If Congress is serious about reform -- cutting spending, staff,
and the undergrowth of overlapping committees -- there is no better
place to start than by eliminating "select committees." Organized
around hot-button issues, these panels have large budgets and
staff, but lack authority to pass legislation to solve the problems
they examine. Tomorrow the House is scheduled to consider H. Res.
52, which would provide funding for the four existing House select
committees to operate for an additional year. Last Tuesday, January
26, the House on a 237-180 vote defeated a resolution to
reauthorize one of the select committees (on narcotics) for two
years. Startled House leaders pulled resolutions on the other three
committee from the House schedule. H. Res. 52 is a compromise
proposal designed to keep the select committees alive until the
Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress reports broader
reform proposals. But the reform study should not be used as an
excuse to delay needed reforms, and there are convincing arguments
to abolish the select committees now.
Eliminating select committees will advance the important reform
objectives of emphasizing the legislative mission of Congress,
cutting staff, eliminating overlapping committees, reducing
spending, curbing special interest influence, and limiting
incumbents' electoral advantages. These goals are elements of The
Heritage Foundation's congressional reform program, and are
included in many other reform proposals.
Focusing Congress on Legislating. Traditionally, select
committees are formed for a limited time and a specific purpose:
panels to investigate Iran-Contra and October Surprise allegations
and the joint reform committee are recent examples. In the
mid-1970s, however, the House began creating bodies with vague
mandates to look into broader social problems, resulting in the
existing four select committees on Aging, Narcotics, Hunger, and
Children, Youth and Families. Rather than forming definite plans
for action in these areas, the committees have sought renewed
authority every other year (the House can only authorize the
committees for the two-year length of a Congress) for as long as
eighteen years now. Because select committees cannot consider
legislation they cannot, by definition, take steps to address the
problems they investigate. The lack of real purpose has caused the
committees to drift beyond their mandates, with the Aging
Committee, for instance, involving itself in health care for all
ages, the environment, and even programs for farm workers.
Getting Congress to concentrate on its central, legislative
mission is the key to effective reform. Eliminating select
committees would remove a needless distraction and encourage
Congress to focus its energies on legislative solutions to pressing
problems.
Reducing the Budget and Staff. There is a broad consensus on the
need to reduce congressional spending and staff. President Clinton
has called for a 25 percent staff cut. The select committees employ
91 staffers; their combined budgets total $3.65 million.
Eliminating select committees would trim House committee staffs by
4.5 percent. This represents a useful first step toward President
Clinton's 25 percent target, and would allow the House to
concentrate staff in more important areas, even as it reduces
overall numbers.
Eliminating Overlapping Committees. Reformers agree that
Congress has too many committees, often with overlapping
responsibilities. Multiple assignments make it difficult for
Members of Congress to attend properly to committee business, and
jurisdictional conflicts make passing legislation difficult. The
select committees themselves attempt to justify their existence by
citing the large numbers of regular (standing) committees that have
responsibility in their area of concern: eight of 22 standing House
committees in the case of the Hunger panel. But addressing
overlapping committee jurisdictions by creating yet another
committee is like trying to cure a hangover with Scotch. If
committees are not organized appropriately to address major
national problems, overall committee jurisdictions should be
reformed. The select committees have a total of 172 members, so
their elimination would be a major step forward in reducing
scheduling conflicts and dissipation of Member and staff
efforts.
The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress is
examining the committee structure in hopes of reducing the number
of committees and subcommittees and rationalizing jurisdictional
divisions. Eliminating select committees now would aid the reform
process by removing one issue from the joint committee's
overburdened platter. Reauthorizing the select committees for a
year in hopes of a reprieve would send a very damaging signal that
Congress intends to use the joint committee to construct a facade
of reform while attempting to continue business as usual.
Curbing Electioneering and Special Interests. Because the select
committees have no authority to consider legislation or otherwise
change programs or policies, they have become publicity and
lobbying organizations, often allied with special interest groups
which benefit from the programs the committees push. A large budget
item for most select committees is for "field hearings." Even more
than most congressional hearings, these travelling shows are more
about publicity than about legislation. Members of the committees
visit sites outside of Washington supposedly to hear from ordinary
citizens. But the real objective is for constituents to hear from
their Congressman: almost all field hearings are in districts
represented by members of the select committee. The shows dominate
local media while they are in town. So appealing is this posturing
that the select committees have swollen to become among the largest
in Congress. The Aging Committee, with 69 members, is larger by far
than any of the House's standing committees. But since the
committees cannot approve legislation, they are guaranteed to do
nothing about the citizens' concerns. As such, they represent, at
best, hollow expressions of concern and can be of no real
assistance to those in need.
Reform Now. The House has an opportunity tomorrow to demonstrate
a commitment to real congressional reform. The House should follow
through on its decision last week to eliminate the Narcotics
Committee by voting this week to eliminate all four select
committees. Allowing the congressional leadership to keep these
panels alive for another year by approving H. Res. 52 would
represent a big step backward for congressional reform.
David M. Mason, Director, U.S. Congress Assessment
Project.