INTRODUCTION
Congress has only twice before created a bipartisan, bicameral panel to conduct a major review of its operations. The need to bring Congress up to date to meet the challenges of a changed world after World War II was a main impetus behind the creation of the first Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. The resulting Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 made such major changes in staffing, the budget process, regulation of lobbying activities, and committee structure that it is cited as the origin of the modern Congress.
Two decades later, renewed concern about Congress' effectiveness and, in particular, its strength compared with the executive branch, led to the 1965 Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress. The achievements of the resulting Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 included opening Congress to more public scrutiny, strengthening its decision-making ability, and improving minority parliamentary rights.
In 1992, the time was again right for a major institutional review. It had been 20 years since the last reorganization act and nearly half a century since the major reforms of the first Joint Committee. The issues facing Congress had changed greatly in the last 50 years while the internal structure had not. Members were increasingly frustrated with the process; many of the large number who retired in 1992 cited their frustration as a contributing factor. And the public's usual skeptical attitude toward Congress plunged toward cynicism and major discontent as reflected in public disapproval ratings, which hit an all-time high of 77 percent in the summer of 1992.
In response to both the internal and external criticisms, Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN), Rep. Bill Gradison (R-OH), Sen. David L. Boren (D-OK), and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), jointly introduced companion legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 192 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 57) in their respective Chambers to create a new Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
The resolution was approved on June 18, 1992, by a vote of 412-4 in the House and unanimously after one amendment in the Senate on July 30, 1992. The House then concurred on August 6, 1992, with the Senate's amendment. The formal adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 192 created the 28-member temporary committee to ``make a full and complete study of the organization and operation of the Congress'' and to recommend improvements which would strengthen the effectiveness of the Congress, simplify its operations, improve its relationships with and oversight of other branches of the United States Government, and improve the orderly consideration of legislation.
In short, the Joint Committee was formed to address how to make Congress more effective, accountable, and credible.
Effectiveness. In studying how to make the institution more effective, the Committee had before it such questions as: Are Members being pulled in so many directions by numerous committee assignments that their ability to deliberate is in decline? Does Congress spend too much time making the same budget decisions over and over and too little time reviewing how the money has been spent? Is the current level and distribution of staffing helping or hindering Members' effectiveness? Has the committee system grown too large to give adequate time to priority issues? Do current floor procedures lead to quality deliberations? Can a better balance be achieved between protecting the rights of the minority while preserving the rule of the majority? Is Congress making adequate use of information technology to help in the lawmaking process?Accountability. The issue of public accountability generated such questions as: Does the complexity of the budget process make accountability difficult, particularly in the case of special exemptions or funding for specific projects or entities? Is there enough accountability on entitlement spending and the deficit? Are Members accountable for their work in committees -- the ``workshops'' of Congress?
Credibility. The credibility issue is largely dependent on how well improvements in Congress' effectiveness and accountability translate into improvements in its policymaking performance. Additionally, the public criticism Congress has received for not complying with all the laws it passes for others, and the skepticism the public has for Members' ability to fairly judge one of their own who has been charged with an ethical violation led the Joint Committee to address those issues to help restore public confidence in Congress.
WORK OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Membership on the 1993 Joint Committee was determined by each Chamber's party leaders. The majority and minority leaders of both Chambers also served as ex officio, voting members of the panel. Sen. Boren and Rep. Hamilton were appointed co-chairmen and Sen. Domenici and Rep. Gradison were named vice chairmen. Committee member Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) was appointed to assume the duties of House vice chairman when Mr. Gradison resigned from the House on January 31, 1993. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) was appointed to fill the open seat on the Joint Committee.
The other Members of the Joint Committee are: Rep. David Obey (D-WI); Rep. Al Swift (D-WA); Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT); Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC); Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-PA); Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-NY); Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO); Rep. Wayne Allard (R-CO); Sen. Jim Sasser (D-TN); Sen. Wendell H. Ford (D-KY); Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV); Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD); Sen. David Pryor (D-AR); Sen. Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS); Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS); Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK); Sen. William S. Cohen (R-ME); Sen. Richard D. Lugar (R-IN).
The Joint Committee held an organizational meeting January 6, 1993, at which the Members agreed to concentrate their review on the following issues: the ethics process and institutional integrity; the budget process; the committee system; floor deliberation and scheduling; staffing; relationships between the Chambers, the branches, and the parties; public understanding of the Congress as an institution; communications and information technology and their use in the lawmaking process.
The Joint Committee began 6 months of hearings January 26, 1993, with the testimony of the Speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders of both Chambers, the first time in the history of Congress that all five leaders testified before the same panel on the same day.
Cumulatively, the Joint Committee heard more than 114 hours of testimony during 36 hearings conducted from January to July 1, 1993. Hearings were conducted on the following topics: the ethics process, the budget process, the committee system, floor deliberations and scheduling, application of laws to Congress, staffing and support agencies, administration of the Hill, legislative-executive relations, and legislative-judicial relations. There were also eight general hearings at which current Members, former Members, former staff, and outside experts testified on various reform issues.
In total, the Joint Committee heard from 243 witnesses: 133 House Members, 37 Senators, 14 former Members, 15 current and former staff members, and 44 outside experts.
In addition to the extensive hearings, the Joint Committee conducted numerous other information-gathering, consulting, and review activities.
Symposiums With the help of The American University and The Council on Excellence in Government, the Joint Committee organized four roundtable discussions on the budget process, the committee system, staffing, and legislative-executive relations. Current and former congressional staff, academics, and other experts shared their expertise and opinions on those areas of congressional operations. There were more than 100 total participants in the four symposiums.
Surveys In an effort to get as much input as possible from those working in and for Congress on the issues before it, the Joint Committee surveyed both Members and staff.
The survey of current Senators and Representatives, which was returned by more than 30 percent of the Members, queried lawmakers on specific reform proposals as well as on what issues should be the Joint Committee's focus. This survey was conducted with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service.
The staff survey was sent to 4,000 staff in committees, personal offices, and district offices, ranging from those in entry-level positions to top aides. The survey solicited staff views on congressional reform proposals, staff satisfaction, and office management issues, and on the performance of the House and Senate Offices of Fair Employment Practices. Done in cooperation with the Congressional Management Foundation, the survey had about a 50 percent response rate.
Outside Studies At the request of the Joint Committee, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government studied the current and potential use of advanced information technologies in Congress. Their report, released in October 1993, put forth recommendations for improving the handling of the enormous quantities of information in Congress in order to improve the legislative process. Their recommendations covered such areas as: using technology to make it easier for Members to follow floor action when busy elsewhere and to have access to legislative language when on the floor; the use of videoconferencing; coordinating information technology; improving technological training; establishing computer links with support agencies and state offices; and developing a plan for preserving information in case of a disaster. In addition, the ``Renewing Congress'' project of The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute provided valuable reorganization ideas and suggestions on those topics of primary concern to the Members of the Joint Committee.
Hearing From the Public The Joint Committee made a particular effort to keep the public aware of and involved in its activities. Toward that end, the Committee's hearings were televised on C-SPAN and rebroadcast with frequency. In addition, the co-chairmen and vice chairmen sent a letter and op-ed piece to all daily newspaper editors (1,600) asking them to let their readers know the Committee was interested in their views on reform. Throughout the year, the Joint Committee received more than 1,000 letters from citizens written either in response to the op-ed or to the televised hearings.
Other Activities The Joint Committee also consulted or communicated with dozens of other groups and individuals in order to get advice on reform proposals. Those consulted have included: party leaders, committee chairmen, and other Members; the parliamentarians of the House and Senate; current and former congressional staff; Members and staff of former reform efforts; support agency representatives; academics; state legislative officials; government groups (such as The Council on Excellence in Government); think tanks such as The Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute; congressional research centers; and members of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review.
In addition, the Committee staff conducted its own research projects, created a matrix indexing the proposals discussed during the 36 days of hearings, and wrote reports on the issues before the Committee. Those extensive research documents have been published in separate volumes.
The Committee also compiled a guide to training programs for congressional staff, which was distributed to all congressional offices.
At the end of the hearings process, the Joint Committee members held a 2-day retreat at the Naval Academy in Annapolis to begin to review and discuss the hundreds of reforms proposed. After the retreat, Committee members continued their discussions in small working groups that focused on particular issue areas.
Although the Joint Committee did not have the legislative authority to report a bill directly to the floor, the Joint Committee leaders agreed to mark up legislative language when making their recommendations so the resulting legislation could then be introduced in the House and Senate.
The Senate markup occurred on November 10, 1993. House markup began on November 16 and ended on November 22. The recommendations for the Senate are contained in a separate report. The following is a summary of the recommendations approved by the House Subcommittee of the Joint Committee.
The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to discipline its own Members. A self-disciplining system, however, has inherent conflicts. Because Members must cooperate with each other in the legislative process, there is a natural and understandable reticence for Members to do something detrimental to one another. While the public, through the ballot box, makes the ultimate decision about who should be returned to Congress, involving the public in the internal ethics process should make the process more balanced and credible. Indeed, professions from the law to the clergy have shifted away from self-regulation toward reliance on outsiders for exactly these reasons.
Involving the public goes hand-in-hand with the bifurcated system the House instituted by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Under bifurcation, the same people who determine whether an investigation should take place are not the ones who decide if the charges have been proven -- just as responsibilities in the judicial system are divided between grand juries and trial juries.
The House Subcommittee of the Joint Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct be allowed to use a panel of four or six private citizens as the fact-finders in place of the current subcommittee of Standards Members. The independent fact-finders would be chosen by the Standards Committee chairman and ranking minority Member from a pool of 20 private citizens. The pool would be selected jointly by the Speaker and the Minority Leader at the beginning of every Congress.
The independent fact-finders would investigate the complaint and report to the full Committee whether a formal charge should be made. If the fact-finders make a formal charge, the full Standards Committee would act as the ``adjudicatory'' panel to hear the evidence and determine if the charge has been proven.
Under this system, Members fulfill their constitutional obligation to preserve the integrity of the institution while the involvement of private citizens reduces the inherent conflict of interest and helps restore the public's credibility in the process. In addition, the extensive time burdens placed on Members of the Committee on Standards would be reduced, giving them more time to devote to such activities as lawmaking and oversight.
Congress must lead by example, not by exemption. Its failure to do so, by not having to obey the laws it passes for everyone else undermines the institution's credibility. Steps have been taken to bring Congress into compliance; Congress has recently brought itself under most of the major Federal employment laws. But while the protections are present in theory, in practice other laws should be applied, and the quality of enforcement needs improvement.
The House Subcommittee's recommendations would bring Congress under all relevant employment, civil rights, and health and safety laws, as well as substantially improve the internal enforcement mechanisms for currently enforced major Federal employment laws.
The House Subcommittee recommends creating a joint Office of Compliance run by a director and an eight-member board appointed jointly by the Speaker, the Senate majority leader, and the minority leaders of both Chambers. The director would review all Federal employee and workplace protection laws and propose regulations that specify how these provisions can be applied to congressional employees. Such regulations must be approved by Congress through concurrent resolution.
The laws that are already applied would continue to be, but the enforcement mechanisms would be improved to make them more independent and more like those used in the executive branch and private sector. The Office of Compliance would use a four-step procedure for considering alleged violations, consisting of counseling, mediation, formal complaint and administrative hearing, and Federal appellate judicial review.
To further strengthen the process, if an employee believes he or she is experiencing a reprisal for bringing a complaint to the Office, the Office would be empowered to investigate that charge. The Office of Compliance also would be responsible for educating Members and congressional employees of their rights and duties under the laws, collecting demographic data on congressional employees, and keeping and publishing statistics on the Office's activities and the outcome of the complaint proceedings.
Congress' power of the purse is one of its greatest prerogatives and consumes a large portion of the institution's time. However, the congressional budget process has become so complex and unwieldy that it is difficult for the public and even Members to follow. A lot of time is taken up debating spending measures but probably not enough is given to examining how well Federal money is being spent. The House Subcommittee's recommendations include measures to make the process more accountable and more effective by eliminating redundancy, increasing oversight and long-term planning, and by making it harder, primarily through public scrutiny, to pass wasteful measures.
The House Subcommittee recommends moving to a 2-year budget cycle. Beginning with the 104th Congress, the budget resolution and appropriations bills would be considered during the first year. Multi-year authorizations and oversight activities would take place in the second year. By not having to pass a new budget every year, committees would have more time to review how laws are working, and the executive branch would have a more stable budget environment and more time to focus on planning and delivering programs. During the second year, the Budget Committee would focus more on long-term planning by holding hearings on problem areas identified by oversight activities and issuing a report to the Speaker identifying the key budget issues facing the Congress for the next biennium.
Long-term planning would also be encouraged by requiring the President's economic report to include a GNP analysis which describes broad policy objectives for the economy and shows how those policies would affect the Gross National Product. The President also would be required to submit separate fiscal policy reports which lay out the President's long-term fiscal policy goals, 10-year budget projections, relevant comparisons between U.S. fiscal policies and those of our international competitors, and performance indicators that can be used by Congress to assess the effectiveness of Federal programs.
Additional reforms to improve oversight include requiring each standing committee to prepare an oversight agenda at the beginning of each Congress and a report at the conclusion of that Congress specifying how the agenda was fulfilled. The reports would be available to the Committee on House Administration to use when considering committee funding.
Reforms which would make Congress more accountable for efficient budget management include: requiring budget resolutions to include a statement on the total tax revenue that would not be collected due to special provisions in the tax code; requiring reports accompanying appropriations bills to list provisions that would earmark funds below the appropriations account level; requiring reports accompanying authorization bills to list all provisions that would earmark funds below the appropriations account level; requiring reports accompanying bills which authorize tax expenditures to list all such tax expenditures; allowing points of order against appropriations which are higher than the House passed authorization level; requiring the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a study of all Federal user fees and the effects of inflation on those fees since they were last adjusted; directing the Congressional Budget Office to file quarterly reports comparing revenues, expenditures, and the deficit for the current fiscal year with the assumptions used in the concurrent budget resolution; and establishing targets for entitlement spending and requiring the President to identify what actions he would recommend when a target is exceeded.
Committees have rightly been called the ``workshops'' of Congress. It is in committee that most of the legislative detail work takes place. Members, however, cannot be effective legislators when they are pulled in too many directions, when committee meetings overlap with subcommittee meetings and floor activities, and when bills are tied up in multiple committees. The House Subcommittee's recommendations are aimed at reducing the fractured attention of Members, streamlining the committee structure, minimizing intercommittee jurisdictional disputes, and increasing accountability for work in committees.
One of the most important steps in that direction is reducing the number of committees and committee assignments. Members of the House should be limited to no more than two standing committees and four subcommittees, with certain limited exceptions. Any resolution from the party caucus or conference which violates the standing committee assignment limit would not be privileged under the Rules of the House. Instead, to waive those limits, a Member would first have to receive approval from the appropriate party caucus. If approval is given, the Member would have to notify the House of his/her intent to seek a waiver. After a 48-hour layover, the waiver could be considered by the full Chamber but must be done so individually. The subcommittee limitations will be enforced through an analogous process.
If, because of the new limits and tough waiver provisions, membership on a committee falls below half of its level during the 103d Congress, the Committee on Rules would consider a resolution to abolish the committee and transfer its jurisdiction. In addition to abolishing panels with narrow or outdated jurisdictions, the Rules Committee also could recommend creation of new committees in response to new or emerging issues.
No exclusive or major committee, except the Committee on Appropriations, would have more than five subcommittees. No non-major committee would have more than four subcommittees. The term exclusive, major, and non-major track the committee classification of the majority caucus.
To reduce intercommittee jurisdictional disputes, the Speaker would be encouraged to designate a ``primary'' committee of jurisdiction in joint referral cases and to impose time or subject matter restrictions on the other committees of referral after the committee of primary jurisdiction reports the matter. In addition, the Committee on Appropriations would be required to notify the appropriate committees of jurisdiction whenever a reported measure from that committee contains funding for unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions. Likewise, authorizing committees would be required to notify the Committee on Appropriations whenever any reported measure contains an item of appropriations.
Due to the complexity and sensitivity of the issues considered, the term of service permitted on the Intelligence Committee should be extended to 8 years and the term of chairman to 4 years.
More effective use of time and less fractured attention would also be encouraged by prohibiting a subcommittee from meeting when the full committee is in session unless the subcommittee has the written authorization of the committee chairman. In addition, one week's advance notice of all committee and subcommittee meetings and hearings would be required unless compliance is impracticable.
In order to improve accountability for Members' committee work, committee reports would include all roll call votes on motions to report -- or a record of those present in the event of a voice vote. Most important, committees would have to publish their attendance and voting records at least twice a year in the Congressional Record.
FLOOR PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULING
Managing floor procedures in the House is a balancing act between allowing for full deliberation of measures in a timely manner while preserving the ability of the majority to work its will. The House Subcommittee of the Joint Committee believes a better balance can be reached between these values.
As a result, the House Subcommittee recommends that the minority party be guaranteed an alternative to all bills considered on the floor of the House through the motion to recommit with instructions. The right to offer a motion to recommit with amendatory instructions should be guaranteed to the minority leader or his designee on all measures. The Speaker should have the discretionary authority to postpone the vote on such a motion for up to 2 hours.
Scheduling problems, which make it difficult to focus on and fully debate legislative activities, also need to be addressed. The recommendations express the sense of the House that the Chamber's schedule should provide for: a 4-day legislative week; specific and exclusive periods during which only floor proceedings or only committee sessions may be held; minimization of scheduling conflicts between and among committees and subcommittees; and encouragement of an enhanced use of the present computerized scheduling system.
In order to improve the institution's accountability and credibility, the Congressional Record would be a substantially verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the House.
As the Rules of the House have not been comprehensively reviewed for more than a century, the Parliamentarian of the House would be directed to prepare a recodification of the Rules of the House to eliminate inconsistencies and outdated language.
In addition, debate in the House would permit references by Members to certain actions taken by the Senate or by committees of the Senate, which are a matter of public record.
In order to demonstrate that Congress is willing to make sacrifices in its own budget at a time when the deficit requires even tighter control of the public purse strings, the House Subcommittee of the Joint Committee recommends that the Speaker appoint a task force to issue recommendations on achieving savings in the cost of the legislative branch consistent with reductions implemented by the executive branch under the National Performance Review (NPR). If the NPR recommendations are fully implemented, the resulting cut in both executive and legislative branch personnel would be approximately 12 percent.
The congressional support entities, which collectively employ about 40 percent of legislative branch employees, also need to be periodically reviewed to improve accountability and to identify ways to make these entities more effective, such as eliminating duplication of efforts and increasing efficiency. The House Subcommittee recommends staggered reauthorization of the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the Government Printing Office every 8 years beginning in Fiscal Year 1997.
As staff effectiveness can be improved with good training, the House Subcommittee recommends a sense of the House resolution that the Committee on House Administration review and evaluate current staff training and orientation programs with the objective of having programs that enhance the subject expertise and skills of Capitol Hill employees.
Because salary increases for House staff have not kept pace with the Senate, leading to a higher turnover of quality House staff, the House Subcommittee recommends a sense of the House resolution that the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate should undertake a study of personal, committee, and administrative staff salaries and take steps to achieve a greater degree of parity between the Chambers for staff who perform analogous functions.
In addition to taking steps to improve the effectiveness of legislative activities, the House Subcommittee sees a need to address non-legislative activities as well. The appropriate committees of the House and the Senate should study and report on how to better coordinate non-partisan services in the legislative branch, to minimize duplication, and to assess the feasibility of opening such services to competitive bidding by the private sector.
LEGISLATIVE--EXECUTIVE RELATIONS
By constitutional design, the separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of government was devised to promote greater effectiveness and accountability in both branches. Previously mentioned reforms to the budget process will improve the legislative branch's oversight activities, the main check on how policies and spending are being carried out by the executive branch. In addition, biennial budgeting should result in a more effective budget process for the executive branch.
To further increase the effectiveness of the executive branch and enhance systematic oversight of administrative activities, the recommendations require all House standing committees to prepare at the start of each Congress an oversight agenda. This agenda should insure that committees develop a coordinated program for ensuring the periodic review of all significant laws, agencies, and programs under their jurisdiction. Committees, too, are to submit their oversight agendas to the Committee on House Administration for consideration during the committee expense resolution process. House Administration is to publish these agendas along with any recommendations it may have for assuring the effective coordination of committees' oversight activities. Additionally, committees are to conduct hearings each Congress on reports relating to executive branch activities, such as inspectors' general reports. The Speaker is also granted explicit authority to appoint special ad hoc oversight committees.
While increased oversight is needed, it is also important that the executive branch not waste time preparing materials which will never be reviewed. Under the House Subcommittee's recommendations, the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate would be directed to eliminate nonessential reporting requirements by executive branch agencies and to sunset all such reports within 5 years unless the report is explicitly reauthorized by law.
LEGISLATIVE--JUDICIAL RELATIONS
Although the House Subcommittee did not propose specific recommendations in this area, hearings were conducted about the manner in which Congress signals the courts about legislative intent. The Subcommittee hopes that the hearing record will contribute to the ongoing dialogue in this area. The Subcommittee also encourages the appropriate committees of the House and Senate to keep all Members of Congress informed about Federal court decisions that affect the legislative branch and to consider ways to promote greater understanding between those two branches of our government.
To be effective, the legislative branch efficiently must process the enormous amounts of information it handles. Congress should take advantage of the technology available to improve information management and should better manage the information tools already in place. Under the House Subcommittee's recommendations, the Joint Committee on the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing would be abolished and most of their functions transferred to a proposed Joint Committee on Information Management. The new Joint Committee would coordinate information management for Congress, establish standards and policies for information technology in Congress, and ensure public dissemination of executive branch information.
In addition to improving the internal flow of information, the recommendations would save money and improve public access to information. To further both those ends, the House Subcommittee also recommends a sense of the House resolution that legislative information be more readily available and more widely disseminated to Members and the public. Committee and conference reports should be filed on computer disk to make them more accessible. Specified legislative information should be made available to public and Depository Libraries by computer for nominal charge. Bills, committee reports, conference reports, and amendments should be available for review at least 24 hours before consideration. Legislative documents should be accessible on computer to all congressional offices and through databases to the public. And the in-house, cable broadcast system should be enhanced to provide all committee hearing rooms and party cloakrooms with onscreen summaries of pending legislation.
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS
While Congress is the most open branch of government, its complexity often makes it difficult for the public to follow. Yet a democracy depends on an informed, knowledgeable citizenry. Previously mentioned reforms will make legislative branch information more accessible to the public and will make it easier for the public to hold Members accountable for their work and to judge their effectiveness.
Also, the House Subcommittee believes additional steps should be taken to enhance the quality and availability of information on Congress to the public. The House Subcommittee expresses the sense of the House that Congress should: experiment with alternative debate forms on the floor, such as Oxford Union style debates; support ongoing initiatives to raise private funds to create a congressional education center; develop a central telephone line for information on the congressional agenda; encourage civic education programs; and enhance orientation programs for journalists covering Congress.
In summary, following the broad mandate of the Joint Committee to ``make a full and complete study of the organization and operation of the Congress,'' the House Subcommittee's recommendations are necessarily wide in scope. But the breadth of review is required given the few opportunities Congress has to evaluate fully its internal operations. At the same time, reform must be an ongoing process. The Joint Committee's report is the first step toward making the institution more effective, accountable, and credible. These efforts must continue as the recommendations proceed through full Chamber deliberation, and as reform efforts on other aspects of the institution move forward.