OVERSIGHT PLANS OF THE

HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE

FOR THE 105TH CONGRESS

ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 11, 1997

Committee Action: Pursuant to clause 2(d)(1) of House Rule X, the Committee on Rules met in public session on February 11, 1997, and, with a quorum present, by a non-record vote, adopted the following oversight plans for the 105th Congress for submission to the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

OBJECTIVES

While the Rules Committee is most visible acting in its capacity as legislative "gatekeeper" by assisting in the scheduling of legislation for floor consideration, it also has important oversight responsibilities as outlined in House Rule X.

The Rules Committee has general oversight over the rules of the House, the House's internal organization, the Congressional budget process, relations between the Congress and the Executive Branch and relations between Congress and the Judicial Branch.

The Committee played a central role in the comprehensive restructuring of the rules and organization of the House that occurred in January of 1995. In addition, the Committee took leading roles in implementing the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the Line Item Veto, and developing the Deficit Reduction Lock-Box. The Committee also initiated several important internal changes, including the establishment of the Corrections Calendar and new restrictions on the acceptance of gifts and book royalties. The Committee conducted extensive oversight of those changes throughout the 104th Congress and developed further refinements of internal procedure that were put into place on opening day of the 105th Congress. All of these efforts have been undertaken to effectuate a more responsive, innovative, and flexible legislative process that enhances public participation as well as the ability of Congress to operate effectively in the information age.

The Rules Committee intends to continue this work in the 105th Congress, using its two subcommittees -- the Subcommittee on Legislative & Budget Process and the Subcommittee on Rules & Organization of the House -- to take the lead in proactive oversight efforts.

Accordingly, this oversight plan of the Committee on Rules for the 105th Congress includes the areas in which the committee expects to conduct oversight during this Congress, but it does not preclude oversight of additional matters as the need arises.

OPENING DAY RULES CHANGES

The rules changes adopted by the House on the opening day of the 105th Congress, while not as comprehensive as those adopted in the 104th Congress, are significant in that they continue to move the House in the direction of greater accountability and openness. In particular, these additional changes will effectuate a more responsive, innovative, and flexible legislative process that enhances public participation, as well as our ability to operate effectively in the information age. For example:

· allowing committees to adopt rules or motions to permit designated majority and minority members to question witnesses for more than five-minutes will enable lengthier and more focused questioning of witnesses during investigative hearings;

· to the greatest extent practicable, requiring non-governmental witnesses to submit in advance, as part of their written testimony, a curriculum vitae and a disclosure by source and amount of Federal grants and contracts received by them and the organizations they represent will bring greater openness to the legislative process by making Members of Congress and the American public aware of the interests of individuals and groups testifying before Congress;

· including dynamic scoring estimates in Ways and Means reports on major tax legislation will provide additional information on which Members may rely to assess the revenue impact of tax measures;

· authorizing committees to file joint investigative and oversight reports with other committees will reduce printing costs and concentrate all relevant information on a topic in one report, rather than several;

· requiring committees to put their publications on the Internet to the maximum extent feasible will ensure wide and timely public access electronically to information about legislative issues and activities;

· prohibiting the distribution of campaign contributions on the House floor and rooms leading thereto (cloakrooms and Speaker's Lobby) will enhance public confidence that only the people's business is being conducted on the House floor and in its adjoining rooms; and

· developing a system for drug testing in the House that is comparable in scope to the present system for drug testing in the Executive Branch will require Members to live under the same rules as executive branch officials and workers in the private sector with respect to drug testing.

The Committee will undertake an active review of both new and existing House rules to ensure their effectiveness. Specific issues the Committee may examine in the context of H.Res. 5 include (but may not be limited to):

o the progress made by committees toward compliance with the requirement that they make their publications available in electronic form;

o ensuring that the new Truth in Testimony rule does not weaken the quality of public testimony or undermine the ability of citizens to exercise their right to petition the government via the House of Representatives;

o the implementation of the House drug testing rule;

o maintaining the effectiveness of the Corrections Calendar rule and the bipartisan nature of the Corrections Day process;

o Congressional procedures with respect to hunger and humanitarian issues, including fragmented committee jurisdictions, differences in jurisdiction between House and Senate committees, the appropriations process, entitlements, and the oversight process as they relate to these issues; and

o ensuring the suitability of House procedures governing compliance with the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.

RECODIFICATION OF HOUSE RULES

On January 8, 1997, the Rules Committee established a bipartisan, ad hoc committee task force on the recodification of House Rules to recommend a more logical, orderly and comprehensive set of House rules without substantive policy changes.

The House of Representatives has not undertaken a comprehensive revision of its rules since the 1880s. The Senate adopted a resolution in November 1979 (S. Res. 274), the purpose of which was to begin to "revise and modernize" its rules. However, the report went on to observe that "the House has shown little movement toward changing its rules which are, in many respects, obsolete, confusing, misleading, incomplete and poorly organized. The precedents by which these rules have been interpreted and applied are often inconsistent, cumbersome, difficult to apply, and are only available through a group of sources. The result is that the legislative process and the activities of the House frequently prove difficult to learn and understand, much less master."

In 1984, House Speaker Tip O'Neill established a bipartisan group of four Members to review a draft recodification proposal presented by the Parliamentarian. However, the group's effort to present a final package to the Rules Committee and the full House stalled in 1985 when a group of committee chairmen reacted negatively to some of the proposed changes. Most recently, the House Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in the 103rd Congress recommended the following in their final report: "The Parliamentarian of the House should prepare a recodification of the Rules of the House...with the goal of completing the project by the beginning of the 105th Congress." (House Report 103-413, Vol. I, p. 18.)

The Parliamentarian's Office has been asked to prepare a proposed recodification, without substantive change, for review by the bipartisan ad hoc task force. The goals of the recodification effort will include:

· Cleansing House rules of obsolete and archaic provisions;

· Reorganizing rules to bring related provisions together in an orderly fashion;

· Rewriting rules to clarify their meaning, as necessary, and to minimize obscurities and ambiguities;

· Revising rules to bring about conformity with accepted and established House practices;

· Developing a composite index of all House rules and precedents to assist Members and staff in locating needed information; and

· Making available electronically an index of the rules and precedents to make them more accessible and convenient to all Members and staff and public researchers.

THE LINE ITEM VETO

The Rules Committee took a leading role in developing the Line Item Veto that was enacted into law on April 9, 1996 and took effect on January 1, 1997. Given this historic delegation of deficit reduction authority by the Congress to the President, the country will be watching the implementation of this new law with much interest.

The procedures and requirements specified in the Act for the use of the Line Item Veto and the options for Congressional response were carefully and explicitly defined. Nonetheless, as the law charts new ground in the budget relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, there will undoubtedly be questions raised about its reach and application.

On January 2, 1997 the Rules Committee issued a committee print entitled "The Use and Application of the Line Item Veto," a document designed as a users' guide for members, staff and the public. Throughout the 105th Congress, the Rules Committee intends to conduct ongoing and thorough oversight into all aspects of the application of this new law.

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

Those who are studied in the quirks and complexities of the Congressional budget process generally conclude that the process cannot be held solely responsible for the failure to achieve the desired policy result of a balanced federal budget. It is a widely held view that no combination of procedural mechanisms can substitute for the will of legislators to make decisions necessary to achieving that goal.

However, many people believe that the current overly complex, cumbersome and convoluted process does not help, and in fact often hinders, progress toward a balanced budget.

The Congressional budget process we have today is the result of a series of efforts to impose fiscal discipline, efforts that, while well-intentioned, have resulted in layers of procedures and requirements that are hard to understand and even harder to explain and justify.

The Rules Committee began a comprehensive review of the budget process with three broad joint subcommittee hearings in the 104th Congress. In the 105th Congress the Committee intends to build on the groundwork set by those hearings, examining specific process changes and developing proposals for the full House to consider, perhaps in the context of comprehensive budget process reform.

The Committee will seek to work closely with the Budget Committee, with which it shares jurisdiction over the budget process. Using the leadership of both of these important House committees, it is the intention of the Committee that meaningful budget process reform can be achieved without distracting from the ongoing effort to implement policy choices to lock in a balanced budget by the year 2002.

In this effort the Committee will review the procedures established by the Congressional Budget Act, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and the Budget Enforcement Act with an eye toward streamlining and simplifying procedures, improving controls for fiscal discipline and strengthening direct accountability for budget decisions.

A host of specific budget process reform proposals have been made by Members and outside experts. The Committee intends to review all suggestions for change, with the belief that an opportunity now exists to explore budget process reform as a comprehensive effort.

Specific Process Changes

In the 104th Congress, the Committee played a primary role in advancing certain targeted process changes, including crafting an effective and workable Deficit Reduction Lock-box proposal, which passed the House with strong bipartisan majorities on three separate occasions.

While Lock-box supporters will focus early efforts on achieving a similar level of support in the Senate, the Rules Committee stands ready to once again address the issue at the appropriate time.

Other specific reform proposals that will be explored include:

o Enforcement tools for implementing the Balanced Budget Amendment;

o A joint budget resolution;

o Biennial budget cycles;

o A permanent, or automatic, continuing resolution for the prevention of government shutdowns;

o Supermajority requirements for enforcement of Budget Act points of order;

o A "rainy day" contingency fund for emergencies.

THE ETHICS PROCESS

In the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee established for itself the goal of reviewing the ethics process in the interest of improving its credibility with the public and members. However, pending business before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the Ethics Committee) and disagreements among majority and minority Members resulted in delay.

In recent weeks, the ethics process has been on public display, generating much commentary and criticism. Observers inside and outside the Congress have proposed changes to the process designed to reduce the level of partisanship and restore public confidence in the peer review system.

There have been several published reports that the leadership of both parties is seeking to establish a bipartisan task force to review the process (as established in Rule X, clause 4 as amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989), including the manner in which its members are chosen and required to serve, and recommend changes to the House.

As in previous reform efforts (1989), the Rules Committee intends to assist in this effort, and exercise its original jurisdiction over this issue, as appropriate.

FAST TRACK PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRADE AGREEMENTS

Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 establishes a "fast track" procedure for the consideration of legislation implementing trade agreements negotiated by the President. Section 1103(b) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 provided the last "broad" extension of trade negotiating authority with "fast track" procedures.

This extension applied to implementing bills submitted with respect to trade agreements entered into before June 1, 1991, and was further extended until June 1, 1993, through operations of provisions of section 1103(b).

Following the expiration of "fast track" authority on June 1, 1993, Congress provided an additional extension of "fast track" procedures solely for an agreement concluding the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations through H.R. 1876 (P.L. 103-49). This "narrow" extension provided for "fast-track" consideration under Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a bill implementing the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, if an agreement was reached by December 15, 1993. An agreement was reached within that time frame, and the Congress overwhelmingly enacted legislation implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements in December 1994. The Administration has been without "fast track" authority since Dec. 15, 1993.

Fast track procedures limit the capacity of Congress to amend legislation implementing trade agreements. In order to offset this limit on congressional authority once implementing legislation is introduced, the Administration is directed by statute to undertake significant consultation and cooperation with Congress during trade negotiations.

In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House and the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade began a comprehensive review of Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974. The subcommittees held public hearings focusing on policies, conditions, and negotiating objectives of fast track, as well as on fast track procedures. The subcommittees also began investigating Administration plans to undertake trade negotiations under a new grant of "fast track" authority, as well as the implementation of trade agreements recently enacted under "fast track" procedures. This will help to determine if the "fast track" process has led to successful trade negotiations, and if "fast track" authority should be further granted to the Administration. In the 105th Congress, the subcommittees will likely examine the prospects for either a broad extension of "fast track" or a narrow extension relating to a potential free trade agreement with Chile.

TECHNOLOGY AND CONGRESS

Emerging technologies with congressional applicability such as the Internet, e-mail, video conferencing, databases, talk radio and digitized television will have a dramatic impact on the customs, culture, procedures and operations of the House and Senate. In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House began a long-term examination of how technology may transform the institution, and what it will mean for our Federal system of representative government. Issues the Committee will continue to examine in the 105th Congress and beyond include:

· how technology utilization has transformed the legislative process in state legislatures;

· the institutional and public policy trends driving Congress' investment in information technology;

· the impact of technology on the role and responsibilities of committees;

· the dissemination of information electronically and the impact on procedures governing the dissemination of information; and

· the impact on deliberation as the institution becomes more accessible to the public.

INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT AND THE SECURITY OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

In recent Congresses, changes have been proposed in the structure of the Select Committees on Intelligence, including changes in the size of the committee, its party ratios, length of service of its members, the potential for combining the House and Senate committees into one joint body and the clear need to provide better management and control of sensitive information.

In the 104th Congress, the Committee heard some testimony on these subjects during its hearings on reform proposals. In the 105th Congress, the Committee intends to continue this review of House Rules, including Rule XLVIII, examining the methods and procedures now in place for Congressional oversight of the Intelligence community.

BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL RETREAT

In 1996, a bipartisan group of 86 Members cosigned a letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt calling on them to set aside a weekend early in 1997 for the entire House membership to meet together informally at an appropriate site near Washington, D.C. The letter was initiated in response to a growing concern that Congress has become too contentious and partisan. The Speaker and Minority Leader responded by creating an 8-member Bipartisan Retreat Planning Group (which was later expanded to 10 Members to ensure representation by the 105th Congress freshman class).

The purpose of the retreat, which will be held March 7-9, 1997, is to seek a greater degree of civility, mutual respect and, when possible, bipartisanship among Members of the House of Representatives in order to foster an environment in which vigorous debate and mutual respect can coexist. Following the event, the Rules Committee will examine the findings generated at the retreat, and will be working closely with the Bipartisan Retreat Planning Group to develop a long-term process of improving civility and the overall work environment in the House of Representatives.

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62), which requires the federal government to develop measurable performance goals for its agencies and programs. When fully implemented, the GPRA has the potential to transform government by changing the focus of federal programs from inputs (money) to outputs (results). Unfortunately, measuring agency and program performance is often difficult because the goals or objectives of a statute may be vague, imprecise, or so general in character that it is difficult for committees and others to assess whether an agency, program, or intergovernmental grant is working to achieve its intended purpose.

GPRA requires Federal agencies to consult with congressional committees in developing their performance goals and other criteria. The success of agency compliance with GPRA will depend heavily on the ability of committees to define Congressional intent with respect to the missions and goals of agencies and programs, particularly those subject to overlapping committee jurisdictions. Therefore, the Rules Committee will be monitoring the implementation of GPRA not from a management process perspective, but from the perspective of its impact on the duties and jurisdictions of the standing committees of the House.