The Committee to Reduce Committees : Can Congress actually reform itself? Stay tuned

Congress, acknowledging its systemic inefficiencies and nervously aware of just how low its prestige has sunk, has taken a first step toward adopting what many members hope will be some of the most sweeping reforms in its 204 year-history.

The institution that tries to conduct and oversee the nation’s business through a staggering network of 300 committees and subcommittees--and 38,500 staff members--has ventured into the territory of reform by, naturally, setting up a committee to hold hearings and propose ideas for streamlining operations and reducing costs. The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, composed of a dozen-each Democrats and Republicans, is to present its recommendations next fall. No one expects consensus-building in the committee to be easy.

The joint committee nonetheless represents an effort to address specific maladies that, collectively and left largely untreated, have fueled growing public dissatisfaction with a branch of government that, if never revered, has at least been respected for much of its existence.

Last fall’s political campaign and election gave dramatic emphasis to popular discontent with Congress. The familiar litany of complaints--gridlocked government due to an inability of Congress to work with the White House or even to get its own act together, uncertain fidelity to ethical standards, a congressional bureaucracy that had grown both overly large and overly powerful--helped produce something of a political earthquake. A significant number of veterans were discouraged from seeking reelection or were ousted at the polls. The message sent to those who survived was do better, or else.

There are plenty of opportunities for doing better; a revolutionary overhaul of the committee system would be the best place to start. At last count the Senate had 16 standing committees, three select committee, one special. The House had 21 standing committee and five select, and there were four joint committees. But in the shadow of each of these committees subcommittees tend to proliferate, hundreds of them, like mushrooms in a cellar. Each committee and subcommittee has a chairperson and a staff and a budget. Each draws the close attention of specialized lobbyists. Worthwhile work, of course, is sometimes done. But the gross expansion of committees also reflects and encourages political self-promotion along with influence peddling. Some in Congress have been daring enough to suggest that committees and subcommittees could be cut to no more than 50, with staffs reduced by 25%. Those are attractive numbers. It will be interesting to see what the joint committee in fact proposes--and even more interesting to see what Congress approves.