```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1182-E1183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      BIENNIAL CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

                                 ______

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution 
providing for the biennial review of the structure and organization of 
Congress.
  One of my major conclusions from my work last Congress on the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress is that the institution is 
better served if congressional reform is treated more as an ongoing, 
continual process rather than something taken up in an omnibus way 
every few decades. Congress has set up three major bipartisan, 
bicameral reform efforts in recent times--the 1945, 1965, and 1993 
Joint Committees on the Organization of Congress. All three panels were 
given extremely broad mandates--to look at virtually all aspects of 
Congress in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The panel 
last Congress took up everything from committee jurisdiction reform and 
the congressional budget process to ethics reform and congressional 
compliance with the laws we pass for everyone else. We conducted scores 
of hearings, heard from hundreds of witnesses, looked over thousands of 
pages of testimony, considered hundreds of reform ideas, and issued 
reports totalling several thousand pages.
  In my view, it would be far preferable to have the House take up a 
congressional reform resolution each Congress:
  First, the task would be much more manageable. Members would be able 
to focus attention on the key reform issues of the day, rather than 
consider the entire range of procedural and organizational matters over 
from previous Congresses.
  Second, political tensions would be lessened. Letting systematic 
institutional reform slide for several years only allows problems to 
fester and heightens partisan tensions.
  Third, continual attention to reform is needed. We live in a rapidly 
changing world and need to keep the institution of Congress up to date 
on a regular basis.
  Fourth, public confidence in Congress would be bolstered. Regular, 
systematic reform of Congress should help improve its operations and 
remove unnecessary impediments to legislative action.
  Thus I strongly favor bringing a congressional reform resolution to 
the House floor every Congress, and letting Members work their will on 
the major reform issues of the [[Page E1183]] day. That is what the 
resolution I am introducing today would help to bring about. It has 
three main components:
  The first, and main, part, Section 1, would require the House 
Committee on Rules each Congress to consider submitting to the House a 
congressional reform resolution. My proposal does not require that they 
report out and send such a resolution to the floor. It instead says 
that they should consider submitting such a resolution to the House, 
and--if they decide against such a resolution--they would have to 
explain--as part of their end-of-Congress report required in Section 3 
below--why they thought congressional reform was not needed.
  The biennial reform resolution proposed in Section 1 would draw upon 
two sources of information, among others:
  Section 2 provides for a general floor debate on congressional reform 
during consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. 
Just as we set aside time for a Humphrey-Hawkins debate on the economy 
each session during consideration of the budget resolution, so we 
should set aside time for regular debate on how well Congress is 
working, allowing the main committee involved in congressional reform 
to take part in the discussion. The time of the year when we are 
funding Congress would be an appropriate time to discuss how well 
Congress is working.
  Section 3 requires that the Committee on Rules, as part of its 
oversight agenda, submit a systematic and comprehensive report at the 
end of each Congress on the effectiveness of House organization, 
operations, and procedures. Earlier this year the House required each 
committee, including Rules, to submit an end-of-Congress report on its 
overnight activities. My resolution would require that a section of the 
Rules Committee report specifically take up the need for congressional 
reform--what was done on reform during that Congress and what might the 
areas of future reform.
  Mr. Speaker, interest in congressional reform tends to ebb and flow 
according to the changing interests of the main House players in 
reform, the shifting national agenda, the varying amounts of media 
coverage given to the operations of Congress, and the changing winds of 
public interest in major reform. I believe we need to regularize the 
process so that whoever is in charge of reform in the future will be 
looking seriously at scheduling and debating a congressional reform 
resolution each Congress.
  My idea is not a new one. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
stated the need for a congressional panel to ``make a continuing study 
of the organization and operation of the Congress.'' Moreover, the 1974 
bipartisan House Select Committee on Committees, headed up by Richard 
Bolling, stated: ``A key aspect of any viable reoroganziation is 
provision for continuing evaluation of its effectiveness, and for 
periodic adjustments in the institution as new situations arise.'' I 
believe it is time to finally follow through on these recommendations 
and regularize the congressional reform process.

                          ____________________
```