these bills should be passed, bring them to the floor, let us have a vote. give us a vote. time is of the essence. we cannot be silent and we will not be silent. we cannot wait for another time, another place, another person. mr. speaker, the time is now for us to act. today i urge all of my colleagues to join us. be brave, be bold. take a stand for what is good and necessary. if you prefer, please take a seat. roll up your sleeves. let's go to work. he time for silence is over.

it's time to move. mr. speaker, i truly believe that the spirit of history is upon us. we have a mission, a moral obligation and mandate, to do what is right. istory will not be kind to us. if congress continues to turn a blind eye and a cold shoulder to those crying, begging, and pleading for action. i ask my colleagues each and every one of you to join me in he well. we must pass commonsense legislation to prevent gun violence and mass shooting in

our country, and we must act now . history is demanding, the people >> hillary clinton is back on the campaign trail on thursday after taking a few days off to treat pneumonia. wednesday afternoon, she released additional medical information. the clinton campaign releases dr. letter describing mild and am now -- pneumonia.

they write that the hillary clinton campaign released a letter from her doctor describing her treatment for and ancterial pneumonia overall picture of good health. it goes on to say the remainder of her complete physical exam was normal and she is an excellent mental health. the article mentions that donald trump discussed his personal health during a taping of the dr. oz show on wednesday morning. ofwill have live coverage her campaigning in north carolina on thursday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. donald trump was inflict michigan today. he stop adequate church -- a flint church. the pastor chastised jumper politicizing the offender. he was chastised on wednesday by a plaintiff minister about politicizing the church have to be toward flint, michigan's water treatment can. he was doing average for african american voters and attempted to link the economic decline to

oflary clinton the reverend the church interrupted mr. trump saying, mr. trump to my invited you to thank us for what we have done, not to give a political speech. ok, that is good. t.en i'm going back on flin you canread the rest powell the e-mail show: unloading on clinton, trump and rumsfeld. it offers a rare window into the former secretary of state's unvarnished, scathing thoughts on hilly clinton and donald trump and old political adversaries who served with him in the george dubya bush administration. you can read some of those exchanges between secretary powell and secretary condoleezza rice at politico.com. bee about campaign 2016 can found just by following along on our website, c-span.org.

journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. thursday, we are talking with members of congress about key issues before the house natural resources committee. guests include democratic representative debbie dingell from michigan, congressman bruce westermann, a republican from arkansas, the committee chair, rob bishop from you. and congressman that will a democrat from arizona. what c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> thursday, the heads of the u.s. armed forces testify about the long-term budget needs of the military. the senate armed services committee is considering military readiness under budget caps. watch live at 9:30 eastern on c-span3. c-span, created by america's

cable television companies and brought you by a public service or cable or satellite provider. first-term congressman mark takai of hawaii died on july 20 after a battle with pay graphic cancer. he was 49. colleagues, friends and family members took part in a memorial service to honor his life at the u.s. capitol. speakers included minority leader nancy pelosi, speaker paul ryan, vice president biden and congressman tokai's wife. this is 40 minutes.

♪ [national anthem] ♪

>> please remain standing for the indication. indication -- invocation. it is a delight to have them as a part of our church. our family, a great delight and privilege to have called mark my friend and brother. it is an honor to lead us all in prior as -- prayer as we give thanks to mark as we pray. convincedht: 38, i'm that neither death nor life, angels nor rulers, and present nor things to come, power, depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to

separate us from the love of god. in christ jesus, our lord. almighty and everlasting father, we give you thanks for the chance together today and gratitude for the life of your servant and for the difference you made to your world. we thank you for his warm and inspiration, his friendship and example, we ask that you would fill each of us with that same light of christ that we will bring your transformation to each of our communities. most merciful god whose wisdom is beyond our understanding, so kayland sammy, matthew, and all of his family with your love that they may not be overwhelmed by the loss but have confidence in your goodness and strength to meet today's to come ys to come. make the hope of heaven be the most beautiful reality to them and to us all this day. lord of all, we praise you and

to adjust with infinite mercy and justice. and love everything you have made. in your mercy, through the darkness of death, it has become the dawn of new life and the sorrow of parking into the joy of heaven. these things we ask in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, amen. please be seated. tokai, speaker ryan, leader pelosi, colleagues in congress, i'm honored to join you to remember a man who committed his life to serving others and who embodied the spirit. the beste of

colleagues i've ever known. through his time in the legislature and his service in the national guard, he was a father and husband and member of congress, he was truly a happy warrior. he never complained. he understood what an honor it was to serve the people of hawaii. because of his joyful determination, his humility and skill, he became an effective legislator for hawaii in his short time in congress. he is a person who advocated for the department of defense, for service members, veterans and the environment. he did it all with passion and without any trace of the toxicity that has become all too common in washington. beyond his public service, he was a loving husband and father and he raised to amazing children. i know that they continue to grieve but i hope they are comforted by their faith in god and the knowledge that mark was

one of hawaii's great statesman. he was well loved, respected and that he is missed. mark was a soldier in every sense of the word. , respectignity, honor and determination. but ite was cut short was a life well lived. we love you, mark. a lot. >> good afternoon and a low half aloha. his beard is with us and the -- spirit is with us. to sammy, matthew, kayla, eric, entire tokeand the

hana. it is a privilege to be with you today and recall what a wonderful person mark was. i worked and newmark for over 20 years -- knew mark for over 20 years. when we both served in congress, i consider him to be one of my closest allies and i refer to him as my younger brother. i have many memories of mark. when that i would like to share with you occurred last year when the two of us went to selma, alabama along with dozens of our colleagues from both the house and senate to commemorate the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday, that historic march led by reverend dr. martin luther king jr.. in 1965, some of you may still remember the pictures that appeared in the new york times the following day.

it showed dr. king wearing a white carnation lay. he had become friends with reference abraham akaka who was the brother of our calling. they had become friends. lay tod akaka sent the the marchers to stand in solidarity with the marchers. here we were, last year, mark decides that we should commemorate that and to carry out that tradition of aloha and love that a simplified to march in 1965. he wanted to make sure that every single comic from the house and senate had fresh la -- colleague from the house and senate had fresh lay. over 100 were ordered in the world to be flown into alabama. they were not there.

we had absolutely no idea where they were in transit from the west coast to where we were. i look at mark and said, you are the national guard guy, you know logistics. i'm sure you can take care of this. for the next eight or so, he -- , he were so, --day or so tried to figure out where these were. done andgh, he got it if they arrived just in time. we have pictures of him opening up the boxes. y was presented to john lewis who was one of the original marchers. john got a carnation lay which is similar to the white one dr. king were 50 years before. across the bridge our firstnds with

american president, barack obama, it was a moment. mark did everything with a lot aloha., determination and i know how much mark admired dr. martin luther king. with a quotese from dr. king. it is from a speech he gave the n 1965.-- i let us begin. let's rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful struggle for a new world. this is a calling of the sons of god. our brothers wait eagerly for our response. shall we say the odds are two great? shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? will our message be that the againstf american life

our arrival? we send our deepest regrets. will there be another message of longing, hope, solidarity with their yearnings of commitment to the cause, whatever the cost? the choice is ours. then we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history. we are at a crucial moment. mark would have wanted us to do the right thing. >> aloha. thank you all for gathered here today.

your presence is truly a testament to mark's life, his character and heart. during my first appointment to iraq, there was a big sign at one of the main gates from our camp that most of the convoy and patrol went out of that read in big letters, is today the day? a reminder every day that our time could come at any moment. a reminder that none of us really knows how much time we have. mark lived his life in this. spirit makingthis the most of all of his 49 years and dedicating his life in the service of others. as a father and a son, a husband, rather -- brother, colleague, soldier and friend, mark's life was truly driven by his love for the people of hawaii in our country -- and our

country. positively impacting, slides along the way. i had the good fortune of knowing mark for over a decade. he was there when i was sworn in as a state representative in hawaii. we served together. he was the chair and i was the vice chair. mark was standing by my side and i enlisted in the hawaii national guard. we were to put together. we served here in congress together. just over a year ago, he was there to celebrate with my family and friends at my wedding. it has been to these last several weeks that a reflection that mark has been there for milestoner marker in -- and milestone in my life. what is incredible is i can't tell you how mystical i have spoken to who have said the exact same thing about marx presence in their own lives. -- mark presence and their lives. i've had many conversations with inople both here and what --

washington sharing their own testimony about how their lies are positively impacted. i've heard from many of my fellow national guard soldiers who served under mark's command. i've heard about a deep respect for his leadership, what he taught them, how he mentored them, how seriously he took his job as a leader of soldiers taking care of them. our lives come our trinity, our state and country -- community, our state and country are better off with his service. we will forever miss you, your smiley face, you're ready last and heart of -- lauh and heart of aloh. his impact will forevea live on. -- forever live on.

♪ ♪

aloha. kyla, eric and

, ronnie,ster nadine ross, father-in-law, gary. aloha to all of you. thank you for sharing with us. we are gathered here today in the old house chamber where lincoln served beneath the same cloth lincoln heard -- clock lincoln heard ticking. bennie the gates of the muse of history in the presence of the vice president of the united states. for almost two centuries, cleo and her clock reminded the men and women that our time is short and that history is watching. service to the congress defined what it means to meet the challenge. facing bravely to the judgment of history, earning a worthy

place in the honorable heritage of our democracy and using his time well. as a family has said, mark lived his dream. in his service to america and hawaii, congressman tokai embodied our nation's highest ideals. cancer, het against showed the courage and strength that defined the wonderful person he was. all of us are heartbroken by the death of our colleague and friend, mark takai. and issing is a tragedy speak for all of our colleagues when i say that. everyone who had the privilege of knowing mark knew how devoted he was to his family, his wife, his children. i know we are deeply grateful to the family for sharing him with our country for so many years.

in the military, the state legislature of hawaii and in the united states congress. especially knowing that that service often took him to the other side of the world from their home in hawaii. i had the privilege of bringing mark on a congressional delegation to asia. i wish you all could have seen the dignity and diplomacy with which he engaged in discussion on our national security, economic interest and human rights. that special grace, we think his his parents.ink in burma, cambodia, korea, japan, he upheld our values and beautifully was received, especially in japan. we think the ambassador for joining us today. to the 50ththe lays

anniversary of selma, you heard the center tell the store. he is brand-new in congress and only a few weeks really sworn in and he had the idea that others must have thought, why did i not think of that. lays to selma or diplomacy to asia, strength to the congress or joy to us all, mark was recognized as a unique and true leader. that is why, mr. vice president, we are all very grateful to you for embracing mark in life. we will never forget that. and for honoring us with your presence today. i hope it is a comfort to marx family -- mark's family that somebody people mourn your loss and are praying for you at the same time. we will all be family for as long as the future holds. aloha for the future.

thank you. >> aloha. when i think of mark tokai, the first thing that comes to mind is a lighter moment. just a few months after i became speaker, he made sure to give me an aloha shirt. [laughter] convince memined to to allow it to be acceptable dress code on the house floor. [laughter] he made a heck of a page. pitch. for a moment i don't have odd because if we would let him have the aloha shirt on the floor than the wisconsinites could have their cheese hides -- hats . [laughter] i think that symbolizes his

distinct qualities. a zest for life. pride in his heritage. and his persuasive gift. he was a dear colleague. he was someone i got to know next to me on an exercise bike every thursday morning. not everyone receive such an outpouring of when they pass. that was the kind of man or tokai was. now forfeel his absence cicely because he was such a presence in so many lives. precisely because he was such a presence in some allies. -- i wish there was a way we could capture his spirit and save it for the future. all theseere is, great memories he left us. he said he was proud to serve the people of hawaii. well, all of us were very proud to have known him, to have served with him, and you have called him our friend and our colleague erin we will be praying for him, for you, sammy, and for your children. and for your extended family. thank god for bringing

him into our lives for such a short but sweet time. my hollow, mark. halo, mark. present to you, sammy, an american flag that we flew over the capital on the day of mark's burial.

vice president biden: when fate defies fear, when honor scorns compromise with f, this is -- with death, this is heroism. he could have been talking about your husband, your dad, your son. i apologize for being late. the leader of burma was in the oval office and i had to be there. that i didn'tsay

know mark well. but i knew him. didn't have to know him a long time, sammy, but i knew him. and is obvious by the way everybody spoke before i met him loyale was a beloved son, husband, afather and congressman who had an enormous, enormous amount of potential, and a lieutenant colonel in the hawaii national guard. everything about him was not unlike his political idol and mine as well. the guy who looked over me when i got here is a white at -- as a

29-year-old kid was a guy named noah. danny befriended my boys when i got here. my wife and daughter were killed right after i was elected in an accident. and danny -- i've bring them to work a lot. we were only four and five years old. and danny would come over and he would just take them. he would take them back to his office. danny had the same demonstrable courage on the battlefield and the moral courage in the political arena that your son had. that your dad had, that your husband had. caucus, thehe democratic caucus in baltimore, the retreat we had. diagnosedad just been

not unlike my son. was, heiagnosis that knew and your new, was essentially a death sentence. caucus paid tribute to him. and i acknowledged him. ged him. up and hug you know what he said to me? he said, i'm so sorry, mr. vice president. i'm so sorry about beau. i'm so sorry about your son. he had just come from hopkins. hisas not unaware what prospects were. said, i don't want my kids to

have to worry about me. i don't want anybody to feel sorry for me. dignity was palpable. nancy and i, we have been around here a long time. you've seen many, many congressmen come and go. good women and men. certain people, when they arrived, they just have this thing about them. there is just a presence. it not just optimistic or outgoing. but he carried himself with dignity or it -- dignity. nancy has heard me say before, and expression my mother knew.

joey, look at me. when she wanted to make a point, me." uld say "look at just remember, you are defined by your courage and your redeemed by your loyalty. the women and men who served under mark, colleagues he served with, and my guess is everyone he knew knew this is a man of courage who valued loyalty. kids there'she nothing easy about this, to state the obvious. i know you will appreciate this memorial service, but i know it's hard. when we stand up and we talk about mark, it brings back the moment. it takes courage for you to be

here. but i say to the kids, matthew and kaila, the rest of your life, your dad is with you. i promise you. every important decision you make in your life, you are going to ask yourself what would he do? what would he want me to do? and just by answering the question, you are going to be replicating who he was. around,as you guys are your dad is going to be with you. grandparents and your mom. i mean that sincerely. that is not hyperbole. that is not an exaggeration. you are bone of his bone, blood of his lead -- blood of his blood. and the only thing i have observed is deep in your broken

, the way to get through it is just hang onto each other. hold each other tight. that's what hew would want you to do. you know what he wants you to do. and the best way to honor his opinion, isy humble to do what he wants you to do. i'm told there is an old hawaiian proverb that says the tide precedes but leaves behind seashells on the sand for every joy the passes something beautiful remains. he remains. with this incredible family.

and a country full of hope and possibilities. markse women and men like and gaveve so deeply so much. sammy, i know there's nothing that can ease that broken heart right now, but i promise you the day will come when mark's memory brings a smile to your lip a four brings a tear to your eye. my prayer for you and your family is that they come sooner rather than later. but i promise you. i promise you it will come. just hang onto each other. god love you all. and may god protect our troops.

>> and life, we often make plans for ourselves. but as often happens, we find ourselves on a different journey than what we had planned. our journey will never be the same, but our lives have all been made better having known mark. he was a wonderful husband, father, son, and brother. we will miss his smile, his d.c. tois calls from

say hello even though it was only 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. here, just so that he could talk to us before the kids went to sleep. he was always on the go and said sleep was overrated. he worked hard and he truly loved representing the people of hawaii. mark loved being a congressman and tried to spread the alone a spirit, not aloh only through his attire, but through his actions as well. and in this spirit, i would like to take the opportunity to express our warmest aloha to you. has alwaysdelegation been a part of our aloha. thank you for your love and support. made such wonderful tributes to market and stood by his side for many, many years. we love you all.

biden, it is such an honor to have you here today. i know earlier this year, mark himself was able to express to you how he felt and the admiration for the work you're doing. so thank you so much. to speaker ryan and later hello say, thank you for the opportunity to remember mark d.c. n later pelosi, you have been one of mark's biggest supporter since the beginning, thank you for you -- for who you are and for our children. i would also like to make a special thank you to tammy [indiscernible] for opening up her home to us when the entire family came to visit, as well as, for his home -- as well, which we as mike honda, for his home in his car, which we used to go to church.

thank you for all the support that you gave mark from the very start and especially what you have done for our children. thank you. and of course, our warmest mahalos to shawn callahan and mark's office staff for everything you have done. you will all forever be a part of our ohana and our hearts will never forget your kindness. there were also many of you here in congress that prayed for mark . and for that, he was extremely grateful. your continued prayers, your notes, your text messages, your calls, all of your support helped give him strength to face. -- to face his fate.

marx of faith in god was strong until the end. and he wrote in his final wishes -- "i love my god. don't worry about me. i am in heaven." through it all, you never gave up hope and left peacefully surrounded by those he loved most. from the entire takai ohana here as well as from our inire ohana back home hawaii, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for being here today to remember mark. o and love to you all. thank you.

>> let us pray. will go lord, our guide, we have been taught by the master that onereater love exists than laid down our life for another. as we leave this place today, may we never forget this man who served in our armed forces, ready to answer his master's call.

servedntative mark takai their citizens -- the citizens of his home state hawaii for many years and at many levels of government. , in the few years short months here in washington, it was clear to all he encountered that mark was a true statesman, dedicated to the welfare of his fellow citizens. be such good and faithful servants. but blessll, especially his family and all those who mourn the loss of so great a man, congressman mark takai. amen. >> please remain seated until

the official party and family have departed.

>> first-term congressman mark a bouton july 20 after with pancreatic cancer. he was 49. coming up on c-span, the house rules committee considers proposed rule changes for the 115th congress. secretaryffairs robert mcdonald testifies about efforts to improve the the a -- the v.a. help system. c-span's washington journal, live every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. thursday morning, we are talking with members of congress about key issues before the house natural resources committee. guests from the cannon house office building rotunda include debbie dingell for michigan, bruce westermann, republican from arkansas, rob bishop from

grahalma from arizona. join the discussion. of thesday, the head u.s. armed forces testified about the long-term budget needs of the military. the senate armed services committee is considering military readiness under budget caps. at 9:30morrow night eastern on c-span 3. > it's that time of year to announce our studentcam 2017 video competition. meshaear's theme is your -- your message to washington, d.c. tell us what is the most urgent issue for the president to address in 2017.

100 thousand dollars awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of 23 to produce a five to seven-minute documentary on the issue selected. include c-span programming and also opposing opinion. the $100,000 will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. in the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is generate 20, 2017. so mark your calendars and help us read the word to student film makers. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. subcommitteewill considers rule changes for the 115th congress. proposals included allowing delegates from u.s. territories to vote on the house floor in some cases. this is just under two hours.

>> the early bird gets the worm for you. nice work. good morning, i would like to call this subcommittee to order. welcome to the subcommittee on rules and organization of the house. big fan of opening statements. i came you to listen to our witnesses. so i will be very brief in my opening statement and then turn it over to the ranking member, missed slaughter. -- ms. slaughter. the first hearing we had was in april on rule 21. willoday's hearing encompass the entirety of the rules package for the next congress. it is a real opportunity for us withar from members

recommendations on how to for the house.es a set of proposals that would change the rules of the house, with regard to procedural motions, printing requirements for bill analysis, committee witness disclosures, subpoena authority, ethics training, etc. i am excited to hear from our members about their proposals. i look forward to hearing from each of the members that are testifying and we have gotten ideas from a lot of members. i look forward to the question and answer. i think that will be robust and interesting to understand the proposals that are being brought forward by our membership from the bottom up. i look forward to that today. thank you all for being here. with that, i would like to jeanette over to ms. slaughter. they give for being here. ms. slaughter: i am happy to be here. mr. chairman, the debate surrounding the rules that will embody -- that will cover the important.credibly

this is our opportunity to help steer the house of representatives for working better on behalf of the american people. one of the most urgent issues facing our country today is the gun violence epidemic tearing apart our communities. sadly, 91 people are killed by a gun every single day in america. and even set a reality is, not ask months ago, we were using the figure 30 a day. it has now risen to 91 a day. since the tragedy at sandy hook elementary school, four years ago, there have been more than .270 mass shootings ms shooting is characterized by the fbi as three or four casualties. ismass shooting characterized by the fbi as three or four casualties.

it is starting to think about what the community have faced. 2015 people were killed by gun violence the summer alone. these are not nameless, faceless tragedies. they are constituents, our family members, and even our colleagues. they're the people who elected us, who we represent, who have been killed and injured at an alarming rate area as a result, the members of the house has stood more than 30 times in sandy hook to market moment of silence in response to a gun tragedy. we are the people who can do something about gun violence been standing up for a moment to recognize it doesn't really address the problem. when we took the oath of office, each of us promised to defend the constitution against enemies

both foreign and domestic. the majority should decide today that it has to do for the last time without taking action. let the leadership start to do their job. far too many members of the majority have answered to the gun lobby in the gun manufacturers, preventing any legislative effort from moving forward. there hasn't been a single vote taken in the house to address gun violence since the tragedy at sandy hook. is an event that everybody in america thought, the carnage of shooting up 20 elementary school children be something that another -- that none of us could endure. we found the time to take up legislation to whittle away at the dodd frank financial reform law which would help americans and prevent another great

recession. in fact, just yesterday, the house financial services committee reported a highly partisan bill to kill dodd frank. these proposals and many others are just one house bill taken up to make a political statement in an election year. at the same time, we fail to take up legislation to address the skyrocketing cost of education. it's the responsibility of every member of congress to discuss the gun violence epidemic, the , to stop our country from being the only industrial country in the world -- withows that type of guns.

that's why i am hoping that we will move forward with one piece of legislation today. straightforward proposal will require that every moment on the floor of the house related to a tragedy involving gun violence is followed by a committee hearing on the subject of the tragedy within 10 legislative days. the editorial board in my district has already endorsed this vote. there is no reason for any congressional representative to say no. but this will not solve the epidemic, but it is a way to start a conversation and examination of gun violence. it has been so sadly lacking under this leadership. mr. chairman, this is what the american people expect and deserve.

think what it must be like every time your children will leave school or your spouse leaves to go to the grocery store or whatever you do, that he might not come back home. of fearnder that kind is totally unnecessary in the land of the free and the home of the brave. i look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their proposals to amend the rules of the house. for the moment, i will yield back the balance of my time. i would now like to recognize the first three members to give testimony on their proposals. borodino --, ms. bord, i'm sorry. aio there are two microphones at the table so you will have to share a little bit. try to be brief with the descriptions of your proposals and allow time for questions because we do have a lot of members who have made proposals.

i'm sure that a lot of the information will come out in the question and answer. be brief and summarize what you are doing and why it is a good idea and i'm sure the members will questions. make sure the green light is turned on. without objection, it will be inserted if the record. we welcome you and thank you all for being here. i will tell you that are great chairman pete sessions has a group of students in his office if you told me he will be here. he cares deeply about your proposals and once to make this house work better and he told me he will stop in and just a minute. syria's right now. -- here he is right now. with that, i will recognize each of you if you are good to go -- to go to the line -- down the line. please pull the microphone close to you. let's start with mr. griffiths.

>> representing no additional information. i just did not want folks to think i forgot about it. i call it the larson rule. representative larson was here two years ago with his proposal. i thought we could find something better. here is what the proposal centered all bills coming out of the senate shall be treated under senate rules. the concept being the senate would understand that when some relatively innocuous bill comes across that we ought to take it off and debate with it as opposed to having it walked forever by virtue of a 60 vote rule. you would have to have 50% of the house before you could ever take up a senate bill. hopefully when we saw how ridiculous that was they would change their own role. -- rule. i yield back.

thank you. committee, ie request that the house was be amended for the 115th congress to permit the delegate in the resident commissioner to cast votes when we are debating amendments and legislation in the committee as a whole. theted in the roles of house for the 110th and 111th congress. votes cast by members of congress need make us accountable to our constituents and allow them to understand where we stand on important issues. the rules adopted by the hundred 12, 113 and 114th congress denied these rights. makesey continue to be -- the house less responsive to the more than or million americans in these districts. beending voting rights would

wholly symbolic. our votes cannot change the outcome of legislation or amendments considered on the floor. however, these boats allow us to ensure that the needs of our constituents are addressed. any of our nations men and women in uniform are residents of the territories in d.c.. these dedicated service members sacrificed much of the country and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice. rate forapita death service members to the territories is higher than most states. beyond high levels of military service, residents from the territories and d.c. contribute to and serve our nation and all other aspects of american life. denied the very basic right to vote on matters that impact they realize -- very lives. to cast votes on the committee of the whole will not lessen the representation of

the 435 members, rather it would allow territory's voices to be heard more fully. it will give us parity with other members and strengthen the long but -- cherished values of the body. i want to review with something that one of our predecessors, qualms former republican megressman and general told that when i was first elected to said thatn 2003 he as a delegate from a territory who could not vote on the floor of the house, and i quote, i would be a member of congress but not one of its members. changedhis rule will be . thank you very much, mr. kamen -- chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate the fact that you are having these meetings to try to get information. proposedsing but i

before. the house not considering legislation and comparative print. almost every legislation in this country does this. many city commissions, county commissions. you get a piece of legislation before us and you do not know what is new or old, what is deleted or changed. you start trying to read the whole thing and you may be wasting a lot of time reading stuff is already there. processnt to have a that is member friendly, number informative, transparent, good for public policy, and if you really care to see what is in the legislation, this is the proper course to take. we have proposed this before in the former speaker said it was too expensive. we don't need to have it in the rules. we will do it anyway. we are no closer to doing that then when i got here. the only way will force us to

and to stop cooking members like mushrooms is to put it in the roles -- treating members like mushrooms is to put rules.he >> i was a state senator for six years and i was here and there ohio legislature uses a comparative print. i read bills in congress and it is hard to understand the bills in congress because you don't understand what is changing. you can't see how things are changed. comparative print is a great tool for our members that want to read bills and understand them. the change we've had since the last time you proposed this is that the house has gone paperless mostly. won't that reduce the cost of the change? >> absolutely. ,s your ohio legislature did when you go paperless, and you

put it online or electronic form, then you put the which in green -- new language red.een and stricken in of -- forbe a savings everyone hundred hours reading bills, this probably will save you 96-97 fm. -- of them. you can go right to the changes. sometimes she would see it and you have a bill this thick, he can spend two days reading it and still not know what is changed. sometimes you will see there only to changes in a bill that thick. they changed 18-21. must.hanged shall to it seems a most intentional to keep members in the dark when

you can't have simple, member friendly legislation presented and able to read. >> speaking for myself, it would make it much easier. i think it is a fabulous idea. you are to said this but i want to make sure i understand it, you would give voting rights to the resident delegate that they could not change the outcome of the vote? if the votes would be a tie, then they would vote again leaving us out. it makes a difference whatsoever. it is by giving down in the form of our colleagues and flooding our constituents know how we stand on the issues. letting our constituents know how we stand on the issues. >> your rule is intriguing.

the roles in the senate have changed in a way that are frustrating to member your -- many members like me. it used to be that if you are in the senate and you wanted to do a filibuster, you have to stand up and talk. that they can be silent filibusters. -- now they can do silent filibusters. it is frustrating. i understand that there are some protections on it. there is nothing constitutional about the rule. is a tradition, not a constitutional requirement. i think it is ludicrous and it does stop us from making a difference. i have a couple questions on how it would work. if the house were to consider legislation under the senate rules, with the senate rules have to be published in advance? many of us are not familiar with that. >> they are published as part of

the senate rules. what you do if you would just prefer to those documents whenever a senate bill came up. i have to believe there is a after way to deal with the situation. seeing no better way and having heard esther listen -- mr. larson said this is not a democrat or republican problem, it is a center problem. i thought we should have the discussion. it would be a huge change. for a short time it would make things worse because they would also have a house not able to pass some of the legislation just like the senate can't. it is one thing when it is someone else's bill moving forward and when the senate sees it as their bill being trampled by their own rules, i believe it would bring them to their senses. that being said, i would love for someone to come up with a better idea, another way to handle this problem. it is a conflict between the house and senate is damaging to republicans and it is not a

democrat or republican issue, it is a house, senate issue. >> provocative idea. it is interesting. it would illustrate how difficult it is to get things done. >> when you take the filibuster rule and the whole role that they have, that tradition dates back to the 70's. it does not date back to the 1870's, it is the 1970's. i must presume that they had some kind of gentlemen agreement because it was not abused by either party until the 90's and 2000 and then both parties have run amok. >> thank you all for being here. mrs. letter. -- slaughter. >> very interesting ideas. if worked extremely well when we had that rule. i supported it then and i supported again.

it seems a terrible thing to ask a member from guam and not be able to participate. i thought that it worked out. simply symbolic. >> an important symbol and you are here. i have in state legislature as well. we had one chairman when i was there who never had anything more than a page and a half. somehow he managed to get his bills down to that. i'm not sure everybody approved of that notion. it was his and he was proud of it. griffith, as long as i have been here, we have always had the sense that our problem is not republican or democrat, but the common enemy is the senate. i think it was set up to be that way.

we have been told that the senate is the cooling saucer for hotheaded legislation. it is hard to get that changed. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. byrne. >> i appreciate the suggestion. same thing in alabama. i think it is more than just saving us time. i think there is a strong element of transparency here. i appreciate you bringing it forward. i hope we adopted. youriscussion we had about rule, but i would like to make a request. if you would get with the staff to work out some of these things and give them examples of amendment that you cannot offer now that you would be able to offer if we adopted the rule issue. that would be helpful from deliberations and coming up with

something that would get to the meat of the argument. i appreciate you bringing this forward. you have done a great job of doing -- putting it together. we had a provocative discussion in april. if you could get with the staff and get with you and get some that. >> would love to do that. >> appreciated. >> thank you. mr. newhouse. >> i appreciate all three of you coming forward with great ideas. i've often lamented the fact that we don't do things like we do at the state legislature making it clear what we are trying to do. it would make our job easier. it would make our staff job easier. it would make members of the job easier to go will be are doing. i think it is a win-win-win. i think it is a great idea.

we serve on natural resources together. i appreciate you having -- having you here. and it's an interesting idea. i have often wondered why the territories don't get to vote. although you do have putting privileges committee. -- in committee. if you are asking for a symbolic vote on the floor, i'm not sure how that gives you parity. , you areonly symbolic not quite there. you have the opportunity to express your opinions clearly in committee. if your complaint is that you cannot express how you feel on issues to constituents, there is an opportunity. >> an answer is that you are elected to a body and you are not allowed to vote on the floor at all. vote for final

passage. to not be able to go down and vote with the committee as a whole, it is a matter of going down on the floor and meeting our colleagues once in a while. i'm very seldom done on the floor because we don't have a vote. i think it is a matter of trying to be -- belong to a family. >> i understand that. not comment that it would affect the outcome. of a tie wouldnt it be discounted. but if it was a margin of one or two? >> i think if it is a margin of one, they go back. it would be left out. >> interesting concept. i have not made my mind up on it. i appreciate you bring it

forward. -- bringing it forward. >> it seems to work pretty well. i don't recall it ever causing complaints. it did make people who come a great distance who come here to see micah part of what was going on. -- what part they have going on. >> and it is for the constituents to see what we are going. -- doing. >> are committee votes counted? >> yes. but all the other things. >> it is an interesting idea. >> we did have it into congresses. two congresses but it was

taken away by the parties changed. when the parties changed. >> the one thought that occurred to me, we all complain about the senate. that is the natural dynamic. the one thing the complaint about most is the 60 vote margin. it seems to me that, i get that. i know you want to get them to change the rules so we can get things past to the senate more easily. it seems to me like we would be doing big sack same thing that we complain about all the time by putting and the rule to our house. it seems to me like we wouldtel. that thencept would be historical filibuster rule had a higher threshold at one point of 67.

but you had to be live on the floor. is they put inw this -- the filibuster in the rule, andl -- hold stead of standing on the floor explain to the american people why does that they feel like this is a piece of legislation that should not be voted on, and do whatever they want to do. they can go to a fundraiser. they can have a nice steak dinner. there is no pressure. with the historical filibuster rule which did slow things down from it gave time for people to think about it and listen to complaints. you had people who are very passionate, only on the hot button issues. after several days, worst-case canaria -- scenario, one side

got tired or the other side the could out they had a point and they would work out their differences and the process did not come to a complete halt. you are right, we would be rolesng those defective and contrary to the principles of american democracy in a republican form, we would be contrary to that. we would bring those into our hearts. -- house. it would be for a short time because once the senators had some great ideas that many of them voted for and the senate -- a couple of us sit will put secret holds and you will not know who did it. you have to get 50% of the house to support taking it up. i think they would understand the frustration and it would be a good lesson. that being said, there has to be a better way. i recognize there has to be a better way. i have not figured it out. i put it in so folks will think about it. maybe we can come up with a plan to let the senate know that

there may be some things that that is what they want to do, but when it becomes every bill you sent over there, it becomes a struggle with that rule. it is damaging to the american republic. i feel a little dangerous and saying that but for the historians out there, the way the senate is operating is i can calhoun's theory of majority 30 which he proposed was able to protect slavery. we are not facing that issue but there are issues of the day that whobe jammed up by folks are operating with secret holds and required a super majority. no government teacher teaches the kids that that take 60% to pass a bill but that is what is happening now. one body is open up the entire process. we had to figure out a solution. -- have to figure out a solution.

without any solution, we will never have a discussion. i don't disagree given them a taste of their own medicine white help. many of those members are ormer house members so they should understand. former house members so they should understand. i appreciate that. it also hase rule, a long history in congress. one that i've not done a lot of research on. it goes back to the 1800s. is there anything in particular you are looking for as far as programs or changes being beneficiary?ny anything you are trying to zero in on? >> the general frustration i've had since coming here six years ago that there are things that you can't get to because mandatory spending. when i try to find the problem,

it is our own rule 21. if you change 20 12, it will be -- 21, it will be rare. to be able to offer -- the one that first brought to my attention was, i saw this spending $70 million on the wild horses program. there may be some benefit in the program, i can tell you that that is a lots of money to be spending on 50,000 horses when we have needs with children with disabilities and anybody can pick out there need but $70 million would solve a lot of the other issues, not all of them. they're a fair number of issues you can pick off the table and say here is the funding. retirement homes for wild horses are mandatory spending. i have submitted things to the committee of a list of all the things that are mandatory spending. most people here when they hear mandatory spending, they think

of the big projects. security, medicare. they are right. there are lots of other programs could be looking at and try to decide if we should be funding them and using our power of the purse. the rule was created in 1983 to and aeagan republicans blue dog democrats from cutting spending. it was not created to solve a problem other than crazy republicans trying to control the budget. >> some things never change. you always bring good ideas. i appreciate that. i yield back my time. chairman, pete sessions. >> thank you. i want to thank each of you for being here. i also want to thank luis slaughter. just taken her time to be here. -- she has taken her time.

she had the opportunity when she served to sit through and make wise determinations. each of you have brought good ideas. posey, i don't presume to know everything about it, meaning the process, but we have a very intricate process and overloaded system. counciled legislative who does all these matters. we have a bill that comes up and 113 people decide to rush and to get things done. i think that there is probably two things i have as a goal of being the chairman of the committee and both have eluded me . the other is how we can change the jurisdiction limits as it relates to homeland security. jurisdiction is a broad group of

people and we just have not gotten our hands around that. i would like to tell you what we told you or years ago or six years ago, it is a work in progress. we trying to get at it. we have made an incredible number of changes as it relates to the government printing office and relates to getting bills done where they are actually able to substantively identify things. if i were going to be forthright with you i should accept the thelenge to say have -- major bills that come out the committee and the amendments, we have got to understand more about this. this happened to me yesterday. the committee notes i was speaking with a member and i talked with him about the changes to be proposed and where sayingre and what he was and it is not easy for rules committee members to actually

see these delineations. i will promise you that i will see where we are going on the progress. one thing i should stand for is trying to make the process better. you have been nothing but kind talks to me still despite me getting this done. i want you to know it is not an effort that we have thrown away. with thean't get at it volume of work and having the money. everybody knows we are operating off of old dollars from years back. if invested that money in people's said the technology. -- we have invested that money in people instead of technology. when i see you, i promise you i will have a better response. thank you for having the sincerity to offer ideas.

>> i do that too. >> you have been very gracious. secondly, i want to say that the issues you bring forth about the voting of delegates might be somewhat of a new issue to some of our new members. it is not too older members who have been here. there are a number of systematic reasons we could get into haveer we should have d.c. people who vote, whether the united states senate or some bit of us that have tended to look at the constitution in these matters. i want you to know i'm delighted you are here to bring the issue up. it is important. i'm not promising anything this time you are insuring there will be a discussion. you wouldperspective, not consider that a victory but that we do recognize what we are

doing and we probably need to get better at it. i just want to make it clear that although we wish we could , we just asking for this committee as a whole vote. it has been through various ports. affirmatively. i want you to know there has been some background done on this. as i said, this is a symbolic vote. we represent 4 million american citizens. >> yes-man. but you don't -- yes, ma'am. but you don't come from states. >> i guess you can say that. >> i guess i can. the body is arguing, a great argument that a great comeback and i think that mr. newhouse said it best when he said, what

is good for the goose is good for the gander. is entitled to set its own rules and establish how it will operate under constitutional perspective. recognize,be nice or glad you are here. there is some bit of disagreement about how the votes will take place. we do see it differently. opportunity when they held the body to do that and you are speaking respectfully to these members. i think it update our new members and be looked at. i would like to say that we have at least one republican in that perspective also. >> i thought that would help.

>> she was getting when she approached me some two years ago. i acknowledge that. there is a philosophy behind it. mr. griffith, what you have done is most intriguing. it is also said you want us to do what you don't like them doing and we would did disappeared he will treat you the same way you treat us. meeting with:00 each other where you will bring this and other ideas to me. i would sibley said this, i believe in some respects expect believe inay this, i some respect except for the rules of the senate with legislation of whether it would be permanent or under a 10 year reauthorization. to the right value and

that is we have a vote on the where- rule on the floor 50% of people get to express themselves. we do pass legislation that exceeds the 60 vote threshold. as our body is larger, that 60% becomes almost inconsequential if it were related to whether we would move a bill forward. in some respects, this body has chosen to have the rules that it does. that is why we are entertaining these ideas. what i would suggest you, it is worthy of some bit of understanding. we find ourselves on a regular basis were certain parts of what the senate has passed were done with 60 votes with permanent law. that means that it has no ending

date until another set of chances of 60 votes other turned -- overturns that law and for us to apply that rule which i disagree with could have some .amifications the -- when we were in the a hundred 70had in billion stimulus dollar package and could have got 60 votes and become permanent law and the could have done what they choose, it binds is different when we operate the way we do. i admire you for what we have. there has been a member of this in rules has sat committee meetings other than yourself. i admire you for it. i'm interested in exploring more about to be my observations as an insider that has done this

for 20 years is we live up to most of what you would want anyway. still interesting concept. i appreciate your comments. a was put in as it -- placeholder to have a discussion. i see what senate -- they are doing. they have a right to do as a body but when i think they are doing is damaging and is the main cause why the mac in public is a satisfied with the legislative branch as a whole because they don't see us getting things done. our house has produced a lots of bills and we have passed more bills off the four during this two-year period but they go over in language in the senate to there is a secret hold and the requirement for a vote and filibuster. you end up with no action whatsoever.

i recognize this is a flawed suggestion but i thought we ought to have a discussion. >> thank you. i have two things to read into the record. which explains a proposal he has. i would like that read into the record. asked, our great chairman the legislative counsel to review the ramzi rule -- ramzi --ramseyer rule. . and i want to give you a copy of .hat counsel has said i want that submitted without objection into the record. >> those will be entered into the record. thank you for being here. we will have the neck panel -- . -- next panel. -- is shel out there

still out there? i would like them, if she is still out there -- she is not there. andill have mr. rooney another person here for the second panel. there are two microphones at the table. pull the microphones close to you and make sure the green light is on so everyone can hear you. you capten materials will be inserted into the record and we welcome your comments and thank you both for being here and thank you for your thoughtful proposals to change the house rules. we will go from that direction over. mr. romney. -- rooney.

>> members of the committee, i would like to ask you what the following concern -- things have in common. buckeye lake and repair. louisville lake repair. dredging of the rochester harbor. herbert hoover dike repair. these are all army corps of engineers projects that we have. i have a bill which is being amended for the house rules to exclude existing or proposed water resource development projects of the armed core from the definition of our congressional earmark ban. i have been inse congress for four terms going into my fifth term. some years have been shorter and some longer. one thing i have noticed since

we have instilled this ban is that our constituents are getting more frustrated over our inability to do our is totutional job which deliver antigovernment -- and govern and problem solve when they pay their federal taxes to us and ask us to address these issues for them. our only recourse now is to basically write a strongly worded letter to the army corps asking that the performing duty for us in our own districts. it feels like a hollow exercise that we are reduced to being cheerleaders for our constituents rather than governing and problem solving. the other difference in this resolution/rules proposal change is that unlike a lot of the other reasons we have the earmark ban, there were improprieties and that actors,

bad actors and- earmarks, we have had some solutions to be able to -- comply apply for competitive grants. there are no grants for army corps engineer project. you get them or you don't. when i was first elected in 2008, we could direct the army corps in our district to do certain projects that we felt were important in a priority. mark -- earmark ban, all we could do was write letters. we go back to the constituents and ministry leaders and where they used to appreciate what we did for them, not the have this look of disappointment. the disappointment we all feel as members of congress when people see our inability to get things done and why congress's approval rating is so low. why do we do this? the only reason i can think of

is because it looks good politically that we say we do not to earmarks. the problem is that we don't spend any less money. we just wanted our obligation of the power of the purse to the administration. they still spend that money. the army corps still does projects. they part requires what they want to do, not us. we can't do anything for our own constituents to pay federal tax dollars and expect us to get things done for them. this rule change is to say that we can do our job, at least with regard to the army corps of engineers projects. let us be able to go home to our constituents and people and say that what is important to you is something we will get done. if i feel like it is the right thing to do rather than just ing i thank you for your time and consideration.

we have to move on. we have to be able to get things done for our constituents. especially in a divided government likely have. this is something that democrats and republicans alike should be able to come together so we can do our jobs and feel good about doing our jobs again because we are getting things done for our constituents. the yield back. >> thank you very much. go ahead. >> thank you. i appreciate this opportunity. i like that real change. i used to do local government and they don't call them earmarks, they call them taking care of your people. subcommittee, , rankingirman stivers , good morning,r

everybody. thank you for allowing me to speak today. would amendhanged rule 11. this would require every moment of silence observed by the house floor because i got violent gun tragedy would be followed by a hearing. the speaker of the house would designate the appropriate committee or subcommittee to carry out the hearing. the hearing would have to be about the gun violence tragedy that the moment of silence was observed for. we have stood in silence on the floor remembering the victims of mass shootings, remembering and honoring victims from all across the country. all these moments of silence have at least one thing in

common, they were not followed by meaningful legislative action or hearings at this house. having aned of not answer for our constituents when they ask us what we have done to cut down on the number of shootings or to make the process of providing a gun safer. i introduced this rule change as , house resolution 694 on april 20 which is the 17th anniversary of the columbine shooting that shocked our nation. 141 resolution has cosponsors. there have been at least 30 10 months of silence related to gun since sandy hook. that is the average of eight moments of silence a year since sandy hook. this rule change would require legislation -- would not require legislation or even draft the

legislation. an honestonest -- discussion about the look safety and how to best protect the american people. just a hearing so we can find out what happened and what we can do to stop something like it from happening again. would be mistaking the reason for me introducing this resolution if i just said it without the frustration. anytroduced this because on average day in the united states of america, 89 people due to gun violence. 31 people are killed by someone using a gun. 55 people commit suicide every day. two people are killed unintentionally and at least one person is killed by police intervention. what that breaks down to over and annual basis is 32,000 --

32,500 people died as a result of gun violence every year. 11,000 294 are murdered. -- 11,294 murdered. 561 people killed unintentionally. 414 killed by police intervention. 254 die but the intent is not known. in addition, of the people who peoplery year, 75,965 are shocked and survive to to gun violence. 59,000 people injured in an attack. survive a suicide attempt. 16,335 people shut unintentionally. it hundred 27 people shot by police intervention. -- 827 people shot by police intervention. behind every single one of those

incidents are families and communities left in anguish and wondering why congress is doing nothing about it. thank you. a yield. yield. yield -- i >> thank you. i find your idea particularly thought-provoking and engaging. one, we're the ones responsible to appropriate money. orld this increase spending just have us do our jobs to direct the spending as we so believe? >> absolutely not. is one of the great myths of the earmark ban that has perpetrated that there has been a reduction in the amount of the pie spent. there is no reduction.

it is the same, we just don't control how the money is spent which goes to what you say under article one that our response ability on ways and means and appropriations to spend the dollars are constituents industry there is no increase in spending. it is only who gets to decide where the money is spent. >> that is important. thank you for your thoughtful idea. >> thank you. townd to represent a small on lake ontario of 2000 people. fishing was wonderful. deal with the not water sewer system. we were able to put the money together so they could build an economy. every year mark we gave was a request by municipality. we signed a letter saying we had no financial interest in it.

as you point out, we were super doing what our constituents expected us to do, step in when there was something there was no answer for. out, the report of rochester that we have to pay for every year. doing away with earmarks close -- was not something that benefited us personally in any way. we were super doing what our government was asking us to do. i wish that would happen. i think you are bringing that up. i'm a cosponsor of your resolution, think very much about it. ago when i first in my introductory speech, mentioned 34,000 people being killed and

sandy hook seemed surprising but that is the number. silence -- moments of silence. sometimes 2-3 a month. it is almost a meaningless thing. those of us who are standing at moments of silence are the very same people who could do something about it. hookes not let us off the that we say we are sorry it happened if we don't try to make sure it does not happen all the time. we said it was important about the background checks and people who are mentally ill were not going to be able to get those kinds of weapons. every time we have something like sandy hook or aurora, those perpetrators were mentally impaired. something is not working.

that may be because we don't to gun showss -- or people can buy them from each other. what we are doing is not working. me, as a member of this congress, the fact that we cannot address it is something that we should change. thank you very much. sounds like an important constituent. the distinguished member from alabama. amendment.iate your it raises an important issue we need to discuss. it always perplexes me why we would rather have unwanted government bureaucrats make decisions about how we spend our money rather than people elected by the united states. i appreciate you bringing this to the floor.

you rifle focused on the corps of engineers. why did you limit it just to the corps of engineers? >> it was built-up frustration over the years as an appropriate or, but also because it is the one thing we can sort of argue with even more confidence that because there are no competitive grants that you can -- people are looking for the dollars, there is no federal grant they can apply for. they really are at the mercy of how the administration wants to spend the money with no input from us. and no input from the competitive grant process of whoever has the best application. this seems right easiest sort of tell in the water for us to say intell in the water -- toe

the water first to say we are not doing your marks. there is no competitive grants with regard to army projects, there is no recourse or us other than to write a letter to the administration egging them -- them that this is important. this takes the power back to what i think the founding fathers wanted us to have to be able to represent our people and govern and solve problems. >> that gets to the other question. it sounds to me like the basis for your assertion is that you are reasserting the prerogatives under the article one of the constitution which we have essentially given away to article two executive branch. >> as an appropriate or, i would toe to have the opportunity

revisit it at least when i come to municipalities. as i testify, there were at actors during the earmark time and we cut off everything but we did not reduce spending. that is a myth. we sacrificed our constitutional duty to allocate those dollars to the administrative branch. perpetrating this myth to the public that we don't do earmarks, aren't we great? no we aren't. it adds to the dysfunction that the congress feels every time we go home. i remember when i was first elected. we had earmarks. my constituents are glad to see me -- were glad to see me when i went home.

he feel like you have nothing for them when you go back. just one of those things that i think is our obligation. it is our duty. there is no other way for people to be able to apply for grants. dowe are not going to earmarks, fine. at least let's look at army corps of engineers projects because there is no other way for them to use their member of congress to get this project complete. this gets us talking about this issue and having a more well reasoned position on how we come out. i'm not sure where i stand on it. i really appreciate bringing it up. >> thank you. >> appreciate both of you coming for with it ideas. in the order of your parents, i'm from the west. we have been experiencing they --us drought

drought. frustrated getting the proper authorization to move forward on projects that would improve water storage, water availability. i certainly applaud your efforts in this regard to move the project forward. includingbe open to in this idea to help ameliorate some of the processes we have seen with surface water? >> it is interesting. since i've proposed this bill and got over 20 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, i've had many members come up to me asking if i would be open to adding certain things to it. you can tell that there is good

justification for all of the ideas that could be added onto it. the reason why i limited it to like ifbecause i felt we kept adding stuff, there is a lot of things you can justifiably keep adding to it. risk losing its kind of strength and simplicity. personally, absolutely. i think that first things first. if we can at least convince our colleagues that we should be dictate what army corps projects are priority in our district, then we can move on to those other issues. you did bring up the chief of engineers recommending like 28

a price tag of $5 billion which is several billion dollars more than their current funding levels. in reference to questions of mr. stivers and you have made several points that this would not increase spending. how we wouldress make up the difference? from what i understand of the energy and water appropriations bill is that the funding projects would not break the budget caps that we have. it would simply ensure that members have control over what the existing levels are. i'm not sure where you are getting your funding level that you just cited. to to find out and back make sure we are on the same page. we crafted this that there would

be no were outside of what the existing appropriations level would be moving forward. i will get my staff to get back to on that. comes from your paper on the bill itself. we will get together and talk about that later. just so i'm clear about the levels so we can deal with that. abdicatedike we have much of our responsibility to the executive branch and there are certainly arguments to be made that we represent areas of the country that we should know from our constituents better than the executive branch because that is our neighborhood. fromt the input directly constituents.

i appreciate you bringing forward this important issue. i understand your frustration. i have some question if this is the right path to take. i agree there -- are two main moments of silence. they are meant to honor or more and were pay tribute to individuals. i think it is a tremendously important time for us as a body to gain unity as a group. having a requirement that a hearing is held within 10 days proposes some interesting

conflicts that you could help it with. it was a times, police investigations last much longer than 10 days. we would not have complete facts or the story of what is happening. at our an investigation level would not be as effective as it could be. howd you help me understand we would not interfere with an ongoing police investigation? >> thank you. that is a great question. to the moments of silence. precludeion would not us from having moments of silence. what it would do is only be triggered if we have a moment of silence on the floor. it would not impede our ability or our need to have a moment of silence to show our solidarity with the communities affected. secondly, to your question about

how it would or would not interfere with an investigation or if an investigation had not youenough facts, i can tell that when we have a moment of silence on the floor, 99% of the time there has been tremendous national coverage on the matter. there have been statements by the local authorities and it involvementist the of the national authorities as well. when you look at sandy hook. much information had already been in the public within 2-4 days. when i talk about legislative days, we could be talking about having a hearing three weeks later. say we have a break between those days, we could have a hearing as late as a month, even two months later. asicked 10 legislative days

a compromise to well at his fresh in our minds and at the same time, it gives enough time deliberate as to which committee or subcommittee would have the hearing. as the most give us collective legislative body in the country to speak to the issue and tragedy that was of such a height that we had a moment of silence on the floor of congress. to me, it is the 10 legislative days is enough time for us to have gleaned information from that and call forth experts to educate us and apprise us as to what contributed to the tragedy. >> it could be several weeks. i did not think about that. legislative days. it could be a matter of less than two weeks depending on when

it occurs. that is my concern. holding a hearing and using only resources available through the newspaper or media, how effective would that be an productive? >> thank you very much. another point, if we have a hearing and 10 legislative days and for some odd reason there was little to no factual information, then that would be a perfect example of us perhaps speaking to the issues of maybe the inadequacies of the resources that we as a country or local government are putting into our investigative authorities that within two weeks or two months we know little to nothing about the cause and effect of such a of such great import that we had a moment of silence. i understand that we have 89 people on average that die every

day. yet we only have an average of eight moments of silence on the house for. -- floor. that brings back the purpose of my resolution is that we would be changing the rules based on the gravity of the situation. when you look at an annual basis, 32,000 people die every year and at the same time, we only have about eight moments of silence. we're talking about the most egregious, most heightened instances in the united states where the house of congress positives and has a -- pauses and has a moment of silence. sometimes our moment of silence we have comments from the speaker or somebody from that state likely to stand up on behalf of the community and make other comments about what a tragedy it is.

again, i'm not talking about every death in america, only, on hook, withnce sandy only had an average of 7-8 moments a year. >> i appreciate you bringing the idea forward. concerns whether or not the moment of silence should be the trigger to hold a hearing or some other metric that might be more appropriate. it is an issue that is very important to all americans. >> thank you. you bring up another good white of perhaps, by sub or somebody else could introduce a resolution saying that every year wheny calendar there are 10,000 people have died due to been found, that would trigger the house of congress to say that it is time we discussed that matter.

had 10,000 americans dying at the hands of guns in our country and based on the information i have provided today, that would be perhaps three hearings a year had 10,00g at the hands of guns in our . we are seen over 30,000 people die every year. maybe that is the threshold. the silence that we have is ironic because at the moment of silence we have about 708 times a year, we have had zero 7-8 times athose -- year, we have had zero hearings on those matters. that is the irony of it. i resolution is to crack that balance between us showing our understanding and our remorse for such a tragedy and at the same time, we are not clergy. some of us might be. i'm not. we are elected as legislators. problem solvers. issues thathe face this country that are so egregious that we need to be involved in the solution.

thank you. >> thank you. we have been joined at the member by the honorable from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. looking at your memo which i support mr. romney. i would expand it. that people here the executive has too much part. we handed over to the executive the ability to these funds. it never made any sense to me. if you want to put in safeguard provisions to make sure every earmark is that it, i'm all for it. we banned earmarks to reform. i think it has been a terrible mistake. i think both democrats and , i think we would

agree and reinstate your marks. i'm all for checks and balances. we are in a situation where it is out of control. i agree. here's the thing, the reason why i think you feel compelled to bring this idea to the committee is because in the greatest deliver to a body in the world, we do not deliver a very much. -- deliberate very much. there's a great deal of frustration. nobody is saying that we all have to agree on gun violence with every single hearing or cut -- vote. the fact that there is silence here, thomas of silence followed by silence and indifference, in action. it is stunning. people, note comedy

just people who like me, but people who don't like me who will say, i will not even talk about this. we only do this when it comes to a massacre. we don't do it on the deaths that have each and every day. i have to be honest, i'm embarrassed to the institution that on issue like this where thousands of people are dying each year, we can't even find the time to talk about it. people have different ways of dealing with gun violence and that is legitimate discussion. to do nothing, it is pathetic. i support what you are trying to do and maybe it might give people some pause that if they don't want to embrace your idea, let's break some issues to the floor and debate and have a

vote. to do nothing should not be an option. >> thank you. requireution does not that a member introduce legislation every time have a moment of silence. it does not require that a committee or house even passed legislation. what it will require is that we openly have the moment of silence on the house floor, is recorded and sent out to the world. as electedialogue members of congress on the matter on which we had a moment of silence so we can express and have intelligent dialogue with witnesses and -- >> suggestion to the american people that we care enough about this that we want to talk about it. >> the moment of silence shows we care. er thing to show we

are willing to deliberate and possibly do something that would prevent future incidents. ofi'm all for moments silence we have done so many that they have been followed by nothing it has become to gesture. -- empty gesture. i yield back. >> thank you for being here. put some thought into your proposals. you're free to go. i really appreciate your thoughtful testimony. chairman of our intelligence committee, esteemed member of the ways and needs committee, great member from has beena, mr. nuñez waiting patiently. i appreciate him to be -- being here to offer proposals for next year. i remind you that when you sit down and testify, pulled the microphone close because they do

not work well. make sure the green light is on. without objection, i would like to allow any written materials you brought with you to be inserted into the record and we welcome your comments. thank you for being here. i would like to yield to mr. nuñez and inform the panel that i understand mr. palmer is on his way. if he is here before you conclude your testimony, i would like to add into the panel. we will add another panel and if he does not get there, we will probably adjourn. mr. nuñez. thisank you for holding hearing. changes have to be made. going totline -- outline to problems i see. we know the turmoil that can be created with a huge leadership

vacuum in the middle of a congress. we saw that this congress were any member if they want to go out and offer something intimate become popularized on the internet or becomes a fundraising tool and the next thing you know you have people attacking leaders of our respective parties. the first amendment i have allow for ato only resolution that vacates the office of the speaker to be privileged if it is offered at the direction of the majority or minority conference or caucus. in other words, a majority of to conference should vote vacate the office of the speaker before a resolution can be offered and provision on the floor. this change would align the treatment of motion to vacate the office of speaker with the treatment of resolution from the committees of the house. it would insure that resolutions that vacate the office of speaker and garner support of either the authority or minority

conference or caucus before the resolutions are considered on the floor. it is straightforward. i hope we would consider it next year. second issue is one that other members have skirted around the edges of, it is how do we bring back the power of the person and how do we use our time wisely asked member -- of -- -- members -- of congress. my suggestion would be to combine the powers of the appropriate in committee with the authorizing committee. how that looks, i think there are a few different structures that you can go down. this is not a new idea. the appropriations committee did not exist until 1865. between 1880-1920, authorizing committees also possessed jurisdiction over appropriations

. the former chairman of this committee spent a lot of time on this in the mid-90's. about 20 years ago of looking at different ways to combine these. the widest scope of the appropriations committee, the authorizing committees possess the greater policy experience. the change would produce the duplication efforts. take thepotentially time that we spend on the floor offering amendments each year walking through appropriation bill after preparation bill, i think he would stop at duplication of effort. it also solves the problem that we face here and that is of authorizing committees at the , it is tough for them to actually change law. in a simple sense, what i'm saying is every time we pass an

appropriations bill, it would be an authorizing bill. ways are a few different to go about it. the structure of this, this is we would have but 8-10 committees. every member that comes to congress, republican or democrat would sit on one of these committees and we would have a would of committees that , the ethicsmmittees committee comes to mind, there might be some appropriations authorizing committee combinations that would be committees. the concept would be that every member would have one committee that would have promotions -- appropriations and another committee where each member would have a second committee of

some kind. is itk what this would do would make this place a lot more efficient. have theirtee would week or two during your were they would ring their bill to the floor and bring the amendments to the committee. then we would take a week or two to debate this issue is. there would be a lot more i and -- buy in from the numbers. there is a not -- buy in from the members. committees,n the let's be honest, there is no possible way that a member of congress has the time to go to each one of his committees hearings. if you had to committees, i think it would be much easier and he would spend your time much more efficiently. that, first role change i

offered was self-explanatory and is necessary, the second is more conceptual but i would like this andittee to think about it force the parties to think about that. i will bring this about the republican conference this afternoon. with that, i would be open to any questions or discussion we can have here before the people of the house. >> thank you. thank you for the thought-provoking ideas. the first proposal make some sense seeing what which went through -- what we went through to make sure every motion to vacate has reasonable support. understanding, anybody can offer a motion, just would not be a privileged motion unless it has the support from either half of the republican conference or half of the democratic caucus, is that correct? >> correct.

>> it would just change the nature of it to ensure that it is only privilege. isr second proposal thought-provoking. for the first 100 years of our country we had no appropriate and committee. the authorizing committees per printed money. i think that certainly would be a big change but it is a thought-provoking change because downbelieve we get drunk into lots of things and maybe if there was responsibility of each authorizing committee to appropriate the money that would be a little more accountability. i think it is a thought-provoking idea and i look forward to talking to you more about it and thinking about year.we move into next

we have the month of october and to actuallyme days look through and think through these proposals so we do have enough time to do major changes. that is a big change. exploring and i appreciate the ideas you are bringing forward. >> one of the things that has brought me to this position that crystallizes for me this is the executive branch ability to hide within the jurisdictions. we see that between the armed services committee and intelligence committee. where the defense department can say, this is the jurisdiction of the half or vice versa. they can say part of this is for armed services committee but

intelligence committee will give you the intelligence and then you committee is what goats -- is going on. we have tried to rectify that with combining appropriations and armed services committee reading their members and more of the intelligence, at the end day, myay come misys -- suspicion is that this is happening quite often between the resources committee and what happens to the home the bus appropriations. >> thankful -- thank you. >> thank you for your thoughtful proposals. proposal might have to say, if the time someone talks about trying to overthrow the speaker i think that are you then us. -- better you than us. i felt think it is good for the institution. it creates uncertainty and a

climate where it makes it much more difficult to get things done. suggestion andur i thank you for being here. >> thank you. government --hed person from alabama. >> first idea is good. second, it is conceptual. i would like to talk about it. i served on both the budget committee and the provisions committee and education committee in alabama. a lot of overlap. when we were working on the budget, we had people sitting on the committee that knew intimately how the programs worked and how the different parts of education works. it was a well-informed committee. what you are saying is that it would help with the allocation of money into preparations of

money cap people who are subject matter experts to be on those committees. >> that is exactly right. oversight. i have thought conceptually about if you have these 8-10 supercommittee's along with 3-4 , the best thing to do would be to assign members and those committees to the budget committee and the oversight committee. forensict more of a legal investigation. it would make the budget committee and the oversight committee more effective because it would have a cross-section of all the committees where those committees could send those things to the oversight committee for further

investigation like what you currency -- currently see. is thathe challenges there are not members of other committees on the oversight committee. that creates problems. i think it would be a better use of members time and i think the government would be better for. i think a lot of states are run similar. >> making sure you are only on one main committee ensures you are eight expert on that committee and you are not pulled in several different directions. he was still have a secondary committee. you would have your subject matter committee and that is what you would be totally focused on. >> correct. it also gives more power to the legislative branch of government because he would have subject matter experts who could master an area. >> that is right.

i gave the example of in my position of walking into -- for me to walk over to dod and if you read the memo that they put out, all of us should be concerned about this, the bipartisan basis, essentially a memo to designed by the legislative affairs of the department of defense on how to divide and conquer congress. we should take that memo and that should be one of the reasons for our changes. if you sit on the resources committee which i sat on a my first term which i enjoyed, what are the things i learned is that no one at the department of interior energy cared about you at all but if you are on the interior provisions committee, they really cared what you have to say. they could hide because they knew the appropriate or's would give them the money but the appropriate or's had no way to rein them in if there was a

program that they did not like. if there wasys -- an authorizing bill, it is becauseasy to tie it up it takes 60 votes in the senate to get anything done. if you have these individual a preparations bills with authorization heading over to the senate, i think there's a lot more members that would get -- that's what have policy proposals that would drive an end to get a legislative product with agreement and the house and senate. >> let me play devil's advocate. at some point 100 years ago, the congress have this appropriations model. what's would be the argument for having a -- what do we gain from

this? >> i don't exactly know why during that 50 year time, for a long time did not have an appropriations committee. roughlyre were 50 years where a preparations and authorization had to have an agreement. potentially, maybe there is a .ay you create subcommittees i don't know if you put a preparations openly in charge for authorization committees in charge. you criticism committee within the committee. you create a committee within the committee. >> for the first 100 years the federal government did not spend that much money on the relative basis. as a got into world war i with all these new agencies, we got the income tax which brought more revenue and then federal

government got to be big. i spend -- you get experts on how you spend money at the federal level. you heard anything that would be the basis for that? pointse are all data that are important. thing, ifabout one as go back 100 years ago members of the congress are sitting here and watched what the executive branch was able to do to us, i will refer back to that in a moment, i think they would be astounded. a lot times we get into traditions and people get into ruts and people do not want to make change because change is hard. i think members of congress to search your 100 years ago would

be appalled at how the executive branch is running amok over the legislative branch of government. you see that reflected in the american people today. they are frustrated with our abilities here. rationalize traditions as well. i think it would make it easier. fact youeciate the brought this up. this is fascinating. it is just conceptual at this point i look for to talking to you in more detail. this is the most serious proposal i've heard about how we can reassert our authority. authority has been trampled upon. it did not start with obama. this has been coming for a long time. i think it is something that affects both parties. i appreciate your serious thought. >> people always ask him are

cheap equal branches of government. why can't you solve this problem? there are so many problems that should be able to be fixed. i think the american people are confused as to our these branches of government truly equal or not? >> that is because we have added a fourth branch. the department of agencies that the president does not have control over. it goes against the very spirit of our constitution and the notion of a percentage of government. i really appreciate your thoughts and i look for to hearing more from you and perhaps working with you. i yield back. way -- mentioned

how -- george operates in a different fashion. i was on the appropriations committee and torture. i had to end the terms of the budget and appropriations because the governor sends the budget and we put the appropriations and authorize it. it all comes out in the same piece of legislation. this is something that has frustrated us. like killing a two headed snake. you have to get both sides. i like the idea. i think there are a lot of other issues. this is something, we are past easy changes. we are past the easy fixes. if our side is in power, we want to keep this. we are past that. the market people are fed up.

-- american people are fed up. but the democrats and republicans, you hear the same things just being expressed from different political perspectives. your idea is something we need to work on. this whole budget process, our budget chairman is working on this. is archaic. it may matter or it may not matter. people don't understand that. they just want to know why we're not getting it done and why is looming like it is. and why can't we have more control over it. there is something to be said from a committee perspective when you are able to sit with the department head across the table and say not only what you give us the information, if you don't, we will take money from you. that is the way it works.

we have had a working torch on many occasions. if they said the iraqi to justify spending or something in the budget, we would come out and say, we will find out what does not want to be in the budget. all of a sudden, it is amazing how we could get information. this is something that the congressional branch is to have a part of. this is why we are elected. this -- not elected for this.eciate -- maybe we can come back his umbilicus. day, thed of the people, whether they understood it or not, this is getting something back to getting done. appreciate you bringing it. >> a lot of people talk about

how congress is not working in a bipartisan manner. that i camereason to this conclusion is because all the intelligence committee, we are known as the most bipartisan committee in congress. part of the reason why is because we do have a little more authority over the appropriate and's process. we do our best to be experts in our field to represent all of you. we saw problems together. these 8-10 big committees, i think you will get a lot more bipartisan cooperation and really looking and being experts in these areas and republicans and democrats would work together because they could take on these agencies to make better policies and run more efficient.

>> we are looking at whether to was -- it was, it years ago, depending on the party in power. democrats in power, republicans, we don't want to much power. together to improve the process. . we have ceded the power over to the executive branch. only we can make changes on the edges. a cold other discussion on how much oversight we should have. there is much to be said about how important and how we can work better together. the situation we're in now lends itself to that. the wholert of ignore fact that many of the things, many of the things we're spending money on have lost

their authorization and should be funded at all. we just where the rules. this is where people are getting frustrated. . the time weall spend on this appropriations bills and members offer 400 amendments. you guys sit here and come through them all. and itt bill comes up offers similar types of amendments and you go through them all. then we take these votes. we are voting on some of these bills and we are hearing over 100 amendments. at the end of the day, there is no real push to get these done. you see that now. have some members advocating, let's do a cr next year. that gives up all of our power if any have to ask, what did we do lester? what were we doing?

i would think that members would want to stop wasting our time. >> you have to do that. for of the committees, whatever reason, abdicated that responsible to. they don't get into that because they feel it is too politically difficult or can't get the right answer or the don't have to spend the time to authorize pieces. of why?st the fact you have so many committees of the authorizing process. they deal with their areas but they are not authorized. the only harm -- time to have a chance to be a productive player is on those 100 plus amendments that i spent money on the hours -- many hours on the floor with. those amendments seldom make it past the process. they really don't have any authorization ability. they are good for messaging but at the end of the day, they

don't become laws and they don't have an impact. if you really want something changed, you start in the appropriate is committee and get it written into the language. you do it the way we should be doing these things. you are right. had people who," never lipsyte experience, when it does work like it should, we have that thing called a conference committee which needs to be used a lot more. there will be things that will be things that would drop out because both are not where they need to be. way of thinking. we have to think differently. otherwise you will see the turn have we been times in a group of members and they what but are we doing? -- are we doing? it has been said for a long time.

some of these changes, whether they get taken or don't, there are other areas we can look at. -- having the expertise there is something you want to be a part of. your input is value. and you are able to look into errors of her district and state and region -- areas of your district and state and region that makes differences. i think it is a great idea. the worst thing i can see and that of the chairman's not wanting to pass this up is to have these hearings. i'm firmly committed to helping changese can to make for both sides. i think we will benefit from that. i yield back. committed on the

subcommittee to listening to the members continue to work with the members as we work to perfect the rules for the next congress. as you said, changes are needed. the gentleman from washington. >> thank you. thank you for bringing these intriguing ideas over. you always have good insight on the ways to make things better. i without the rules committee was the most bipartisan -- always thought the rules committee was the most bipartisan. this might be the most bipartisan i have seen it. [laughter] we are having a good day. i really like the first idea you brought forward. i think it allows an individual to affect change but not be so disruptive to the institution

that it is seen as a nuclear option. in the appropriations process, it seems like what you are bringing forward would allow engagement by all members and not just relegated to the amendment process on the floor which lacks some of the effectiveness we would like to see happen. it almost appears that we would eight-10-12 appropriations committees. everyone would have a role to play. you could be an inch deep and a here but if wed can focus our efforts on it particular committee, that would and forul for us congress. the conversation so far and answers. do you think by making this

change, something that has been frustrating to me it's us not completing our appropriations staff. would this be more conducive to getting appropriations across the finish line and following through with our response abilities and giving the appropriations process done every year? >> i think the odds would be higher. the more bipartisan cooperation, the more the committee works together to put forth a product every year and then you have to come up that committee would have to rally support on the floor for their bill. i think you get a lot more buy in from the members that pushes the chairman and ranking member to that committee. they want the committee to be relevant. it means that you're going to have to pass something overwhelmingly and work with the senate to push the senate to get something done.

minibusyou end up in a or on the the situation, at least they will be chairman of ranking members and will be room --ted in the the in the room. he is basically one member from the republican party and one number from the democratic heard in the room on the entire spending bill for the year. more people engaged and more people in the table at the end of the day when trying to close up an agreement. of me. is been one i've seen are appropriations process breakdown. that frustration is shared by a lot of people. this whole process of become a black hole and it is hard to get information and know exactly what is going on. anything that would improve the process i'm open to. said onof the senators

the provisions committee and the authorizing, they have their hands in both of those spots. we are at a disadvantage when you're dealing with the senate. they do have that power coming from both chambers. >> my compliments to you for bringing this forward. i appreciate the conversation and questions. hopefully we can move forward with something positive. i yield back. >> one final thing i just , as you are putting language, heactual tried to be thoughtful of the many great members we have with all the tenure on the appropriation committee and give them credit to their tenure if we were to accept this role.

why they will be against it, -- they will be against it but it will at least give them credit and will prevent them from starting from scratch. giving them thoughtful consideration and may be giving them credit for every year they have served on the appropriate and committee to any committee the transfer. i wanted to share it before the public because i think transparency is important and i think ideas are important in order to make the best product if we do end up making some major changes. >> very thoughtful and provocative ideas. thank you. we really appreciate you being here. mr. mcgovern. of a few unanimous consent requests. he had a proposal to the committee that they should

consult with ranking members before issuing subpoenas. if they object, there should be a vote of the committee and the chair should post this ossification -- the justification. consent to search into the record a letter from democrats from the energy and year 12, 2016.er the abuse of her unilateral subpoena power to comply with the committee requirement that she should consult with the ranking members prior. had that put into the record. >> objection. competent -- from the congressman. the concernpresses over how the chair has abused unilateral subpoena power has

led to the disclosure of private medical information and i would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from ricky member johnson from the science-based technology committee dated june 23, 2016 and expense how this decision -- explains how this decision impacts other issues and how does an illegitimate approach on state sovereignty. insert into the record a letter from ranking member cummings on oversight and government reform. jairman chick that said -- tos -- chaefetz using power tarnish the democratic candidate for president. >> those will be submitted into the record. any other material submitted for purposes of the hearing will be

printed into the record. without objection, the committee is adjourned.

>> mike debonis covers congress

with the washington post. here to talk to us about the iris peach mint debate. what is behind the effort? >> the resolution that is coming two houseed by areblicans, both of them members of the conservative house for them congress -- freedom caucus. they have been frustrated by the allegations against the irs and also by the failure of the current commissioner to comply with congressional subpoenas, provide testimony to congressional committees and otherwise restore trust and -- i n the agency. they have been frustrated that the relevant committees, judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte has not move forward with a formal impeachment proceeding. they have filed this privileged resolution that short-circuits

the process in brief it directly to before. -- floor. >> the headline of a current article, impeachment - showdown looms. it should end with the administration and house republican leadership. >> that is the case. i don't think that this is a or othert speaker ryan members of the house republican leadership are particularly relishing at this point. they're conservatives very upset with the irs and their scrutiny of medical conservative groups and the way they handled congressional inquiries. there is somewhat widespread skepticism over whether remedyment is the right to what is going on.

no one has been vocal about saying that this is a bad idea. you have heard speaker ryan and kevin mccarthy say that they want this process to adhere to regular order which is code word for the relevant committee should take action rather than short-circuiting the process. the house republican congress is getting together for a special meeting office on thursday morning. what you expect to happen? >> a classic house republican family conversation. they get together behind closed doors. mr. fleming and their like-minded members of the freedom caucus will make the case for doing this. i would expect we would hear goodlattebly chairman and some other folks, speaker ryan is expected to be in the room.

cases in make their terms of what is the best way forward on this. we will see later in the day how that shakes out. madee irs commissioner has a couple of visits to capitol hill meeting with members. what has he been saying? >> he has spoken to his most pointed critics. he went into the republican study committee meeting and basically his message was that even if you think i have done terrible things and serve to lose my job, you should follow the usual impeachment process and not be engaging in the short-circuiting of the process. the judiciary committee should have formal impeachment hearings and should be given an opportunity to formally presented defense and should be granted to process. process.ue then the judiciary committee

should think about arguments for impeachment and is headed to a trial. that is not the process we are in right now. >> is the only option and impeachment for him? are there other messages -- methods of discipline? >> there has been some discussion of a century. censure.-- in fact, they pass a center resolution earlier this year. a censure resolution earlier this year. it has not gone to the floor. that is an option. if that is what leadership feels that the conference is coalescing behind. there are other options as well. to discuss the bill we are going to have tomorrow, they're a number of ways that that could be disposed of short of voting down or putting it up.

there could be a motion to send it back to the judiciary committee. in other words, we are going to follow the regular process and the committee determines if impeachment is more to come up we will continue. there can also be a motion to table which would kill this effort entirely. thenother ingredient in bubbling cauldron of issues to get done before september 30. what can you tell us in terms of an update on where we are on some sort of government funding measure to take us past september 30? >> not a lot has changed outwardly. reporters that there are some of the issues that need to be resolved. the most difficult issues in the zikaunds package are going to go to an affiliate of planned parenthood.

there is no resolution there. if it is prologue, they could be a quick resolution, at least in the senate if these negotiators find some common ground. the senate tomorrow is going to clear the water resources development bill and leader mcconnell has made every indication that he wants to go quickly to the cr after that. covering congress with the washington post. read his report on washington post.com. thank you for the update. our student documentary film program. this year's theme is your message to washington dc. tell us what is the most urgent issue for the new president to address in 2017.

our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades 6-12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a 5-7 minute documentary on the issue selected. include some c-span programming and export opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 sutures. the ground prize -- grand prize of $5,000 will go to the team with the best entry. the deadline is january 20. mark your calendars and spread the word. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. c-span, the an .a.retary -- in the a -- v secretary robert mcdonald. then another chance to see the

memorial service for carbon mark takano. -- congressman mark to cut. -- mark takae. >> c-span's washington journal like every day with news and policy issues that impact you. the morning, we're talking with members of congress about key issues before the house and natural resources committee. guests include microtech representative debbie dingell and congressman bruce westermann from arkansas, the committee congressmanshop and from arizona. watch c-span's washington journal live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. thursday, the heads of the u.s. armed forces testified about the long-term budget needs of the military. the senate armed services committee is considering military readiness under budget

caps. watch live at 9:30 eastern on c-span3. now veterans affairs secretary robert all testifies not implement in the commission on can report to improve the epa health care system. v.a. health care system. this is 2.5 hours.