1. Multiple Referral of Legislation.

Recommendation: The Speaker, if practicable, should designate a ``primary'' committee of jurisdiction when a matter is jointly referred and impose time or subject matter restrictions on the other committees of referral after the committee of primary jurisdiction reports the matter.

The Speaker has broad discretion to structure the referral process under House Rule X, clause 5(c). This provision amends Rule X to state that, if practicable, the Speaker should designate a committee of primary jurisdiction for all jointly referred measures. Following the report of the primary committee, the other committees would be required to report by a time certain or be automatically discharged; they could also be limited to consideration of specified provisions of a measure. Currently, a primary committee is rarely designated in joint referral cases; moreover, such referrals are open-ended and do not specify the provisions within each committee's jurisdiction.

Designating a primary committee has several advantages. It facilitates comprehensive and coordinated policymaking, clarifies responsibility for policy issues, and, with time limitations imposed on the other committees receiving the legislation, lessens the delays, impediments, and fragmentation of policy often associated with joint referrals. (Primary designations could be guided by criteria such as which panel has predominant influence over the text of the legislation; whether the legislation presents an inherent rationale for establishing primacy; or whether certain subject areas, such as constitutional topics, indicate primacy.) Further, specifying the responsibility of each committee would minimize duplication, increase accountability, and deter committees from encroaching on the prerogatives of other panels. This change would enhance the agenda-setting authority of the Speaker. He would gain some ability to hold down the size of conferences by selecting most conferees from the primary committee.

2. Maximum Number of Committee and Subcommittee Assignments.

Recommendation: The assignment of Members of the House, including the Resident Commissioner and Delegates, should be limited to no more than two standing committees and four subcommittees. Waivers of these limitations require the specific consent of the House upon the recommendation of the respective party caucus.

This recommendation establishes in House Rules a limitation of six total assignments per Member: two standing committees and four subcommittees of those standing committees. House Rules today do not contain assignment limitations. Further, full House action is required on subcommittee assignments or, for Democrats, waivers of their party's five subcommittee limitation. Putting such limitations in Chamber rules would make the assignment process more uniform and a new waiver procedure will promote adherence to the limitations. Currently, assignment limitations are regulated by party rules but these are frequently waived. One in five Representatives has a waiver of the full committee assignment limitation. Service on only one standing committee is exempt from the restriction: Standards of Official Conduct, because of the difficulty of attracting Members to serve on it. (Service on the Intelligence Committee is also exempt because it is a select committee with rotating membership.)

The assignment limitations would be enforced through five related provisions. (1) Any resolution from the party caucus/conference making full committee assignments which violate the two-committee limitation would not be privileged under the Rules of the House. (2) For subcommittee assignment requests in excess of the four-subcommittee limitation, such requests first would have to be forwarded to the appropriate party caucus for approval. (3) If the appropriate party caucus approves a requested waiver of the two-committee or four-subcommittee limitation, the Member requesting such a waiver would have to notify the House of his/her intent to ask for the waiver. (4) Only after a 48-hour layover could the waiver request be considered by the full Chamber, either by unanimous consent or as a privileged motion. (5) A separate unanimous consent request or vote would be required for each Member requesting a waiver.

Cutting the number of assignments for many Members would also reduce the sizes of many committees and subcommittees and thus increase opportunities for meaningful deliberation. Members' concerns that they are spread too thin, have overburdened and conflicting schedules, and cannot participate in many committee sessions would be alleviated by assignment limits. Reduced sizes of panels would likely enhance the quality of committee deliberations.

3. De Minimis Rule for Continuation of Standing Committees.

Recommendation: If the membership of any standing committee falls below fifty percent of its membership at the end of the 103d Congress, the Committee on Rules shall consider a resolution which would eliminate that committee and transfer its jurisdiction to one or more standing committees.

Under this proposal, Representatives' interest in seeking assignment to committees becomes a predominant factor in determining which committees should exist. When there is insufficient interest in serving on a standing committee -- less than 50 percent its 103d Congress size -- the Rules Committee will consider a resolution to abolish the committee and transfer its jurisdiction to other panels.

With enforceable assignment limitations, many Representatives will have to relinquish one or more committee assignments. Their interest in serving on certain standing committees but not on others provides an indication of committees' attractiveness. Declining demand to serve on certain committees may highlight the need to reconfigure subject jurisdictions to reflect today's policy issues or to equalize committee workloads. New panels might be created in response to new or emerging issue areas.

4. Restriction on Number of Subcommittees.

Recommendation: No exclusive or major committee, except the Committee on Appropriations, shall have more than five subcommittees; and no minor committee shall have more than four subcommittees.

House Rules now require most standing committees to create a minimum of four subcommittees; Democratic Caucus Rules set a maximum of six subcommittees for most exclusive and major committees and five for most non-major committees. This change establishes in House Rules a limit of five subcommittees for major and exclusive committees (except Appropriations), and four subcommittees per non-major committee. The terms exclusive, major, and non-major are used here as defined in rules of the majority party caucus. Further, committees may not establish any subunit other than a subcommittee unless the House, by resolution, authorizes its creation.

Fewer subcommittees will help streamline policy making, equalize subcommittee workload and responsibility, reduce the points at which jurisdictional conflicts arise, and advance efforts to cut committee staff. Corresponding decreases in assignments will reduce Representatives' scheduling conflicts.

5. Scheduling.

Recommendation: Under this sense of the House proposal the schedule for the House of Representatives should provide for (1) a 4-day legislative week, (2) specific and exclusive periods during which only floor proceedings or only committee meetings and hearings may be held, (3) minimizing scheduling conflicts between and among committees and subcommittees, and (4) encouragement of the use of the present computerized scheduling system.

This proposal has four related components. First, the House should expand its typical legislative work week from 3 to 4 days. For decades, the House has traditionally conducted most of its committee and floor business during the Tuesday-Thursday period. Monday and Friday sessions, if they are held, are often light and often without votes. A longer work week would alleviate the mid-week crunch and make for less hectic schedules for Members and still allow for weekend travel home. A 4-day workweek could also result in shorter annual sessions.

Second, the House should consider establishing separate periods for committee sessions and floor sessions. Separate floor and committee sessions would make it easier to obtain a quorum on the floor, thus allowing fuller participation in debates. Such a scheduling system also avoids interruptions of committee deliberations with frequent floor votes. It is worth noting that at the outset of the 103d Congress, the House struck from its rules a provision prohibiting committee sessions while the House was amending a measure under the 5-minute rule.

Third, committees and subcommittees should improve coordination of scheduling to avoid unnecessary overlaps that cause conflicts for Members. Minimizing meeting conflicts should promote better attendance and broader deliberation in committees.

Fourth, to minimize scheduling problems, committees should make maximum use of the House's existing computerized scheduling system when planning and scheduling sessions. The House Information Systems should enhance training of committee and subcommittee staff on how to use the present scheduling system. The Bolling Committee reforms of 1974 first required the development of a computerized system for scheduling committee sessions to avoid conflicts. Use of the system became mandatory in 1981 when the Rules of the House provided for ``a scheduling service which shall be used by all committees and subcommittees to eliminate, insofar as possible, any meeting and scheduling conflicts.'' In 1992, this requirement was stricken from the Rules.

6. Notification of Committee and Subcommittee Meetings and Hearings.

Recommendation: Require committees and subcommittees to give at least a one week notice of all hearings and meetings except where unavoidable.

House Rules now require each committee (except Rules) to announce the date, place, and subject matter of each hearing at least one week in advance. (When essential, committees may schedule hearings with less notice.) Although the current rule explicitly relates solely to full committees and to hearings, in practice most committees give advance notice of all committee and subcommittee hearings and meetings. This provision amends House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(3) to state that the pre-notification requirement applies to both committees and subcommittees and to meetings as well as hearings.

7. Subcommittee Meetings Prohibited During Full Committee Meetings.

Recommendation: No subcommittee should be permitted to meet when the full committee is in session without the written authorization of the committee chairman.

The provision would amend House Rules to preclude subcommittees from convening during a full committee session unless a subcommittee obtained prior approval in writing from the committee chairman. No comparable House Rule exists, although a majority of committees operate with similar provisions as part of their own rules. By eliminating simultaneous meetings between a full committee and its subcommittees, this change should improve attendance at full committee sessions.

8. Committee Reports (Earmarks).

Recommendation: This recommendation contains four related provisions. (1) Any committee report (or joint explanatory statement) accompanying a bill (or conference report) that authorizes or provides obligational authority or tax expenditures must describe provisions ``directly or indirectly'' changing current law. (2) Committee reports (and joint explanatory statements) accompanying an appropriations bill (or conference report) must contain in a clearly identifiable section a list of all provisions in the legislation or the committee report (or joint explanatory statement) itself that would earmark funds below the appropriations account level. (3) Committee reports (and joint explanatory statements) accompanying a bill that authorizes obligational authority must contain in a clearly identifiable section a list of all provisions in the legislation or the committee report (or joint explanatory statement) itself that would earmark funds below the appropriations account level. (4) Committee reports (and joint explanatory statements) accompanying a bill (or conference report) that authorizes any tax expenditures must contain in a clearly identifiable section a list of all such tax expenditures included in the legislation or the committee report (or joint explanatory statement itself.)

During the Joint Committee's hearings, many Members complained about being forced to vote on legislation containing special interest provisions without having adequate information about such provisions. The practice of including earmarks in appropriations bills and reports is an important example, where an earmark is defined as any provision that distributes funds below the appropriations account level. Members of Congress are often forced to vote on huge omnibus spending bills that include provisions earmarking funds for particular programs, without having full knowledge of the earmarks included in a bill because these earmarks often are not clearly delineated.

The difficulties of identifying provisions that target benefits to particular constituencies are also prevalent in authorizations and tax bills. Authorization bills often contain provisions that authorize expenditures for items below the appropriations account level. And tax bills often contain so-called tax expenditures, or loopholes, which reduce the tax burden on particular industries, firms, or individuals. The effects of tax expenditures are similar to the effects of earmarks in that both practices add to the Federal budget deficit by targeting specific monetary benefits to particular constituencies.

Many earmarks and tax expenditures have important policy benefits. As a result, these practices should not be abolished. However, the House Members on the Joint Committee believe that information about earmarks and tax expenditures should be easily accessible to Members of Congress, the media, and the general public. Considering earmarks and tax expenditures in the open will help to ensure that wasteful proposals do not pass. As a result, the House Members of the Joint Committee propose that all earmarks and tax expenditures included in legislation (or in the accompanying report language) be listed in a clearly delineated section of the relevant report.

9. Notice of Jurisdictional Violations.

Recommendation: The Committee on Appropriations should 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 should be required to notify the Committee on Appropriations whenever any reported measure contains an item of appropriations.

A new clause is added to House Rule XXI which emulates comparable provisions in Democratic Caucus Rules. The new rules would require the Committee on Appropriations to notify the chairman of the relevant legislative committee(s) whenever the Appropriations Committee orders reported a general appropriations bill which includes unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions within the jurisdiction of the legislative committee(s). Similarly, legislative committees reporting any measure or amendment carrying an appropriation must immediately notify the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This provision does not apply to special appropriations bills.

Additional provisions require the Appropriations Committee to deliver to the chairs of the relevant House committees copies of all House-passed appropriations bills along with numbered Senate amendments. Such delivery shall take place at least 24 hours before a request is made to appoint conferees, unless the Speaker determines otherwise. Similarly, the Appropriations Committee is to deliver copies of conference reports and joint explanatory statements to the appropriate legislative committee chairs 24 hours in advance of floor action, unless the Speaker determines otherwise. (The provision applies to general and special appropriations bills.)

This proposal aims to improve the exchange of information between the Appropriations and legislative committees. It facilitates the ability of legislative committees to assess the impact of actions by the Appropriations Committee that affect their jurisdictions, and vice versa. Putting these provisions in House Rules elevates their status and promotes their enforcement by the respective committees.

10. Independent Fact-Finding for Ethics Investigations.

Recommendation: The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should be authorized to use, on a discretionary basis, a panel of non-Members in ethics cases.

The Speaker and the minority leader are directed to appoint jointly each Congress a pool of 20 ``independent fact-finders'' to be called upon by the Committee on Standards for potential use in ethics investigations. These individuals would be private citizens. Lobbyists and other individuals with business before the House are not eligible. Daily pay and travel and per diem allowances are provided for fact-finders when actually employed on ethics cases.

The Standards Committee is directed to adopt rules permitting the Committee to use, on a case-by-case basis, four or six independent fact-finders in lieu of the four or six-member investigative subcommittee now provided for in the Committee's rules. The chairman and ranking member shall choose jointly the fact-finders for a particular case from among the 20-fact-finder pool.

Fact-finders, when used, can call upon the staff of the Standards Committee in their inquiry and shall have the same investigative powers as the subcommittee specified in current Committee rules (subject to approval of the chairman and ranking minority member). Fact-finders are directed to report their recommendations to the full Standards Committee. If the fact-finders by majority vote place formal charges of violations with the Committee, then the full Standards Committee will act as the ``adjudicatory'' subcommittee currently provided for in the Committee's rules.

Allowing outside individuals to be used in the process should enhance the public's confidence in Congress. The public believes that internal self-discipline presents inherent conflicts for Members who have difficulty judging their peers. Members would be better insulated from charges that they are inclined to protect colleagues, and contrarily, from pressure to deliver excessively harsh punishments. Using outside individuals also would alleviate time burdens on Members involved in the ethics process.

Because of their expertise, Members of the Standards Committee have the discretion to decide whether a case is suitable for outside fact-finders. A standby pool provides the Committee more flexibility to choose appropriate individuals for an investigation, and utilization of individuals on an ``as needed'' basis is the most efficient use of funds and resources. While outside participation at the investigative stage would be allowed, the formal adjudicatory function would be handled by Representatives in keeping with the constitutional proviso that the House shall be the judge of its own proceedings.

11. Term of Membership and Chairmanship on Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Recommendation: The term of service permitted to any Member serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should be extended to eight years (or no more than four out of any six successive Congresses). In addition, if a Member is appointed as chairman in his fourth and final term, the Speaker would have the option of appointing that Member as chairman for an additional term.

This recommendation amends House Rule XLVIII pertaining to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The term limit for members of the Intelligence Committee is increased from three to four Congresses, with mandatory rotation off the panel. Service for less than a full session of a Congress does not count against this maximum. The chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee can serve up to 4 years in such a post, and if first appointed as chair or ranking member in his/her fourth Congress of service, may serve on that panel for a total of 10 years.

Extending the term for all committee members makes better use of their knowledge and expertise in intelligence matters. The apprentice period is relatively long because intelligence issues are complicated, and new members often lack significant familiarity with them. Retaining experienced members will enhance oversight, and extend the institutional memory of the Committee. Maintaining a service limitation, however, will allow many Representatives to become expert in intelligence matters while ensuring the appropriate independence of the Committee from the community it oversees. Similarly, this provision gives the Speaker the option to reappoint a Member as chairman for an additional two years if that Member was named chairman (or ranking member) during his/her final two years of service. This provision will permit continuity of committee leadership.

12. Committee Oversight Agenda and Report.

Recommendation: Each standing committee of the House should be required to prepare an oversight agenda at the beginning of each Congress and each standing committee should be required to file a report at the conclusion of that Congress on how its agenda was fulfilled. Such reports shall be submitted to the Committee on House Administration for use during the committee funding process.

This proposal amends House Rule X, clause 2, to require each standing committee to prepare an oversight agenda by March 1 of each new Congress and to coordinate its agenda with other committees which have related jurisdiction. Committees may request the assistance of GAO and CRS in developing oversight agendas. Each committee's agenda will establish a coordinated review cycle so that all significant laws, agencies, and programs are reviewed at least every 10 years. Priority in oversight is to be given to laws, programs, and agencies with permanent budget authority or permanent statutory authority.

Committees must submit their oversight agendas to the House Administration Committee for use in the committee funding process. Before March 31 of the first session of a Congress, the House Administration Committee (in consultation with the Government Operations Committee) must publish the committees' oversight agendas along with any recommendations for improving oversight processes and coordination among committees.

Each committee must hold oversight hearings to review inspectors general, GAO, agency audit, and other ``appropriate'' reports on the activities of agencies under its jurisdiction. A 2-year budget cycle will permit more time for extensive oversight.

With the approval of the House, the Speaker may appoint special ad hoc oversight committees to review issues that cut across committee jurisdictions.

Biennial activity reports now required of House committees would be modified to require separate sections describing legislative and oversight activities; oversight sections should document committee efforts to fulfill the oversight agenda.

These changes will make oversight more regularized, systematic, and comprehensive. Better coordination among committees will eliminate duplication while preventing matters from being overlooked. Requiring oversight at least every 10 years assures that nothing falls between the cracks and mitigates against ``crisis oversight.'' Giving priority to permanent programs guarantees oversight of programs not scrutinized regularly as part of the funding process. Requiring the committees of jurisdiction to conduct hearings on appropriate reports issued during the preceding Congress by, for example, the GAO or the inspectors general will help assure that Members and the public are made aware of management issues and recommendations for corrective action. Finally, appointment of special ad hoc oversight committees draws on the expertise of all relevant panels and enables all aspects of a matter to be evaluated in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.

Additionally, as a way to further enhance the oversight work of Congress, the Joint Committee would encourage the Congressional Research Service to conduct on a regular basis, as it has done in the past, oversight seminars for Members and congressional staff and to update on a regular basis its Congressional Oversight Manual.

13. Staff Training.

Recommendation: It is the sense of the House that the Committee on House Administration shall review and evaluate current staff training and orientation programs.

This proposal expresses the sense of the House that the House Administration Committee should evaluate current training and orientation programs for House employees. The Committee also is urged to develop, administer, and coordinate programs for House staff to enhance their skills and knowledge.

Through such an evaluation the House Administration Committee would ascertain the effectiveness of existing programs and identify where appropriate training is lacking. The development of a comprehensive training program would increase the expertise, professionalism, and quality of staff work. Enhanced training would improve job satisfaction and thus promote longer tenure, increasing the institutional memory and professionalism of congressional staff.

14. Availability of Legislative Information.

Recommendation: It is the sense of the House that the availability of legislative information to Members, the public, and the media should be improved significantly.

This recommendation expresses the view that the text of proposed legislation be more readily available and more widely disseminated to Members and the public. Specifically, it urges filing committee and conference reports on computer disk to facilitate their availability to all Members. It recommends that, notwithstanding the general 3-day layover rule, the House take no action which reduces the advance availability of bills, reports, conference reports, and amendments (for bills under suspension) to less than 24 hours. It recommends that legislative documentation be accessible on computer to all congressional offices and through databases to the public. Also, the cable broadcast system should be enhanced to provide all offices, committee hearing rooms, and party cloakrooms with summaries of pending legislation.

These changes would improve Member capacity for informed decision-making. More timely filing, printing, and availability of documents are feasible given computer technology, would reduce tactical delays, and would be fairer to Members and the public who depend on prompt legislative information. Wider computer access to documents by Members and the public would allow for prompt review (particularly of documents not yet printed and disseminated); save costs associated with printing and purchasing sources of legislative information; and facilitate the location and retrieval of information when and wherever needed. Cable broadcast of summaries of legislation would allow Members with competing priorities to follow floor action more fully.

15. Public Understanding of Congress.

Recommendation: It is the sense of the House that significant steps should be taken to improve the public's understanding of Congress and the legislative process.

This proposal urges the House to take steps to augment the public's knowledge and understanding of the legislative process and the way Congress works. Among the suggestions are 1) experimentation with alternative debate forums on the floor, such as Oxford Union Style debates; 2) supporting ongoing initiatives to raise private funds to create a congressional education center; 3) the development of a central telephone line for citizens who want information on the congressional agenda; 4) encouraging civic education programs; and 5) enhancing orientation programs for journalists covering Congress.

These changes would increase the public's understanding of the legislative process and knowledge of the issues Congress addresses. These kind of initiatives could promote a more informed citizenry; they might increase the public's confidence in Congress as an institution. Alternative debate formats could allow for more comprehensive analysis of issues. An education center would make it easier for the public to know where to turn for information about the workings of Congress and to gain greater awareness of legislative branch activities. The establishment of a central telephone line is feasible given current technology, and both the education center and phone line might reduce mailing costs and free staff to perform other duties. Improved training for journalists could improve the way that information is transmitted to the public through the media.

16. House-Senate Staff Salary Parity.

Recommendation: It is the sense of the House 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.

House and Senate employees performing analogous functions should receive comparable pay. Specifically, the proposal urges the House Administration Committee and the House Appropriations Committee (in consultation with their Senate counterparts) to study the salary ranges of House and Senate personal, committee, and administrative staff, with a view toward achieving staff salary parity between the Chambers.

Salary parity will prevent House staff from seeking Senate jobs for better pay; the House cannot afford to train employees only to lose them, once they have gained experience, to the Senate. Salary parity could boost morale and reduce staff tensions by giving employees the assurance that they are being treated fairly.

17. Expansion of Unauthorized Appropriations Points of Order.

Recommendation: Current points of order against unauthorized appropriations should be expanded to preclude consideration of any appropriation item that would exceed the applicable authorization level as set forth by the House.

This suggested change is designed to enforce greater discipline in the authorization and appropriations process. The proposed shift to a minimum 2-year authorization cycle (see recommendation number 24) should reduce the instances in which the House must consider appropriations for a program that has not been reauthorized. This proposal should further increase spending discipline.

Under House Rules, a point of order may be lodged against appropriations in excess of an enacted authorization. This recommendation expands this point of order to make an appropriations bill liable to a point of order if the bill contains an appropriation at a level in excess of the ceiling set in a House-passed authorization. If the authorization and appropriations processes are to retain their historic functions (the Joint Committee rejected a number of proposals to combine some or all aspects of the authorization and appropriations processes), appropriators generally should adhere to the policy and funding constraints recommended by the authorizers and ratified by the entire House.

18. Motion to Recommit.

Recommendation: The motion to recommit with amendatory instructions should be guaranteed if the motion is offered by the minority leader or his designee. The Speaker should have the discretionary authority to postpone the vote on such a motion for up to two hours.

The right of the minority party to offer a motion to recommit with instructions is among the most contentious parliamentary issues dividing Democrat and Republican Members.

By all accounts, the Rules of the House clearly guarantee to the minority party the right to offer a motion to recommit (in some form) on any bill. If passed, such a motion recommits a bill back to the committee of jurisdiction.

At issue, however, is whether the minority also should be guaranteed explicitly in the Rules of the House the right to offer amendatory instructions along with the motion to recommit. In contrast to the basic motion to recommit, if a motion to recommit with amendatory instructions passes during consideration of a bill, the reporting committee is instructed to present a revised version of the bill (incorporating the amendatory instructions) to the House for an immediate vote. In short, a motion to recommit with instructions provides the House with one final opportunity to alter the content of a bill before the vote on final passage, while a recommittal motion without instructions simply refers the measure back to the reporting committee.

Some Members have argued that the historic origins of the motion to recommit also include guarantees to the minority party of the right to offer instructions on all bills -- if they so choose. Others, in contrast, have argued that the precedents of the House allow the Rules Committee to prohibit amendatory instructions on a case-by-case basis, although a straight motion to recommit is always in order. To resolve this impasse, the House Members of the Joint Committee recommend that the minority leader, or his/her designee, be guaranteed explicitly in House rules the right to offer the motion to recommit with instructions on all legislation. In addition, the Speaker would be allowed to postpone for up to two hours the consideration of such a motion so that the majority party has adequate time to prepare counterarguments to the minority proposal.

This recommendation would guarantee to the minority party on all bills the ability to secure on the House floor a vote on a major policy alternative of its choosing. A motion to recommit with instructions offered by the minority party leader (or his/her designee) should be more likely to reflect a consensus view among minority party members on the contents of this policy alternative.

19. Debate in the House.

Recommendation: Debate in the House should permit references by Members to certain actions taken by the Senate or by committees of the Senate that are a matter of public record.

This recommendation amends House Rule XIV to expand the range of permissible references to Senate actions. During House debate, Members could refer to Senate action or inaction on any measure or matter, or quote from Senate proceedings on any measure. The current Rule limits Members to references and quotations on measures then being debated in the House. Representatives would not be limited, as at present, to descriptions of Senate actions and to quotations only for the purposes of making legislative history. Under this change, Representatives could refer to individual Senators and to the Rules of the Senate and the effect of such Senate practices or Rules.

Since 1987 House Rules have allowed references to specific Senate actions. In 1989 the House expanded the category of permissible references to Senate actions. This new proposed expansion recognizes that the legislative debates and actions of the House and Senate are so interrelated that one Chamber should not be restricted in its discussions of the other. The suggested change extends to Representatives the same freedom to discuss the Senate that the public and press now possess.

20. Tabulation of Votes in Committee Reports.

Recommendation: Committee reports to accompany any reported measure or matter should contain the roll call vote, if taken, on the motion to report, including the names of Members voting for and against reporting. In the case of a voice vote, the names of the Members actually present when the vote was taken should be included in the committee report.

House Rules currently require committee reports to contain a recapitulation of the vote to report a measure to the House showing the total number of votes cast for and against reporting. The recommendation expands this requirement to stipulate the inclusion of names of the committee members voting for and against reporting, or in the case of voice vote on the motion to report, a listing of the committee members actually present at the time of such vote.

This recommendation is a step forward in increasing the accountability of committee members. It would not be an onerous burden to the committee or its staff who see to the preparation of such documentation and it should not make timely filing of committee reports more difficult. Instead, it would provide all House Members with useful additional information in this key legislative document.

Committee legislative reports will not be required to contain detailed descriptions of preliminary votes on amendments offered during full committee markups, nor does this reporting requirement extend to actions taken at subcommittee level. The proposal underscores the view that it is more important to require the timely issuance of voting information at the final, full committee stage of action on a measure. Recommendation 21 addresses earlier votes taken in committee and subcommittee and public access to such information.

21. Publication of Committee Attendance and Voting Records.

Recommendation: Each committee of the House should publish the committee and subcommittee attendance and voting records of each member of the committee in the Congressional Record.

This recommendation requires all committees to publish twice each year voting and attendance records of members at all committee meetings and meetings of each committee's subcommittees.

This new proposal expands recommendations on committee accountability contained in the 1946 and 1970 Legislative Reorganization Acts and incorporated in current House Rules. The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act required committees to keep a complete record of all committee action, including a record of the votes on any question on which a roll call vote is demanded. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act added to that requirement by stipulating that such information be subject to public inspection ``at reasonable times in the offices of the committee.'' It also required committee reports on measures to contain the total number of votes cast for, and the total number of votes cast against, the reporting of the measure.

Because House Rule XI currently stipulates that House rules shall apply to committees and to their subcommittees and because subcommittees generally are key to legislative action on measures, this recommendation covers both full committees and their subcommittees. The current stipulation that committee-maintained voting records ``include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each Member voting for and each Member voting against...and whether by proxy or in person, and the names of those Members present but not voting'' shall apply to the voting information to be published in the Congressional Record.

By giving Members an additional incentive for attending committee sessions, this recommendation could enhance committees' deliberative processes and assist in assuring attendance for committee activities when the floor has a limited legislative schedule. Additionally, the current practice of making documentation available only in committee offices limits access to this important information largely to Washington insiders: Members, Hill staff, lobbyists, and journalists. With the advent of fee-for-service electronic databases, committee voting data are available to those who can afford to pay substantial fees for such information. One central source of information on attendance and voting records will better enable the public to evaluate the work of their elected officials. Because committees already maintain this data, the publication requirement is not a substantial additional burden on committee staff, and mirrors existing requirements for the periodic publication in the Congressional Record of information on committee-sponsored foreign travel.

22. Accuracy of the Congressional Record.

Recommendation: The Congressional Record should be a substantially verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the House.

This proposal recommends that the Congressional Record should more accurately reflect actual debate in the House. Members would be limited to making only technical grammatical and typographical corrections to the transcripts of debate furnished them. Only the Member making the remarks is authorized to make these grammatical and typographical corrections. The deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the Congressional Record could be authorized only by unanimous consent or other House order. Extensions of remarks and insertions of additional material would continue to be permitted.

Given the televising of House floor proceedings, video tapes of those proceedings now exist for the past 14 years. These tapes establish an independent, verifiable source for what was actually said on the floor of the House. Hence, the permanent print record of House debate should comport with the televised record.

23. Recodification of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Recommendation: The Parliamentarian of the House should prepare a recodification of the Rules of the House.

Under this proposal, the Parliamentarian of the House is directed to recodify the Rules of the House, with the goal of completing the project by the beginning of the 105th Congress. The Parliamentarian may utilize the services of the Congressional Research Service and the Government Printing Office. In the early 1980s, at the suggestion of the House Rules Committee and other Members, preliminary work was undertaken to recodify the Rules of the House, although no formal recodification plan was ever presented to the House. It is likely that the Parliamentarian will be able to utilize some of these earlier studies to complete this current recodification project.

The term ``recodification'' does not imply any substantive change in House Rules. Instead, the Parliamentarian is to present a redrafted set of rules which clarifies conflicting definitions, eliminates anachronistic provisions, and reorganizes the rules into a more coherent and logical structure.