At three hearings dedicated to the related issues of floor procedure, deliberation, and scheduling -- May 18, 20, and 25 -- as well as during other sessions, the Committee received testimony from Representatives including party and committee leaders, as well as from academic experts and current and former House officers. Issues prevalent at the hearings included the appropriate role of the majority and the minority parties, improvements in the quality of debate, and rationalization of scheduling. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS ON HOUSE FLOOR PROCEDURES
Role of the Majority and the Minority
Encapsulating one of the primary concerns of the House today, Professor Steven Smith of the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, testified that ``the central issue is finding ways to achieve a new balance between allowing the majority to act with dispatch, and the minority's right to be heard and offer alternatives.''2
The typical majority viewpoint was expressed by Representative Joseph Moakley, Chairman of the Rules Committee: ``I think everyone would agree that it is the prerogative of the majority party leadership to both set the legislative agenda, and to provide for the orderly consideration of legislation in the House.''3 The views of the minority should be accommodated ``within reason,'' he remarked, because it is a general principle of House floor procedure ``that a determined majority of members should be able to work its will on the floor without undue delay by the minority.''4
By contrast, several Republicans contested what they view as denial of their right to participate fully in the legislative process. Observing that the House was ``in crisis,'' House Minority Leader Representative Robert H. Michel claimed that ``legislative debate on the Floor has degenerated into a majority monologue -- . -- . -- . -- interrupted now and then by the minority whose ability to alter legislation has been previously thwarted by the action of the House Rules Committee.''5 He remarked that on other occasions, ``The Minority's views are noted, recorded, and then thrown into the memory hole, never to be heard from again. The Majority then does what it wants, satisfied that it has played its role in the ritual.''6
Arguments were raised in the context of the discussion on special rules and the motion to recommit with instructions, among other issues. Witnesses addressed the House's reliance on special rules making the consideration of measures in order, which often limit debate and amendment on the floor. Citing statistics on the decreasing number of open rules, several Republicans asserted that the majority does not acknowledge the minority's role in improving legislation through amendment. Some testified that the Rules Committee blocks action on certain amendments so that the majority does not have to record their votes on important issues, reducing congressional accountability.
Chairman Moakley noted the majority leadership's efforts to allow for more open, inclusive debate. He stressed that the Rules Committee can only recommend rules, and the House decides by majority vote whether to accept the ground rules reported, including any restrictions on the amendment process. The Speaker of the House, Representative Thomas S. Foley, remarked, ``It is not always true, however, that we serve the interests of the House best by having unlimited debate, unlimited amendments, unlimited consideration of legislation.''7 Other witnesses expressed concern that open rules would undermine the committee's version of legislation, allow amendments to be adopted without a study of their effects, and shift the focus away from the consideration of major policy alternatives. Some defended closed rules for legislation important to the President, or as a means to prevent the House from getting bogged down on a particular bill.
Changes to the rules and practices governing usage of restrictive rules were presented. Chairman Moakley supported having each party's leadership propose amendments on the floor, but conceded that some would view this as a gag on individual Members. Testifying before the Joint Committee where he serves as Co-Vice-Chairman, Representative David Dreier recommended that the minority be permitted to offer one amendment to a restrictive rule before the previous question is ordered. The amendment could be an open rule substitute, or could identify one or two specific amendments to be made in order, he explained.
Several witnesses proposed guaranteeing the minority the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions as a final opportunity for amendment prior to the vote on final passage. Chairman Moakley suggested guaranteeing the motion whenever a special rule precludes the minority from offering amendments in the Committee of the Whole, providing: (1) the motion were offered at the specific direction of the Minority Leader, or his designee, and (2) the Speaker could postpone action on the motion for up to 2 hours. Requiring the advanced printing of amendments ordered by motions to recommit that have been not been considered in the Committee of the Whole was suggested by Professor Steven Smith.
Expressing the view of witnesses from both parties that the extent and quality of House debate have declined, the House Majority Leader, Representative Richard Gephardt stated, ``I am deeply concerned that we often fail to engage in genuine debate of the issues at hand and instead are forced to parcel out small units of time in which statements are read and no real debate or dialogue occurs.''8 Witnesses attributed the problem to little genuine exchange of ideas, a lack of comity between the parties, and Members' numerous responsibilities off the floor, among other issues. The televising of House debates, while seen as educational for the public, was also criticized as politicizing debate.
Witnesses proposed a variety of ways to improve debate. Some advocated the institution of Oxford-style debates, including Chairman Moakley who remarked that these debates strike ``me as a useful vehicle for conducting thoughtful, substantive, and balanced debate on important national issues. Unlike the one-minute special orders which tend to be one-sided monologues, free of contest or rebuttal, such a program would allow for a meaningful exchange of ideas between Members. It would also serve as a valuable supplement to our regular debate time on major legislation.''9
Others doubted the usefulness or adaptability to the House of Oxford-style debates. Mr. Peter Robinson testified that Oxford-style debates ``would stand a good possibility of disintegrating into a couple of Members talking to each other in an empty Chamber. It seems to me the best debates that happen in Congress are usually when a proposal for action is pending -- . -- . -- . -- I think the Congress does best in that mode rather than as a debating society.''10 ``No matter how well these debates are crafted, they will not succeed if Members are scheduled so tightly that no one can attend,'' Representative Bill Emerson, a Joint Committee member, concurred.11
Calling the desire for more meaningful debate a bipartisan goal, House Parliamentarian William Holmes Brown offered several ideas to meet the goal. First, more general debate could occur before the amendment process, allowing all Members a chance to express themselves before the vote. Second, noting proposals for debate time not controlled by committees, he suggested a period of 5-minute debate that is free of committee control. Third, the business of the House could be restructured, and one-minute speeches, special orders, and the essential legislative business could be used differently than they are today.
Other witnesses recommended more open rules, and service on fewer committees to increase the opportunities and time for Members to participate in floor debate. Contrarily, Professor Barbara Sinclair of the University of California at Santa Barbara remarked that real deliberation takes place in subcommittees and committees, and it is unrealistic to think that it can take place on the floor of either House.
Improved scheduling to assist Members with keeping up with their myriad responsibilities was widely promoted. A prevalent proposal regarded the House moving to the Senate schedule of 3 weeks in Washington, 1 week in the district. It was noted that this would give the House more days of session, without substantially cutting into time in the districts. However, concern was expressed that this schedule would work only if floor votes were scheduled on all 5 workdays to encourage Members to return to Washington. A 4-day workweek was proposed as a compromise between the current 3-day schedule and the proposed five-day arrangement.
To avoid overlap between committee and floor sessions, separate time could be set aside for floor action and for committee sessions, witnesses observed. In his testimony before his Joint Committee colleagues, Representative Emerson proposed 2 to 3 weeks of committee work, followed by a week of full House activity to dispense with measures committees had reported. Representative Billy Tauzin endorsed a structured day for the House. The House would meet at the same hour each day, break at a particular time for committee sessions, then reconvene for another period during which committees could not meet.
If committees and the full House continue to meet simultaneously, voting machines could be established in committee rooms to allow Members to participate in certain floor votes, Representative Tauzin testified. Other suggestions included a master schedule of House and committee meetings to facilitate planning, more suspension days to efficiently handle business, and earlier House sessions.
If Congress attended exclusively to particular activities its performance would improve, witnesses alleged. Mr. Emerson testified that Congress could do a better job of oversight of the executive branch if part of the year were devoted to legislating and the other part to oversight, or if the first session of a Congress was used for legislating and the second for conducting oversight. A 2-year cycle for budgeting, authorizing, and appropriations issues received considerable support, with the off-year dedicated to oversight or other business.
Additional testimony focused on a variety of procedural issues including improving the information available to Members before floor action, waiving rules of the House, and procedural training for Members and staff and recodifying House Rules.
Diverse suggestions for increasing the information available to Members before floor votes were put forth. Regarding amendments, one idea was to project pending amendments on a screen on the floor, while another was to assign a person to the committee desk who could answer questions on amendments. A third idea was to apply the one-day layover rule for special rules to the text of amendments explicitly made in order by the rules.
Several Members urged that the layover periods for committee and conference reports not be waived. Chairman Moakley responded with a plan for committee reports that would continue the 3-day layover rule, while shortening the usual time it takes to get a bill on the calendar. Essentially, the 3-day requirement for filing minority views would start when a measure is ordered reported, and a committee would have automatic authority to file the measure until midnight of the third day.
Minority party witnesses were concerned with the frequency with which House Rules are waived. Citing ``the chronic failure of the majority leadership to abide by the rules that are there,'' Representative Dreier remarked, ``The best reform that we could implement would be simply adherence to the standing rules of the House.'' He recommended requiring a super-majority vote, such as two-thirds or three-fifths, to waive points of order against legislation.
Finally, although he observed that ``we are not advocates in our office . . . we don't view ourselves as proponents of this rules change or that revision,'' House Parliamentarian William Brown offered two suggestions for improving the operation of the House.12 First, ``the House would work better if more Members understood the rules of the House well,'' he stated, while offering the Office of the Parliamentarian to assist with orientation and education for both Members and staff.13 Second, a recodification of House Rules, as first suggested a few Congresses ago, would help to make the rules more understandable. He explained that, ``There are anachronisms and conflicting definitions in these rules. They could be codified. We think it is a good idea and we would be willing to go forward with that.''14
FOOTNOTES2 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Floor Deliberations and Scheduling. Hearing. May 20, 1993. p. 97. 3 Ibid., May 20. 1993. p. 60.
4 Ibid., May 20, 1993. p. 60.
5 Joint Committee. Operations of the Congress. Hearing. Jan. 26, 1993. p. 33.
6 Ibid., Jan. 26, 1993. p. 32.
7 Ibid., Jan. 26, 1993. p. 16.
8 Ibid., Jan. 26, 1993. p. 31.
9 A Joint Committee. Floor Deliberations and Scheduling. Hearing. May 20, 1993. p. 63.
10 Ibid., May 18, 1993. p. 42.
11 Ibid., May 25, 1993. p. 110.
12 Ibid., May 18, 1993. p. 3.
13 Ibid., May 18, 1993. p. 4.
14 Ibid., May 18, 1993. p. 4.