Hearings of the Committee on Rules
HEARING TO RECEIVE MEMBER TESTIMONY ON PROPOSED CHANGES IN HOUSE RULES
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room H-313, The Capitol, Hon. David Dreier [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Dreier, Goss, Linder, Pryce, Hastings, and Reynolds.
I know that I speak for both Chairman Goss and Chairman Linder in saying that although we can't guarantee that any or all of the recommendations that we receive today will be part of the opening day rules package, they will be given very serious consideration by this committee.
I am very proud of the record of accomplishment on institutional reform that we have had over the last three Congresses. We have made significant changes, most of them on a bipartisan basis. And I believe that the evidence that we have is that they have strengthened the deliberative process and modernized the operations and procedures of the House.
I am most proud of the fact that at the beginning of this Congress we were able to work in a bipartisan way to put in place the most sweeping review of the rules of the House in over a century. By reducing the number of House rules from 51 down to 28 and ridding the rule book of obsolete and archaic provisions, we made the legislative process and the activities of the House easier to learn and to understand.
It was a very strong commitment from the Republican leadership to support our continued efforts to find a way to make the rules of the House reflect contemporary times. We know, for example, that technology is rapidly changing the way that we work in committees on the House floor and in our personal offices as well. We have spent the past year here in the Rules Committee, working on a bipartisan basis again, to examine the rules of the House from the perspective of making these technological changes and the effect that they are going to have on us. So this a very important input that we are going to be getting from a number of our Members. I am happy to turn the gavel over to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who is overseeing this, Mr. Goss.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
Mr. Goss. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief because I think you said the main points. First of all clause 1(m) of Rule X of Rules of the House Representatives provides that this committee shall have jurisdiction over, quote, rules and joint rules and the order of business of the House.
As my colleagues know, on the opening day of the next Congress, no matter who is the Minority or who is the Majority, we will again forward proposed changes to the House rules. That is going to happen. I am hopeful that today's hearing is going to be helpful to developing that package as we hear from several Members with detailed recommendations.
As we move forward I want to encourage my fellow colleagues to consider the incredible progress we have made since 1995. I want to take my hat off to Chairman Dreier and others who have been working on these things and have great depth, great experience, and a sense of history about them. And I think that they really understand the practicality of applications of much of what we are discussing when we talk about the rules of how we operate here. And I think this Majority has made great strides in terms of accountability to the American taxpayer and respect for minority rights. I think this institution is better off because of it. I think we have enhanced our credibility. In some cases, reforms have made life a little more inconvenient and even somewhat chaotic for some Members and staff. Speaking as a committee chairman myself, I have to admit to that reality. However, I think it is been worth the price. I think it will be tragic if we ever decided that a little inconvenience was too much of a price to pay to ensure more openness, more sunshine and a less cynical American public.
I want to publicly recognize Chairman's Dreier contribution to this. Thank you for convening this hearing. The institution goes forward no matter who is the Majority and Minority. And the rules matter and the opportunity for the Members to express what their views are is the critical part of how we do that process.
I have to leave and go to another meeting in a little while. The chairman of the other subcommittee, Mr. Linder, is going to take command. But I wanted to signal that we are sincere in having a hearing at least providing the opportunity for what is going on. We get good ideas from Members. We try to incorporate them. Sometimes it takes a period of days, months, even years for good ideas to percolate through, but it is important that we encourage those good ideas to come forward. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
The Chairman. So turn it over to Mr. Linder.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Linder. I would be happy to take Members in the order that I guess that they are listed here. First one I see is Ms. Norton -- or Mr. Burton. I am sorry, Mr. Burton.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement and I hope that the Members will read it because the reasons that are in my prepared statement are I think very cogent and well thought out. But I'd like to speak contemporaneously to you. I know that Chairman Dreier likes that better than somebody sitting here reading.
Six years ago when we took control, we made some changes, and we all thought at the time that we made those changes they were going to be very very effective and helpful. Some of those changes in the consolidation of some of the rules were very, very good. And I congratulate the Rules Committee on what they did. Some of them I think need to be reviewed, and one of those or two of those things are the things I want to talk to you about.
The first is proxy voting. We have a very slim Majority. I think after the selection, whether it is Democrats or the Republicans that are going to be in control, this is going to continue to be a slim Majority.
As a result, we have Members who are on three and four committees as well as five, six, seven subcommittees. And many times we have Members who are required to come clear across from the Longworth Building or the Cannon Building to our committee for a procedural vote because we are on a contentious investigation. And you take a person like Henry Hyde and others who have very important responsibilities and have some health problems, and for them to rush across two buildings to be there within 15 minutes, or for a procedural vote -- and not just once, sometimes we have three and four of those in a day -- is just not feasible.
And so I think that there ought to be some latitude in the rules to provide for proxy voting. Now, maybe you don't want to do it carte blanche for every single vote, but there ought to be some mechanism for a chairman to call for proxy votes when it is necessary. I have had 122 people take the fifth amendment or flee the country in our campaign finance investigation.
As a result, because it is a partisan issue in some cases, I have had the Minority call vote after vote after vote. And because of the rules of the House, I have to take those votes. I can't just postpone them. Once the vote is called, I can't recess the committee. And so then we have got to get our Members there. And it just -- you know, I have people calling the names so slow that it is 1 minute between the names. You know, "Mr. Burton," "Mr. Jones." So we wait and wait and wait.
And so I think for the sake of the Members and for the sake of those who have many, many responsibilities, constituents' responsibilities, having to travel clear across three or four buildings plus serving on six or seven subcommittees, it just isn't logical to not have some form or some mechanism for proxy voting. And I hope you will really take a hard look at this and read our statement.
The other thing that I feel very strongly about is deposition authority. In order to take depositions when you have a wide range of investigations going on -- and we have 11 going on right now -- when you have a lot of investigations, for Members to be there for depositions of people from the Justice Department or the White House or whoever it happens to be, you have to get the Members back. And many times we have to have -- we have to do this during a recess break or when people are back in their districts. And you can't keep Members there. You can't get Members there in many cases.
And so when you have a series of investigations that are very important, I think it is extremely important that you have staff, competent staff, that you can delegate the responsibility of deposition authority to. And because we have had some problems, I have had the Attorney General who is supposed to testify, I have had others, and we do come back and we are here for the depositions. But it is a real strain and it is very difficult for our staffs to be able to get the job done when you have that much going on. We have had 500 oversight hearings in the last 4 years, and when you add that, the deposition authority that is required for that many hearings and especially the campaign finance scandal investigations, it is very, very difficult.
Now, the Senate subcommittee, not the full committee, but the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations of Governmental Affairs has deposition authority. It is not the full committee, the subcommittee. And the reason they have that is because they realize how important it is to be able to take depositions when Members aren't here. So I am not going to belabor the point, but I can tell you I think you have done a great job. I think the rules are great, I think the way you have minimized the number of rules we have to deal with is fine; but there are two things I think that we should seriously review, and that is a mechanism for proxy voting. Maybe you don't want to do it all the time, but I really think there has got to be some mechanism for a chairman, when you are on a crucial investigation, especially the oversight investigations, that they have the ability for proxy voting.
The other thing is on the deposition authority. I think we have got to have staff to be able to do that. Otherwise the wheels just grind to a halt when you are doing the things that we have to do around here.
[The statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
******** INSERT 1-1 ********
Mr. Linder. Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Goss. No. I sympathize with the problems you are having very well.
The Chairman. Let me just make a couple of questions. Dan, you and I have gone back and forth on this issue. You know that we came at our decision to eliminate proxy voting due to our experience in the Minority. We saw committee chairmen who often would have no member of the Majority sitting in the room and the full complement of Minority members sitting there in committee, and the Minority would offer a very thoughtful proposal that would come forward, and the chairman of the committee would simply pull out those proxies and defeat an amendment, without a single member of the Majority even having heard the arguments. And that created a very high level of frustration for those of us in the Minority.
I believe that was one of the unique things, after 40 years of one party ruling the institution, we decided that we wanted to bring that to an end. I am very sympathetic with the concerns that you have. This committee -- and we have got Ms. Pryce and Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Linder and Mr. Goss here -- has never had proxy voting. And Members come from all over and we meet at 1, 2, 3 o'clock in the morning. I am very happy to report that the full Republican membership is often here in the middle of the night to deal with this issue. So people have to establish priorities. You refer to the fact that there may be Members who serve on six subcommittees.
Mr. Burton. More than that.
The Chairman. You know what? I think that is what is the problem is. I don't think it is the proxy voting. I think it is the fact that we have too many subcommittees. We tried at the beginning of the Congress in 1995 when we took over, to pare back. We reduced by 20 percent the number of subcommittees. There were many more when they were in charge. And similarly, as you well know, there were committees which you now have jurisdiction over, the Post Office, Civil Service Committee, the District of Columbia Committee, and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee which were consolidated. So we began making those changes which I think were very important. But I will tell you that I don't want us to open the door to getting back to a time when a committee chairman has the potential to abuse the Minority the way we saw it in the past. So I just --
Mr. Burton. I understand. You are the Chairman and you are in a powerful position. I see that I am going to have a difficult time. But let me just say this. When you have -- let's say you did away with all the subcommittees. We have Members who are on three and four committees right now, full committees, because we simply don't have enough Members to go around.
The Chairman. So maybe we should do away with some of the full committees, too. Consolidate
Mr. Burton. Maybe we should. We have done that in the past. But the point is, Mr. Dreier, is that when you have gotten someone that is on three or four committees, let alone the subcommittees, and we have got 11 investigations going on right now, and we have had I don't know how many others who have taken the fifth, and you get into a contentious hearing and the Minority starts calling a bunch of votes, what you are doing is you are just grinding the whole process to a halt.
So I believe that there are occasions -- and maybe you should set some parameters. Maybe there should be some notification or something. I don't know what the answer is. But I do believe that there are occasions when a chairman is absolutely hamstrung by the Minority. And I have got Henry Waxman, who is a very tough cookie, and he knows the rules and he knows how to grind it to a halt. And we have to fight and fight and fight.
And it would make not just our committee chairmanship, but others I think, a little bit more workable if we had some easing of the rule on proxy.
On deposition authority, I think that is a no-brainer, because you have got to be able to take depositions. And people will come and testify voluntarily if they know that we are going to be able to get a deposition taken. If they think that there are not going to be any Members, and the Minority says we have to be there for a deposition and we are not going to be there, I am going to be in California so I am not going to come to the deposition, they slam the door on the deposition. And as a result, the deposition doesn't take place, and then people say we are not going to come and testify. And then we get into a real problem.
So the Subcommittee on Government Affairs in the Senate, the subcommittee has deposition authority. I really think the permanent deposition authority for investigative committees is something that we should look at.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Linder. Ms. Pryce.
Ms. Pryce. As a former member of your committee in the Minority and having sat through a lot of the testimony over the years, I can see that there are both sides to this. It is a difficult job that you have to do, Mr. Burton, and if there is some middle way to make that happen, I would be happy to help.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much
Mr. Linder. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. I hope you will get a chance to look at this.
Mr. Linder. We now have a panel.
Mr. Underwood, you are welcome.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis is a busy man. We ought to let him step up to the plate.
Was I right saying that, Tom, you are a busy man?
Mr. Davis. That is fine.
The Chairman. We want to keep him busy, too.
Mr. Linder. Welcome, and whichever one wants to proceed, you may.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Davis. Let me just start by saying as one who is not as directly affected by what you are about to request, as my colleague Mrs. Norton, I think we need to look at the global picture that democracy is spreading across the world. The capital of democracy is right here in Washington D.C., and the Member who is elected to Congress from Washington, D.C. still does not yet vote on the House floor.
We may not be able to change all parts of that in this next session of the rules, but we could go back with a minimal change that was brought in in the 1993 Congress when they allowed all of the different Commonwealths and territories to have votes on the House floor as a Committee of the Whole. I think that would more rightly apply to the District of Columbia for this reason.
The District of Columbia citizens pay Federal taxes. That is not necessarily true in Puerto Rico and all of the other areas. They pay Federal income taxes. It is the capital of democracy. They operate in every other way like every citizen in any district or your district, and they ought to have a vote on the floor of the House. We can do that with the court ruling on this. Legally they could vote as a member of the Committee of the Whole.
I personally would not apply this to the other territories. I think in the case of the District of Columbia, that is important. I favor full voting rights for the District, but we can't do that as a part of the rule. I have a full statement that I would like to put in the record
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
Mr. Davis. I say that it is a time when I know that the partisan balance is very close and the likelihood of the outcome of this November, but I think what is right is right. We have an opportunity as Republicans to step up and do the right thing, and not for the political thing, for changing that rule and restoring voting rights as a Committee of the Whole to the District of Columbia delegate.
[The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
******** INSERT 1-2 ********
Mr. Linder. Ms. Norton.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you really once again for entertaining my request for the return of the vote. I was tested and I won in the Federal courts in 1993. I was especially grateful that the Chairman of the D.C. subcommittee and Vice Chair, Mr. Davis, from whom you just heard, and Ms. Morella who will be here -- she is chairing her own committee -- have twice now come forward with me to ask the Rules Committee to make this change and return the vote. I think their personal support indicates this is not merely a bipartisan matter, it is a nonpartisan matter, because we are talking about the vote. When it comes to the vote, you don't have partisan.
Mr. Davis indicated that what is right is right. And even though there is going to be a close balance, I want to emphasize the close balance won't make any difference when it comes to my vote in the Committee of the Whole, because my vote could not make the difference. Under the rules that were enacted in 1993, if the delegate determined the outcome, there had to be a new vote. That means that it is harmless to whoever is in the Majority and whatever the party of the delegate to return the Delegate's vote, particularly when you are talking about only one vote.
Just by way of background, as a Constitution lawyer I got interested in looking at the District's status when I came to Congress. And as much as I was representing half a million taxpaying residents, I found nothing in the Constitution myself that brought it to the attention of the Majority. They were not forward to move it on their own. They gave it to outside experts who came back and said at your discretion, we see no constitutional bar. That has since been ratified by the courts, the district court and the court of appeals.
I mean no prejudice and my position here on behalf of the District of Columbia is without prejudice to the other delegates, who I do not believe are seeking full delegate voting status at this time. I think that what all agree is that the District is in a class by itself. The people I represent pay $1.9 billion in Federal income taxes. That makes them the third per capita in the United States of America. And that also makes them the only residents of our country who have every obligation of citizenship and have no vote in this House.
I note in passing that the District residents had more troops in Desert Storm than 47 States per capita. But it is the taxpaying status that is most relevant when we think of the vote.
I want to draw two very special matters to your attention that are also unique about the District. We are the only jurisdiction in areas or States or cities whose local budget has to come here. Imagine your local taxpaying budget comes here, and there is nothing that the delegate can say, can do, anything but talk about it. Our local laws come here, and again no vote. Neither the territories nor the States, of course, have that happen. That would argue for the maximum participation allowable under law.
I have under the rules of the Constitution, Article I, each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. The delegate's vote does not and cannot provide the determining vote in the Committee of the Whole; would still have no full vote in the House itself.
Finally, let me say that the residents in the District of Columbia could not feel more strongly about this, particularly as they note how the Majority feels about taxes. And they pay such high taxes, Federal taxes. Returning the delegate's vote to the District I think would be a most appropriate way for the Congress to recognize that the District now has a new reform mayor, a reconstructed city council. It has returned to solvency 2 years ahead of congressional ^ Band -Aid. It is about to end a statutory control board set up by this body. It is on the cusp of a promising new era, and anyone who reads the local papers each day knows that.
I am asking you, therefore, both as a constitutional matter, as a Federal matter, and in recognition of local companies in the District of Columbia, to afford my taxpaying residents the respect of the vote in the Committee of the Whole in the 107th Congress. I thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
******** INSERT 1-3 ********
Mr. Linder. Thank you. I think that circumstance when the vote kept you from determining the vote was best summed up by Henry Hyde in 1992 when he said, If the vote counts, it doesn't count; and if it doesn't count, it counts.
Ms. Norton. I am trying to figure that out.
Mr. Davis. That is the anomaly. I would just say one other thing. I say this notwithstanding the fact that mainly Ms. Norton has been more effective without the vote than some of us, but I think it is an important one.
The Chairman. Thank you very much
Mr. Linder. Thank you both. Mr. Linder. Mr. Underwood, welcome to the committee. Your entire statement will be part of the record, without objection, if you had like to summarize.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Basically this is the point that I raised a couple of times before, and it pertains to House Rule 1, clause 8, and that is the authority of the Speaker to appoint a Speaker pro tem. This goes back to a discussion that the whole House engaged in when they were thinking of a replacement for Speaker Gingrich and it -- under the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers and that, in fact, anybody could be the Speaker.
The anomaly is that under the existing House rules, while anybody could be Speaker, only the 435 voting Members can be Speaker pro tem. So while a delegate or a resident commissioner could conceivably be Speaker, under I don't know what political scenario that would happen, but while conceivably they could be Speaker, as any other U.S. citizen, in this instance they can't be Speaker pro tem.
And so basically the reading of the rule is that under this rule the Speaker selects from amongst the Members; and Members is defined to exclude the delegates and the resident commissioner from serving as Speaker pro tem.
So I ask for a clarification of that, and hope that in a new set of rules that that flexibility be allowed to the new Speaker
Mr. Linder. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
******** INSERT 1-4 ********
Mr. Linder. Mr. Dreier
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask, Bobby, if you have actually been in touch with the Parliamentarian on this. I think that the ability -- my view is that the ability to make that kind of appointment would be in the hands of the Speaker. And if they wanted to select the delegate to fill the role of the Speaker pro tem, they would be able to. I just would recommend that you get in touch with the Parliamentarian.
Mr. Underwood. I have been in touch with the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian gave me a narrow reading of the meaning of Members. Under the clause, it says that the Speaker shall select a Speaker pro tem from the among the Members. So it is the definition of Members in that clause that is at risk. So there was their initial -- and I have asked several times. So I think if it is just made clear what Members mean, in that I would assume that the Speaker should have the --
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Underwood. I don't want to make too fine a point on the previous panel since they asked for a vote only for the delegate from the District of Columbia. But one of the things that is always fascinating is whenever I am asked about -- you know, the American Revolution was fought on the -- one of the principles was no taxation without representation; not no representation without taxation. I have been reversed. So I think that in the higher order of American values, I think political representation should be amongst the first.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
Right now the Chair will submit for the record the statements of Clay Shaw, Mac Thornberry and George Gekas on their proposals.
[The statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
******** INSERT 1-5 ********
[The statement of Mr. Thornberry follows:]
******** INSERT 1-6 ********
[The statement of Mr. Gekas follows:]
******** INSERT 1-7 ********
Mr. Linder. And Connie Morella has arrived. We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is a delight to be here before the Rules Committee. I know you have already heard the testimony. I have a written testimony I will submit --
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
Mrs. Morella. -- Indicating why I feel very strongly that as we put together the passage of rules for the 107th Congress that we do give the voting representation, voting rights in the Committee of the Whole to the delegate from our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia. I testified on behalf of this at the beginning of the 106th Congress. I believe very firmly, our delegate serves on two committees, speaks in those committees, and should have the authority and the ability to vote to cast her vote in the Committee of the Whole.
I am Vice Chair of the District of Columbia Committee. I know how important that vote can be and what it says to the people of the Nation's Capital in terms of our belief in democracy.
Also, as somebody who lives in the neighboring jurisdiction, we are a region -- we are a region -- and we work together on all matters. And to not have a voice at the committee level on the Committee of the Whole is improper, so I very strongly hope that you will consider that.
This reverts back to what we had done previously which worked out very well. And my testimony will give it all kinds of details, but you certainly don't need that now because of the time that I treasure of yours.
Mr. Linder. It will be part of the record. We thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]
******** INSERT 1-8 ********
Mr. Linder. Mr. Miller. Welcome to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Linder. Your written statement will be part of the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARY MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. The intent of my proposed rules change is simple. It is to make in order amendments to appropriations bills to reduce spending and pay down the debt.
Currently we have a two-dimensional process. We can just amend an appropriation bill and the money goes back, and within an hour or two, you all know, it shows up in another appropriations bill. This allows us to take -- and you can decide dollar for dollar if you want to take the money out of the appropriations process and set it aside for debt reduction.
Now, if the members of the Majority wants to take money out of that account and put it back into a bill, they can. But it offers a third dimension we don't currently have. As you all are aware, every time we come in to amend appropriations bills, we want to set that money aside, the debate goes nowhere.
This is much simpler than any of the lockbox procedure that has been proposed to you before. It is three dimensional. The individuals can try to amend an appropriations bill and say, the money we want to take out of the appropriations bill we want to set aside for debt reduction. That doesn't bind the Senate, but it does give us an opportunity to go to conference with X amount of money set aside for debt reduction; and the debate starting from that point at least gives us some incentive to go forward with debt reduction rather than just continuing to spend as we have in the past. That is what I am proposing for the next rule change of next year
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. It is very clear. Appreciate it.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
******** INSERT 1-9 ********
Mr. Linder. Mr. Tancredo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I have two proposed rule changes. The first is again very simple, it follows upon something I introduced last year, which is not to name Federal structures such as post offices, Federal buildings, and highways after sitting Members of Congress or the House.
I don't know that a lot of explanation is necessary for this. Certainly in terms of the mystery that might develop as the result of a practice of this nature, it is self-evident why we need something like this. But beyond that, just the way the public perceives the government and the work of the Congress, it seems to me it would be a statement that would reemphasize our commitment to good open government, transparent government. I just don't believe that we should be naming buildings, structures, anything, after sitting Members of Congress. And I think that this is a clear way of sending that message in terms of a rule change.
The second proposal I have deals with the issue of unauthorized programs. I have been in front of the committee several times with different concerns or proposals here. As you know, in the back of the House appropriations report, there are listings of unauthorized programs. I offer an amendment in consideration of H.R. 853 to expanding the reporting requirements for unauthorized programs. It did pass by a voice vote. While the list that presently exists is helpful to Congress in ensuring that we know what programs are out there, unauthorized, I believe we need a lot more information to increase awareness of how many programs we fund that have been in fact unauthorized or never been authorized, ever, and how much money we are putting into it. When was the last time that they were actually authorized?
We are losing, I think, in this battle between authorizing and appropriations committees. I think the balance needs to be there. I think it is clearly unbalanced now, and our hope is that Appropriations authorization committees actually have meaning. If there is a purpose for them, then we should be doing our job. We should be authorizing the programs that come up for authorization and dealing with them, restructuring if that is necessary. Or else there should be no authorizing committees at all, it should be appropriating committees.
But in terms of this, this is 1 tiny little movement toward the change in that just by expanding the list of or the numbers of things that we report about unauthorized appropriations on appropriations bills.
Mr. Linder. Thank you. And I recall suggesting one time in the legislature that we not allow anything to be named after anyone until they had been dead for 5 years. But I suppose they would have been forgotten by then.
Mr. Tancredo. The first bill I ever asked to be introduced was one that went in that direction, but it said 50 years. So I have modified it quite a bit and said just a sitting Member of Congress; at least we shouldn't be naming buildings after them.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much. Did you leave your report?
[The statement of Mr. Tancredo follows:]
******** INSERT 1-10 ********
Mr. Linder. Without objection, we will leave the hearing record open for any late submissions. And we are in recess -- we will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
