been doing this kind of thing for decades. i think what a lot of people believe, if vladimir putin is behind this, he sees it as an extension of a ping-pong match that's gone on for years and years. the u.s. is had involvement in elections all of the world going back to world war ii. think analysts believe this is just the way things work. you want to send a signal to ever will alert -- emerge from the selection that russia is on to you. that might be the signal they are sending. there is a big difference between vladimir putin telling his officials to do makes it harder to respond. susan: at the same time we have cooperation on syria for

ome kind of cease-fire there and we are -- both of our an interest in defeating isis inspired terrorist against or respective states. but it is a complicated relationship. more than in the persist perhaps? -- past perhaps? kerry can see secretary saying don't do anything on the hacking. to get the cease-fire agreement worked out. there are a million other decisions. by hiswere you surprised answer on isis and home grown terrorism? little bit s a surprised. he seems to be a very cautious person. get out front to saying everything is fine because the next day there will be a terror attack. felt like he was doing his best to try to focus americans on the successes that we have had had, you know, calling back some

territory in iraq and syria. americans are more interested in attacks than r mosul. isis controls but a lot of officials feel like credit for getting progress. susan: thanks to both of you for this week.ws makers adams was not a good president. ended at the end of his presidency and his father's i don't think i would have back.n >> tonight on q&a. james tromp talks about john of cy adams about the life the sixth president and his career after the presidency in representatives feel

>> the thing that strikes you, and held litician electric active office and -- office.e he didn't form alliances. he didn't do anything that you ould do in order to be able to persuade people who otherwise your not go along with agenda to do so. so his four years in the white pain.were just everything was hard. almost nothing. >> tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. > for campaign 2016 c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we all want to get back to america strong -- making america strong and great again. >> i'm running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who was knocked down but gets back up. the ve coverage of presidential around vice

presidential debates on c-span. app and n radio c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first debate live from hofstra, university in hempstead, new york. tuesday october 4 mike pence and kaine debate at long wood washington university in st. louis hosts second presidential debate leading to third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump at the university on october s vegas 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice on c-span.l debates isten live on the free c-span radio app or any time on demand at c-span.org. >> now a review of proposed members nges for serving in the 115th congress 2017. will sraopb january this hearing is two hours.

>> good morning. i would like to call this ubcommittee on rules and organization of the house. 'm not a big fan of opening statements. i came to listen to the witnesses so i will be brief and to the ranking member. his is the second hearing this subcommittee has had this year. the first one feels april on on rule 21.april today's hearing will encompass the rules y of package for the next congress and it is an opportunity to hear

for their s suggestions of how to improve the functions of the house under the house. so, members today will present set mony on a wide ranging of proposals that would change with les of the house regard to procedural motions, or bill requirements analys nalysis, committee witness disclosure, subpoena authority, ethics training. et cetera. 'm excited to hear about the proposals. i look forward to hearing from each member that will testify gotten ideas from a lot of members. i really look forward to that and thank you for being here with that i would like to turn to mrs. waters.

>> mr. chairman, the debate surrounding the rules that will may seem arcane to some but they are incredibly important. opportunity to help steer the house of representatives to working behalf of the american people. one of the most urgent issues the gun r country is violence epidemic tearing apart our communities. surveys say 91 are a day in america and not section months ago we were using a day is now 91 a day. tragedy at sandy hook elementary school nearly four years ago there have been more 1,270 mass shootings. hat is characterized by the f.b.i. as three or more casualties. nationwide more than 34,000

by le have lost their lives someone using a gun since sandy sandy look butce since they have been keeping track. startling to think what communities have faced the past few months. sit-in by the democratic minority took place in june and 2,015 were alone killed by gun violence. nameless, faceless tragedies, mr. chairman. constituents, our family members and even our colleagues. us are ple who elected being killed and injured at an alarming rate. result of this members of the house have stood more than 3 0 times to mark a moment of silence. the people that can do something about gun violence. up for a moment to recognize it does not really

address the problem. when we took the oath of office each of us promised to defend against all ion domestic.oreign and yet we have failed to protect them from this. we have today for the last time without taking action. let the leadership starred it do jobs -- start to do their jobs. wo many members of majority answer to the gun lobby this represents them. effort ng legislative from moving forward. here hasn't been a single vote taken in the house to address gun violence since the tragedy sandy look. i think everybody in america the carnage of shooting up of 20 elementary children would be something none of us could endure. we found the time to take up

whittle away at dodd frank financial reform law prevent another great recession. just yesterday the house inancial services committee reported out a highly partisan bill to kill dodd frank. we have had an army of lobbyists p here since it passed to do the same. so, these proposals and many others we consider here are just bill that have taken up mostly to make a political election year. at the same time we failed it take up legislation to address cost of cketing education or our crumbling instructor. responsibility of every member of congress to violence e gun pidemic, the zika epidemic, to fix them with legislation and stop our country from being the only industrial country in the that allows that type of

bloodshed. that is why i hope away move forward with one particular idea today. hear about cardenas.by tony i'm proud to a co-sponsor with joe crowley and norma torres. everyroposal will require moment of silence carried out on the floor of the house related involving gun violence is followed by many earings on the subject of the tragedy within 10 legislative days. the newspaper in my district has already endorsed this writing for anyre's this reason congressional representative to say no to this resolution. this resolution alone won't solve the epidemic but it is a to start a kind of conversation and examination of un violence that has been so sadly lacking under this

leadership. mr. chairman. is what the american people expect and deserve. like whether it must be every time your children live for school or spouse for work to the grocery store, whatever you do, you might not home.back iving under that fear is un tph unnecessary in the left-hand of the free and the home of the brave. to hearing from my colleagues about their of osals to amend the rules the house and i will yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mrs. slaughter. i would like to recognize the irst three members it give testimony on their proposals. and -- reufrt griffith. mr. bordallo and posy. ask you to try to be brief with the descriptions of

your proposals and allow time questions because we do have a lot of members who made sure a lot d so i'm of the information will come out in the question as under answers please try to be brief and summarize what you are doing and why you think it is a good idea the members will ask questions. when you begin please pull the so people can e hear and make sure the green light is turned on. objection, any written materials you have will be inserted into the record. forelcome you and thank you being here. i will tell you that our great sessions has a group of students in his office and told me he will be here and deeply about your proposals and wants to make this he will k better and stop in. here he is right now the hairman of the full rules committee pete sessions. with that, i will recognize each of you and if you want to go down the line is that ok with

you rbgs board . griffith, most boa --. >> i appreciate it very much. proposals.d two the first one is restoration of the home rule. hearing ig part of the we had earlier that you were so kind so i present no additional information. folks to think i forgot or no longer cared. larsen r one i call the rule representing the here two yearsin ago. i thought maybe we could find something better. nothing better has come up. it says all bills coming out of the senate should be treated the escape rules the senate with understand that when some relatively innocuous comes across we ought to take it up, debate it and deal having it opposed to lock locked forever by a 60-vote rule. you would have to have 60% of the house before you could take

up a stat bill. when they saw how ridiculous that was they would change their own rules. i yield back. you, mr. chairman and ranking member slaughter. members of committee i request house rules be amended for the 115th congress to permit he delegates and resident commissioner to cast votes we we are debating amendments and of slation in the committee the whole. it was granted for the 110th and congress. both cast by members of congress ake us accountable to our constituents and allow them to understand where we stand on issues.nt the rules that were adopted by he 112th, 113th and 114th congress denied voting rights for members from the territories and istrict of columbia continue to be making the house

responsive to the more than four million americans who live in these districts. voting rights would be wholly symbolic. change the nnot outcome of legislation or amendments considered on the floor. these votes allow us to ensure the needs of our constituents are addressed. many of our nation a's men and women in uniform are residents of the territories and d.c. and these dedicated service members sacrifice much of our -- much for our country and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice. per capita death rate for members from the territories is higher than most states. additionally, beyond lie levels of military service residents rom the territories and d.c. contribute to and serve our nation in all other aspects of life.can yet we their representatives in congress are denied the basic to vote on matters that impact their very lives.

r. chairman, permitting the delegates and resident commissioner to consist votes in will mmittee of the whole not lessen the representation of 435 members. it would allow territories' voices to be heard more fully. will give us parity with other members and strengthen the values of this bid. i want to leave you, mr. chairman, and ranking member, something one of my predecessors a former epublican, congressman and general ben bluff said when -- when i t elected was first elected it 2003 he aid as delegate from a territory who could not vote on the floor of the house, i quiet, i would be a member of congress not one of its members. so i hope that this rule will be changed. thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member. >> mr. president.

>> thank you, mr. chairman and members. appreciate the fact that you are having these meetings to try to get information and ideas bottom up. i'm proposing what i proposed notre and that is the house consider any legislation that is comparative in print. almost every legislature does that. citycounty commissions and commissions. you get a piece of legislation you don't know what is new or old or what is deleted, what is changed. you start trying to read the whole thing and you may be asting a lot of time reading stiff that is already there. if we want to have a process friendly and informative and transparent and good or the public and public policy and you care to see what is in the legislation you are voting on this is the to take.urse we have proposed this before and former speaker said it was too and we were going to do it before. we don't need to have it in the

rules. anyway.do it we are no closer to doing it i got here. the only way to force this to stuff treating members like mushrooms is to put it in the rules. thank you. >> thank you all for being here and i will open up for questions with mr. posy.t i was a state senator six years ohio i came here and legislature uses comparative rints and i reads bills in congress and it is hard to understand the bills in congress sometimes because you don't and stand what is changing what is not and you can't see are changed. so i think it is a great tool read mbers that want to bills appear understand them. -- and understand them. the change since the last time proposed this is the house has gone paperless mostly. would that reduce the cost of this change?

absolutely. when you go paperless and you put it online or electronic form put the new language in reen underlined and stricken long in red hyphened through. simple.ry for everybe a savings 100 hours you spend reading you 96 probably saves or 97 of them. bill ke 100 hours of reading reduce it to three if you go right to look for changes. you would see it and have a bill that thick. read it line for line and still not know what was changed. there's you will see only two changes in bill that hick and you can say they have changed 18 to 21, they changed

shall to must or whatever the change. but it is just -- it seems intentional to keep members in the dark when you memberave simple, simple friendly legislation presented and able to read like that. thank you. speaking for myself it would be great and make it much easier to read bills. i think it is a fabulous idea. appreciate your bringing it forward. bordallo you said this but i want to make sure i understand it. to would give voting rights the resident delegates but they could not change the outcome of vote. be a tie onte would an amendment then they would out. again leaving us so, it makes no difference whatsoever. it is just the idea of being floor with our colleagues and letting our

constituents know how we stand issues. >> thank you. your iffith, i think larsen rule is intriguing senate the rules in the ave changed in a way that are frustrating to many members lake me. it used -- like me. in the to be if you were senate and wanted to do a filibuster you could talk. now they can do silent and -- et fill because doctors filibusters. role is used and there is nothing constitutional that rule in the senate. it is a tradition, not a requirement.al and i think it is ludicrous and does stop us from making a difference. so, i have a couple of questions on how it would work. house were to consider senate legislation under the

senate rules would they have to published in advance or how would you handle that? because many of us are not as the senate rules. >> they are published as part of you would rules and just refer to those documents whenever a senate bill came up you would prefer to that. i have to believe there is better way to deal with it but none and having heard mr. larsen say this is not a republican problem it is a senate problem, that i thought we ought to at least discussion. it would be a huge change. period of r a short time make things worse because it would have the house not able some of legislation just like the senate can't. ut it is one thing when it is somebody else's bill that is being gored and the senate sees their bills being trample by their own rules i think it bring them to their senses. that said i would love for

somebody to come up with a better idea. another way it handle this problem. but it is a conflict between the which is senate damaging to republic as a whole and not a democratic or republican issue. house and senate issue. >> it is interesting and illustrate how difficult it is to get things done in the senate. i might say when you take cloture uster rule and rule and home rule that only 1970's.ack to the it doesn't date back to the 1870's it is the 1970's and i must presume they had some kind gentleman and gentlelady agreement because it was not 1990's andl the late 2000's and both parties have run amuck. for being here. miss d like to recognize

slaughter. >> very interesting. you remember when we had that i'm for it again. it seems a terrible thing to ask from guam and e not really to be able to things ate in a lot of won't rememb we are doing. it was like if it tied we would take the delegates out. an important t symbol because you are here. posy, i served in the state legislature as well and we chairman when i was there who never had anything a page and a half because that is all he wanted to read. his ow he managed to get bills down to that. i'm not sure everybody approved his at notion but it was and he was proud of it. as long as i have

thathere we have had sense our problem is not republican or commonen my is the senate. but i think it was set up that way. been told the senate is headed ing area for hot legislation from the house. e would work hard to get that change but i appreciate the joke. i yield become. dark yield become. >> mr. byrne. posy's preciate mr. suggestion. i was in the state senate in alabama, same thing and i do more than just saving time. i think there's a strong element of transparency here. i appreciate your bringing it forward and hope we adopt it. mr. griffith i don't want to get discussion welong had about your hallman rule but would like to make a request of you. if you would get with the staff to work out some of these things them rticularly give examples of amendments that you

cannot offer now that you would offer if we adopt the proposed.ou that with help us coming up with something to get it the meat of we had in april which i appreciate your bringing forward. you have done a great job of it together and we had a very provocative discussion in pril but to follow up adequately if you could get with helpful.f it would be >> i would love to. got lots of examples. >> thank you. you, mr. byrne. seeing no other democrats, newhouse. >> i appreciate all think of you coming forward with great ideas. i have often lamented the fact we don't do things like he state legislature making it clearer what we are trying to do and affecting legislation. make our jobs easier the taff and member of public tasks easier to figure

doing.t we are i think it is a win, win, win if there is such a thing. a great idea.s bordallbordallo, we served on natural resources together and i appreciate your being here today. this is an interesting idea that you brought forward. wondered why territories are not allowed to vote although you do have voting in committee. >> that is correct. > so, if you are asking for a symbolic vote on the floor, i'm sure how that gives you parity if you can help me understand that. it is only symbolic, still the opportunity to investigate your opinions if you in committee, so are complaining that you cannot express how you feel on issues t your constituents there's an opportunity there. >> i guess an answer to you is

elected toat you are a body and you are not allowed at all.on floor we don't vote for final passage. disparity in my opinion. go down t be able to and vote in the committee as a a matter of just going on the floor and meeting our colleagues once in a while. the floor ldom on because we don't have a vote. the committee of the whole or final passage. i think it is just a matter to be belonging to a family. that.nderstand i appreciate that. nd your comment that it would not -- i cannot recall exactly affect the outcome. only in the event of the tie votes be discounted? >> that is right. >> what if it was a margin of one or two? if there's a margin of one they vote again.

>> or the total of number of delegates. >> with be left out. >> i see. that is an interesting escape. haven't made my mind up but i appreciate your bringing it us to and allowing consider it. i'm sorry? >> thank you. i do not recall ever hearing any complaints. great distance to get here, really feel like a part. most important is our constituents do not know where we stand because our votes are never publicized or whatever. we may be on the bill as a cosponsor. in every aspect, on defense and national resources, but what

about the health and education committees and so forth? >> like you said, an interesting idea. did have the right to vote but it was taken away when the parties changed. >> you always come forward with interesting, great ideas. one thought that occurred to me, we all complain about the senate and that is part of the natural the one thing we complain about most is the 60 vote margin. , i get that we want to get back at them and get them to change the rule so we can get our things past more easily. it seems like we would need doing the same thing we complain about.

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, 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 can -- 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 . i think that there is probably 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 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 saying

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. >> 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 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 for 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 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. we have an 11:00 meeting with each other where you will bring this 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 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 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. 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 -- 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 second 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 can 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. members of the subcommittee, young chairman stivers, ranking member 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 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. 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. i 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 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. 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 but 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. something 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.

for 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. >> i appreciate your amendment. 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 -- tell in the water -- toe in 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 -- begging 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 like to have the opportunity to revisit it at least when i come to municipalities. as i testify, there were at actors -- bad 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. 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 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, 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 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 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. 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. 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 what 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. 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. 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. 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

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 tends 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 would have the hearing. and it would give us as the most 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. 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 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 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, with 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 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 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. mcgovern. >> 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 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 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 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. i was cap the comedy people, not 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. 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 about 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 here. you have put some thought into your proposals. you're free to go. i really appreciate your thoughtful testimony. the outstanding chairman of our intelligence committee, esteemed

member of the ways and needs committee, great member from california, mr. nuñez has been 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.

>> 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 respective 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 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. 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 more 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 year. 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. that 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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? >> those are all data points that are important. i am sure about one thing, if you go back 100 years ago as 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. >> 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 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.

>> 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. 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. 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 it. >> 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 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. 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. [laughter] 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 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. 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. >> 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 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 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 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. have unanimous consent to search into the record a letter from democrats from the energy and commerce from per year 12, 2016. 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. >> the letter from competent -- the congressman. 2016 that expresses the concern

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. chairman chick that said -- j fits -- chaefetz using power to tarnish the democratic candidate for president. >> those will be submitted into the record.