the size of committee staffs. Some of that growth is understandable, but some is not. For the past several years, I have been working to cut the size and cost of Congressional committee staff. The task in whichh)O0*0*0* we are now engaged is a golden opportunity to make serious reforms in this area. Furthermore, a poll of Members that was conducted by the Joint Committee indicates that 77.6 percent of those who responded to the survey believe that committee staffs should be cut. Regrettably, my efforts to do just that did not receive such resounding support. I offered an amendment to the committee funding resolution for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 that would have capped the number of available committee staff positions at 1990 levels. All that I sought to accomplish was to limit the growth of staff on committees, some of which seem to be overstaffed. The Committees on Labor and Human Resources, the Judiciary, and Governmental Affairs each employs well over 100 staff members. My amendment would have permitted smaller committees to increase the number of staff positions only if an equal reduction were made in one of the big three committees. My amendment, which simply would have capped committee staff levels, was defeated. Last year, with the same goal in mindreducing staff levels in the oversized committees and curtailing Congressional spendingI tried a different approach. Believing that few committees have a greater workload than the Finance Committee, I used its budget as a benchmark. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over Social Security, over trade issues, over Medicare and Medicaid, and working out health care reform. No one can deny that the Finance Committee has its work cut out for itself. Yet, it operated very efficiently with 63 staff positions in 1992. Last year, the Finance Committee even cut one staff position to a total of 62, as opposed to the Labor Committee with a whopping 124 staff positions. Something is definitely out of synch in this system. My amendment would have reduced the funding levels of all the committees, except Appropriations, to 95 percent of their 1992 funding levels. Then, any committees whose funds were in excess of the Finance Committee would be reduced to the same level as the Finance Committee. Also, I exempted the Appropriations Committee from the reduction since it has the daunting task of looking at the work of all the authorizing committees. The Committee Chairmen from Judiciary, Governmental Affairs and Labor all came to the floor to rebuke me for holding up the Finance Committee, on which I serve, as some sort of model to which they should aspire. Certainly that was not my purpose. My purpose was to shed light on the disproportionate staffing and budget levels enjoyed by some committees and paid for by the taxpayers. I was interested to see that the Joint Committee's proposed reforms of the Senate committee system include designating ``Super A'' committees as well as A, B, and C committees. As you know, the Super A committees would be Appropriations, Armed Services,h)P0*0*0* Finance, and Foreign Relations. The A committees would include Labor and Human Resources, Judiciary, and Governmental Affairs. It is my hope that in making recommendations on downsizing committee staff, you pay particular attention to the disparity in staff size between the proposed Super A committees and the A committees. 1993 Committee Staff Sizes BR~ #BP|#҇AppropriationsxQ0*0*0* 828xQ0*0*0*@QxQ0*0*8ԯArmed Services@Q0*0*0* 528@Q0*0*0*Q@Q0*0*8ԯFinanceQ0*0*0* 628Q0*0*0*QQ0*0*8ԯForeign RelationsQ0*0*0* 588Q0*0*0*QQ0*0*8ԯGovernmental AffairsQ0*0*0* 1208Q0*0*0*` QQ0*0*8ԯJudiciary` Q0*0*0* 1288` Q0*0*0*( Q` Q0*0*8ԯLabor and Human Resources( Q0*0*0* 1248( Q0*0*0* Q( Q0*0*8ԯ I agree with the Joint Committee that the workload of Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations is tremendous. The Joint Committee is correct in its recommendation that senators be limited to service on just one of these terribly important panels. We should commend the staffs of these committees for their consistently fine work. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that the recommendation to designate super committees underscores my longheld belief that the Governmental Affairs, Judiciary, and Labor Committees are grossly overstaffed. I believe that we should take steps now to reduce the staff size of these three committees. It is my hope that the proposal that you bring before the full Senate will take a bold and immediate step to cut, where it is evident, overstaffing which wastes the taxpayers dollars. I also would like to take this opportunity to commend the Joint Committee on many of its recommendations, especially with regard to Congressional compliance with the laws that we approve, returning unused funds to the Treasurya practice I have abided by since coming to the Senateand improving accountability to the public in ethical questions. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. COHEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE; HON. NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS; HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; AND HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Last year we served as members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. There we received hundreds of hours of scholarly and practical testimony on the necessity for a significant reorganization of how Congress conducts business. The unique bipartisan structure and rules of this joint committee coupled with the very able leadership of its cochairmen and covice chairmen, enabled the committee to transcend partisan issues and get down into the core issues, problems and potential solutions. It would be an understatement to say that we received thousands of suggestions. The committee thoughtfully assessed theh)Q0*0*0* ideas and measured them against a basic criteriawill this change strengthen our legislative capacity. In the ``Federalist Papers'' James Madison said that the ``job of Congress is to refine and enlarge [the] public view'' and if a proposal did neither it was set aside. The result of our collective, and in the end unanimous, efforts is the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. Our hope is that the Rules Committee will act both favorably and expeditiously and report a worthwhile congressional reform legislation to the full Senate. We approached our task not with a preconceived list of fixes, but with open minds. We avoided the syndrome of starting with answers and then crafting the questions. The testimony from our colleagues, former members, and numerous congressional experts indicated that perhaps one of the primary underlying concerns was the lack of focus. In fact, Senator Byrd said it best when he used the word ``fractured'' in his testimony to our joint committee. By fractured, Senator Byrd meant that senators are spread too thin among our various responsibilities weakening the ability of Congress to deliberate and legislate. This root cause was addressed by the Joint Committee by dealing with substantive issues like number of committees and number of assignments. These changes directly address concerns voiced by the public on matters like accountability. These deliberations caused the joint committee's report to address: committee structure, budget process, floor procedures, staffing and support agencies, application of laws to Congress, ethics rules, and legislative and executive relations. While there were disagreements on some of the details, the members felt very strongly about advancing the reform process with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. We would like to reaffirm our support for this legislation. Absent the constraints of tradition and the status quo, no doubt our Joint Committee recommendations would have been far more bold. Yet we believe there are many additional recommendations, such as those outlined in our report, filed last year which deserve your attention. They will directly resolve the problem raised by Senator Byrd. A reading of these additional comments to the final report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress will highlight other legitimate reform initiatives. We commend the Rules Committee for taking up consideration of this matter in such a timely fashion and for establishing a comprehensive schedule of hearings. From the valuable contributions of both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee as members of the Joint Committee, we know their real commitment to offer and implement meaningful improvements in the way Congress operates. We believe the Rules Committee will play a vital role and build upon our efforts as they fashion a congressional reform billh)R0*0*0* which will make the necessary tangible reforms. We believe that this legislation provides an excellent starting point for real progress in strengthening Congress. We look forward to working with the Rules Committee. ` STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Chairman Ford, Senator Stevens, and members of the Rules Committee, I want to thank you for your invitation to appear before you today to testify on the issue of congressional reorganization. I am pleased to join my good friend and the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, in providing this committee with a background on the history, jurisdiction, and responsibilities of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, a wise man once said, ``Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the lessons of history.'' In the context of federalIndian relations, nothing would be more tragic. Indeed, as you will note from my testimony, in almost every instance where a change has occurred in federalIndian policy, it is the Indian people who have always suffered for the convenience of those in Washington. After reviewing the attached memorandum from the Congressional Research Service on the history of committees on Indian affairs in the House and Senate from the 1st to the 103d Congresses, it is interesting to note that changes in Congressional committee structure have often been followed by significant and profoundly devastating changes in federalIndian policy. For example, after the Legislative Reorganization Act was passed in 1946, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee was one of five committees combined into the new Senate Public Lands Committee. Six years later, the termination era, one of the darkest chapters in federalIndian policy, became the dominant federal policy for the next two decades. Perhaps the goal of congressional reform was achieved, but the Indian people were forgotten. I am not here to argue against congressional reform. I believe the Congress is in need of reformbut not at the expense of those who have benefitted least from our experience under the constitution. From time immemorial, tribes have been and will continue to be permanent governmental bodies exercising those basic powers of government, as do federal and state governments, to fulfill the needs of their members. Under our constitutional system of government, the right of tribes to be selfgoverning and to share in our federal system must not be diminished. Mr. Chairman, our constitution confers on the Congress the ultimate authority and responsibility for the relations between the Federal government and the tribes. With this authority and responsibility comes the duty to ensure the fulfillment of the trust. These are not passing whims or fancies of the day. They areh)S0*0*0* solemn legal and, I believe, moral obligations which are deeply embedded in our history as a nation. The renowned scholar, Felix Cohen, perhaps said it best: XX` ` ``Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall of our political faith***.''x` The very 1st Congress spent much of its time in 1789 and 1790 enacting legislation relating to Indians. During that Congress, the War Department was established and was delegated substantial responsibility over Indian affairs. The Northwest Ordinance was enacted with the famous pledge that ``the utmost good faith shall always be observed toward Indians.'' The first of several Trade and Intercourse Acts were enacted to prohibit the acquisition of Indian lands by nonIndians without Federal approval. During this same period, Secretary of War Henry Knox advised President Washington on the military necessity for negotiating with tribes as nations. Knox believed that this policy was also necessary to distinguish the national character of the new American government from the previous conduct of the British colonial government toward the Indian nations. Secretary Knox stated that: XX` ` ``But, in future, the obligations of policy humanity, the justice, together with that respect which every nation sacredly owes to its own reputation, unite in requiring a noble, liberal, and disinterested administration of Indian affairs.''x` For most of the next one hundred years, the Congress and the President exerted considerable effort to negotiate, ratify and implement treaties between the United States and the Indian tribes. In 1832, the responsibility for Indian affairs was shifted from the Department of War to the Department of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs became responsible for negotiating the treaties and implementing their provisions. The treaties between the United States and the tribes all vary in some particulars. However, they also contain some common principles and provisions. The underlying concept of every treaty was that the tribes agreed to cede vast land areas to the United States while reserving to themselves a permanent homeland. In return for the ceded lands, the United States promised to provide protection against encroachment by nonIndians. Tribes were assured that they could continue to govern their own affairs free from interference by local authorities. Many of the treaties promised Federal assistance in the development of agriculture, education, health and various economic pursuits. The treaty era formally ended in 1871 when the Congressh)T0*0*0* declared that the United States would no longer negotiate treaties with the tribes. Soon thereafter, in 1887, Congress enacted the first of a series of allotment acts. Under these laws, the reservations were to be broken up into parcels owned by individual Indians. The intent of Congress was to encourage Indian people to become farmers and promote the nonIndian concept of individual ownership of land. Much has been written about both the purpose and effects of the allotment acts. It is not my purpose here to revisit the controversy which surrounds these laws. However, it is important to understand the consequences of the allotment era if we are to understand the situation of Indian people today. When the allotment process began in 1887, there were about 138 million acres of land in Indian ownership. When the allotment era ended in 1934, there were 52 million acres of land left in Indian ownership. In less than 50 years, 86 million acres of land passed out of Indian ownership. Perhaps of even greater significance was the fact that the allotment program devastated Indian cultures and traditional forms of governance. The legacy of the allotment era is with us today in many forms. Checkerboard jurisdictions and fractionated land ownership are but two consequences of the allotment era which hinder proper management of Indian resources and the exercise of tribal selfgovernance. The allotment era was replaced with a renewed federal emphasis on tribal selfgovernance with the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. Tribes were encouraged to adopt constitutions and reassert control over their internal affairs. Some Federal efforts were made to consolidate the tribal land base and to improve the management of tribal natural resources. Most tribes expended great effort to reassert their inherent sovereign powers of selfgovernance and to once again take control of their reservations. During the 1950's Federal policy shifted again. Congress began the era of termination with the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 108. Although the Indian Reorganization Act was not repealed, it became official Federal policy to terminate the existence of federallyrecognized tribal governments. Like the allotment policy of an earlier era, the termination policy led to disastrous results. President Nixon best summarized the situation in his 1970 Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs: XX` ` ``***The removal of Federal trusteeship responsibility has produced considerable disorientation among the affected Indians and has left them unable to relate to a myriad of Federal, State and local assistance efforts. Their economic and social condition has often been worse after termination than it was before*** The very threat that this (trust) relationship may someday be ended has created a great deal of apprehension among Indian groups and this apprehension, in turn, has hadh)U0*0*0* a blighting effect on tribal progress. Any step that might result in greater social, economic or political autonomy is regarded with suspicion by many Indians who fear that it will only bring them closer to the day when the Federal government will disown its responsibility and cut them adrift.x` XX` ` ``In short, one extreme policy, forced termination, has often worked to produce the opposite extreme: excessive dependence on the Federal government. In many cases this dependence is so great that the Indian community is almost entirely run by outsiders who are responsible and responsible to Federal officials in Washington, D.C., rather than to the communities they are supposed to be serving.''x` The termination era officially ended when House Concurrent Resolution 108 was finally repudiated and repealed during the 100th Congress. Our current Federal policy of tribal selfdetermination came about in 1975 as a result of the proposal contained in President Nixon's Special Message to Congress in 1970. The goals of the selfdetermination policy are to reduce Federal domination of Indian programs and services while strengthening tribal capabilities and capacities for selfgovernance. As we know from the hearings held on the SelfDetermination Act during the last Congress, the policy has generally worked and has been enthusiastically embraced by the tribes. Mr. Chairman, I have gone on at some length here and I have not even touched upon the substantial body of law relating to Indian affairs which has been developed by the Federal courts. I do want to say that the courts have been much more consistent in their handling of Indian affairs than has been the case here in Congress. The courts have been extremely diligent in their protection of the inherent authority of the tribes to regulate their own affairs. They have also been consistent in their view that the Congress possesses the ultimate authority and responsibility for Indian affairs. As this committee considers the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, I believe it is important that we avoid the mistakes of the past. In this regard, it is abundantly clear that abrupt swings in Federal policy toward Indians have always produced negative results. In his testimony before the Joint Committee, Mr. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has suggested that Chairman Inouye and I are attempting to make the Committee on Indian Affairs permanent in order to avoid its elimination. Mr. Ornstein also stated that the origin of the Indian Affairs Committee was ``to deal with a specific problem.'' (Presumably, Mr.h)V0*0*0* Ornstein's membership on the Stevenson Committee also made him an expert on Indian affairs.) Not only did Mr. Ornstein fail to recognize that the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has been a permanent committee since 1984, but he appears to hold the view that the devastating consequences of over two centuries of vacillating federalIndian policies can be reduced to a single problem and miraculously solved by a ``Select'' Committee within a brief period of time. Such a viewpoint ignores the fact that our country long ago undertook solemn legal and moral obligations to the original inhabitants of this Nation. Unfortunately, inconsistent federal policies, inept and often corrupt management of the federal government's trust responsibility for Native Americans and their resources have helped perpetuate an appalling standard of living for Indians. Mr. Chairman, it has also come to my attention that some hold the view that the Committee on Indian Affairs has become too much of an advocate for Native Americans. Well, let's examine some of the socioeconomic conditions which these people must contend with on a daily basis to see whether it is necessary for someoneanyoneto advocate on behalf of Native Americans. According to the 1980 census, there are about 1 1/2 million Native Americanshalf of whom reside on reservationshalf of whom live below the national poverty level. Those who live below the poverty level are not marginally poor. They live vastly below even the standards we set for poor people. Over onefifth of Indians are twice as poor as those Americans who live at the poverty level. Over onehalf of adult Indians are considered unemployed. Most other Indians have long ago abandoned hope of finding employment and are not counted among the unemployed. Of those Indians who are fortunate to have found employment, the majority work for less than $7,000 a year. The Indian population is expanding rapidly. The number of Indians who are eligible for Federal services has doubled since 1975. On many reservations, most of the population is under 18 years of age. By the year 2000, most Navajos will be under the age of 10. The paradox of dramatic growth in Native American population is that it occurs while Indian mortality rates remain incredibly high. On the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the infant mortality rate is 400 percent greater than the national average. Nationwide, only 1 of every 8 Americans dies before the age of 45, but 3 out of 8 Indians will not see their 45th birthday. Medical care for Indians has improved somewhat over the abysmal conditions that Indians have had to endure for most of this century. However, there is little cause for rejoicing as medical conditions for Indians remain inexcusably inadequate. Every 1,400h)W0*0*0* Indians must share the services of one doctor. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the director of the Indian Health Services (IHS) has warned that IHS has become a health care rationing agency rather than a health care provider. Because of inadequate funding for IHS, 26,000 Indians were denied necessary medical care last year. Today, most IHS care is limited to treating only emergency conditions. This inventory of misery for Native Americans is virtually limitless. Every aspect of Indian life is included. There is an enormous shortage of housing for Indian families. Many homes are without running water. There is an appalling lack of community sanitary facilities like wastewater treatment systems and landfills. No less than housing, education is also an elusive acquirement for Indians. Little more than half of Native Americans graduate from high school. For some tribes, the dropout rate soars to as high as 75 percent. A college education is a luxury that few Indians enjoy7 percent to be precise. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has often responded to these desperate conditions of Indian lifeconditions which certainly qualify as dire emergenciesby reducing funding for Indian programs. Since 1975, appropriations for Indian programs have declined by 40 percent in constant dollars. Even more mystifying, is that these reductions occurred while all other domestic spending steadily increased. Mr. Chairman, all Americans resent unwanted governmental interference in their affairs. But we do not expect governmental indifference to our gravest problems. The quiet internalization of despair among Indians has deadly consequences. Alcohol and substance abuse are epidemic. Alcoholism among Native Americans is reportedly greater than six timessix timesthe national average. Mr. Chairman, there is little reason to hope that these grim statistics will differ when the results of the 1990 census are examined. Our work is not complete. Over the long and tragic course of America's treatment of them, Indian leaders have persistently urged the Federal government to work with them to arrive at sensible solutions to their problems. In 1961, at a meeting in Chicago of over 400 tribal leaders, that request was eloquently renewed in this urgent appeal: XX` ` ``What we ask of America is not charity, not paternalism, even when benevolent. We ask only that the nature of our situation be recognized and made the basis of policy and action.''x` The Rules Committee must ask itself a fundamental question: How can the Congress and, more specifically, the Senate best strengthen and improve the capacity of Federal and tribal governments to effectively and efficiently provide necessaryh)X0*0*0* programs and services to the Indian people? I believe the answer to that question is that a permanent Committee on Indian Affairs must be maintained. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs exists to ensure that all levels of government possess the integrity, accountability and capability to meet the needs of Indian citizens. We must make certain that the Indian people are receiving the full benefit to be derived from their trust lands and resources as well as the full benefits of programs and services which are intended for their assistance and wellbeing. To do this without an Indian Affairs Committee would require virtually all Senate Committees to exercise some degree of jurisdiction over Indian affairs. One does not have to guess what the consequences might be under such a fragmented system. Federal programs enacted prior to the establishment of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, reveal that Indian people and their homelands were virtually ignored or subjected to inappropriate policies the consequences of which continue to haunt us all today. Federal environmental programs offer a good example. The environmental problems on Indian lands are serious, widespread, and complex. Yet most Americans and Members of Congress are unaware of how much our Nation is comprised of Indian lands. The total land mass of Indian reservations is equal to the size of New England and the state of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey combined. The Navajo Nation alone is equal to the size of the State of West Virginia. In monetary terms, the funds that are needed to address environmental problems on Indian lands are enormous, and far beyond the scarce resources of Indian tribes. What has been the federal response? A 1989 EPA report found that $48 billion had been awarded to States and cities under title II of the Clean Water Act, while only $25 million had been awarded to Indian tribes despite a documented need for at least $750 million. In other words, in the first fifteen years of federal aid under this landmark legislation, Indian tribes received less than onehalf of one percent of available funds. Their needs were virtually ignored. In July 1992, the EPA issued a report subtitled ``Environmental Risk in Indian Country.'' On page 2, the report states: XX` ` ``Before 1984, EPA's regulatory programs did not take into account the unique constitutional status of Indian lands. In addition, most of EPA's authorizing legislation had no language addressing responsibility for environmental protection on Indian lands. As a result, while EPA has fostered its partnership with the States, environmental protection on Indian lands often lagged behind.''x` h)Y0*0*0*ԌThe report goes on to conclude: XX` ` ``***most Indian tribes lack inadequate environmental infrastructure on which to base sound environmental management decisions. Over the past 20 years, while EPA established partnerships with the States, tribes were underserved due to legal uncertainties and political powerlessness. While EPA's Indian policy established necessary framework for creating strong tribal EPA partnerships, tribes still often lack the infrastructure, resources, and expertise to sustainedly manage their lands.x` XX` ` ``The vulnerability is all the more critical when the risk profile for American Indians is extended out into the future. Tribes are among the fastest growing population groups in the U.S., a trend that will place additional pressures on limited reservation resources. Already tribes face endemic poverty and severe unemployment and are investigating a variety of options to increase employment and income on reservations.x` XX` ` ``All of these options, from oil and gas development to tourism to waste disposal, will have environmental impacts that will require planning and management.x` XX` ` ``As the pressure to pursue these developments increases, will tribes have the resources to address the problems they bring? Unless EPA makes significant changes, the answer to this questions will be no.''x` Since 1987, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has held numerous oversight hearings concerning environmental problems on Indian lands and has begun to develop both short and long term solutions to these problems. In doing so, the committee has worked closely with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. While we do not always agree on the appropriate course of action, the fact is that we have been able to make considerable progress at reversing decades of oversight and neglect. The Committee on Indian Affairs has worked with other committees of jurisdiction to address tribal needs or concerns on legislation intended for the wellbeing of all Americans, such as tax incentives, education, AIDS, agriculture, energy, veterans affairs, job training programs, and small business. The point is that while the issues confronting Indian country today reach far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Indian Affairs, we are able to identify problems and develop solutions because of theh)Z0*0*0* expertise we have developed and because of our status as a permanent full committee. The Indian Affairs Committee is vested with the primary legislative and oversight responsibilities for federal programs and policies intended for the benefit and wellbeing of the Indian people, such as Indian land and water settlements, Indian health care, Indian education, Indian gaming, and Indian housing. Again, because of the expertise we have developed and because of our status as a permanent full committee we have been able to begin reversing decades of paternalistic federal control over Indian programs. One example of the committee's work with Indian tribes to further the goal of tribal selfdetermination is the enactment in 1988 of the SelfGovernance Demonstration Project (Title III, Pub.L. 100472). The SelfGovernance Project authorizes participating tribes, under an annual funding agreement with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to plan, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities previously administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and to redesign programs, activities, functions or services and reallocate federal funds. A tribe can choose to contract for all or part of the services and programs provided by the BIA. Funds for the annual funding agreements are allocated out of agency, area, and central office accounts of the BIA to the tribe on the basis of what that tribe would have received in funds and services in the absence of the agreement. The SelfGovernance program has been well received and efforts are underway to make the program permanent. The success of this program can be attributed in large part to the vision held by the participating tribes; a vision which is perhaps best captured in a statement by the Lummi tribe: XX` ` ``The SelfGovernance Demonstration Project is an historic effort to break a pattern of dominance and dependency. While some Federal programs in the past have allowed Indian Tribes to implement certain limited programs, SelfGovernance offers the chance for us to assume total control of our economic, political, and social futures, and to demonstrate that we can accomplish what the BIA has not been willing or able to do in 120 years.''x` In closing, let me note that while the socioeconomic problems in Indian country are great, the opportunities are even greater. There is a renewed sense of optimism among Native Americans today, and I believe much of the credit for this sense of hope can be directly attributed to the personal time and effort that Chairman Inouye has spent listening to and working on the concerns of the Indian people. It has been my privilege to serve with him as theh)[0*0*0* Vice Chairman. As the Rules Committee considers the issue of congressional reform and prepares its recommendations for the Senate, I urge you to take to heart the following words of Peterson Zah, President of the Navajo Nation: XX` ` ``Indeed, helping the American Indians to help themselves is neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue; it's not a conservative policy or a liberal policy; it's not even a `special interest' issue. Rather, it is a `human' issue that must, and deserves to be, addressed from a national perspective on a bipartisan basis, and with a real sense of urgency warranted by the deplorable conditions existing in Indian countryconditions which truly are a national disgrace.''x` [Attachment maintained in the committee's files: Memorandum of April 19, 1993, to Senator McCain from Roger Walke, Analyst in American Indian Policy, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, ``House and Senate Standing and Select Committees on Indian Affairs, 1st103d Congresses.''] STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Senator Ford, Senator Stevens, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the ``Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994.'' I commend you for holding this hearing on this very important issue. Today I would like to comment briefly on the need to streamline the authorization process for three federal agencies: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Science Foundation. I understand that S. 1824 does not currently address this specific issue. I strongly believe that S. 1824 should be amended to correct an oversight arrangement which just doesn't work. I serve as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and chair of one of its Subcommittees, VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. VAHUD controls more discretionary spending than any subcommittee of Congress but the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. We oversee 25 different departments, agencies or components of agencies, with a combined annual budget of about $85 billion, of which $65 billion which is discretionary. The budget and appropriations process has been heavily criticized in recent years. Some, such as Senator Kassebaum, have proposed abolishing the Appropriations Committees altogether, and giving annual spending decisions to the authorization committees. h)\0*0*0*ԌI oppose that approach. But we could accomplish the same objectives through selectively streamlining the authorization committee process. Our principle should be: one authorization committee for each major agency, one appropriations subcommittee. Without this framework, Congressional oversight becomes scattered and the potential for real problems develops quickly. Good examples of this scattered approach are the authorization processes for FEMA and EPA. FEMA now reports to ten different authorization committees in the House and Senate, and 16 different authorization subcommittees. EPA reports to 34 authorization committees, and at least 56 authorization subcommittees. The result is chaos. Too many competing priorities. Every subcommittee that authors a programs believes its initiative should be the agency's top priority. But no authorization committee looks at how the parts of each agency fit together. So my Appropriations Subcommittee, by virtue of the fact that it is the only ``onestop shop'' for FEMA and EPA, becomes an authorization committee by proxy. The National Science Foundation has two authorization committees in the Senate. That makes it difficult sometimes for the House to work with the Senate since the House has only one authorization committee of jurisdiction for NSF. There are other major agencies in my billthe VA, HUD, NASA, and the Commission on National Servicewhere the ``one authorization committee'' principle is in effect and where it works. It works because there are a number of waysboth formal and informalby which we regularly communicate with each of the authorization committees. Where our joint efforts focus on both an agency's mission, and the money that's needed to implement major policy initiatives. We are working with Senator Rockefeller on veterans health care reform. And we have worked well in the past with Senator Hollings, and former Senator Gore, on space and technology issues. With FEMA and EPA, however, fragmented authorization and oversight has prevented them from acting in an effective and efficient manner. Unless we correct this, neither agency will be able to effectively meet the challenges it confronts at the dawn of the 21st century. Let me explain each agency's problem in more detail. First, FEMA. FEMA was created in 1979 as a ``onestop shop'' for the federal government's emergency disaster response activities. To date, it hasn't worked well. If we are to keep it, it needs to be overhauledfrom top to bottom. But if we expect FEMA to set aside the vestiges of the ``cold war'' mentality, and move to an ``allhazards'' approach toh)]0*0*0* emergency management, Congress needs to get its act together as well. Over the years, the Congress has authorized 17 different grant programs for FEMA, each for a different kind of disaster. But no Committee of Congress, outside of the Appropriations Committee, has asked if these authorized programs are what's really needed to tackle the risks our citizens face. We authorize many programs, but local communities don't have the flexibility to use federal funds to develop a real riskbased disaster response strategy. And part of the reason no one in Congress has asked this question is that each Congressional Committee wants FEMA to emphasize their program above all others. What results is that none of these programs work well. Even the National Academy of Public Administration agreed on this point in a recent report done at our Subcommittee's request. EPA has a very similar problem. And I am sympathetic to the interests of the authorization committees here because I served on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House. I cosponsored everything with Henry Waxman that had the word ``clean'' in it. I supported Jim Florio on everything that used the word ``toxic''. And I stood with John Dingell on everything at EPA that needed ``oversight and investigation''. But there are simply too many committees and subcommittees that have a piece of EPA's jurisdiction. EPA now has 17 major grant programs and a host of smaller ones. We authorize the Clean Air Act, and estimate how much it will cost EPA. But no one factors in the demands from other mandates and other programswhether it's Superfund or the Safe Drinking Water Act. So the agency stretches its resources to meet an increasing number of mandates. Both FEMA and EPA need a single authorization committee. And within that authorization committee, I would urge you to make sure that the subcommittee alignment is designed to balance the demands on either agency's people and resources. The President has proposed an initiative to reinvent governmentto make it more entrepreneurial and efficient. Consolidating the Congressional authorization process for FEMA, EPA and NSF would be a step towards helping the President meet that goal. If S. 1824 is not amended to reflect this ``streamlining'' approach, we will miss the best opportunity since either EPA or FEMA was created to correct the problems that go with having too many subcommittees overseeing the same agency. LETTER FROM HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND HON. BOB PACKWOOD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON h)^0*0*0*Ԍ< Committee on Finance < United States Senate "February 24, 1994 Dear Chairman Ford and Senator Stevens: As the Rules Committee begins it consideration of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, we wanted to bring to your attention our serious concern regarding the proposal in the bill to abolish the Joint Committee on Taxation and transfer its functions to the Congressional Budget Office. We believe there is no justification for this proposal. Because of a previously scheduled Finance Committee hearing on health care reform, we are unable to attend the Rules Committee opening hearing on the bill this morning, but we wanted to make clear our opposition to this proposal. The Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress offers no arguments in support of the proposal to abolish the Joint Tax Committee, aside from a vague suggestion that moving to a biennial budget process will decrease the demands for revenue estimation and technical advice from the Joint Tax Committee staff. (See p. 11 of the Final Report.) We presume the proposal is based, in part, on the following passage in the ``Renewing Congress'' Report prepared by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution: XX` ` The Joint Tax Committee's staff is truly one of Congress' success stories, with its consistently(#` XX` ` firstrate, nonpartisan professional team. But it need not be organized as a separate congressional committee. We recommend that the Joint Tax Committee be turned into a Congressional Revenue Office, parallel to the Congressional Budget Office, or better yet, folded into CBO.(#` This is a very curious passage. The study acknowledges that the Joint Tax Committee is a ``success story'' and finds nothing to criticize in its operation, but then proceeds to recommend dismantling it without any justification. As to any budgetary savings, the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that the proposal to eliminate the Joint Tax Committee and transfer its functions to the CBO would not result in significant savings. Given the absence of either policy justification or budgetary savings, this proposal seems to be reorganization for reorganization's sake. The Joint Tax Committee provides the taxwriting committees and all Members of Congress with indispensable tax legal analysish)_0*0*0* and legislative drafting assistance, as well as estimating the revenue effects of tax provisions. The Joint Tax Committee allows for a consolidation of tax and economics professionals that has served both of the taxwriting committees very effectively, minimizing duplication and expense. The present relationship between the Joint Tax Committee staff and the two taxwriting committees has worked well in meeting the demands for professional staff resources engendered by the complexities of tax legislation. Indeed, the transfer of functions to CBO would necessitate an increase in the taxwriting committees' staff to meet current needs. Moreover, you should be aware that the organization, membership, powers and duties of the Joint Committee on Taxation, including its access to actual taxpayer returns, are expressly provided for in the Internal Revenue Code. The Joint Tax Committee's access to confidential tax return data is necessary to insure accurate revenue estimates, and to carry out its statutory duties to investigate the operation and administration of the Federal tax system and to review all tax refunds and credits in excess of $1 million. The Finance Committee would be extremely reluctant to transfer the Joint Tax Committee's oversight responsibilities or its access to tax returns to any other entity. These revenue matter are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and we will insist upon our jurisdiction in that regard. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We would also appreciate the opportunity for witnesses to appear on behalf of the Joint Tax Committee with respect to this proposal at some point during the Rules Committee's hearings. %Sincerely, Daniel Patrick Moynihan(-pp27Bob Packwood Chairman hh#(-pp27Ranking Member ` STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present my views to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on a matter I believe should be a component of any Congressional reform efforts proposed by this committee such as S. 1824, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994. Last year, I along with several of my colleagues, reintroduced legislation intended to eliminate the double standard which presently exists for the Congress and the executive branch in the application of certain labor, civil rights and health and safety laws. Most of my colleagues would agree that Congress should not impose laws on the Nation that it will not live under itself. This idea was so eloquently stated by James Madison in the Federalisth)`0*0*0* Papers: ``Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society.'' During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, I offered an amendment which would have made Congress and its instrumentalities subject to all regulations and remedies contained in many of the employment, discrimination, and health and safety laws enacted since the 1930's. This amendment received thirtyeight votes last Congress. Later, I introduced the amendment as a freestanding bill, the Congressional and Presidential Accountability Act. Adopted in lieu of my amendment was a provision authored by the Majority Leader and Senator Grassley which provides procedures to give Senate employees protection under several civil rights laws and limited judicial review. Under the adopted amendment, the Senate was permitted to establish an internal enforcement mechanism. While the Senate's current coverage under the employment discrimination laws is a good beginning, I believe it is just thatA BEGINNING. Since my efforts on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the efforts of those before me on this issue, including Senator Grassley the Joint Committee to Reorganize Congress and the Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Coverage were established and have analyzed and researched the issue further. If business or private individuals run afoul of any of the laws listed in my bill, they face bureaucratic headaches and possible federal court litigation. Congress has exempted itself from these laws completely or has limited redress to be determined only by an internal mechanism with limited right to judicial appeal. Would we allow major corporations to set up their own rules for dealing with complaints under these laws? The answer is obviously, NO. The debate on bringing Congress within the coverage of the laws of this land is one of how it will be done. For Congress to truly live under the laws as they apply to the private sector, it should have to answer to the same agencies and abide by the same rules and remedies as a business person in Oklahoma. However, there is tremendous Congressional resistance to executive branch oversight. There are those that reject the application of existing laws to the Senate. Instead, some have proposed that the Senate would invent its own internal laws to accommodate with the Senate's subjective view of its own unique requirements. As this Committee considers specific proposals to apply the laws to the Congress, there are three standards which must be included in order to end the perpetuation of the Senate's lack of accountability for employment related decisions and safety issues: (1)` ` Congress must apply existing laws and executive branchh)a0*0*0* agency regulations to itself and its instrumentalities. It is unacceptable for Congress to internally establish its own standards and rules. (2)` ` Aggrieved Congressional employees must have the same right and extent of judicial review as similarly situated private sector employees. And, it is allowed in law, a Congressional employee should be allowed a de novo review and jury trial in federal court. (3)` ` The enforcement mechanism must operate independently of Congress. This requires the same appearance of independence as does the executive branch to those it oversees in the private domain. I look forward to working with this Committee as well as Senator Boren, Senator Domenici, Senator Grassley and any other members interested in this issue to ensure that S. 1824, the Legislative Reorganization Act, applies the laws of this land to the U.S. Congress as they apply to the rest of its citizens. Congress must no longer tell the American public that we are exempt from the laws which we pass in the Senate chamber everyday. pSTATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. ROBB, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA I want to thank the members of the recently adjourned Joint Committee for making such a concentrated effort at what is largely a thankless task. I believe that if Congress is to be improved through these proceedings, the Legislative Reorganization Act will have to be strengthened and expanded to contain more of the good ideas explored by that body. This is one of those frustrating situations where the provisions in the bill do not measure up to the exciting ideas contained in the committee report. However, I understand the difficulties the Joint Committee encountered in reaching consensus, and hope the Rules Committee is able to break some of the logjams. I would like to point out that public disapproval and distrust of the institution is based primarily on Congress' failure to carry out its most important responsibilitymanaging the public purse. In my mind, popular disapproval of Congress relates back closely to the budgetary deficits that we approve each year and the debt that we have accumulated for our grandchildren. Democracy is intrinsically susceptible to fiscal mismanagement. It is the nature of a legislature to spend, and it is the nature of voters to reward those who provide them with   a piece of the treasury. In The Republic, Book VIII, Plato decried this tendency over 2,000 years ago. We have checks on this pattern of behavior, many implemented in the past 10 years, but it is crucial to the health of our democratic experiment that these checks be periodically reinforced and reformed. I believe this is central to the effectiveness of this reform bill. h)b0*0*0*ԌThe move to biennial budgeting and authorization would constitute an effective retrenchment in the battery of checks against spending. Long term planning is noticeably absent in the present mad rush to approve the 13 annual appropriation bills, and far too much time is spent debating the same controversial provisions each year. With appropriations being the focus only one year of a 2year cycle, there will be more time set aside for authorization and regulatory oversight. I have supported a move to biennial budgets in the past, and welcome this renewed attempt to make the process more ordered. In addition, I continue to advocate the creation of a new ``budgetary leadership committee'' to replace the current Budget Committee. While no such provision is currently included in the bill, consolidation of budgetary responsibility within a leadership committee, composed of the majority and minority leaders along with the chairmen and ranking members of the Finance and Appropriations Committees, would bring a more realistic alignment of spending verses receipts to the process. In a 2year budgeting system, this committee would meet, perhaps, only in the first (odd numbered) year of a Congress, and would set parameters for the authorizing committees in their work. Much more could be done to streamline the legislative process in areas beyond those budgetary. I would like to see germaneness more strictly defined as it applies in Rules XVI, XXII, and XXVII to avoid the tortured interpretation currently employed. In addition, I support changes in the rules to extend the germaneness requirement to amendments to emergency appropriations and major, omnibus legislation. I grant that the definition of what legislation is ``major'' and which is not would be difficult to spell out. It would be worth the effort, however, to end the current situation where major legislation is passed onto the President covered with a host of ``Christmas tree ornaments'' of nongermane amendments that, more times than not, benefit only a narrow constituency. There are other areas I would like to see addressed in this package of reforms. We are all aware that unnecessarily burdensome federal regulations fuel the public perception of Congress as out of touch with the people we serve. While I believe the time set aside for authorization and regulatory oversight in a 2year authorizing process would have a salutary effect, there is a step that we can take right now to clear up our greatest regulatory sinCongressional exemptions. For a small business owner plowing through the federal forms and mandates handed down from this body, the true insult comes with the discovery that the body which initiated such regulations also is exempt from them. This is contrary to the express intentions of the framers and an unhealthy trend. There is no provision in the current draft to address this issue, and there should be. The House version of this bill, specifically Chapter 3, Subtitle C, is stronger in this regard, andh)c0*0*0* has elicited the support of nearly 250 members. On the Senate side, I support the efforts of Senator Lieberman in his work on the Congressional Accountability Act. I understand he is working to introduce a stronger version of this bill with Senator Grassley, and I would like to see it considered as a part of the entire package of reforms. This bill is in response to public criticism of the way Congress does business. Some of this criticism is based on misconceptions, and some is spread by people who serve their own interest by bashing Congress. Most of the criticism, however, is based on a very real perception that Congress has systemic problems in managing the national budget and in regulating its own internal affairs. While Congress rarely enjoys high ratings, I believe that some lasting good can come of the current downturn in public confidence in this institution. We should capitalize on the political momentum behind this bill, and implement wellreasoned and farreaching reforms.