[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPEN DAY HEARING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
OPEN DAY HEARING FOR MEMBERS TO TESTIFY ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE RULES
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
__________
September 17, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-662 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RULES
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York, Chairman
DAVID DREIER, California JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts
PORTER GOSS, Florida MARTIN FROST, Texas
JOHN LINDER, Georgia TONY P. HALL, Ohio
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
William D. Crosby, Chief Counsel
Daniel J. Keniry, Staff Director
George C. Crawford, Minority Staff Director
Bryan H. Roth, Office and Systems Manager
______
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
PORTER GOSS, Florida, Chairman
JOHN LINDER, Georgia MARTIN FROST, Texas
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York
Wendy Selig, Counsel
Kristi Walseth, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
DAVID DREIER, California, Chairman
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida TONY P. HALL, Ohio
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York
Vincent Randazzo, Counsel
Michael Gessel, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
September 17, 1998
Opening statement of the Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, chairman of
the Committee on Rules 01
Statement of:
Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 02
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia [prepared statement p. 04]............ 03
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland [prepared statement p. 10]........... 08
Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri [prepared statement p. 18]..................... 17
Shaw, Hon. Clay, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida [prepared statement p. 21]...................... 20
Menendez, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey [prepared statement p. 26]............. 24
Paul, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas [prepared statemtent p. 30]....................... 28
Weygand, Hon. Robert A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island [prepared statement p. 34]....... 32
Hostettler, Hon. John N., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Indiana [prepared statement p. 39]............ 37
Tiahrt, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kansas [prepared statement p. 48]................. 46
Statements Submitted for the Record:
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 23
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 53
Barton, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas................................................... 54
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam.. 58
Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 66
Largent, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oklahoma.......................................... 71
(iii)
AN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OPEN DAY HEARING FOR MEMBERS TO TESTIFY ON
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE STANDING RULES OF THE HOUSE
----------
Thursday, September 17, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m. in Room
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon [chairman of the
committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Solomon, Dreier, Linder and
Hastings.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Today we
are holding a hearing on the proposed rules changes for the
coming Congress that will convene on January 3rd of next year.
I might just say that in the audience we have the former
Chief of Staff of the Rules Committee, Mr. Donald
Wolfensberger, who was extremely instrumental, along with David
Dreier, myself, and other members of the Rules Committee way
back in 1995, when we rewrote the rules of this House with
major, major changes. The changes have made the House a much,
much better functioning body, a much more accountable body, and
a much more open body to the American people.
David, you certainly recall that, because you served as the
cochairman of the committee to look into the--
Mr. Dreier. Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress.
The Chairman. And from that, and from your leadership as
well, we made a number of very significant changes. There were
many of them, but changes such as reducing the committee staffs
by one-third from the previous Congress. That was a major step,
which I think set the tone for what we had to do in trying to
shrink the size and power of the Federal Government and return
that power to the States, and to set the example.
But we won't talk about renaming the committees, because I
am still having trouble with some of that, being the old bull
that I am, I guess.
We also limited committee and subcommittee chairmen to no
more than three consecutive terms, and the Speaker to no more
than four consecutive terms. We abolished proxy voting, which
has been very, very effective, because it has required Members
to be present, and they are certainly more informed and I think
do a much better job.
We required committee meetings and hearings that are open
to the public to be open for broadcast coverage, and of course,
that was a very, very important rule change. We required
committee transcripts and the Congressional Record to contain
verbatim accounts, and required committee reports to include
all roll call votes on legislation, so that the public would
actually see what was going on in committees, which they rarely
had opportunity to do before. There were many, many other
changes.
Now, today we have, I think, about 20 Members who have
asked to testify, and we are in somewhat of a dilemma because
we are on 1-minutes on the floor, and Mr. David Dreier has to
carry the continuing resolution, a resolution on the floor, in
just a few minutes. Then I have to follow up with the rule on
the foreign operations appropriation bill for 1999. So we will
get started.
The Chairman. I notice that we do have a panel which has
arrived on time, and we commend them for that.
If we could then have Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mr. Tom
Davis, and Mrs. Connie Morella. These are Washington area
Representatives. They are all distinguished, and we hold them
all in the highest respect.
Tom, if I could recognize you, and then we will go to Ms.
Norton.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Davis. I will try to be brief but to the point. In
1993, I think the Democratic Congress made a mistake when they
allowed to have a vote in the Committee of the Whole for five
delegates from the different Commonwealths around. It so
happened it was a time when all five happened to be Democrats,
and I thought that was the very height of active partisanship.
When the Republicans came into Congress, and in the
Majority, we rightfully discarded that, but sometimes we throw
out the baby with the bath water. I feel, not just because my
district is across the river from the District of Columbia, but
I noted when the Speaker was in China, I noted when the
President was in China, they were head to head with Jiang Zemin
about democracy in Hong Kong and what is going on there, and
yet in our Nation's capital, 550,000 people, they don't get a
vote on the House floor.
I don't favor two Senators. We are not asking for a full
vote on the House floor, but I believe it would be important
symbolically if we could restore, not to the other four
Commonwealths, but to the District of Columbia, a vote in the
Committee of the Whole. Under the rule as it existed before, if
it changed any votes, we could revote it.
It is important for a couple of reasons. The District is
different from the other commonwealths. The District of
Columbia pays taxes. Their people are drafted. They serve just
like my constituents in every other way across the river, or
just like Mr. Dreier or just like yourself, Mr. Solomon, in
terms of their obligations to the Federal Government.
That is not true in Puerto Rico, it is not true in Guam, it
is not true in the other Commonwealths, but it is the Nation's
capital, the capital of democracy. I think they ought to be
able to get a vote on the House floor.
This is more symbolic than substance, quite frankly, with
this rules change, but I think it is a very important step
forward for us, and I would advocate that rule change.
The Chairman. If I might, so I can go back and forth
between both sides of the aisle, I would recognize Ms. Norton,
and then let you be the cleanup hitter, Connie.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
particularly grateful to my two colleagues, Mr. Davis, who is
the Chairman, and Mrs. Morella is the Vice Chair, of the D.C.
subcommittee, for their willingness to come forward and support
my effort to regain my vote on the House floor.
The legal work has been done for the committee. The rules
of the committee, of course, allow the Majority to make its own
rules. The U.S. district court and the court of appeals have
both ruled that it is constitutional to allow the delegate vote
on the House floor.
I represent more than half a million people. I have to tell
you that when I got the vote on the House floor, though it is
not a full vote, though it is not a complete vote, there was a
sense of elation, a sense of being a part of America that had
not been there for 200 years.
My constituents feel deeply about it, in no small part
because of the tax issue. We are the third per capita in
Federal income taxes, and the great American slogan, no
taxation without representation, applies over and over again
for us in the District.
But there are other reasons as well why I think the House
would want to make sure I could vote on the House floor. The
District is the only local jurisdiction in the United States
whose own budget must be appropriated by the Congress of the
United States, even though today there is not one penny of
Federal money in that budget. So that, for example, if
something happens over here, a likely shutdown--even though we
are dealing with our own money, the District could not spend
its own money. You want your own Member to have at least some
say in that with a vote.
The District is the only jurisdiction in the United States
where Congress can overturn its laws, and it has done so, and
continues to do so. You would want your own Member to at least
have a vote in that process. It is not a vote in the formal
final House, but it is at least a vote in the Committee of the
Whole.
The District is the only jurisdiction which does not have
full self-government. Ironically, if I were an American
citizen, as Puerto Ricans are, living there, the Congress of
the United States couldn't come and overturn my vote. I have
full self-government.
For all those reasons, because of the close relationship to
what happens in the District and the Congress, it seems to me
that you would want the Member from the District to be able to
vote.
This would be a particularly propitious time to return my
vote. The Congress cannot help but notice that the District, 2
years ahead of time, has not only balanced its budget, but now
comes in with a surplus, and, of course, just this week a whole
new regime is likely to come forward in the District after
these elections. It would be a particularly generous act,
therefore, for the Congress to grant this limited right for the
District to have representation in the Committee of the Whole.
I ask that you do so.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. I remember
very well your work on the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, and that was when I first had a chance to get to
know you. I appreciate the fact that you take this and other
institutional issues so seriously.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.004
The Chairman. Mrs. Morella?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mrs. Morella. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify here on behalf of something that I think
is important as we craft the House rules for the next Congress,
and that is a provision to allow the delegate from the District
of Columbia to vote when the House meets as a Committee of the
Whole.
I have long supported voting rights for the Delegate from
the District of Columbia. The unique status of the District of
Columbia makes it the only jurisdiction in the Nation where, as
has been mentioned, the residents pay Federal taxes and have no
voting representation in Congress. I think the policy smacks of
discrimination. It seems undemocratic, unfair to the taxpaying
citizens of our Nation's capital.
As the Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia and the Representative from neighboring Montgomery
County, Maryland, I have a vested interest in supporting voting
rights for the Delegate from the District of Columbia. As
members of the regional congressional delegation, Ms. Norton
and I work together on critical regional issues, traffic
congestion, growth management, water and air quality, work
force development, and other matters of common interest and
concern, and with the representative from Virginia, we are all
part of the region.
I believe that in restoring the vote of the District of
Columbia delegate when the House is in the Committee of the
Whole would be a step toward advancing the interests of the
Washington metropolitan region and its citizens.
I served in the 103rd Congress when the House voted to
expand voting rights for the five delegates representing four
island territories and the District of Columbia, and at that
time the House gave the five delegates the right to vote as
part of the Committee of the Whole on amendments on the floor.
Opponents called this move by the House a power grab that was
unprecedented and unconstitutional. Although the
constitutionality of this provision was upheld, it was repealed
during the 104th Congress when the rules of the House were
revised.
Unlike the residents of the territories, such as Guam,
American Samoa and the Virgin Islands, the people of the
District of Columbia pay Federal taxes. I am not asking you to
restore the vote for citizens who pay no taxes to the U.S.
Treasury. That would be like asking for representation without
taxation. But rather, I am asking that you restore the vote in
the Committee of the Whole only for the delegate from our
Nation's capital.
Ms. Norton has been allowed a vote on all issues that come
before the two legislative committees on which she serves. Most
of the floor sessions in the House are conducted in the
Committee of the Whole, which doesn't require a majority of the
435 Members to be present during debates. Most of the major
House votes except for final passage of legislation are taken
in the Committee of the Whole. If the D.C. delegate can be a
full voting member of a legis-
lative committee, she can also be a member of the Committee of
the Whole.
Denying voting representation to the residents of the
District of Columbia, who are taxpaying citizens of the United
States, I think is an injustice that we should try to overturn
for the good of D.C. and the greater metropolitan Washington
region. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and members of the
committee will include in the rules of the House for the 106th
Congress a vote on the House floor in the Committee of the
Whole for the delegate from the District of Columbia.
Again, really, it is good of you to allow us to come and to
testify on behalf of this rule change. Thank you.
The Chairman. You are always welcome, because you have a
right to be here.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.010
The Chairman. Let me just say that I certainly have
sympathy with all of your testimony, and I have even more
sympathy when you were talking about just the Delegate from
D.C., because of the reasons outlined.
There is a problem. As you know, I was one of the main
opponents of allowing the Delegates to vote. When we enacted
the rule, it was done so to try to meet the problems with the
Constitution. In doing so, as you know--the rule was written so
that technically, if the Delegates voted and the vote counted,
it didn't count, and there was a revote.
That led to some problems, because as votes take place on
the floor, you know, we all are in a position of give and take,
quid pro quo, and sometimes when you see how the vote is
turning out, Members change their vote, they wait, they
withhold their votes, and it does change whether or not that
vote was really decisive. So there is a gray area there, and it
is too bad. I don't know how you can deal with it, other than
changing the Constitution.
Certainly David Dreier, who will be your new Chairman of
this committee come January 3rd--
Mr. Dreier. God and the voters willing.
The Chairman. --will be making his recommendations.
Mr. Dreier. Let the record show I am going to support Mr.
Dreier.
The Chairman. But I really think we might need to look at
the Constitution sometime and see what we can do to
specifically take care of the Delegate from D.C., because of
the difference in being taxpayers. I think it makes an awful
lot of difference. Maybe we ought to take a hard look at it.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Norton. The political problem you raise, Mr. Chairman,
might have been of some concern when there were five votes,
five Delegates. But the request here is for one vote. It seems
hardly likely that there would be many instances where that
political concern would come into play.
The Chairman. That is why I said I have greater sympathy
for what you are offering here today. It makes a lot of
difference.
Mr. Dreier.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess my
first question would be, if we were to proceed to do this,
Eleanor, would you become a Republican?
Ms. Norton. Can I take the fifth on that one?
Mr. Dreier. The second and serious question that I would
really pose on this is what would be the reaction of the other
four? If you go back to 1993 and look at the fact that the
District of Columbia was, in fact, categorized with the other
four, would there be--I am just wondering if you have had any
conversations with the other Delegates to see what their
response would be?
Ms. Norton. I have. I felt an obligation to go to the other
Delegates. In the first instance, it was the special
circumstances of the District of Columbia, frankly, that caught
the attention of the Democrats when they were in the Majority
and did this in the first place, and then with some concern
within the Democratic Caucus about the other Delegates, but
they said, well, the Delegates have always been treated the
same. They usually came from territories, they became part of
the United States, no harm they thought would be done.
When, in fact, the House turned over, I went to the other
Delegates and said, and I say in my testimony, that without
prejudicing their rights to forward their position, it did--it
seems to me that I had to press the House for the only
taxpaying residents of the United States who had no
representation, and they understand that.
They have not said to me, well, we don't think you should
go without us. In fact, I think that I have been open with them
and have indicated that I am going forward and why I am going
forward. It has not destroyed in any way the relationship they
and I have.
I have a joke among them that I will come forward with at
this time. If you were to give--remember what these Delegates
have. They don't have to pay Federal income taxes. I would not
like to see the reaction of Members' own constituents if you
gave them the choice of whether to send one of them here or pay
Federal income taxes. So they have not been clamoring for the
exchange in that sense.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. I don't have any questions, thank you.
The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate your
coming. Thank you for your candor and for testifying.
The Chairman. The next scheduled witness will be Pat Danner
of Missouri. Pat, one of our distinguished Representatives from
the great State of Missouri, the great State of Harry Truman,
whom I admired and respected greatly.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT DANNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Ms. Danner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman-to-be, and panel members, thank
you for having me here. I will be very brief this morning. I
know there are other Members. I will summarize my statement.
It is not a philosophical question, it is really a
practical question that I certainly have asked myself a number
of times over the years. I don't think there is any Member of
our body on either side of the aisle who has not said to
someone else as they entered the Chamber, "Whose amendment is
this?" It seems to me it would be easy to post on the vote
board the name of the person who is sponsoring the amendment;
say, the Dreier amendment. Then at least we know which one it
is.
I think there are many Members who have--I know that to be
the case--that voted thinking it was one amendment, and indeed,
it was another amendment. So my suggestion is simply that we
look at redoing that vote board in a way to give us more
information.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Danner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.011
Mr. Dreier. The board down on the House floor?
Ms. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Dreier. Not in the cloakrooms?
Ms. Danner. Yes, on the House floor. Many of us don't have
time to stop by the cloakroom. We run from a meeting such as
this and run down immediately to the floor.
The Chairman. Mr. Dreier.
Mr. Dreier. Let me just say, Pat, this is actually
something that a number of us have talked about. I was under
the impression, first, that your idea was to simply get those
in the cloakroom to post more information in the cloakroom;
especially since during both the 104th Congress and the 105th
Congress, really at the request of both Democrats and
Republicans, we have been putting votes together.
I think that you make a very good point, that when we do,
since we do identify amendments by the name of the sponsor, I
think that the idea of having the name of the sponsor placed on
boards on the House floor is a very good one. And, in fact, I
think we had a discussion with the Parliamentarian, and I
raised this with the Parliamentarian a couple of months ago, so
I think it is a very, very worthwhile proposal. I am glad to
see that in a bipartisan way we are interested in doing that.
Ms. Danner. As a matter of fact, I sent a letter some time
ago to the Clerk, and did not get a response, as I recall. But
if there was some reticence as to an individual's name being
placed there, maybe we could even do it by numbering the
amendments, and have "amendment number 12," and then we could
look and see that it was the Dreier amendment. I just think it
would be helpful to us.
Mr. Dreier. I think it is a very good idea, and there are
down sides to having us roll those votes. When we were in the
Minority, we were very troubled about the fact that we would
have a debate, and then many Members would look forward to that
debate, and we would have a debate on another and another
amendment, and then we would all vote seriatim on those
amendments as they come up.
I think that anything that can be done to help clearly
differentiate between and among the amendments that are
considered would be helpful. So I appreciate your bringing it
to our attention again.
Ms. Danner. I might say just in closing that I like the
idea of rolling the votes. It makes the rest of our day move
more smoothly. I think it was a very good suggestion on the
part of the people on your committee.
The Chairman. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. I think that is an excellent idea. I guess I
have a sense of frustration coming out, as you do, and, what
vote is this? In this era of technology, I know it can be done.
I know several State legislatures, including my State
legislature, do that. I think that is an excellent idea.
Ms. Danner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mrs. Danner, thank you so much for coming. We
appreciate it.
The Chairman. The next scheduled witness is the Honorable
Clay Shaw.
Clay, if you would like to come forward your entire
statement will appear in the record without objection. Take
whatever time you feel is necessary.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAY SHAW, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will place my
statement in the record, and I will be brief.
The proposal that I place before this body is one that
would limit the number of 60-minute special orders that any
Member of Congress can have without paying out of his office or
her office account the sum of $3,000 for each 60-minute
proposal.
If you watch the late night special orders, if you sit in
the chair through the late night special orders, you find that
there is a handful of Members that regularly take advantage of
this perk of office. It keeps our staff in through unbelievable
hours. Members might leave here at 6, 7 o'clock, you can turn
the television on at midnight, these special orders are still
going on. It is terribly unfair to our staff, and it is
terribly expensive. It is something that is not taken advantage
of by the vast majority of the Members.
How this would work, every Member, if he cares to take
advantage of it, would get one 60-minute special order per
month. If that Member chooses to have two or three 60-minutes,
they would be assessed, out of their office account, the sum of
$3,000 for this privilege. Actually, that $3,000 is, I think,
below the actual cost of having these special orders.
Ms. Rivers has a bill in which she has estimated that these
special orders, an hour of special orders, costs anywhere from
$4,000 to $6,000, so I think this is a very, very reasonable
figure. I think this is a reasonable thing to ask.
I think that our staffs are entitled to a family life, too.
For them to sit here way into the wee hours of the morning
listening to the same Members is terribly unfair. It is
impractical. But I think this is a good way of handling it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.012
The Chairman. I have to say, I have to agree with you. I
don't know how you allow Members the opportunity to get their
points across, you know, to the Nation and on the floor. It is
unfortunate. Here we are a body of 435 Members, as opposed to
only 100 Senators. It is difficult for Members to find time to
discuss bills and legislation and their own points of view. So
I have somewhat mixed emotions about it.
But I do think it is abused, because as you say, it seems
to be mostly a handful of Members that maybe they are trying to
promote themselves, as opposed to getting into a real dialogue
or discussion. David Dreier and I have discussed many times the
old British parliamentary system, where we would actually go to
the floor and debate--and we did that on a number of occasions
a few years ago, and I think it was very successful.
I know he and I were on the opposite sides on something
called Most Favored Nation treatment of China and others, but
it was informative to the American people. We received an awful
lot of comment from the public on that. So your points are
certainly well taken.
Mr. Shaw. If the Chairman would allow me, I think very
little educational material goes out during special orders, the
way it is set up today.
The Chairman. Mr. Dreier.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say a couple of things. It is interesting to
listen to these Republicans talk about a handful of Members
utilizing this. When we are talking with the Speaker of the
House, I think he would argue that that was the one opportunity
that he had, along with our former colleague, Bob Walker, to
really convey the Republican view of the world to the American
people.
I will say that the argument is not necessarily a bad one.
In 1976, the Supreme Court in the Buckley v. Valeo decision,
which, as we know, is often talked about in political
campaigns, did address speech. Maybe that charge would not be
unwarranted.
I do think that--I suspect there would be more than a
couple of Members who would be very concerned about moving in
that direction, though. And also, it is interesting, many
people do that just with the hope that they can get on
television. Well, it is cable television. Now we have MSNBC,
the Fox News Channel, CNN. You know, all of these outlets are
out there creating opportunities for many of us to late at
night sit around and get interviewed by people, so there are
new opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to get their
message out there. Maybe this would be something to consider.
Mr. Chairman, since you have just handed this to me, may I
ask unanimous consent that you have this placed in the record
Mr. Cardin's statement.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.013
Mr. Shaw. There are modifications that could be made to
this proposal, such as unlimited time for the Majority and
Minority Leader or his designee. These are things that can be
handled so that if someone has a real political message out
there, that we are not in any way interfering with that message
getting across.
But these are personal special orders where the Members
just get on the television, and they talk to an empty room for
an hour and have basically said nothing. I have sat in the
chair through some of these, and they are painful to listen to.
Mr. Dreier. Some of them are fascinating.
Mr. Shaw. In fact, I marvel sometimes that somebody can
talk to themselves for 1 hour without stopping.
Mr. Linder. No comment.
The Chairman. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. No comments.
The Chairman. Thank you. It makes a lot of sense. We
appreciate you coming.
Mr. Shaw. I would only suggest that this body take a look
at staff on the floor, and get some idea of what this is doing
to their home life. It is a terrible thing. I think it should
be brought under control.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.Bob
Menendez. Bob, if you want to summarize your statement, your
entire statement will be put in the record. Take all the time
you need.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity.
The floor of the House of Representatives is entrusted to
us to do the Nation's work. It is entrusted to us to have a
place to do the people's business, represent their views,
debate, negotiate, and legislate. I don't think any other
purpose could be defended.
However, in honor to those Members who, in fact, have
served here, they have privileges on the floor. They are given
access to the floor. If it remains an honorary privilege, I
think it could be defended, but if it is used in any way to
personally or financially benefit a former Member, I think in
my view it would be a breach of trust that the American people
would not accept.
Under the current House rules, it permits a former Member
to use the House floor to lobby for his or her own personal or
financial gain, so long as it does not concern legislation
pending on the floor or reported out of committee. Whether or
not there is legislation pending should not matter. I think a
former Member should not be able to use their status to lobby
for any personal or financial gain on the floor.
I would just like to give you a quick example. Let's
suppose that a former Member's legal fees are before a House
committee. I believe few, if any, Members would think it proper
for that former Member to have access to the House floor to
lobby to have his or her legal fees paid, but the current rules
allow it. I don't think they should.
Or let's say that a former Member has a private tax bill
before the Committee on Ways and Means. I think most Americans
would object to that ex-Member having an opportunity to use the
floor to lobby for privileges that no other citizen in this
country would have. I don't think it is a position that we can
defend.
So the proposal I offer, which I introduced as House
Resolution 229 last year, would prevent these potentially
unethical situations by expanding the current prohibition to
include denial of floor access to any Member who has a personal
or financial interest in any measure or matter under
consideration in a committee or subcommittee, and there is
clear precedent for this change.
Under the current rules, former Members are already barred
from the floor if they represent a client for the purpose of
influencing legislation under consideration in a committee or
subcommittee. In that case, it is important to note that the
mere status of being employed by an outside group for this
purpose is enough to bar a former Member from the floor,
regardless of his or her intent to use access to lobby.
So the reasons are clear. The Speaker or chair should not
be in the position of micromanaging conversations on the House
floor. If a former Member wants to use his position to lobby in
that way, that is fine, but they should not expect the people
to facilitate that work by letting them on the floor, or put
the House in the position of monitoring their activities, so we
keep a bright line and we simply bar them altogether.
Lastly, I think the rules, however, currently are much more
lenient when it comes to a Member's personal interest, but they
should not be. My proposal would rectify that situation. As
with any other outside interests, under the proposal that I am
offering for the committee to consider, the mere status of
having a personal or pecuniary interest under consideration in
a committee or subcommittee would be enough to bar a Member.
I think that that would hold us to the high standards that
the House should be held to, keep the trust of the American
people, and still preserve the honor for former Members that
they deserve.
The Chairman. Bob, thank you very much. Your points are
well taken.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menendez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.015
The Chairman. I might just note that the existing House
rule is very, very tight. You are suggesting it could be made
even tighter. It says, "Only if they do not have any direct
personal or pecuniary interest in any legislative measure."
That is pretty tight.
That, I think, was written by a man named John Anderson,
who was an outstanding Member of this body many, many years,
Bob, before you got here, and he was here before I was, as a
matter of fact. His former Chief of Staff Don Wolfensberger
sitting in the back of the room probably was responsible for
writing this legislation.
Your points are well taken. We will certainly take a good,
hard look at it.
Mr. Menendez. I just want to say, if we continue to read
it, what I would hope the committee would consider, it says,
"If it is pending and/or reported out of the committee." You
know, if it is pending before or reported out of the committee,
whether or not that is the case, to have access to 435 Members
of the House, particularly the members of that committee, to
lobby on your behalf of your own personalinterest is not the
people's work.
I think that, yes, there is a very good intent, in the
context of people who are hired by outside interests. I think
we can narrow that even further to make sure that your personal
interests don't come before the people's interest.
The Chairman. Again, I am just going to cite the "personal
and pecuniary interest in a legislative measure." "Legislative
measure" takes it pretty far.
Again, your points are well taken. We will take a look at
it.
Any questions of the witness?
Mr. Linder. No.
The Chairman. If not, Bob, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The next scheduled witness would be Ron Paul
of Texas, the gentleman who came here with me 20 years ago and
chose to leave for a while, and now he is back with all his
previous vigor.
Ron, it is always a pleasure to welcome you before the
committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Dr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a brief
statement to make, mainly because we have talked about it
before, and I think you know and others know my position on
this. But it will come up again, I guess, for next year's
writing of the rules.
This has to do with the drug testing. I know what your
position is on that, and it is a very sincere position. I have
a constitutional concern about this. I think some of us deal
with the Constitution in a much more strict way than others.
Others like to do it in a more loose way. But I think everybody
is very serious in doing their best job of interpreting the
Constitution.
I just think that random testing is a little bit too loose.
I just want to make a case, once again, for the voluntary
approach. I have a policy in my office that when somebody comes
to work for me, I tell them that they are going to be
vulnerable to testing. I feel responsible for this.
I don't know who actually pays for that, but maybe the rule
ought to be if we have a voluntary program rather than a
compulsory program, it should even be a cost out of our own
budgets. Maybe it should not be out of the general budget, like
it would be if it were mandatory. That would be one way that
others might be encouraged to do this.
There is no argument that drugs are not a serious problem.
I see this from the viewpoint of a physician. But I am also
very concerned that we don't do things carelessly on this.
The only other point that I would like to make is that in
many ways, I think we had a profound statement of this
yesterday, a sentiment of the Congress, I do know that most
Members that I have talked to, when they are not on line to
have voting--to be pressured to vote on this for themselves,
because there would be a political pressure, too--but when I
talked to them, I don't find very many Members that say, hey,
this is a great idea, and we should encourage it.
But there have been some court cases, and the courts
generally have ruled that only under extreme circumstances
should mandatory testing ever be used, you know, without a
warrant. I just think it would be so much better with our
philosophy of limited government and voluntarism, rather than
through compulsion, that we do this in a voluntary approach.
Yesterday, as we were getting ready to vote on the Taylor
amendment, which would mandate that all new employees could be
subject to random drug testing, our colleague Tom Barrett put a
little notice on the desk making the argument to vote no on the
Taylor amendment. I just want to quote from that.
He said, "Federal courts have consistently ruled that drug
testing is a 'search' for purposes of the fourth amendment and
as such must be reasonable. The courts have permitted mandatory
drug testing of government employees in the absence of a
warrant or individualized suspicion, but only when the
government can demonstrate a special need beyond the demands of
ordinary law enforcement."
So once again, I just want to make the case that we have
to, indeed, be very cautious and very careful, respect our own
privacy, and, at the same time, we are obligated to respect the
privacy of all individuals throughout the country. I think the
Congress clearly spoke yesterday that even Federal employees
deserve the protection of the fourth amendment.
I do not think this in any way ever precludes any
organization, any businessman or anyone in the Department of
Defense--obviously, if we are going to have people flying
airplanes and other things, they had better not be on drugs,
and they had better not be on alcohol and a lot of other
things. I do not think this precludes that at all. I just want
to, once again, make that point, that either this year or next
year, if it comes up, that we give serious consideration to the
voluntary approach. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Paul follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.016
The Chairman. I hate to get involved with this
conversation, Mr. Paul, but I was going to testify myself a
little later on it. I will probably say some things that I will
regret saying here today, but certainly I would never question
your sincerity, ever.
You and I come closer to sharing the same view on
everything than most Members of this Congress, and almost to
the point of myself being Libertarian.
I would never question the sincerity or the integrity of
any other Member on how they vote on this issue. I just have to
tell you, and I am just terribly upset with a lot of Members,
with the Republican leadership, even members of this Committee
on Rules, and the rank and file out there, with that vote that
was cast last night, I think it was a disgrace. I think it
sends a terrible, terrible, terrible signal.
Again, I am going to hesitate to get really upset about it.
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, I think he did a
great disservice in calling up that amendment. If we had had a
legitimate debate on the issues, I think the vote would have
been entirely different.
I just have to recall back in the early 1980s when Ronald
Reagan, at my urging, decided to implement random drug testing
in our military. We had a terrible situation at that time. We
had gone through the 1970s, where we were--our military had
literally gone to hell because of this Congress and the
deemphasis on our military. We had a lot of inner-city kids
that were just here looking for a job, looking for a way to
make a living.
There was a lot of drug use. It was 25 percent, admitted,
and that was at all levels, from every admiral to every buck
private. When Ronald Reagan implemented random drug testing, it
dropped drug use within 4 years, from 25 percent down to 4
percent. Can you imagine, 4 percent? And that is what it is
today.
Don't tell me it doesn't work. What was the reason? It was
because their future was jeopardized if they were randomly
tested for drugs.
Fortune 500 companies in my district, the General Electric
Company, the International Paper Company, and I could go on
with a number of others, IBM, they all have random drug
testing.
Mr. Linder. Haven't we moved up to Atlanta yet?
The Chairman. We are moving back.
They all do it. Why do they then stop using drugs? Most of
these, these Fortune 500 companies, these are not laborers,
like with General Motors, maybe, or Ford, working in the
assembly plant, these are upper middle-class yuppie people;
people, I guess, like you and me. We are considered a little
above the middle class, I guess, because of our earning
capacity.
But when 75 percent of all the illegal drug use in America
is caused by your constituents and mine, okay--in other words,
by that level of society who are using illegal drugs
recreationally on the weekend, that is what props up the price.
That is what causes this problem that we have today. And
everywhere that random drug testing is put in as a condition of
employment, it drops demonstrably.
So what is so damned different between a Federal employee
and all these private sector people? What is different between
you and me? Why can't we set the example? I get furious about
it when I see votes cast. I don't question the sincerity or
integrity of Members because they feel like you do. They feel
very strongly, and they are entitled to their beliefs. But it
is dead wrong, and if we are ever going to deal with what I
consider one of the top two or three major problems in this
country--and that is what is happening to a whole new
generation of young Americans. My children, my grandchildren,
are being affected by this today.
I am going to tell you one more story, you know, which just
demonstrates the problem. I have a newspaper publisher in my
district, and I don't want to mention names, but for years he
used to belittle me when I would go to a party or something and
he would be there. He would say, Jerry, you are all wrong with
this. There is no real problem with marijuana.
This went on for about 10 years. A couple of years ago he
called me and he said, Jerry, I want you to know how wrong I
was, how right you were, because, he said, my daughter, who is
in the ninth grade, is hooked on cocaine. That is the
difference.
Any questions of the witness?
Mr. Linder. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. No, thank you.
The Chairman. We thank you for coming. Your points are
always welcome.
The Chairman. The next scheduled witness would be Robert
Weygand of Rhode Island.
Bob, if you would like to come forward. Again, your
statement will appear in the record, as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Weygand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, about 20 months ago when I first came here
and was looking for an apartment, I met a young woman by the
name of Moira Shay. She was showing me an apartment that she
was subletting in her building. She was visually impaired, and
she had this wonderful golden Labrador Retriever that helped
her around.
I met her and talked with her, we had mutual friends, and
found out that she was a staff member on the Senate side. About
2 months later, just after we had begun the session, she was
denied access to the floor of the Senate because the rules of
the Senate did not allow for staff members, clerks of committee
or anyone to be on the floor using any kind of a device that
was necessary for an impairment they may have, whether it be a
seeing eye dog, a wheelchair, or other kinds of devices.
I know I spoke to you about a year and a half ago about
this, Mr. Chairman. We waited, and we agreed to wait until now
to bring this before the committee. While on our floor our
Members have been very generous to other colleagues that may be
impaired, in wheelchairs or on crutches, we really do not have
a rule that allows for staff members to be allowed on the floor
if they are in need of such devices because of their
impairment.
The resolution I submitted last year, House Resolution 135,
would have permitted Members' staff or committee clerks, I
believe is the proper terminology for committee staff members,
to be on the floor with such devices.
So I suggest to the committee that this would be the
appropriate time, the 106th Congress, to take an action that
would allow for such individuals to be on the floor.
It is necessary, as you all know, for us to have staff to
support us on the floor at certain times. It certainly is not,
I believe, the wishes of the Congress to ever deny people to
have support equipment or the necessary kinds of assistance
that they require for their handicaps. So I ask the committee
to take into consideration this resolution, this rule, that
would simply allow that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Bob, we thank you very much. You did discuss
that with me. I think it has merit. Certainly over the next 2
months we are going to be looking at this. Certainly this will
be given great consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weygand follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.019
The Chairman. Any questions of the witness?
Thank you very much. Bob, thank you very much. We
appreciate you coming.
We will go now to the very distinguished and Honorable John
Hostettler of Indiana, one of the dynamic new Members of this
body.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members.
The Chairman. He reminds me of a young David Dreier when
Dave used to be young and first came here.
Mr. Dreier. Many, many, many years ago.
Mr. Hostettler. What a compliment. What a compliment. I
appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as you probably remember, a few months ago
during the discussion of ethics reform, I came to this august
body and asked for a provision to be considered with regard to
a high school Constitution competition, very similar to the
arts competition. I was asked at that time to come back at this
time to possibly make that a rule of the House.
To give you a little background of why I think it is so
important, recently in Senate appropriations hearings, the
honorable Edward Rendell, chairman of the National Constitution
Center, spoke of the lack of understanding and knowledge of
high school students of the Constitution itself.
To give you some points he made that I think are very
telling with regard to why such a competition sponsored by the
House of Representatives and sponsored by individual Members of
the House would be important, only 21 percent of American teens
know how many U.S. Senators there are, but 84 percent know how
many brothers there are in the musical group Hansen.
Seventy-five percent know what city in the United States
boasts the zip code 90210, but only 26 percent know that the
U.S. Constitution was written in Philadelphia.
Ninety-two percent of those high school students surveyed
knew who stars as the father of the house in TV's Home
Improvement, while only one-third polled knew the name of the
current Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Just over one-third knew the first three words of the
preamble to the Constitution, while almost 70 percent knew the
first three letters of most website addresses.
This is one indication why it is necessary, I believe, for
us to raise the level of understanding of the U.S. Constitution
among young people. Unlike the arts competition, however, the
House has not yet spoken to the ability of a Member to promote
the Constitution as part of his or her official business. So if
I may suggest, the House should allow for a Constitution
competition very similar to the arts contest. Creating a new
House rule is the best way to accomplish this goal.
Accordingly, I have submitted to the rules panel the proposed
language for a new rule as part of my testimony.
When you consider that today's teenagers will be tomorrow's
leaders, I believe this type of project, the Constitution
project, is es-
sential. Who better to promote it than ourselves, the elected
representatives of these young people?
I must say that the committee chose an excellent time to
postpone these proceedings from last week to today, because
today is the 211th anniversary of the ratification of the
United States Constitution by the Constitutional Convention.
So, I applaud you on your timeliness of this issue. Thank you
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, for your time and
consideration of this issue.
Mr. Dreier. We worked hard on that.
The Chairman. Yielding to Mr. Dreier, I just wanted to
thank you for your testimony. It has great merit. We will look
into it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hostettler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.026
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me congratulate you, John, and tell you something that
you may not have known. Back when I was a young man 11 years
ago, in fact on the 200th anniversary, Jerry Solomon and I and
other Members at that time went to Philadelphia, actually it
was in July of that year, I think July 16th, during which time
we held a session in Philadelphia to mark the 200th anniversary
then of the Great Compromise, the Connecticut Compromise, which
established the bicameral legislature.
You mentioned today--and I have a very interesting woman in
my district called Louise Lee who has prevailed upon me, and I
am not resisting at all, at 4 o'clock this afternoon I am going
to go on some sort of hook-up, be nationwide on Constitution
Day, reciting the preamble of the Constitution.
Also, it is extraordinarily interesting that when you think
about today and sort of the unique challenges that we are
facing, we are not by any stretch of the imagination, as Doc
pointed out in our hearings with the Committee on the Judiciary
last week--this is not a constitutional crisis at all, but it
is a very interesting time when people are today looking at
both the Constitution and the document which consists of all
those brilliant op/ed pieces that were written by Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalists.
I am a strong supporter of doing anything possible that we
can to make sure that more people know Newt Gingrich's name and
have an understanding of the U.S. Constitution. I think you
have an interesting idea here.
The Chairman. Any questions of the witness?
If not, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now we move to the Honorable Todd Tiahrt of
Kansas, another outstanding new Member.
Todd, it is always a privilege to have you come before us.
We took care of your amendment last night for you. You will be
on the floor with it. We appreciate you bringing that to us.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD TIAHRT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, it is always a great honor to come before the
Committee on Rules. I appreciate the opportunity.
I have two changes. The first one is very simple. Right now
the House rules say we start out with a prayer by the Chaplain,
and then we have the reading and approval of the Journal, and
third, a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
For me, I think this is not a good establishment of
priorities, with all due respect to the Speaker and the need to
approve the Journal. My proposal is that we start out
acknowledging our faith in God through prayer from our
chaplain; second, that we would pledge our allegiance to the
flag and acknowledge our allegiance to the country; and then
third, move on to the Journal, just switching those two.
I have been on the floor many times, and sometimes I have
even called for a vote on the Journal myself as part of our
strategy, but it always seems very disruptive to me when we
have this demand for a vote and we have everybody come down,
and then we go to a Pledge of Allegiance. Sometimes it goes to
much later in the day.
I just think if we would change that order, it would not do
anything as far as detracting from the way we do business or
detracting from getting to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal, but it would, first, allow us to acknowledge our faith
in God, and second, acknowledge our allegiance to the country.
So it is a very simple change.
The second one, my second request, relates to raising the
minimum wage. Currently we have a supermajority requirement to
raise taxes. I think that is very important, because raising
taxes places a big demand on the American people.
When we were undergoing the apparent effects of the last
raise we had with the minimum wage, it dawned on me that this
is very serious to Americans; serious to my mother-in-law, who
is on a fixed income, because her prices went up; it is very
serious to young people, who are trying to maintain a job.
I went down to the grocery store and talked to the second
shift manager where I usually shop in Kansas. He had to lay off
three people because of the minimum wage hike. I went to my
local video store. The manager said he had to lay off two young
people. These are employees who need the income. They are
trying to work their way through school. It is very serious
when we raise the minimum wage, because it does cost jobs, and
drives costs up for seniors.
I think we should have the same emphasis when raising the
minimum wage as we do when we raise taxes. I would request that
we have a three-fifths majority of Members voting in order to
raise the minimum wage next time we consider it.
Thank you for your time in listening to my proposals.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tiahrt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.029
The Chairman. Todd, thank you very much for two very
excellent recommendations. Certainly I agree with the second,
and as for the first, there has always been an ongoing
discussion over what would happen if the Journal were defeated.
You have to approve the Journal in order to proceed with the
day's business. If it were defeated, the question is, what
would happen? Would we then not be able to come back in all day
and have to come back the following day?
We need to resolve that, because it has some bearing on
whether or not we would be able to carry on other business,
such as the Pledge of Allegiance. Your points are certainly
well taken.
Mr. Dreier?
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First let me
just say that it is very important that Members pledge their
allegiance to the flag. One thing about having a recorded vote
on the Journal, it means that more Members pledge to the flag
than is the case if they pledge before we actually have the
vote on the Journal.
Of course, Jerry Solomon, there is nobody who stands for
the flag more vigorously than Jerry, and he--you were the first
one to get the pledge down there.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Dreier. To have us stand up. That was something we got
the Democrats to do, I suspect, in maybe the 103rd Congress, a
few Congresses ago, before we took over.
I will tell you that we had an interesting discussion
yesterday with some members of the Committee on the Budget. I
am an opponent of all these proposed increases in the minimum
wage and totally concur with your arguments, but I just have
difficulty with supermajorities around here.
One of my concerns, I will say, as I have said in the past,
is that we take an issue like that, which is very, very near
and dear to us, not just in a rampant way increasing the
minimum wage, and then you think about the precedents that
would be set if, God forbid, we were to be in the Minority, and
knowing what--there is no one here--what horrible tax and
spenders and big government people all those guys on the other
side of the aisle are, I mean, if you think about how they
could say, "Todd Tiahrt said there should be a supermajority
for any increase in the minimum wage. I think there ought to be
a supermajority for a single spending cut, or a supermajority
required to cut a nickel of taxes in the future." So I am just
troubled with the whole idea of precedent-setting in the area
of supermajorities.
Having said all that, they are brilliant ideas.
Mr. Tiahrt. It is an interesting argument, what would
happen if we did disapprove the Journal. Would that mean we
would have to pledge twice the next day? I just think it
establishes a good priority.
The Chairman. Your points are well taken.
Any questions of the witness?
If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Dreier. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that
the statements by our colleague Barbara Cubin, our colleague,
Mr. Joe Barton of Texas, the delegate, Mr. Underwood, and your
fellow New Yorker, Mr. Nadler, be included at this point in the
record?
The Chairman. Yes, without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.033
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.040
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.044
The Chairman. Would you also add Mr. Steve Largent, who is
in markup and cannot arrive?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1662.048
Mr. Dreier. I don't have a statement to submit. If I had
one, I would ask unanimous consent that it be submitted in the
record.
Chairman. Lastly, let me just testify on behalf of H.Res.
529, which was introduced by Representative Nadler, whose
statement you have just put in the record.
The last bill that I passed when I lelt the State
legislature in New York more than 20 years ago was this
legislation. What it is, it is described as the Plain English
in Law rule. The resolution amends the rules of the House of
Representatives to require that a bill or a joint resolution
which amends a law shall be in the form of a comparative print
of the law proposed to be amended, showing by black brackets
and italics the omissions and insertions proposed to be made
into law.
In addition, an amendment to a section or other provisions
of a bill or joint resolution offered in subcommittee,
committee, or in the Committee of the Whole, will be in the
form of a comparative print as decribed a moment ago.
What that means is that quite often when you see an
amendment of the floor, you have no idea what it does. It just
strikes out works, and does not really say what it is doing.
This means that the amendment or the change would actually have
to show the old law; it would show in brackets what you were
removing, and in italics what you were adding. It makes it very
simple. It means that any American citizen in this country
would be able to look at that and know exactly what you were
doing.
I would hope, Mr. Dreier, that you would take that into
consideration on January 3rd. It would certainly be a great
asset to all the Members of this House.
Mr. Dreier. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That concludes all of the witnesses. We
appreciate the Members coming to testify. We look forward to
the recommendations that might come January 3rd.
This meeting stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]