you how he felt and the admiration for the work you're doing. so thank you so much. to speaker ryan and leader pelosi, thank you for the opportunity to remember mark here in d.c. leader pelosi, you've been one of mark's biggest supporters from the very beginning and we thank you for all you have done, especially for our children. i would also like to make a special thank you to tammy duckworth for opening up her home to us when the entire family came to visit, as well as mike honda for his home and his car, which we borrowed to drive to church. and also a special thank you to our dear friend michael peric for all you've done, for all the support you gave mark from the very start, and especially for what you've done for our children.

thank you. and of course our warmest maholo to shawn and mark's office staff for just everything that you've 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 the challenge. we were so blessed to have met paster at holy trinity church. the church became our home away from home and the many hands that prayed over mark was such a gift to us. mark's faith in god was strong until the end. and he wrote in his final wishes, i love my god. do not worry about me. i'm in heaven.

through it all, he never gave up hope and went peacefully surrounded by those he loved most. owe the entire takai our family, his sister, daughter, my father gary, as well as from our entire ohana back home in hawaii, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for being oday to remember mark. mahalo and love to you all. thank you.

> let us pray. oh, lord, our god. we have been taught by the master that no greater love exists than that one lay down for one's 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. representative mark takai served the citizens of his home state of hawaii for many years at many levels of government.

in all those years, and a few 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. may we all be such good and faithful servants. bless us all, but bless especially his family and all who mourn the loss of so great takai. ngressman mark men. >> please remain seated until the official party and family have departed.

>> first-term congressman mark

takai died. 49. >> coming up on c-span the house rules committee considers proposed rules changes for the 115th congress then libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson speaks to members of the detroit economic club. >> now the house rules subcommittee considers changes for rules, including delegates to vote on the house floor in some cases. this is just under two hours.

welcome to the subcommittee. i am not a big fan of opening statements. i came here to list ton our witnesses so i will be very brief and then turn it over to ms. slaughter. this is the second hearing that this subcommittee has had this year. the first hearing we had was in april on rule 21 you may remember. and today's hearing will encompass the entirety of the rules package for the next congress. and it is a real opportunity for us to hear from members or their suggestions of how we can improve the functions of the house under the rules of the house. so members today will present testimony on a wide ranging set of proposals that would change the rules of the house with regard to procedural motions, printing requirements for bill analysis, committee witness

disclosures, authority, ethics training, et cetera. i am excited to hear from our members about their proposals. i look forward to hearing from each of the members testifying nd we have gotten ideas from a lot of members. i look forward to the que and answer. think -- to understand the proposals. thank you all for being here. with that i turn it over to ms. slaughter. >> mr. chairman these rules are very important to help steer the help to work better to help the american people. one of the challenges is gun

violence tearing apart our community. sadly, 91 people are killed by a gun every single day in america and an even sadder reality was not six 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, nearly four years ago, there have been more than 1270 mass shootings. a mass shooting is characaterized by the f.b.i. as three or four casualties. so those happen nationwide more than 34,000 people have lost their lives by someone using a gun since sandy hook -- not since sandy hook, but since we've been keeping track. it is startling to think about what the communities have faced those a past few months. so the sit-in took place in 2,050 this summer alone

were killed by gun violence. they are constituents, family members, and even colleagues. people who elected us, we represent, have been killed and injurd at an alarming rate. more than 30 times we have stood to mark a moment of silence in response to gun tragedy. we were the people who can do something about gun violence. 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 all enemies foreign and domestic. yet the majority has failed to protect us from this carnage. the majority should decide today that it has stood for the last time without taking action. the leader should start to do their job. far too many members of the

majority have consistently answered to the gun manufacturer and the gun lobby that represents them 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. i think everybody in america thought that the carnage of destroying the lives and shooting up of 20 elementary school children would be something that none of us could endure. while this chamber has failed to act on gun violence, we have found the time to take up legislation to whittle away at the dodd-frank financial reform law which would help prevent another great recession. in fact, just yesterday the house financial services committee reported out a highly partisan bill to kill dodd-frank. we have had an army of lobbyists up here to do that very thing. so these proposals and many

others that we consider here are just one house bill taken up mostly to make a political statement in an election year. at the same time we failed to take up legislation to address the skyrocketing cost of education on our crumbling infrastructure. it is the responsibility of every member of congress to discuss the gun violence epidemic, the zika epidemic, to fix with legislation, to stop our country from being the only industrial country in the world that allows that type of blood shed with guns. that is why i hope we move forward with one particular idea we will hear about today. rules change proposed by my friend tony card neds i am proud to be an original cosponser, along with representative crowelly and torres. this straightforward proposal will require that every moment

of silence on the floor of the house related to a tragedy on gun violence is followed by a committee hearing within ten legislative days. the editorial board in my district has already endorsed this proposal writing, there's no reason for any congressional representative to say no to this resolution. but this resolution alone won't solve the epidemic but it is a way to start the kind of conversation and examination of gun violence that has been so sadly lacking under this leadership. this is what the american people expect and deserve. think what it must be like now every time your children leaves the school, you leave the house to go to the grocery store, or to your work, that you might not come back home. to live under that kind of fear is totally unnecessary in the

land of the free and the home of the brave. so i look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their proposals to amend the rules of the house and for the moment i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, ms. slaughter. i now recognize the first three members to give testimony on their proposals. mr. griffith, ms. bordallo and mr. posey. come on forward to the three seats. there are two microphones so you will have to share. i would ask you to 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 and so i'm sure that a lot of the information will come out in the question and answer. so please try to be brief if you can and summarize and then the members i am sure will ask questions. please pull the microphone close to you so that people can hear it and make sure the green

light is turned on. without objection any written materials you have will be inserted into the record. thank you all for being here. our great chairman pete sessions has a group of students in his office and he told me he will be here. he cares deeply about your proposals and wants to make this house work better and he told me he will stop in in just a minute. here he is right now, the chairman of the full rules committee, our great chairman pete sessions. 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. >> thank you very much. i have submitted two proposals, restoration of the holman rule. i'm presenting 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. yield back. >> thank you. members of the committee, i 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. granted in the roles of the 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. and they continue to be -- makes the house less responsive to the more than or million americans in these districts. extending voting rights would be 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. the per capita death rate for 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. yet, we are denied the very basic right to vote on matters that impact they realize -- very lives. permitting them 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 congressman and general told me that when i was first elected to congress in 2003 he said that 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. i hope this rule will be changed. thank you very much, mr. kamen -- chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate the fact that you are having these meetings to try to get information. i'm proposing but i proposed 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. if we want to have a process 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. e will do it anyway. we are no closer to doing that then when i got here. the only way will force us to get done and to stop cooking members like mushrooms is to put it in the roles -- treating members like mushrooms is to put it in the rules. >> 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. as 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 in green and stricken in red. it has to be a savings of --

for 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. hey changed shall to must. 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 dea.

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 he 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 one. >> 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 870'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 e able to participate. i thought that it worked out. >> simply symbolic.

>> an important symbol and you re 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. r. 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. the discussion we had about your 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 public's job easier to go will be are doing. i think it is a win-win-win. 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 arity. if it is only symbolic, you are 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. we don't for -- 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. your comment that it would not ffect the outcome. only in the event of a tie would 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. ut all the other things. >> it is an interesting idea. >> we did have it into congresses. -- in 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. tell me how that makes sense. >> the concept would be that the historical filibuster rule had a higher threshold at one point of 67. but you had to be live on the floor. what happens now is they put in this -- the filibuster in the whole drool -- hold rule, and 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, they can go home 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 bringing those defective roles 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 an -- akin to 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 can be jammed up by folks who 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 olution. 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. as far as the rule, it also has 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 provided to any beneficiary? 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 ttention 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. social 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

keep reagan republicans and a 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. >> the great 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. mr. posey, i don't presume to know everything about it,

meaning the process, but we have a very intricate process and overloaded system. overloaded legislative council who does all these matters. we have a bill that comes up and 113 people decide to rush nd 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 challenge to say have -- the 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 they were and what he was aying 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 to me, katie still talks to me despite me getting this done. i want you to know it is not an effort that we have thrown away. we just can't get at it with the 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. if invested that money in eople's said the >> i do that too. >> you have been very racious. 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 whether we should have d.c. have 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. from that perspective, you would 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 have final votes, we just asking for this committee as a whole vote.

it has been through various ports. it has come out 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 or the gander. a body is entitled to set its own rules and establish how it will operate under

constitutional perspective. not try to be nice or recognize, glad you are here. there is some bit of disagreement about how the votes will take place. we do see it differently. she had an opportunity when they held the body to do that and you are speaking respectfully to these members. i think it update our new embers 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. we have an 11:00 meeting with each other where you will bring his and other ideas to me. i would sibley said this, i believe in some respects expect -- simply say this, i believe in some respect except for the rules of the senate with legislation of whether it would be permanent or under a 10 year reauthorization. we fall to the right value and that is we have a vote on the role -- rule on the floor where 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 ramifications.

the -- when we were in the minority, we had in a hundred 70 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 body that has sat in rules 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. it was put in as it -- a placeholder to have a discussion.

even if the senate -- i see what 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 hatsoever. 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. a letter which explains a proposal he has.

i would like that read into the record. second, our great chairman asked the legislative counsel to review the ramzi rule -- ramzi --ramseyer rule. and i want to give you a copy of what 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. issue still out there -- is she still out there? i would like them, if she is still out there -- she is not there. we will have mr. rooney and another person here for the econd panel.

there are two microphones at the table. please pull the microphones close to you and make sure the green light is on so everyone an hear you. any written materials you cap 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 ave. 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 do this because i have been in 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 constitutional job which is to 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, that earmarks -- bad actors and earmarks, we have had some solutions to be able to -- comply apply for competitive rants. 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. when we did the 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 taking -- begging 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. o 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. members of the subcommittee, young chairman stivers, ranking ember slaughter, good morning, everybody. thank you for allowing me to speak today. my propose change would amend rule 11. this would require every moment

of silence observed by the house floor because i got violent tragedy -- 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 bserved 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. we are tired of not having an 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 a resolution, house resolution 694 on april 20 which is the 17th anniversary of the columbine shooting that shocked our nation. this resolution has 141 cosponsors. there have been at least 30 10 months of silence related to gun violence -- 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. just and honest -- an honest 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. i introduced this because on any 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 die every year, 75,965 people are shocked and survive to to gun violence. 59,000 people injured in an attack. 3791 people survive a suicide attempt. 16,335 people shut unintentionally. it hundred 27 people shot by police intervention. -- 827 people shot by police ntervention. 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. -- high yield -- i yield.

>> thank you. i find your idea particularly thought-provoking and engaging. under article one, we're the ones responsible to appropriate money. would this increase spending or 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. i used to represent a small town on lake ontario of 2000 people. fishing was wonderful. but they could not deal with the 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. as you pointed 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. a while ago when i first in my introductory speech, mentioned 34,000 people being killed and sandy hook seemed surprising ut that is the number. 31 members of 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. it does not let us off the hook 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. omething is not working. that may be because we don't have gun shows -- to gun shows or people can buy them from each other. what we are doing is not working. or me, as a member of this

congress, the fact that we cannot address it is something that we should change. thank you very much.

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 f >> 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 like to have the opportunity to revisit it at least when i come to unicipalities. as i testify, there were at actors -- bad actors during the earmark time and we cut off everything but we did not reduce spending.

hat 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. this is 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. if we are not going to do 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 omplete. >> 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. n the order of your parents, mr. rooney, i'm from the west. we have been experiencing tremendous drought they -- drought. we have been 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. would you be open to including n 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 this is because i felt like if we kept adding stuff, there is a lot of things you can justifiably keep adding to it. i may be 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 able to 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 projects at 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. could you address how we would 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. t 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. i will find out and back to to make sure we are on the same

page. we crafted this that there would be no were outside of hat the existing appropriations level would be moving forward. i will get my staff to get back to on that. >> it 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. it seems like we have abdicated 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. we get the input directly from 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 want to help -- i agree there are two main moments of silence. hey 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. perhaps an investigation at our

level would not be as effective as it could be. could you help me understand how we would not interfere with an ongoing police investigation? > thank you. that is a great question. to the moments of silence, resolution would not preclude us from having moments of silence. what it would do is only be triggered if we have a moment of silence on the floor. t 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

got enough facts, i can tell you 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 ends to enlist the involvement 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. i picked 10 legislative days as a compromise to well at his fresh in our minds and at the same time, it gives enough time for us to deliberate as to which committee or subcommittee ould have the hearing.

and it would give us as the most collective legislative ody 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. egislative days. it could be a matter of less than two weeks depending on when it occurs. that is my concern. instead of 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 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 tragedy 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 average, since sandy hook, ith only had an average of 7-8

moments a year. >> i appreciate you bringing the idea forward. i do have some 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 mportant 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 time in any calendar year when 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. we've 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. 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 hearings on those -- 7-8 times a 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. to address the issues that 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 hearing by the honorable member from massachusetts, mr. cgovern. >> looking at your memo which i

support mr. romney. i would expand it. the idea that people here complain about the executive has too much part. we handed over to the executive he ability to these funds. it never made any sense to e. 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 republicans, 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 reatest 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. i was cap the comedy people, not just people who like me, but people who don't like me ho 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. eople 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. my resolution does not require 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. we have a dialogue as elected 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 bout it. >> the moment of silence shows we care. it is another thing to show we are willing to deliberate and possibly do something that would prevent future incidents. >> i'm all for moments of 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 ere. you have put some thought into your proposals. you're free to go. i really appreciate your houghtful testimony. the outstanding chairman of our intelligence committee, esteemed member of the ways and needs committee, great member from california, mr. nuñez has een 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 n. 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. >> thank you for holding this hearing. changes have to be made. i'm an outline -- going to 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 espective parties.

the first amendment i have proposed is to only allow for a 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 the conference should vote to 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 ombine 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. given the widest scope of the appropriations committee, the authorizing committees possess the greater policy

experience. the change would produce the duplication efforts. it would potentially take the 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 end of the day, 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. there are a few different ways to go about it. the structure of this, this is just a concept but we would have 8-10 committees. every member that comes to

congress, republican or democrat would sit on one of these committees and we would have a series of committees that would be select committees, the ethics 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. i think what this would do is it would make this place a lot ore efficient. each committee would have their 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. if you sit on the committees, 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. with that, first role change i offered was self-explanatory and is necessary, the second is more conceptual but i would like this committee to think about it and 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. my 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. your second proposal is 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 i do believe we get drunk down -- drug 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 it as we move into next ear. we have the month of october and about 100 some days to actually look through and think through these proposals so we do have enough time to do major changes.

hat is a big change. it is worth 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 ice 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

of the day come misys -- day, my 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. on your first proposal might have to say, if the time someone talks about trying to verthrow 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. i appreciate your suggestion and i thank you for being here. >> thank you. the distinguished government -- person from alabama. >> first idea is good.

second, it is conceptual. i would like to talk about t. i served on both the budget committee and the provisions committee and education ommittee 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. also, oversight. i have thought conceptually about if you have these 8-10

supercommittee's along with 3-4 other committees, the best thing to do would be to assign members and those committees to the budget committee and the oversight committee. to conduct more of a forensic 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. one of the challenges is that 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 ould 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. they can always -- if there was an authorizing bill, it is always easy to tie it up because 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. then there were 50 years roughly where a preparations and authorization had to have an agreement. potentially, maybe there is a way 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 ithin 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. spend -- you get experts on how you spend money at the federal level. you heard anything that would be the basis for that?

>> those are all data points that are important. i am sure about one thing, if you go back 100 years ago as embers 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 bilities here.

>> rationalize traditions as well. i think it would make it easier. >> i appreciate the fact you 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. i think our 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 hould 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. yield back. >> this is the 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. it is 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. f our side is in power, we want to keep this. we are past that. he 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. it 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. if we're not elected for this -- -- i appreciate this. maybe we can come back his umbilicus. at the end of the day, the people, whether they understood it or not, this is getting something back to getting done. i appreciate you bringing t. >> a lot of people talk about how congress is not working in a bipartisan manner. part of the reason that i came to this conclusion is because ll 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. if you have 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. coming 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. we just sort of ignore the whole 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. >> think of all the time we spend on this appropriations bills and members offer 400 amendments. you guys sit here and come through them all.

the next bill comes up and it 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. we 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. many of the committees, for 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. it is just the fact of why? 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.

many people who," never had 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. it is a whole way of thinking. we have to think differently. otherwise you will see the turn of -- how may times have we been in a group of members and they say, but are we doing? --what 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. this hits -- 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 anyway we can to make changes for both sides. i think we will benefit from that. i yield back. >> we are 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. 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 have eight-10-12 appropriations committees. everyone would have a role to play. you could be an inch deep and a mile wide around here but if we can focus our efforts on it particular committee, that would be helpful for us and for 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. even if you end up in a minibus or on the the situation, at least they will be chairman of ranking members and will be represented in the the room -- in the room. e 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. >> that is been one of me. 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. >> most of the senators said on 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 enate. 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. yield back. >> one final thing i just thought of, as you are putting together the actual language, he 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 in order to make the best product if we do end up making some major changes. >> very thoughtful and provocative ideas and worth looking into. thank you. really appreciate you being here. i would like to recognize mr. mcgovern. i believe he has something to submit the record. is, we have a proposal that the committee chairs should consult with ranking members before issuing a subpoena. if the ranking members reject the issuance, there should be a committee, and there should be justification provided to the coit