U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51–662 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

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

(

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
ii

COMMITTEE ON RULES

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York, Chairman

DAVID DREIER, California

PORTER GOSS, Florida

JOHN LINDER, Georgia

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio

LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

DOC HASTINGS, Washington

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

MARTIN FROST, Texas

TONY P. HALL, Ohio

LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York

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

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio

DOC HASTINGS, Washington

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

MARTIN FROST, Texas

JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

WENDY SELIG, Counsel

KRISTI WALSETH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

DAVID DREIER, California, Chairman

LINCOLN DIAZ–BALART, Florida

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, New York

TONY P. HALL, Ohio

LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, New York

VINCENT RANDAZZO, Counsel

MICHAEL GESSEL, Minority Staff Director

(II)
iii

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)
(1)

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 onethird 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.
2

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.
3

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 selfgovernment. 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
4

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:]
5
6
7
8

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-
9

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:]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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
17

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:]
18
19

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.
20

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:]
21
22

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:]
23
24

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.
25

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:]
26
27
28

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
29

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:]
30
31

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.
32

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.
33

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:]
34
35
36
37

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-
38

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:]
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

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.
47

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:]
48
49
50
51

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.
52

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:]
53
54
55
56
57

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler follows:]
66
67
68
69
70

The CHAIRMAN. Would you also add Mr. Steve Largent, who is

in markup and cannot arrive?

[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:]
71
72
73
74
75

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.]

Æ