Many in Both Parties Want a Window Into the Deficit Reduction Panel’s Work
By Robert Pear
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/politics/deficit-reduction-panel-is-criticized-for-its-secrecy.html
OCTOBER 10, 2011
WASHINGTON — On one crucial point, a powerful Congressional committee seeking ways to reduce the federal budget deficit has managed to produce a rare bipartisan consensus: Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives in and out of Congress say the panel is doing too much of its work in secret.
Moreover, they say, the secrecy could make it more difficult for the 12-member panel to win acceptance for its recommendations from the public and from other members of Congress.
Far from apologizing for their secrecy, members of the committee say it shows they are making progress toward a possible agreement, establishing trust among themselves without public posturing or partisan sniping. And there is a view among some in Congress that such politically charged bargains can be struck only behind closed doors, where members can talk freely, insulated from the special interests that could swoop in to try to kill elements of an agreement.
The panel, which has six remaining weeks to hash out a plan to reduce future deficits by at least $1.2 trillion, operates in an insular world. It has held two public hearings, one on spending and one on taxes, but has not taken testimony from the public.
The only witnesses were the director of the Congressional Budget Office and the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, both appointed by Congress.
Members of the committee often skitter away from journalists who wait outside their meetings, held up to seven hours a day.
“The American people deserve to know what is happening in this committee,” said Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, noting that the panel’s recommendations would go directly to the floor of the House and the Senate. “These negotiations should be fully open.
“We don’t get a better result for the people of this country when things are done behind closed doors.”
Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and co-chairwoman of the committee, said the panel would vote publicly on its final recommendations, but needed to deliberate behind closed doors so members could be “open and honest with each other.”
“I remember well one time when I was very little and I was fighting with my brother every other minute, and my mother put us in a back room and said, ‘Don’t come out until you got it figured out,’ ” Mrs. Murray said. “We stared at each other for a while, but we came out friends.”
Panel members resent invasions of their privacy. “We like to eat breakfast without having cameras in our face,” Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas and co-chairman of the panel, told reporters last month.
The panel, officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, has been dubbed the super committee by many because it has extraordinary authority to recommend changes in any spending or tax laws, and its recommendations cannot be amended before the House and the Senate vote on them this year.
Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, said it should be called the “super-secret committee.”
“We are opposed to inside baseball,” he said. “That’s what we are seeing in this super committee.”
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said: “I understand the argument that the secrecy will facilitate robust discussion. But the American people have come to expect openness and transparency in the legislative process. I am not aware of any situation where a legislative committee responsible for matters of such profound sweeping importance operates in secret.”
Some panel members have met with lobbyists for groups trying to protect the benefits, contracts and tax breaks they receive from the government. Advocacy groups like the Sunlight Foundation and the Brennan Center for Justice have urged the panel to disclose such meetings, saying voters have a right to know who is lobbying for special treatment. And they want panel members to disclose campaign contributions within 48 hours of receipt.
“The secretive activities of this committee fly in the face of all the promises of transparency by Republicans and Democrats over the last few years,” said Brian H. Darling, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Republicans excoriated Democrats for writing much of the 2010 health care law and the 2009 economic stimulus law in private.
Among the Democrats demanding more openness are Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Mike Quigley of Illinois and Dave Loebsack of Iowa.
“I’m concerned that we are going to be handed a set of recommendations and asked to cast an up-or-down vote with no chance for amendments,” Ms. Schakowsky said. “The American public, and those of us who represent them, deserve to have these questions debated openly.”
Mr. Quigley said the panel needed to be more open to ensure that its recommendations would be accepted by Congress and the public.
Pressure is growing. Some Congressional leaders have raised expectations for the panel, saying it should recommend 10-year savings of $4 trillion.
The momentous nature of the committee’s work increases concern about its secrecy. “I am dying to know what they are doing,” said Max Richtman, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which represents beneficiaries of the programs. “Members of the super committee should have the courage to face the people who will be affected by their decisions.”
Some lobbyists for military contractors expressed similar frustration. “The super committee and its staff are being very guarded, holding their meetings and deliberations behind closed doors,” said Cord A. Sterling, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group. He said he had met with one panel member, Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina.
The industry has employees in every Congressional district and is encouraging them to lobby lawmakers who will eventually vote on the panel’s recommendations.
“Decisions of the super committee will affect what weapons systems we build, what research is conducted, what factories are kept open, what people we employ and how many people we have to lay off,” said Michael H. Herson, president of American Defense International (ADI), a lobbying firm.
