Transcripts For CSPAN House Rules On Earmarks Day 1 20180118

We welcome everyone today. I recognize myself for an Opening Statement. Article one of the constitution explicitly gives congress authority for spending. Is oversight authorization central to congresss responsibility to ensure the government allocates taxpayer dollars responsibly and in line with the values and wishes of the mecca people. It has been the repeated topic of discussion and debate and calls for a forum. We can agree that abuse and a lack of transparency have often been associated with the process. This has, understandably, fueled concern among tax paying citizens. As a result, earmarking became known a process known for its secrecy and selfinterested motivations. Despite efforts to reform the earmarking process, and increase transparency, the American People and many members of congress remained unsatisfied. Highprofile cases persists. Since the enactment of this ban, members have become frustrated as federal funds have been appropriated only to be redirected via the executive brarchl branch directives. While it is clear that the process had many flaws, it is important to discuss and review congresss article i authorities and responsibilities while ensuring taxpayer dollars are allocated according to the will of the people whom we serve. This Means Congress must regularly evaluate its spending processes as my colleagues have gathered here today to do. As members explore potential proposals on how to reassert congresss constitutional constitute under article i, our discussions must be an open and transparent process, and the process of this hearing is ensure that all views on this issue are expressed and shared with the public, who remain interested and invested in ow their democratically elected government spends their tax money. I want to thank chairman sessions for his leadership and steadfast commitment to the continued oversight of this issue and of the other important issues within the jurisdiction of the rules committee. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on rules and organization of the house, the honorable Louise Slaughter of new york for her Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mcgovern will be joining us as soon as he can. Im happy to see such a wonderful crowd here this morning to talk about something that we all talk about for years. I am basically here this morning. I want to hear and will take notes. I imagine with the caliber of witnesses we have here, there wont be a lot of questions to be asked. Im sure youre going to be very succinct and quite clear. So im happy to be a part of this this morning and thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Outstanding. I thank the gentle lady. This is a time, as you think you said, as we listen. Now i would like to yield to the distinguished chair of the rules committee, pete sessions. And i want to thank the members who have not only agreed to be here today but for the intense interest in this issue. Chairman collins, thank you very much for not only chairing this member feedback session but also for your discussions that weve had with the entire rules committee on the process that were currently going through. As we know, a little bit more than a year ago, our conference met to talk about not only earmarking but how members of Congress Might more effectively be involved in processes that today they cannot be a part of because of a moratorium that was set back in 2010. Our conference has had vigorous discussions about the activities, not only about what happened before but presently what is occurring and we believe today we are holding a hearing and tomorrow we will hear from outside groups who would wish to provide not only this committee but really the entire congress with information about their ideas about moving forward. I do not anticipate, in any way, that we will move backwards. Meaning that i would not believe that this committee would offer a suggestion or a recommendation to the republican conference or to the general body about moving backwards to where we earmarked specific projects that might be available from the past. In fact, what has happened is we became aware of a whole process that did not work. As we know, there are members of the United States senate and im sure members of the house on a bipartisan basis who utilized the strength that they had to even add earmarks that were air dropped, meaning that they did not even go through a process but rather simply put stickies on to the final bill that might be then passed by the by both bodies and then signed into law. What i also understand, however, is the moratorium has led to some 5 billion to 15 billion being available by the executive branch. The executive branch then had the power that they chose, perhaps with feedback, perhaps with no feedback, about the selection of activities that this 5 billion to 15 billion would be spent on. Some of those activities have come into conflict, i believe, with abuses and could be called abuses but nonetheless, it is a process because we abdicated our responsibility, article i responsibilities, to the article ii responsibilities, and that is the executive branch. I believe that the feedback that can be provided not only by this body and its members but also outside groups, including those that study this from a particular cause of government responsibility, as well as the responsibility from outside groups, who have a distinct opinion that we can move forward to make this a process that is known well and understood. Some of those words that might be associated with that might be transparency. Some of those words might be competitive. And some of those words might be meritorious, meaning that i believe that the money that is spent on behalf of the American People should fit all three of those categories, not selected specifically by any one person but rather vetted through the process in the best interests of the United States. And the taxpayer who would have an opinion about that. Mr. Chairman, it is my thanks to you for not only holding this meeting. It is my thanks to mrs. Slaughter, who has provided me guidance, and i believe, thoughts, about not only how her party might look at it but also about what end result we might have. I also want to thank the gentleman from florida, the gentleman, mr. Hastings, for his what i consider to be feedback and ideas that i think that will be a part of a recommendation that comes. Mr. Hastings, judge hastings, has taken time, i believe, to dissect both sides of the issue, not only the executive branch but also the member responsibility placed in an order, i think, what follows along the lines of, we need to make sure that what happens when an appropriation bill is signed, that we know what the money will be spent for, that we can take responsibility for that, and that the measure, likewise, will be expected to play through that process, as opposed to a process with 5 billion to 15 billion is given, the administration makes its own decisions, and we sit back and guess or gamble at what those outcomes will be. I thank all of the witnesses we have today, i will tell you that each of you are important to this process. We will take into account your thoughts and your ideas. We will move forward. But most of all, i trust the nine members on this side and the four that are on the Minority Side to come together to see this issue as important to not only the credibility of congress but also the insight that the American People had, because it is their money. Mr. Chairman, i yield back my time. Thank you very much. Thank you to the full Committee Chairman. Again, i want to just echo what is the Ranking Member and the full Committee Chair said. This is the time for us to have a discussion. This is an open process and im glad to see both sides of the aisle represented here. This is what we need to have in this country. And also for those who understand things in a headline fashion, this is going to give us a chance to deep dive and understand what is actually going on in the process of spending and appropriating funds. So with that, id like to welcome our first panel, a distinguished panel that represents not only the democratic caucuses with our whip but also his longevity here and history provides a very good context for where were headed. With that, aisle makeill make a statement, any written statements you have will be part of the record. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much. Chairman sessions, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your holding this hearing today. While i recognize there isnt a specific representative my mic . You were able to get that, im sure. Wouldnt want to miss that. That opening about i mentioned mr. Burn and ms. Newhouse and ms. Cheney is probably here somewhere as well. In any event, mr. Chairman, when republicans banned congressionally directed spending in 2011, they did so by changing their conference rules, as you know. Not by altering the rules of the house. Im curious whether it is the subcommittees intention, therefore, to explore whether to recommend a change to the republican conference rules or to the house rules themselves. No matter what the congress does on earmarks, it ought to be done in a bipartisan way. I think all of us agree on that. Ive long been, as the press knows, my constituents know, a proponent of congressionally directed spending for reasons i will get to shortly. We call that earmarks, for lack of a better term. However, it is clear in the past, this system was abused. When democrats took the majority in 2007, as you know, we engaged in a serious earmark reform process that introduced transparency and accountability. We changed the rules so that the public could see every item of congressionally directed spending. Who the sponsor was, and whether it had been dropped into a bill in conference without prior consideration. Which is, i think, what you mentioned, mr. Chairman. Moreover, we required every member requesting an earmark to certify that he or she had no financial interest in the request. Later, we made the system even more transparent by requiring all members to post earmark requests and justifications on their websites when they asked for them. Now, all of us understand, if we had earmarks, you would want to get some earmarks, and you wouldnt get all of them so there was going to be some controversy as to whyd you get one and not the other. But we thought it absolutely essential that the public have a full, clear, transparent understanding of who was asking, what they were asking for. We introduced new restrictions blocking earmarks benefitting forprofit entities as opposed to public entities. As a matter of fact, i was the majority leader at this point in time and a number of these proposals were put forward by mr. Oby by myself, and ms. Slaughter was very helpful in that effort. We engaged, i believe, in a very successful reform of the earmark process that addressed the problems of the past and made it much easier to game the system. When republicans came into the majority in 2011, however, there was an eagerness to win a victory, in my opinion, in the realm of congressional reform. What was chosen, in my view, was not reform but it eliminated earmarks altogether, and that, of course, was the lowhanging fruit. Now, just as we saw the consequences of an unchecked system in the past, weve now seen, also, the unintended consequences of eliminating congressionally directed spending altogether. The chairman mentioned one of those consequences is that now, frankly, if you have a need in your district, and we ought to know our districts better than anybody else and certainly better than anybody else in the bureaucracy or the administration. We have to go hat in hand to the administration. A coequal branch of the government has to go hat in hand. The constitution has been pointed out in article ix i mean, article i, section 9, paragraph 7, gives us that responsibility. And duty. And does not give that to the administration. Weve seen the consequences of an unchecked system but weve also seen a consequence of a system which precludes, even transparently, the pursuit of us adding funding for our districts, which we think are important for our districts from a public perspective. Again, we limited private sector, which we think is appropriate. President trump, in my opinion, wasnt wrong when he said that earmarks used to help bring both parties together to reach compromise on legislation. But more than that, they recognize that members of congress individually, as i have just said, know their districts better than anyone at the federal agencies and better than the Appropriations Committee as a whole. The Houston Chronicle pointed out this in an editorial last friday when it lamented the difficulties the citys representatives have had trying to get specific appropriations for flood cleanup and rebuilding efforts. I quote from the Houston Chronicle. Without the ability to write line item expenditures, our local delegation and city advocates have been forced to craft legislative language that, they hope, will instruct executive agencies to prioritize houston flood infrastructure. In other words, doing indirectly what we say you cannot do directly. That becomes less available for the public review. Without specific directed spending, it is ultimately up to the executive branch, which everybody has noted, in washington, to decide which projects had funding. Let me suggest that also as another perverse. It estranges us further from our districts. And therefore, undermines the confidence the American People have in that we are paying attention to them. To a school need. To a bridge need. To a street need. To a dredging need. To a sewer correction need. Whatever that need may be, if the public doesnt think that theyre represented in congress, to whom they send a lot of money to washington, cannot apply any of that money to needs that they see immediately in their district, that, in my opinion, undermines the sense that democracy works for them. Weve seen unintended shift in decision making, away from the legislative branch to the executive one. That is contrary, in my opinion, to article i of the constitution, which clearly invests us with that responsibility and that authority. So, i believe that we should take action to reinstate the use of the Authority Given to congress under article i, section 9, clause 7, to direct spending in the way that congress deems appropriate. Now, let me repeat that. The congress deems appropriate. If you make these transparent, then it will be the congress and the American Public who will consider this, not just an individual. And this will have to, therefore, be approved not just by the individual that asks for such directed spending but by the congress itself, by the representatives of the American People, and they will judge the merits of these programs, which i think is ultimately the protection the public needs and wants. Public needs and wants. Our reforms are the rules of the house. Talking about transparency, put it on your website and the committees website when they give approval to an earmark so that the public at each stage of the process and other members will have the opportunity to know what is being asked for and what is being approved. I thank the chairman and Ranking Member for this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering the subcommittees questions. Let me end with what i have told a number of people on both sides of the aisle. If a proposal moves forward like this, it is my intention to recommend to my members that it be supported. Thank you. Thank you. One of the things that you brought out. As i was sitting here and thinking about this, i was writing a question. This is an issue that affects both the Republican White House or a democratic white house. The question i have and i would love to see your respond today is do you believe this policy is actually actually has politicized some of these spending issues more than they would be up here on the hill in the direction that administration, republican or democratic, Spending Priorities in the states . Do you see that as a byproduct of what has happened here . I think it is certainly a political process either way you do it. We would be fooling ourselves to think that the administration doesnt deal with these in the context of the politics of the district, of the state, of the nation. Thats it. Thank you. I want to dwell for a moment. You say this was taken away by the republican conference and they can put it back. Isnt that correct . My point was that the reforms we affected in 07 and 09 and 11, they were put in the rules. 00 19 29 Steny Hoyer Steny hoyer the earmark prescription has been in the conference rules, not the house rules. The answer is that you could do it either way or both ways. You could change the republican conference rules and or amend the house rules. I personally would have preferred that we do that at the beginning of a term as part of the rules package simply given the overwhelming amount of things we have with time limits on almost every one of them and facing a shutdown immediately. This seems to be at this time that this was pretty bad timing but here we are. Mr. Sessions and i talked about it. Never bad timing to do the right thing. Im not sure this is the time. My own earmarks, i havent had any complaint about any of them. I always took what the municipalities asked me to do, one in particular that i have always been really happy about is i had what was called the earmuffs district, about a mile wide and 90 miles long, all along lake ontario. We had one Little Village named barker. A few thousand people lived there but it was the best fishing area in ontario. They didnt have any water system in this little town. We got it earmarked to give them a little bit of money for it, enough to get some state attention so they could become a tourist attracts. Those were things that we did. Sometimes there was no other way to help. I have never been opposed to earmarks, as long as we kept all the reforms we had that every member was certified. They had no personal or financial interest for themselves or their spouse. I would like to expand that to family members. If we are going to bring them back, i think thats an important point as well. Thank you for being here. I appreciate always in your party your leadership. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would like to get some clarification. I wasnt here when you did your reforms nor when we did our reforms. If i understand what you said, your reforms were put into the house rules. Do i understand you to say they are still in the house rules . I think the answer is yes. If the republican conference withdrew its rule, we would fall back to those reforms. Those protections would still be operable. If we wanted to add more, it would be your recommendation to do it to the house rule, not to a conference rule . Yes. Miss lauder brought up a very important point. Does it make sense to do that in the middle of a congress or do as we normally do at the beginning of the congress . I was for you doing at the beginning of the congress. You made that decision not to do it. Should we make changes now . Its never going to be easy. Both parties will participate. Your speaker was concerned it was dwggoing to be done via republicans and there would be demagoguery demagoguery on my side about the action. I think there is sentiment on my side of the aisle to confirm the Congressional Authority under the constitution and the equal relationship between the executive and the legislative branches of government. Im not trying to comment one way or the other about the substance of your testimony but get straight in my head the form and timing we would use for it. Even though you would think it would be better for us to do it at the beginning of a congress, you dont think it there is anything wrong with us doing in the middle of a congress . No. People who think it is wrong will think the same at the beginning, middle or end of the congress. [laughter] you said there was one in 07 and 09. And we made another one in 10. It was spread out. Initially, the transparency was addressed. I want to point out here that mr. Obie, who was then the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was a moving force in these. I was involved. Miss lauder was involved and others. We had discussions with my counterparts on your side of the aisle. It has always been a bipartisan issue. It sounds like there was an evolution there. You did some reforms and discovered you needed to do some more reforms. Correct. As you learned more, you adopted more reforms to try to get more transparency in the process . Correct. Yield back. Thank you. Mr. Mcgovern. Thank you. I apologize im a little late but im sure i agreed with everything you said. [laughter] in general, i certainly support congressionally directed spending. I have always found it somewhat troubling that congress routinely gives up its powers to the executive, not only in the case of congressionally directed spending, even in the terms of war. We just roll over and let them do whatever they want. We dont provide a check. Im very sympathetic. Having this hearing today with a looming shutdown about to happen seems a little bit of bad timing. It seems right now we should be concerned with keeping the government open, helping the dreamers and Funding Community Health Centers and dealing with the opiate crisis. I just came from puerto rico. It is still in terrible, terrible shape. We need to deal with disaster relief. Be that as it may, i guess we are dealing with this issue. Let me ask you a question. Have you seen the specific proposal for earmark rule changes . Could you support bringing back earmarks before you see in detail how it will be done . I raise that question because i havent seen anything. I am worried that if we go back to congressionally directed spending, which is something i in general support, that it is done in a way that is fair. I think the rules and the way this house is operated has trampled trampled over minority rights repeatedly and even the minority are entitled to having a say in congressionally directed spending. I dont want a situation where you say, well, if we are the majority, we can deny the minority any say. Thats why i ask you, have you seen anything . One of the things is, and i will agree and from my perspective, one of the reasons we have this marryinghearing today is to bring forward ideas. He brought some valuable points in his Opening Statement on if this was to come back, how it would be something that could be for all of congress. I respect the gentlemans opinion for minority, majority rights. You will have people that will bring ideas, both positive and negative. This is not bringing a bill. I think chairman sessions said that in his opening remarks as well. This is a chance for us to begin to have an open dialogue in front of the cameras and everyone else to say what is good and what is bad. I want it to be clear this is a hearing to hear ideas and hear the problems and solutions and you are going to hear those as we go through today. There is nothing on this floor saying, hear is what we are doing and it will be an inclusive process. I appreciate you being a part of it. I yield to the gentleman. I think the caveat has to be put in place were not just for anything. We want to make sure this is done in a way that the public believes it is not being abused and it is fair. Just because you are in the minority, doesnt mean you are shut out of everything. I havent seen a republican proposal. Mr. Mcgovern, thank you. At the beginning of my statement, i indicated there was not a specific proposal. Im not testifying on a specific proposal. I am testifying on what i think is a bedrock principle of the separation of powers. Our article 1 authority is to raise and spend money. We have, in effect, abrogated part of that smont toresponsibility to the detriment of our constituents and our district and our country. I certainly agree we have to look at the specifics of the proposal. On the latter point you make. Were not as fair as we ought to be to one another. That was not true when i came here in 1981 and served on the Appropriations Committee. There was great comedy between the republicans and democrats. I have seen that deteriorate over the almost four decades that i have been here. I think thats unfortunate for the country, institutions and congress. It is unfortunate for the individual members. I would hope at some point in time we would resolve to do bhawhat we say is the golden rule, treat one another the way we would want to be treated, whether the month jort majority or the minority. I favor the concept of revisiting this issue. Maybe because i have been on this committee for a bhilwhile and basically seen the minority shut out of everything. I thank you for being here and yield back my time. The gentleman from washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Hoyer for joining us this morning. I also wanted to thank mr. Sessions for his comments and his helping to lead this hearing today as well as speaker ryan for putting this in front of us at, i guess, the request of some of the members of the house that we explore this issue more fully. 1981, thats a long time. Some people keep reminding me 00 31 37 Steny Hoyer Steny hoyer of that but im very junior to mr. Young. That goes without saying. [laughter] we can look to you for some experience. Certainly, you were here at the time when the earmarks were in place and saw them evolve or change in how they were used. I agree with you it is a Constitutional Authority of the congress. When you were talking about some of the reforms when you were in the majority in 06, was it. 07, 08, 10. Put into place recognizing there were issues and increasing transparency and all of the steps, it occurred to me that perhaps although wellintentioned and good and necessary, the fact that when the republicans took over and saw the need not to reform but eliminate in your word, maybe it didnt go far enough. My question is, drawing on your experience and longevity and seeing this Program Change over the years, what im looking for, and maybe you dont have an answer right this second, but as we move through these hearings, what more could be done in light or with the idea of reform that would get us to the original intent of this constitutional responsibility and also to allow us to exercise that constitutional responsibility with the full confidence of the American Public . Thank you. First of all, the first earmark was in the First Congress of the United States. Earmarks have been a prt of theart of the Congress Operation since it began. The reason is that they were representing their states and their districts and they had needs. They would add specific, directed spending to accommodate those needs. I dont want to be partisan but so you know the history. Earmarks exploded and started to explode in 2011. Excuse me. In 1995, after the 94 election. Earmarks exploded. I frankly think when i say exploded, over 1,000 percent increase over the years from 95 through im not sure the year that 100 was. When you took over, earmarks substantially increased. There came a point in time, if you read young guns. I dont know whether you have read that book, mr. Mccarthy and mr. Canter and mr. Ryan wrote the book. They were very critical of earmarks, talking about your party, not my party but talking about how they had expanded and in effect we came to washington and we became washington. Im not one of those who believes thats a legitimate argument just because you are in washington. There are good people in washington and good people around the country. Hopefully, we Pay Attention to the good people. At that point in time, it became clear to your party that you had substantially escalated earmarks in the young guns, which was written in 2010. It may have been 2009. Those three leaders were very critical of them. Speaker boehner was not a proponent of earmarks. I think one could say he was an opponent. It was then that you eliminated them in your rules in 2011, the earmark process. So now you are making me admit publicly that i have not read their book. Ill tell mr. Mccarthy not to hold you personally responsible for that. [laughter] thank you. The Political Movement at the time was to eliminate and not reform but, again, it would be helpful from folks like yourselves perspectives, to help us, if this is a direction people want to go. The jury is still out on that. We certainly need to institute changes, reforms that dont get us back to those days of abuses. Thats what i would be looking for and certainly appreciate your input on that. I certainly think we all agree on that. The abuses that occurred, some were criminal. Yes, absolutely. Mr. Cunningham was held criminally liable. That we ought to sanction and hold people accountable, whether it is on my side of the aisle or your side of the aisle, which was the whole point of the 07, 09 reforms to make transparent. In addition, as you may know, in the reforms, the agency has to review it for 30 days. The agency has to give an opinion as to whether or not this is a legitimate expenditure. There may well be, you are correct, additional items that can be included to make sure that as much as we can possibly do dealing with human beings that they are above board, honest, and effective to help our country. It could be just thinking after many decades being in the minority that perhaps there was a, so to speak, pentup demand out there from the new majoritys point of view on needs for congressionally directed spending. Let me make a comment on that. I think that goes to mr. Mcgoverns point. I would urge you to talk to maybe trent lott or bill young. You cant talk to bill young. He was a wonderful member of this congress. Talk to them. Ask them, was there a Fair Distribution . Was there an opportunity for the minority to receive consideration . One of the reasons the Houston Chronicle and the president made his comment the other day is because there was a sense that both sides of the aisle had investments in the bills and process. It did assist members in thinking, this bill is important to me as well. Earmarks have always been a very small proportion of the budget and never were above the budget caps. It wasnt you added more money. You allocated it somewhat different. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back but look forward to testimony from all of the members here and others on both sides of the issue and appreciate the opportunity for us to do this. Thank you. Now, i yield to the gentlemen fromof florida. I ask of you a logistical question in light of the fact that there are so many members here. I would like to at some point testify, so add me in to one of the panels. I would indicate my appreciation for mr. Hoyer after speaking with chairman sessions, i did speak with mr. Hoyer as well as several members that are in the body. I can say that the remarks that i make are purely from my point of view and not from the point of view of all of the membership. I do believe i can answer the gentlemans question as to whether there is something substantively. My fellow floridian, mr. Rooney, has a measure i am fully supportive of. He will explain it himself. More specifically, it would allow the army core of engineers as well as another agency to be able to receive earmarks. I think all of us would agree that would be helpful. Mr. Newhouse asked a question of mr. Hoyer, and i think i can answer it more directly than you. You tell me if im in error in this regard. The biggest thing that is needed and what we should have learned from history is transparency and accountable. Mr. Newhouse asked, what should we do . You, mr. Hoyer, as well as others that have been here for a protracted period of time, mr. Young, countless others, mr. Schusters dad. You all authored measures that would have given us the things that are needed. I believe that the reform should include the general public having complete access to the earmark process. We should require members to publicly post their earmark requests and justifications online, require testimony to support the requests and enhance certifications that neither the requested member or his or her family would benefit financially from the requests. Some of these requirements, and you correct me if i am wrong, mr. Hoyer, are still in the rules that were enacted by democrats. Thats correct. With that in mind, ill stop there. I do want to say, chairman sessions, when you spoke about this to me initially, i was really excited about it. I am excited to see the number of members here. I am sure there are others that have an interest. The dampening effect of the speakers recent comments have not been particularly helpful, because members believe that what we are about right now is an exercise in futility. None of us are of a mind to go down that road. I am hopeful that the display of members that are here that are going to testify today and the fact that there are others out there that might be influential to the speaker that we could go forward with the measure and its implementation would not take place in this particular part of our session but rather take part in the next session of congress, that would be the way to do it to get members who are shy about supporting earmarks to recognize it wouldnt be about us trying to pad our roles headed into the november election. Mr. Chairman, if i could add something. Mr. Newhouse, i wanted to add also the name of bob livingston, a dear friend of mine, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He was chairman and you were in the majority. He was very fair for both sides of the aisle. This is not something that hasnt happened in the past. Gentle lady. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I have read young guns. I bought it after i heard you quote it to leader mccarthy in a colloquy. He should thank you. [laughter] he assures me it is all being donated. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be on this subcommittee and to have this conversation. I think that it is important, as much as possible, we do as you did, mr. Hoyer, and talk about this from a constitutional perspective. Having served in the executive branch, ive seen what happens when congress isnt making specific line item spending directions. I think it is important for the public to recognize that the choice comes down in many instances to either the elected representatives making the decisions or unelected bureaucrats sometimes and sometimes those folks have very noble and good intent but sometimes they dont. I think that we get ourselves into a situation up here, if you think about the importance of the constitutional obligations, the power of the purse and responsibility to provide for the common defense are above all others. If we find ourselves in a situation where we have to say, gosh, we cant undertake those obligations in this instance because we cant find a way to do it with transparency and accountability, thats a very sad statement on this body. I think it is an effort we ought to be engaged in in a bipartisan fashion. Both sides have made attempts to provide transparency and both sides have abused the system. As you said, the criminal abuses have been prosecuted and they should in the future. I think it is very important for us to make sure we are in a situation where we arent just sort of giving up because of past abuses. I am wondering, mr. Hoyer, if you could speak a little bit about the extent to which you are confident we could proceed in a bipartisan fashion and proceed to do whats best for the body, the constitution and the American People in terms of having their elected representatives make these decisions and be held accountable and not descend into the partisan bickering we have seen in the past. First, obviously, i had the opportunity to sit with your dad in the congress. He was the whip then. He never lost a vote. We were pretty good ourselves when we were in charge. He didnt have any votes while he was there. First of all, the constitutional question i think is the first issue. It is our Founding Fathers who gave us the responsibility to do that. Secondly, i think you are absolutely right. Frankly, even if you didnt have reforms, there is greater accountability and transparency if a member is doing it in an open process, even though it may not be on the website which we now require if we had them. I happen to be a big defender of bureaucrats. I have 62,000 federal employees live in my district. It is not any denresponsibility for them. We ought to do that. I think we can, however, perhaps come up in a bipartisan fashion. One of the reasons i am here testifying is because i want to make it clear that this will be a bipartisan issue. This is not going to be a gotcha issue, as some of these issues, as you know, are. So i think we can do it. I think perhaps there are additional items that we can include. One of the most important items we did at the outset was to preclude private sector earmarks, because that lends in itself to corruption. Contributors asking you to do this, that, or the other for their enterprise. It was clear we needed to eliminate that. Now, we are limited to the Public Sector and nonprofit. Even the Public Sector have to be reviewed by the relevant agency. So they have 30 days crack at it and they can come back and say, we do not think this is an appropriate expenditure of public money. It is not as if we are not going to get the input required of the executive department to say, we think you are wasting money and this expenditure shouldnt be made. I agree with you it needs to be done in a bipartisan way. If i have anything to do with it, it will be done in a bipartisan way. Thank you very much. With that, i yield back. Distinguished chairman . Thank you very much. I want to thank the committee and the witness for not only their thoughtful ideas but also their confidence we can move forward. I have a couple of questions for the gentleman in if i can. At the time you spoke about the changes that you made, do you believe that we made. Miss laud der waser was involved as well. Did that apply to the senate also . No, they are house rules. That became 00 49 37 Steny Hoyer Steny hoyer a major part of the need to ban, as you know, the senate has the provisions. The senate followed us. I dont know that they were happy about that but they followed us. I am trying to make sure we knew that thats primarily what the book was about. The next question i would like to delve into, there have been some questions about moving forward, about when. We are simply taking feedback from everybody. We are perhaps going to do an infrastructure bill this year. The instruckstions i am receiving, let the infrastructure bill go as it is and let the administration make the decisions and do not get into any sort of circumstance where congress would be part of that infrastructure bill. I heard you say do it next congress. No, no. What i said was there is no good time to do this. It will be politically controversial. What is your opinion about when we should do this . Should it apply to the infrastructure bill . I think it ought to be done as soon as possible. So it would apply . It would apply. We would not wait for a new session. I am sorry. Mr. Schuster is watching me. If i said anything other than that, i would be in big trouble. We are simply taking feedback. However you do it and with whatever bill you do it, we are through the appropriations process and hopefully we will get to caps and an omnibus at some point in time, hopefully sooner rather than later. The timing question really didnt deal with specific legislation. What it dealt with was, should we do it at the beginning of a session, which is the ideal time to do it. Then, you have your rules package in front of you. You consider it at that point in time. Thats the ideal time to do it. If we were going to do it with an infrastructure package, i take your specific feedback and it is consistent with what mr. Hastings and miss lauder have said. We would like a say and make sure it is fair. Thats what we are trying to do. I yield back my time. The gentleman yields back. Any other questions . Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much. Appreciate your opportunity to be here. As we transition to the second panel, we are going to move through just as a note to all the members here. We will move through these panels as quickly as we possibly can. The hearing has started off in a very good way. You will see the questions asked. As a note to all, i will repeat this. If you have any written statements that you would like to add to the record, those would be made part of the record. Second panel will include mr. Schuster, mr. Richmond, mr. Mullens, mr. Walker, and mr. Young. Mr. Hastings, your note of wanting to be in there, we will put you in a little bit later. I would like to add to the record the General Accounting Office on the transportation grants, the d. O. T. Should take action to improve the highway projects. Without objection, so ordered. At this point in time, we will at this point in time, we will begin this second panel and do so with the distinguished dean of the house. Thank you, mr. Chairman and miss lauder and all the members of the committee. I will submit my written statements and suggestions to the stenographer. I was very pleased with what the minority leader had to say. I am the dean of the house. I have watched this process, i think, be successful in the house, has worked well and is necessary and has been mentioned about the constitution. I thought we reneged, specially on our side of the aisle, when we transferred the power to the executive branch. My district is a little different than all other districts, because it is made of many, many small communities. Under this system, we appropriate money or budget money for the agencies which go to our state and, in turn, the state distributes the money and doing so the Rural Communities are often forgotten. The earmarks work very well, because in my case, and ive been accused by john mccain, that i was the bridge to nowhere. You all heard of that. Yes, it was an earmark. It was very transparent. We voted on the highway bill four times. I got on the floor of the house and explained every earmark that i had, which were asked by show municipalities, nonprofits, state governments, et cetera, down the line. In fact, i was criticized for exposing the earmarks. I said, no, i want people to know they are there. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the bridge to nowhere was state money. It was in the state where we were supposed to have it. We had Hurricane Katrina. The statement was made we ought to take the bridge to nowheres money and distribute to the victims down in the hurricane. Of course, i have suffered that ever since. The bridge has not been built. It should have been built. There has never been a bridge anywhere that had anything on the other side until it was built. This is a crucial addition to this congress. I believe the sooner the better. I have always fought for this. I think the members on the republican side will remember some of our conference meetings when we set up the session. You were there. You were there. You were there. You were there. We were committed to at that time address this issue by june. That was last january. It has not occurred. I want to compliment the speaker and mr. Sessions and mr. Collins and all the Minority Side for bringing this issue to the forefront. Until this is solved, we are no longer the congress of the people. We are just people. We can not represent our people. Remember, you heard from Rush Limbaugh and mr. Hannity, that this is going to add to the debt. Thats pure, pardon the expression, horse manure. In reality, we are spending within that. We have the right and the responsibility to respond to the constituents needs. Thats our job as congressmen. Otherwise, what are we doing here . It is not just money. The earmark rule went further than that. It even went further because it would only affect one member, it was not under the earmark rule accepted. Thats incorrect. What are we here for if we cant represent the people that vote for us . Again, i mentioned to you, mr. Chairman, this to me is one of the crucial issues to this congress, the next congress and this house. You heard in my presentation before the other day i love this house. I dont want any president , regardless of what president , to be running the house. Thats what occurred now and the last administration and the one before that. We reneged and gave up our right as congressmen and Congress Ladies to the executive branch. With my written statement, i can only suggest respectfully, the sooner, the better. I think it is crucially important, specially for the highway bill. I wrote the last big highway bill. We discussed it. We exposed it. We never had 414 votes for it. To me, thats success. I worked very close with jim overstar. We did have earmarks on both sides. They were discussed. They were exposed. The people voted for it. With that, mr. Chairman, i would like to answer any questions. I think this is one of the most crucial issues that faces this house today. I thank all of you and i am open for questions. Thank you. Mr. Schuster. Thank you very much, chairman collins, chairman sessions an Ranking Member lauder and the full committee for having this important hearing. As chairman young mentioned, it is an extremely important hearing. We are looking at taking back our Constitutional Authority, which i think is so, so important. The house, we understand that there are fewer higher responsibilities than making sure we are good stewards of americas taxpayer dollars. It is extremely important. As i remind people constantly, the father of modern economics, adam smith, wrote that the sovereign or the govern has three fundamental responsibilities. You can read that in the wealth of nation in my book on page 393 as i recall. The three things that adam smith said the sovereign should provide, security or the defense of the people, insure a system of justice for the people, and erect and maintain public works to promote commerce. This is one of our fundamental jobs as a sovereign, whether it is the federal, state, or local government. Also, as mentioned by mr. Hoyer, it is inside our Constitutional Responsibilities when it comes to commerce and connecting the nation through the post roads. Our committee, transportation infrastructure, has helped the congress carry out those essential duties we believe in the most effective way. Mr. Hoyer brought the first earmark. It was a lighthouse. I cant recall whether it was in maine or massachusetts in the First Congress. It was about 1500. It was determined because of International Trade and interstate commercial that this lighthouse should be built for the safety of those people carrying out those duties on the seas. However, our job would be much easier if we could use all the tools at our disposal to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent to their maximum benefit where they are most needed. Thats why, again, this hearing is so important. We are discussing the house reasserting its Constitutional Authority and keepers of the federal purse. I want to be clear, i do not support going back to the old system. The existing ban on congressionally directed spending, i do not support going back. We have to go forward. That means Greater Transparency and more accountability. Thats an important distinction, because the topics can be easily twisted in the press and by pressure groups looking to create controversy and fundraise off this chaos. Let me say to my conservative friends, this is not a spending issue. The ban hasnt saved a penny. Continuing a ban doesnt mean we will be spending any less. This is purely a question of who exactly is making our nations spending decisions as chairman young pointed out. Lets also be clear that banning any form of congressionally directed spending has eroded congress Congressional Authority. We have given away more of our power of the purse and shrinking the roles of congress and the peoples house. We have created less transparency and accountability. Congresswoman cheney pointedous, when she was in the executive branch versus here, we dont know who is spending the money in many, many instances in the executive branch. As members of congress, we are elected by the tax payers, who sent us here to represent our constituencies and solve problems for our district and our nation. We are charged to direct taxpayer dollars wisely to meet those needs. When we ban congressionally directed spending, we chose to hand over the authority to the unelected, bureaucrats sitting in washington, d. C. Cubicles and political o political appointees. There are many specifics going back to the obama, clinton administration. They can direct those things to their pet projects or where they think it is best for them. We used to have some say. Now, we dont have any. Bureaucrats may have good intentions but they have probably never been to most of our districts where these tax dollars are coming from or going to, specially not to a rural district like mine. At best werks can argue, we can argue that congress recused itself from making critical decisions and at worst addicated responsibility. We need to ask ourselves, who is more suited to decide how the government spends taxpayer money . Whose duty is it to make those decisions . Is it the representative elected by the tax payers, thepayers, the congress or the bureau kratz andcrats and unelected . As a republican, the answer is clear and i believe i was sent to washington to uphold the constitution and shrink the size of the government not divest more power in the executive branch. Thank you so much for having this hearing. I look forward to your questions. You are now recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As this panel knows, we tried to raise this issue at the beginning of this congress in our rules meeting. At that time, we made the argument for a limited resurgence of our ability to be able to direct funding as constitutionally mandated in article article 1, specifically with regard to army corp projects and blm projects. At that time, i was asked by our leadership to wait on holding a vote because i honestly felt like we had the votes at that point to move forward in changing the rules with regard to army corp projects but in the spirit of the dreamain the swamp election we just went through, we decided to wait, to which time has gone by. The true meaning of what the drain the swamp election meant is something very different than what some people in the press and some people in some of the think tanks that are on my side of the aisle have exposed lately. I have conducted numerous media interviews with regard to this. I will just say this. If the drain the swamp election meant anything, it was that the people in washington, d. C. That are unaccountable, faceless, nameless bureaucrats that dont have to stand before the people every two years get to decide how to spend our taxpayer dollars, that is the swamp. Thats the socalled deep state. Those are the people that arent accountable to our taxpayers. They send us here to washington, d. C. To solve problems. We are asked to come up here and to spend their tax dollars wisely, to fix problems at home. In my district, the Herbert Hoover dike or the minnesota key or any projects that you might have in your district that are army corp pronm projects. If we have to tell them we are not allowed to solve those problems, how is that draining the swamp . If these people that are against bringing back limited earmarks, how do we go back to our constituents and say, we are not going to do it. We are the swamp, the ones that have to get reelected every two years, not the people that are unaccountable. It flies directly in the face of what i believe the swamp is or the deep state is. So im not going to get into my whole army corp. I know i know there are other bills with other members with regard to limited, directed spending that mr. Hoyer talked about. I just want to talk about a couple of other things and ill yield back based on some of the things i heard. I talked about the deep state not being us. The other thing people talk about is corruption, that this will bring back corruption. What does that say about us . Which are willing to raise their hand and say, if i get the ability to bring back tax dollars to my constituents, i wont be able to control myself and i have this evil, malice heart that i am going to do something wrong . Raise your hand. Who is that person . I am not so naive to believe that in the 435 of us there might be a few bad apples and they should be held accountable. Should we all be held hostage for doing what our constituents expect because of a few bad apples that cant control themselves . Thats a really, really sorry state of affairs that we are saying that we are not allowed to do what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do because we cant control ourselves from corruption. What does that say about us as a legislative body . We might as well be the house of lords that has to get reelected every two years. I got my title. Im a congressman. Im the honorable. I cant do anything for you. You have a dike thats failing in your district, too bad. I am write a letter asking but they might tell me to go to hell. Thats not representative. To the argument that this is a bad time, because this is a c. R. Time. Guess what . We are doing a c. R. Every month. What does that say about how we are functioning as a government . Maybe if we are allowed to actually appropriate for our district, appropriation bills would go to the senate, go to the president and become law and we wouldnt be doing this every month. I tried to do this when we first started this congress. Im trying to do this now again. Im getting the same pushback. I understand it is not the right time. When is the right time . If it is not at the beginning of the congress and not in the middle of the congress, then when . The answer to that might be never. We have to have the courage to go back to our constituents and say, this is why we are doing this. This is why people that are saying that it is wrong are wrong. It literally takes me three minutes into a conversation at a town hall to have every head in that room nodding when i say these are your tax dollars. Do you want me to bring them back to you or do you want some bureaucrat in washington to maybe allocate funding for the things in our district that need addressed . Within three minutes, people say, we want you. We elected you. You do it. Thats what representation is. Ill just close with this. I really appreciate everybody on this panel. I appreciate the people that have given us the time. I hope that what judge hastings said with prardregard to the speaker isnt true. I hope this isnt an exercise in futility. I hope that with all the testimony we hear, we have the opportunity to govern again. I appreciate the president saying what he said the other day. I couldnt agree more with him, specially if we do try to do an infrastructure bill, to be able to go home to our districts and say these are things i am going to bring your tax dollars back to you and to help the president get his infrastructure bill. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan way. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak here today and i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Richmond. Chairman collins and to my colleagues on both democratic and republican sides of the aisles, let me thank you for having this hearing today. I not only speak as the congressman from the second Congressional District but as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus here today. Ill try to not repeat what everybody else said. It is clear, and it is true according to the constitution, that the power of the person, the ability to direct spending is one of the most important parts of congressional power. We should not take that lightly. It is also a Crucial Point of having a representative but more importantly a responsive form of government. We here in congress as representatives, we represent the people who elect us. We are accountable to them. We also deal with them on a daily basis. We also live with them. So we know better than any president or any bureaucrat the needs of our districts. Ill just give you some examples. I know that in baton rouge, louisiana, interstate 10 goes down from a major interstate connecting california to florida, down to one lane and the traffic in baton rouge costs the tax payerspayers 1 billion a year of congestion. In the river parrishes of louisiana, it may cost us 1 billion to do levee infrastructure. If the wrong hurricane comes, we know now, we will end up spending tens of billions of dollars that we could have prevented. In new orleans, we have drainage problems. The 14 billion we spent to reconstruct the levees in new orleans after Hurricane Katrina and rita, had we spent that before, we would have saved the taxpayers almost 150 billion. I say all of that to say that we know as elected officials, we know whats best in our small towns and communities than someone who has the responsibility of not only world peace but keeping the entire government working. Here are some things we have not said about our congressionally directed spending. For those small towns that dont have expensive grant writers and clout or that can afford to hire lobbyists, we represent those small towns. We are their lobbyists. We are the ones that have to come up and say, this Police Department needs x, y, and z. If we can get it for them, lets get it for them. We know that if we gave them just a little bit, they will leverage that with private sector dollars. They will screecreate a True Public Private Partnership that will go on past the time of the directed spending and make a real difference. We know that that spending creates jobs and other opportunity. I was in the Louisiana Legislature with a republican governor, Democratic Assembly and we did reform our earmark process in ways to make it more transparent. We made sure that every nge, nongovernment entity, that they swore that they were in compliance with the law and up to date with the irs and all of those things were in line. We also made sure that we had a searchable database on the house website so that anyone could go search for an earmark who put it in and who supports it and whose district it is in. I think that with technology now and the will we can make sure that we create a process that is very, very transparent and thorough so that the people have the confidence init. Channel failing versus a i think it is important to have guardrails and spending. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I know the Ranking Member had to step out, i appreciate both sides coming together and taking on this important issue. The core, us representing our district. Why did the Founding Fathers set with . That way to begin why was article one so specific, especially when you get into section eight,nd when it talks about revenues and spending of those dollars. Our Founding Fathers understood that we are closest to the people. They understood how her priorities would be set if it was just surrendered to the executive range. They also understood the politics, and very well. Ofve have certain pockets high population areas, they are be represented equally. We are to control the spending of the taxpayers being sent up here, and how it goes back to our states. This has a 3 billion impact on oklahomas economy. Brought outroducts in kansas alone is shifted through this navigational channel. According to the corps of engineers, it has a 5050 chance of spilling any day. When i first got here five years ago, the backlog maintenance of. Hat was 68 million now it is north of 160 million. With a 5050 chance of this, it on thoseof 55,000 jobs banks. The difference between that the nationality the navigational channel failing highway highway, on a commerce can continue to flow north, south, east, and west. When you are on a navigational channel, it stops. Production stops. The economy stocks. Stops. Obs are in cap those jobs are in jeopardy. The bank of oklahoma has lost 9 billion because of the navigational channel. If it isnt shut down for 30 ,ays, they will begin to move and move product permanently. If it is shutdown for 90 days, they will never come back. That will affect 50,000 59,000 jobs. Ive gone to the corps of engineers about this, they say we want to do it, but their priorities are sent to mississippi and ohio. When it goes to england water parks, weve got to look at the traffic, the barge traffic, the traffic moving up and down stream, and the nationality the navigational channel just isnt there. We moved 11. 5 million tons, 4. 5 billion a year. To us, and our Founding Fathers set up article eight,ctions seven and specifically so we could represent our backyards. Take out direct spending, we took away the power that we had, that our Founding Fathers set up, and surrendered it to the executive branch and , because we were too lazy to do our job, or two, we didnt understand the consequences. Im going to say we didnt understand the consequences. Now that we understand those consequences, why arent we willing to do the right thing, as my colleagues from florida and alaska and pennsylvania and louisiana have pointed out . Why arent we willing to bring it back . Are we afraid that we cant explain it . Are we afraid of, of our constituents, or are those that but arent those the ones we are supposed to represent . Whats the point of us being up here if we are no longer doing our constitutional duty by appropriating true dollars . What is the point if im just img to have a budget, but not going to direct how to spend that budget. It provides no, no value to our constituents. It provides no value to this congress. Theiterally have to ask executive branch, we surrendered all the power to, to please come look at our district. Ive been talking to the obama administration, before the trump administration. [laughter] egging them to look at how much of an impact this michigan get this navigational channel this is one piece of progress how important this is to oklahoma. As chairman schuster, the first time he looked at a he said, this is in oklahoma . At what we can do, and yet it is truly in jeopardy of shutting down, and yet we are not willing to come back in and do our job as members of congress, not because we lazy, because of the local consequences . Timee a hard time hard following, understanding that. We should be able to step up and say guys, we are doing whats right. I appreciate the committee taking it on. I appreciate the ability to talk about it, rather than a closeddoor meeting, but i hope we go further than that and , understand that the people we are hurting are the ones that elected us to come up here to begin with. I look forward to answering your questions. Actually, i dont because ive got to leave. But i appreciate the opportunity to come up here. I apologize i have to step out. Chairman collins, thank you for your time. Other members, thank you for your thoughts and your support on this, and we look forward to open debate. We appreciate it. Also just as a reminder for all right now though, we know there are time commitments with the other speaker but once youre here, youre here. Mr. Chairman, i will stay. I appreciate that. We allow you to expound, you get to talk a lot, but you also have to answer questions as well. The chairman has backed that up. With that, mr. Walker, its your turn. Thank you so much, chairman collins. I appreciate your time today. Also chairman sessions, youve been very dangerous with your time and talking about your heart on this issue. Id like to quinnbegin with a quotation that was made when the National Debt was 7 billion less than it is today. To address great budget challenges, we must not be distracted by a damaging and decisive internal debate on earmarks. This statement was not made by a conservative champion, not even those from john boehner or john mccain. It was made in 2010 by representative jerry lewis, the former chairman of the house Appropriations Committee. I did not have the opportunity to serve with chairman lewis, but i have to say i agree with his position on the earmark ban. 2017 was a productive year for republicans in our unified government. We came together to pass a once in a generation tax reform that will super charge the economy for years to come. Weve already seen some of that. We also repealed the most erroneous and infringeing position of the aca. I hope continue this, yet i fear that we may be bringing the practice of the old unreformed earmarks. I believe that would be a colossal mistake. Thank you for allowing me to push back with a recent poll. 2016 showed 73 of americans including 83 of the president s supporters were in favor of keeping the earmark ban. Just mentioning the term earmark conjures up images of washington. If we make the mistake of restoring the same old earmarks, i fear republicans will not get the opportunity to take these steps because we will be once again relegated to the minority as a consequence for lose king our way. Effective conservatism requires the right policy, message and voice, no matter what you call them. Can you make a constitutional argument for these . Absolutely. Youve heard some of that today. But just because you can make a constitutional argument and im not sure that its always the right thing, theres nothing illegal about me showing up neeb eneeb brated to this meeting but its not right. With that i yield back. Dean, i have a question for you. If we went back to allowing earmarks, what would preclude a Committee Chairman who has control over the money as chairman of the Appropriations Committee from essentially having the same sort of control and power that we now complain that the executive branch has . He doesnt have that much power to control it individually. It has to be by joint efforts. The individual is putting forth a request and it has to be reviewed by the public in transparency. Ive never had an adversarial vote in my committee from a democrat or republican since weve worked together. I truly believe that theres no stake in the game this congress will not function. Let me push back a little bit. Im doing this with you because you serve in this capacity and youre the dean but perhaps you figured out what crumbs people are going to get and you control the crumbs and thats about all each person got was a crumb and at the end of the day we hadnt fixed the process. Again, i dont think a request from the constituents themselves ive always said a few congressmen have an earmark for themselves. Its from the request of their constituents. I never dictated anybody. We tried to review them hold on just a moment. Mr. Walker, i would ask that mr. Walker be excused. He had a commitment ill ask mr. Walker to come back. How about that . Thank you. Now you interrupted my train of thought but go ahead. Did you hear the whistle . But you show less text 01 26 58 Doug Collins Doug Collins know, i believe we can right the i call them projects of constituents interest by the way, not earmarks. These projects come from our people and i believe my friend from oklahoma and friend from louisiana mentioned the rural areas. Right now we cant represent them because theyre not heard really in the state legislature. All the money goes from the budget to the larger communities and thats not good. Thats my job to represent them. If we dont have that, where are we going to get it . It goes back to the navigational system. How do we represent the people . I do not believe and mr. Walker can talk about the constitution. I believe in the constitution and i believe in the right of individuals to represent their people. If you can figure it out, i can figure it out. Youre worried about the chairman. Im not frankly worried about the chairman. I cant be chairman anymore. I think they do a good job or theyre not chairmen anymore. Thats what i believe. I think the chairman stated and it was pointed out, how we right this is absolutely critical. As the chairman now and i wont be a chairman in 351 days but whos counting, going through this process and we did it through the order process. We didnt have earmarks, but how do we go through a process to make sure that everybody is heard and we approve projects and as mr. Rooney points out, the corp needs even more reform, a lot of reform, but we were able to go through a process and meet members needs. We passed by 417 votes. Its because looking at everybody else around the table here and whether its the florida ports or boston ports or other places in the country, those ports are not just for those towns, the cities that theyre in. They benefit the entire southeast region, so lots of people are interested. Having a process where we take that in into consideration is very, very possible to do. Again, how chairman sessions and you folks bring to the floor a rule that is balanced, transparent, thorough, i think that is key to the whole thing. Ill go back to one other thing too. This isnt just about money. Under the earmark rule, if it benefits your district, its considered an earmark, not moneywise but policywise. That leaves the executive branch to set the policy for your district. Weve neutered ourselves is what it boils down to, and thats my answer. Thank you. Mr. Rooney. I would add, not to sound too philosophical here but the whole reason why were here is because our founders wanted to do away with exactly what we have given the executive branch. We operate as a people under a rule of law and the constitution which is a limiting document. Its not an empowering document. So when you have a revolution based on the fact that we dont want to be ruled by a crown in a distant land or some king, that we are a representative republic that all of us get to represent our constituents so were all heard here equally. To think that in 20102011 we started giving more and more power back to that executive branch im not going to call it the crown but its exactly opposite of the reason why we even exist as americans. Were going backwards and thats, i think, just totally wrong. I think its fundamentally against who we are as a people. Thank you. Im sorry, mr. Walker left because i had a question for him. Im going to state my question and you can he said something i hadnt heard before and that is since 2010 which is i guess the year before we put the earmark ban in place, the debt of america has gone up 7 trillion. So, it doesnt sound like the earmark ban has done anything about runaway spending. Chairman yield . Absolutely, chairman. In my opinion, that was not a fair shot. What . That was not a fair shot. Not by you but by the statement. This earmark earmarking is related to about 15 billion a year or so. That went up 7 trillion. I would remind the gentleman that it went up because of other factors and it was outright spending or things mr. Chairman, i think that was my point. Okay, i thank the gentleman. Thats what i was trying to get to. Again let me stress, as long as you stay within the parameters of the budget, it doesnt add to the deficit. We just direct the spending instead of the bureaucracy. I mentioned limbaugh and hannity and those, they have this cow and thats something we cant be afraid of, ladies and gentlemen, the bobble heads of this society. Theyre not telling the public that we have a budget thats like that and we have a right to spend. Now that budget goes to the administration regardless of what the administration is, and they decide and i want to tell you, i represent a lot of Rural Communities. They get i wont say it outloud, but they do. I think my point got a little lost there. Obviously what we do here or dont do here is not going to be a panacea with regard to the government debt. I think we need to understand. Again, were talking about an extremely limited amount of money and even with this earmark ban in place weve seen the debt go up 7 trillion. Whatever else is the case here, we dont need to get lost in that. I wanted to add to that too. Ranking member hoyer made the point that even in its runaway years its never busted the caps. Its been in check based on the budget that congress put in before those parameters came into place. Were arguing that we dont get to prioritize projects. We just bundle the same dollars that we did before and give it all the to the executive branch and we have to ask them with very nice letters and very nice conversations can you please take a look at it. Were trying to restore our constitutional rights. I know the gentleman who left brought that up. But if we dont want to live by what the constitution says, thats why we have amendments and we can amend that constitution and let the people decide that they want the executive branch to have that power. Until then it is still our important responsibility, period. We were asked by the speaker by the way, i read the article that had the speakers statements. I did not take his statements to be in any way a retraction of his direction to us which is to listen and do what we think is the bodys will. I hear your concerns but i dont think we should do that. Im listening to the speaker and hes worried about abuses creeping in that we had in the past. I think we should all be worried about those abuses. The abuses were real. Theres no question they were real. People being people, we can be subject to reinstitutioning those those abuses in a different form. I dont think we should allow this to be a debate about whether this is some significant tool to control the debt which its not, we also cant ignore the fact that there will be abuses in the past. We cant run out there and say, well, in some respects it worked in the past, in others it didnt. I think the speaker is right in bringing those points up and making sure that we dont lose sight of that as we go through this process. I dont think anybody that weve heard testify wants to bring back the old way. Were saying we can do this with reforms. But i guarantee you any rule you make, someones going to try figuring out how to break it. But that doesnt mean that you just stop. That doesnt mean that you give away your Constitutional Authority because were afraid Constitutional Authority because that doesnt mean that you give away your Constitutional Authority because were afraid hat might be a bad apple. Thats going to happen. It already occurs even with the ban being put in place. They just figure out a different way to do it. Thats called criminals. We have a court to prosecute those. Thats why we have another branch that can handle those individuals. Again, abuses, you want to see abuse, watch the bureaucracy. There is, very frankly, in our case if we abuse it, we go to court or we dont get elected again. Theres no oversight of any consequence. I understand your concern, but we can write a bill, i believe those abuses will not occur. Im sorry i took up so much time before the gentleman yields his time, i just want to make it very clear what is reported that the speaker said. House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a cspan interview last week that he was not inclined to restore earmarks, but he did not rule out the possibility. I do believe and this is a quote attributed to the speaker. I do believe that theres a show concern about having the legislative Branch Oversight on how the executive branch spends money, but weve got to make sure that we dont go back to pork barrel spending. Thats the upshot of his remarks. Reclaiming my time, i dont think you or i or anyone else want to go back to the old days of pork barrel spending. I dont think the speaker is saying dont do anything. No, no. He said he wasnt inclined to do anything. When the speaker aint inclined, apt aint much going to happen. May i make one comment. I have the votes, and i was asked to let those votes not occur. Im sure the speaker understands that we will have a vote if we dont get something out of the rules committee. Thats not a threat. Show less that is a constitutional effort which i have put forth and everybody in that conference knows that and we had a commitment that this issue would be addressed. It will be addressed one way or the other. I prefer it this way because you can do the study and write the position correctly, not going back to the old way. Im sure the speaker has the wisdom to see that. Reclaiming my time, i think the speaker is telling the rules committee that he wants us to listen and understand the will of the body and try to do it in a way thats responsible. I think your testimony is helping this member at least understand this better because i wasnt here when earmarks were in place. All of this is new to me. Im trying to learn it. Show less text i appreciate everybodys testimony. I apologize for taking too much time and i yield back. Any questions . No questions. Mr. Walker is on his way back. Maybe another member of the panel mr. Walker had an interesting analysis of our Constitutional Responsibilities and i thought the analogy that he used in my view wasnt accurate. Im not sure if perhaps i misunderstood but talking about how we can sort of decide whether or not we want to carry out our constitutional obligations strikes me as an inaccurate reading of the constitution and are obligations and duties we carry out or as mr. Mullin said, we work to amend the constitution. Mr. Mullin, if you would like to comment on that further. First of all, congressman walker is a close friend of mine and i know hes a true constitutionalist. I think his point was getting im not trying to speak for him but i think he was trying to make a biblical perspective because he is a preacher and i get what he was trying to say about the law but the law and the constitution constitution, in this case you have to separate them because were talking about the powers of the branches and the separations of the two. It is very clear when you look at our Founding Fathers and the statement of what they made in article one and how specific they were, especially starting with sections 7 and 8 about the duties of a member of representatives and what we are supposed to do we undermine it sometimes i think when we say the power of the purse. It is a lot more specific than that. When you get into the specifics, you know the intent of what our Founding Fathers were, and the Founding Fathers knew that representatives, not senators even, representatives were closest to the people and understood that we are to come to congress and represent those and make sure our constituents taxpayer dollars are properly spent and equally distributed to the needs of our people. While i understand what mr. Walker was trying to refer to, not trying to get into tit for tat with him, i think theres a difference between the two. Mr. Walker is back. Mr. Walker, weve been talking about you in your absence. Ive heard. In fact, neil cavuto related it to me. You had an analogy and you talked about our constitutional duties and obligations, but then you sort of perhaps were trying to talk more about the laws and our constitutional duties. The discussion has been about we have the duty thats laid out in sections 7 and 8 of article 1 and its not a duty that we can decide were just simply not going to exercise. Were obligated to exercise it. I dont think that you meant that we arent supposed to be exercising the power of the purse, that we arent supposed to be the entity within the government thats charged with that. I think you meant Something Else but maybe you could elaborate. Happy to do that. Thank you. We are basically making an argument today from what im hearing, a lawful one, but one that is based on what we could do in the future as opposed to past behavior. Past behavior as most would say left the temptation , even though the arrangement was left as well. There was nothing illegal about the setup or arrangement of how earmarks were spent. So the argument today is based on changing future behavior as opposed to referencing past behavior. Both future and past tense were and still are constitutional. So in making that case saying this is strictly only about the constitution, my question is what does prevent us from falling back into those same attempttemptations and same traps from years past where we have seen major corruption, where weve even seen breaking the law, to my friend representative rooneys comments. As a former pastor i can tell you there are lots of situations where theres a temptation of making a bad decision. What my point is, just because something is a reference or it is lawful, i believe sometimes without some reforms that are clearly communicated that offers great assurance, i believe its a slippery slope to get to a place where arms can be twisted. The whole term of cardinal and how it came to be as far as appropriating to get what your district needs, all these arguments are valid. All these needs, yes, i dont push back on any of that. If were strictly arguing only a constitutional argument, thats what we used in the past. There was nothing unconstitutional about the framework last time. My concern is that we dont get to the place we get to the place where we continue to lead by integrity and build a relationship with the communities that we represent and this is a position of honor and not one that is considered sometimes detrimental or even a joke. I yield back. Thank you very much. I would agree, i think that we wouldnt be revisiting the issue if we didnt have the constitutional obligation to undertake this exercise. I think all of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that we cant go back to a situation where we were ungoverned where the abuses happened. I guess the difference is i know members of this body whom i respect believe that there were simply too many abuses in the past and you cant go back to it but i think that thats a pretty sad statement in terms of this body and that we need to be able to find a way to look at this issue and recognize we have a constitutional duty to do so. Thank you very much for coming back and thanks to the members of the panel and i yield back. I was here when they had earmarks and ive been here since they havent had earmarks. When people talk about the past and all these abuses, its a little bit of revisionist history. There are individuals who abuse their office. There continue to be individuals who abuse their office with or without earmarks. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people who had congressionally directed spending or earmarks or whatever, they were all perfectly legitimate. There was nothing underhanded, nothing corrupt. In fact, ill go back to what show less text 01 46 06 Jim Mcgovern Jim mcgovern mr. Young said. He talked about some of the smaller communities in alaska not getting attention from the State Capitol in terms of distribution of money they should have gotten and without the earmarks they would have gotten nothing. In massachusetts when i got elected we were able to earmark some funds and if we were not able to, all the transportation money for example that went to massachusetts would not be restricted to the bigger communities. It would go to one community, boston, for one project, the socalled big dig which is a great project but i represent the second largest city in new england and investing in that community is every bit as important as investing in boston. Now were in a situation where we have to go to the state and try to argue with them over again focusing on not just the capital city but also on some of the medium sized cities and the smaller communities. We have infrastructure in some of our towns that is so bad that basically bridges have been closed down and you have to do alternative routes to get from one point to another point and were told, well, you know, its not a priority or we dont have the money or whatever. I think part of our job here is to force a discussion on what these priorities should be. When this whole debate about getting rid of earmarks happened, if i remember correctly, it was because a handful of people in this country demagoged this issue where people didnt have the political guts to stand up and say wait a minute, lets tell the truth about whats happening here. I think the issue right now is what do we do about it. I hope in fact that all this discussion will result in some sort of proposal that we could bring forward. I hope its beyond the army corps of engineers. I think transportation and other moneys are equally important. I look back at the earmarks ive received in my district over the years. They not only pass every test of whats legitimate but they have resulted in incredible Economic Development that has raised revenues well beyond the initial investment. They have been worthwhile. I hope that the speaker will give the rules committee or whoever the green light to come forward and put something together, but this is not just about our constitutional responsibility which i think is a big deal because we ought to take our Constitutional Responsibilities seriously, but its about good policy and directing taxpayer dollars to projects and to initiatives that i think are worthwhile. If theres anybody in this chamber who is guilty of corruption, whether they try to abuse the earmark process or try to unduly influence the executive branch in exchange for money, they ought to go to jail. Those that have done that in the past have paid the price. Thats the way the system should work. When somebody does something wrong, they ought to be held accountable. I appreciate you being here. Again, i hope that this is more that be just talk and that something will come out of this. Anyway, i yield back my time. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just to put a fine point on the question that i raised regarding speaker ryans comments, i take mr. Burns point and i was trying to make the point that dean young made and that is that whether or not the speaker is inclined, im hopeful that show less text 01 50 18 alcee l. Hastings alcee l. Hastings the proceedings here will assist in his judgment as to whether or not we should go forward. Rather than have an exercise in futility. Mr. Walker, thank you for coming back. Back in 1916 2016, we reformed the manufacturing tax breaks. I believe you were a supporter of that particular measure. Last night there was a measure on the floor, some miscellaneous tariff measure thats taken place after the reforms. My question to you is, apparently that process allowed that it would go forward and would contemplate not violating at that time any earmark or consideration. How do you reconcile your support of that process, or would you agree that some outside mechanism that would bring us to a better understanding with reform of the earmark process could be undertaken . Thank you, representative hastings. I believe thats the Perfect Question for this argument. We were told three times in fact when we began to present this nearly two years ago we were told three times that this would be illegal or it would fall inside the earmark ban, but we did not surrender on it. We kept going back to the ways and means and found a way that this could be presented legally without it falling under the earmark category. It took us a while but i believe its an example of how we can get things done that meet local Community Needs without having to go through the earmark status as we saw i think there was a anonymous vote last night, 400something to zero. Article one powers, things like the Agency Accountability act, i think those are ways around it to be able to still get things done and measures met. Is it the easiest path for a twoyear process, no, its not. But i do believe theres a pathway to get some of the things that impact the people in the districts that we represent without having to go specifically direct to congressional spending or earmarkers. But you do agree that that process worked and it took some time to bring it to that. I do. So wouldnt you agree that we could do something here with reference to earmarks that would make it palatable for us and for the people that we represent . Im not saying that its impossible. What i am saying and i guess i would ask this question or ponder this question, if the earmarks were the best appropriate way to move forward and even in a constitutional manner, why is it that they evee evenrd, why would they need reforms . Why would there need to be skull thing to this process. Is the best idea, why are we threading a needle . Effort . Too much myself as an. Andere people who were here together to to come allow for things in the district and we have had an abiding concern about things. Feel that i have the process. Colleague, i would say we brought of a specific this navigational to this andwe added project, aware of the but we could not directly as onlyspend money and could make them aware of the situation where this needs to be spent. Passed, but let me because yougoes veryt direct them specific on the project. At that mercyill of them and it is a Constitutional Authority to direct them directly on how to spend the dollars. Will you yield . Very briefly. I understand what you have been saying. Concern, i dont want to say this is my district made. You and i know the this is happened in the past and, as we i wantr this position, to make sure we are not following a slippery slope. Brief thathe very mr. Shuster was helpful to us and i can honestly say that mr. Young had an ability to the more helpful. Thank you. I passed, i got more votes than don young. I think anything that was the Pressure Point i will let you have last word. I got some additional time there will bek eight givesnt and this and it will be very helpful as we ask for submissions to make sure the cost benefit analysis is included. Thank you for coming. This panel is dismissed. The next panel. Thank you. Mr. Hastings will be last. That, the chair recognizes mr. Coverts and. Were taking a look at the response already of the congress invest sospending and that no money can be drawn by the treasury, other than via probe creation and law. We will work with state and local officials to identify projects that need help and i did that with input and guidance from my constituents and was fundingtarget that bird dog it and did a superb job. Coronary bypass surgery for houston and the freeway was a great access, but we have a serious problem that illustrate flaws in the earmark fan. It was impossible for me to frontload the funding to speed houstonand we had suffer these catastrophic floods it normally snows in houston and it is a novelty, but not this winter, which has an very difficult. There was snow and sleet and it shut down the city. Concern is the flooding and we need a third reservoir. Countyy northwest of the is only a little bit higher than galveston and the water flows slowly. Haders of congress foresight to build a reservoir andthe third was not built it dropped 4050 inches of rain and the results was catastrophic flooding and there were tens of homes,ds still living in apartments, hotels. Funout this, sleep is no fun. Sleet is no engineer isps of and not putting time speedon this project to it up to make sure this project is done in time. Transferredas just to the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats are making these decisions, rather than a local representative and this is a real problem and we have a variety of to protect this city. We cannot wait for this to rebuild. If you frontload the money and freewayh locals, this was done in five years and three months, a world record. I was suggest something specific to you. None of us want to see the way earmarks were handled before. We have a responsibility. I would suggest that we do what we have always done and i think you should consider to amend the getting this into an and it woulds bill have to start at subcommittee and be recommended to you. I am sure you have a construction plan for your project and it would be submitted to you by the highway and that would recommend finishing out some of you do a request from a state or local government to put this into an approved creations phil that everybody can see and echoes through the process with everybody seeing it and it fills fundamental risk ons abilities for the people intentiond us and the said hands that founders said. At the time the constitution was ratified, the executive was Electoral College in the founders understood the was the mostpurse subject to abuse and they vested that into the house of representatives because we are the most accountable and responsive to our constituents. I suggest taking a look at this proposal and we need to target this with infrastructure and Flood Control. I assure you that i will be birdg for these and i will dog it and make sure the job is fashion. Timely thank you. I want to try to avoid saying things that have been said and just want to say i support and there are a lot of people who dont want to come to the committee and i dont care because my support is wellknown in my district. Before thee endorsed last election, here is what they important. Nk this is us have complained isut pork and it shortsighted. He is unapologetic about bringing money home to the and deserves to continue to represent the people of the district. Gettingt ashamed of money brought in to my district and have brought copies of my earmarks that can be vetted by anybody and i want them to because it gives me more praise and are like them to be talked about as much as possible. I represent kansas city, missouri. She just wanted me to change the name of the city. Just one little request was all she made. Countryple around the dont even know the difference andeen missouri and kansas asked me if i was the mayor of both. Why in the world would i want in myministration to do district what they do not know about . Let me give you an example. It was ruled that marshall, missouri could not do balloon loans because they were restricted to the rural areas of our country and not in the city marshall isrbs and almost 100 miles from kansas city, missouri. The people who made the ruling and wenow where it is were able to get this change, happensoints out what when you allow people who dont understand the community making decisions. Camef the angriest moments in response to all of the foreclosures. There was a program put in place called the Neighborhood Stabilization program at stabilized properties that have been abandoned. When the announcement was made, there was not a single dime started here and they screaming about being left out of this program. Infuriating and happens over and again, unless i stand people. Peak for the i dont have any proof that the canle in the white house deal with what i need. Knowing can tell you the bridges. And itcross it everyday is nearcollapse. Come to me and say that they hope i will push for construction of a new bridge. They dont understand that i have nothing to say about this new bridge. A letter to the , but this is ridiculous. Our constituents ask us for help no wey that is will do in congress. Earmarks andd to you talk about the transportation bill. For auld i vote peoplertation bill when who are going to make the and ion are oblivious vote for a bill and nothing and nothing happens. Who are the constituents up set with . The known name in washington . No. Our congressman cant deliver. This is absolutely crazy that we would relinquish our authority repeatedly to another branch of the government. So i hope that we can do something and i dont think we need to do a long waiting period. Its time now to bring back earmarks or directed spending. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee for having this hearing today. Im very encouraged by what ive heard this morning in regard to restoring transparency and accountability in Article One Authority to congress over the appropriation of the peoples money as required by article one section 9, clause 7 of the constitution which says if i may read, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law and a regular statement account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. I dont think thats what weve been doing. Congress has granted agencies to collect fines, fees and other revenues outside of the appropriated funds and spend or hold these funds. According to the office of management and budget, the federal government collected 516 billion in user fees alone in 2015. A substantial portion of these funds are being used to offset appropriations but not all of them. As members of congress, we should not have a problem with using these funds to offset appropriations but we should have a problem with agencies accumulating substantial amounts to selffund programs or operations outside the normal appropriations process. The Government Accountability office calls this back door spending and i appreciate mr. Hastings point that he made earlier about transparency and accountability. When you have back door spending, you lose that transparency and accountability. Ive introduced a bill that would send all inappropriated funds, that includes the fines, fees, Court Settlements and other revenues to the Treasury Department identified to the agency where they originated and making them subject to the normal appropriations process. This does not mean the funds will be taken away from the agencies. This simply will allow for the Appropriations Committees to see how many money is coming into the agencies and will substantially improve oversight how the agencies are spending those funds and make a determination about how much agencies may hold as un obligateobligated funds. To mr. Culversons point, this would restore money taken from the bureaucrats. The department of homeland securitys funding fight, congress was attempting to reign in president obamas daca program when the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services made it known that it intended to circumvent the will of congress by funding the program through fines and fees. Whatever your position might be on that issue, i think we have to agree that this is outside of the transparency and accountability we want to have in congress. While they might not all be congress. And while they might not all be funded programs that Congress Never intended. Many agencies accumulated funds. The act which has cosponsors will finally place a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability under congressional oversight and mr. Cleaver pointed out, these are unelected bureaucrats who dont get one dime from appropriated funding from congress. In 2012 the Office Management and budget report the theres over 700 billion in unobligated funds held by agency spsz the office estimated over 82 billion of the funds were hold between 6 and 20 years. In a more recent report the gao reported that 870 billion were held by agencies across federal government. They have reported extensively and recommended a review of the balances and to seek opportunities for savings. Identify where the funds originated which improved congresss oversight spending and insure federal agencies hold appropriate balances. We been talking earmarks, i think this ended this whole issue. If youre going to talk about earmarking, you have got to take into account all federal revenues. Tax dollars or fees or fines or court aawards. It is part of the process. Im not going to argue but if you go through appropriate funds, it would be arguing that they are earmarking federal funds. So i just want to urge my colleagues on the committee to schedule proceedings on this what i believe is a vital piece of legislation to the discussion were having and to consider add it to any package dealing with article one on oversight. It solves a number of issues. Im happy to answer any questions the committee may have. This is like deja vu coming in a year and two weeks ago when i was sworn in. The day before that. January 2nd of 2017 this was the issue and we determined i wasnt even officially a freshman. I was a day away from being sworn in. And it wasnt appropriate at that point to bring back earmarks. My question is that it is still not the right time. Im opposed to your remarks. But it is different than it is on the outside than the inside. And everybody in congress including me knows that there are things in this institution that are unpopular in order to function. Its easy to grand stand against these things. Congress as a whole has no lobby to defend it. Confusing the activities of this body with the activity of individual members. Blasting congress fortunately or unfortunately it happens to be good poll tick. I suspect you to be hard pressed to find a member who hasnt done a little bit of that. And i believe it would be a mistake to put the earmark ban into this category of congressional activity. Things that are unpopular but institutionally necessary. In fact, i think restoringer marks will hurt and not help congress as a institution. So i suggest a yardstick and for us to evaluate potential rule changes. Any change in the rules should encourage mens to act according to principles and not politics. It is principle that enable us to stand up for the public interest. Not in a way that would prevent legislation from passing but in a way that we applied to tax reform. It is con convenient to get rid of tax bract reduction or the tax repeal or unpopular revisions. But republicans hung together on these principles and passed, the bill. So well need more if were going to solve the countries problems. Earmarks dont encourage political action. They reward members willing to trade vote for district funding. In the words of jefferson, they almost get the most who are meanest, like i said but in other words the most nakedly transaction behavior elite is the award. Solicitation of ear marks can be thought of as extreme examples of the normal process. Earmarks punish members who dont ask for them. A member who refuses one for reason or principle created a permanent enemy in his own district. Those that interest now has longterm financial stake in seeing a member lose his or her seat. This can strengthen where they refused. This is a scenario i suspect many members havent considered. Such a process would cause congress to become more and more populated by those who play ball instead of sticking to principle. I would offer thats one explanation to how we got to where we are. 20 trillion in debt. The game has got to change. Playing ball will not address the National Challenges we currently face. Members, may not be interested in earmarks, im not. If members are prepared to vote to reinstate them, you should be prepared to become interested or suffer the political consequences. Many of us suspect i believe if a teapot for a conservative priority, so be it. One members lack of principle does not reflect on the whole. Those of us will be pressured to support legislation that includes those types of provisions. Those of us who are republicans will be called to account for a part in congress that restores a practice that my constituents back home loathe. So mr. Chairman, earmarks have been called the currency of corruption, i believe thats an accurate description. But because of the incentives they offer for corrupt behavior and the pun mish meants they offer for sticking to principle. Earmarks do the opposite and i urge my colleague ons this committee to reject any measure that would lift the current ban. I would first off say mr. Chairman i admire so much deliberation we had today. I wish this took place on the floor of the house. You heard from people of real conviction who believe what they were talking in terms of the balance of power in our political system and in our constitutional framework. The idea of not having to go to as a playoff to the executive blanch is something i frankly agree with. You heard about small towns and the way they dont have grant writers and therefore can Access Funding at the same level proportionate to a larger city or municipalty might be. You heard a number of good debates and to get this deliberation right. I would just say that i would encourage you not to go back to what we had before. That earmarks as we know them were distracktive and that to go back to where we were would be to open the flood gates to a whole host of problems moving forward. I think that i have a some what unusual perspective looking at this and i have both legislative and executive branch experience. Let me offer four vantage points as you go through deliberations. One, i would argue that earmarks foster duply indication and for us to be competitive in the 21st century as we compete in a global economy, the one thing we can not afford is duplication. I say this from this point, i was the first governor in South Carolina to produce an executive Branch Budget and as you can relate looking at the way the process works in georgia, what i had seen was look, the executive branch level we dont have a better perspective but its different and the sum total of the budget process is getting to you know, what do i need to get for your district to get to a yes, if thats the sum total of the process, it ends up with an amazing amount of duply indication. We saw this in South Carolina. So seven or eight of the same things duplicating in different counties across the state. Everybody watching out for their district. But what it did as a state is the lead to duply indication. Whatever you deliberate and look at, look at this from the minione and how do we go back to the concept in terms of setting the priorities so not driven from the bottom up. The bridge that you are talking about or the flooding problem in texas are real and need to be addressed. We have to somehow, balance those local needs with this notion of how do we be competitive in the 21st century is at times what ive seen in the executive branch when i held that role, the earmark process at times was worked against our ability to do so at the state level. Two, i would say earmarks at times foster more earmarks. My colleague from north car carolina. At that time it was a surface transportation bill i believe, and at that time each member was given an essence about a 10 million of earmark committee. And i didnt believe in earmarks so i guess at the time naively, i want you to direct my money to the state dot but needless to say i was getting noise back home about the bridge. It was a big project for the district and the number one priority project for the state. By giving it the number one project sfr the state the number would get to my district and i wasnt shortchanging my district. That was not at all the politics though of how that thing played out. So you had a whole host of folks saying youre not watching out for the district. I directed it here and it would get there. By not directing the earmark myself it was a political fire storm. And in that regard what i suggest is we have to be careful about my colleague from North Carolina suggested, if you dont participate or play, theres a substantial political downside for you in not doing so. So theres a balance somewhere and i dont know where it is. You have to ask solomon and all his wisdom in the deliberation. I have to warn you about that i have seen it firsthand. Thirdly, i would say that earmarks do in fact foster more spending. Only about 1 of the pie and you but what we all know is that once youve gotten that earmark in a bill for your district, how do you vote against the bill . And thats where the leverage that my colleague from North Carolina was getting at. Again, thats a tricky thing. And so, i think that you know again, weve got to look at that. The fourth point i would make is this, earmarks tempt. Limitations in life can serve us life, prohibitions, limits. So what i saw when i was governor, i saw the crazest earmarks in the world, family, to friends, associates, you name it and it lead to a corrupting political process of which there was consequences in South Carolina. Im not disparaging any member of this body. Im simply saying theres a temptation that at times limitations that are of value and in fairness to my colleague in wyoming what congress recognized in itself and the Great Depression its the inability to negotiate trade deals. So that is our constitutional responsibility. We vested in the executive branch the ability to go out and negotiate a trade deal and go thumbs up or down on the final deal. We cant do this that well ourselves. You come up with a deal and well vote it up or down. So i do think theres a value is case if you will, in the way we handle other things investing, where does that leave me. It leaves me three thoughts. Transparency alone is not enough. If you look at the dlib deliberations. Two, you cant have one person drive the ultimate decision. Unilateral decisions is not what our Founding Fathers set off. They believe in balance of power. And two heads being better than one. If you look at this process look at something that does include a variety of different perspectives as opposed to one. And finally, process really matters. As my colleague from louisiana was pointing out, cost benefit analysis, rate of return, you have to have at multiple levels these kinds of things when we look at congressional mandates and spending, where does that leave me . I think they got it close with the bill. You know, a tiger grant is an executive branch earmark. Lets go through process, multiple vet spgs not one person decides. Thats a very different thing than the earmarks i would warn you against and with that i yield back. Mr. Chairman, in light of the time of these gentlemen and they have been here with a long time. If its ok im here for the duration so i will wait to testify with mr. Turner. Well turn to questions for this panel. Any questions . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And as you know i was absent for most of the testimony, i apologize for that. But, the individuals i did hear from and like i said the jury is out on this question. Were taking ideas and trying to get some wisdom. Hopefully solomon comes through somehow and gives us the wisdom we need. As you were speaking mr. Sanford, im just thinking outside off the top of my head. Is there a way we dont want to go back to where we were before, we all agree about that. Is there a way to change the process to make it something that it is not just one individual but it is kind of not necessarily out of our hands but a different process that can enjoy the confidence of the American Public that i think one of the things and you touched on this, left a bad taste in peoples mouth is the process to buy votes or utilize earmarks to influence votes. So how can we get away from those kinds of things and i dont have a solution but you have brought up interesting notions that i think we need to further explore. I just want to thank you for that and if you have further comments as you deliberate i would ask to you look at the the word of process and what he came up at the Transportation Committee level. I think that get it. Thats a long way from earmarks and very different in a way they advance individual interest real and exist. Whether it is a bridge in the midwest or whether it is the port in charlston. So i would recommend the word of process. Any other comments . Yes. Look. Its already against the law to rob the bank. I mean, if somebody is using the process to do something wrong, they get caught and go to jail. I mean, if no matter what institution they have been connected with, they go to jail. There were three people since ive been in congress who violated the law on earmarks. All three of them went to jail. What were doing is absolutely, i mean, i dont believe in self mutilation. I mean, i would not mutilate myself. Im going to try to build myself up, we had one man sending emails to the pages. So what did we do . We cut out the page program. Absolutely crazy. It makes no sense. Why are we doing that to ourselves . If we have, we have 435 members and three of them misused earmarkings and went to jail and one man out of 435 sent emails and he was sent home or forced to resign. The 434 people who didnt do it just one. We cant guarantee somebody is not going to mess up the system. We already had a system in place for people who steal. Its already there. And im not going to back up at all from trying to represent the concerns of the people of missouris 5th district and i think they appreciate it. I want to conclude. I i want to speaker johns office. We had a long conversation about Police Body Cameras when he and i supported. And he said you know, ive been here for 26 years at the time, this may have been a year or two before he left. He said ive been here 26 years and i never got earmarks or wanted them. One thing i have learned is that its a big deal for other people. And this was after we stopped and discontinued the process. He recognized that in his district it was not a big deal. But in the districts, nobody would be upset if you said i dont want earmarks, i wouldnt. I would like to get some of the money you could have gotten. If you dont want them, i will give them to cleveland and i will thank you and call a press conference and acknowledge you in the newspapers f im not ashamed of responding to the needs of my people. Thank you. ] mr. Newhouse, Hurricane Harvey was a full blown hurricane with a massive storm surge would have shut down. It rained so much it parked and backed up and stopped and rained on us. Fortunately no storm surge. One thing we need in Southeast Texas is to extend the sea wall to protect all of the refineries. That is the top of the list for the state of texas. So the suggestion i made earlier is that limit this to requests that are made of us as representatives that come from us from state or local government. And limited to infrastructure or Flood Control that you have to put it in through subcommittee and goes through process and cannot increase spending. So were doing our job as representatives on behalf of the people we represent to be good stewarts of their precious and hard earned tax dollars to make sure it is targeted in a way that is transparent and we are accountable for. We are up for reelection every two years and im doing my job on behalf of my constituents and helping out the state. The input, thank you. This isnt a decision that the three or four or five of us are going to make. Its going to be the vlarger body. The contributions are valuable, thank you i yield back. In the interest of time i will forgo questions. I do appreciate members being here. And their perspective and i will talk with mark on the floor. We came here today and i want to be more persuasive. I can imagine the conversation. Thank you, i want to thank the panel very much. I think you raised a number of important issues. I do think it is important as we look at this and again the experience of serving the executive branch, you at the state level and me at the federal level. We have an obligation to make sure we dont leave our constituents at the mercy. We can go to far, we have in terms of the ban thats in place right now in both prohibiting us to carry out a constitutional duty and representing our constituents most effectively. You have raised important points. Nobody wants to return to those days and the easiest thing in the world is to say were not going to deal with it. But we have an obligation to address the issue and find a path forward to carry out our constitutional obligations. With that i will yield back. If you have anything else to say leave that for the stenographer, thank you. We are going to try and plow through this before the vote is finished so please this panel will be seated. Add to the record a campaign for accountability and other organizations a letter to the committee the objection will be added and statements from ten members not able to be here and i want them to be added to the record. We will move forward. Mr. Turner and hastings and we will plow through. As i was listening to things and what they were saying here, it is true let me just say, there were earmarks when i got here. They were abused every year that i was here and they were available. I can tell you, its a lot easier for us as legislatures if we dont have earmarks. If were making decisions about specific line items of spending, it requires work. It requires listening to people. Listening to the different interests. And it is just easier to say, you know what, i dont have the power to do that you are going to have to go to somebody in this administration. And i heard with interest the comment that earmarks end up requiring duply indication and end up costing more. Yet, i note that when i got here, and there was maybe 10 billion or 10 trillion in federal debt and weve doubled that and most of that came when there were no earmarks. I mean, just look at the records. So records spending when there were no earmarks here. There were abuses and the reason that i was 100 in favor of a temporary moratorium on the specific line items in appropriations because we had to come up, mr. Newhouse what you were talking about. A way that this could be done open and clear where fair decisions can be made and yes, if we have earmarks, we have and all that is is specific line items and if were going to have them and its a bad choice. Whoever puts it in there has to be open and obvious and consequences if its not a good idea. Politically i think it is easier if we dont have earmarks but it is part of our responsibility. We are supposed to appropriate. And in the seven years that ive been here without earmarks, lifes been easier. I just tell people, i wish i could help. Ill cosign a letter and send it to some bureaucrat in the administration and beg them to do what we should have done because we know it is an important priority, but were going to send the letter other there and ask the bureaucrat to do the right thing. After you do that enough, you realize, they are not elected. Theyre not accountable to anybody but their boss or maybe the president. And so especially if its the opposite party, they can say forget that. People got upset about 700 million or so. We had hearings in the Natural Resource about the 2. 2 billion waste which never would have happened if we were the ones specifying where the money went. To build thousands of acres of mirrors in the desert to shine on three water towers that would super heat the water and turn the steam and turbines and create electricity. 1. 6 billion in government guaranteed loans over 600 million in government grants. We would never have done that. And i dont think that the democrats would have done that if they were had to stand for election and had to be accountable for all of the birds including the endangered species called flamers because they fly through and explode in flames and explode on the mirrors and they dont have water and have to clean them up anyway. Burned up one of the towers so now theres a natural gas plant there to provide. That would not happen if we were specifically appropriating. So lets see, earmarks cause more spirit ending. Thats not been my experience. My experience is we exploded the federal debt when we didnt have the specific line items. Life is tougher for us as legislatures when we have those specifics but the question is, who is best to specifically appropriate . Some bureaucrat that doesnt have any accountability to anybody in any hometown anywhere in the country . Or people that have to stand up if we create the open process and what john was saying, maybe thats one of the ways. We can do specifics if its not for commercial company or something. If it is a government program, a government need that were filling in. But, i like life without earmarks for heavens sake the constitution created a balance of power and when we dont use that, we are doing a disservice to our country. Making people accountable for what they do and the line items they request. I think weve got to get back to doing our job the constitution gave us. Gentlemen i would agree with him on his statement. Anyone who has a job who agrees to delegate a portion of the job to someone else, their job gets easier. But theyre not doing their job anymore and thats what we are. We are not doing our job anymore when it comes to spending. I appreciate your articulation with that. A couple of things i want to say about the earmark reform. Thats what the discussion should be about. I think we need to reclaim our own constitutional responsibility on spending. We need to deal with some facts. There has not been one penny of additional spending that has ever occur as a result of an earmark. We know that. We all know that. But speaker after speaker because earmarks are politicized will sit before you here saying earmarks increase spending. We know it doesnt. Structurally it cant. We adopt the budget and gives the committee boundaries on the spending and once the boundaries are determined the money is allocated and members have an opportunity to affect the overall direction of those dollars. We dont decide how much were going to spend, send it to the appropriation process and go back and add to our budget earmarks. So everyone who says it results in increased spending is misstating the process they have participated in every year in congress. And the aspect of people might vote against a bill doesnt send a bill back for less spending, it results in the same number of spending. On the issue you were saying about losing our responsibility, there are real examples of where congress made a difference in policy and spending and made outcomes for things today we take for granted. Arming drones. The house of service committee, oh appropriation committees Work Together to make sure those funds are made available. If we waited until the department of defense determined and requested that from us which is the situation we are in. We would not have the ability to deliver that process of congress being part of a debate of where the spending or policies should gochlt the issue that we talk about which is the most important is transparency. In my community when i was mayor and tony hall was the congressman we worked together to put together an open process for earmarks. The party and development advocate, in our community there were open public hearings and any group or organization that was going to request one had to go before this hearing, our community got to be involved people rotated in and out of the community and any jurisdiction, governmental jurisdiction that a earmark was going to be directed had to hold a hearing and request with their support the earmark. With that, our community would then vote and prioritize them. So we knew it had full support. With this debate on earmarks occurred. I dropped the act and it would have institutionalized some of the transparency requirements requiring that a member of congress certified that a hearing in the district occurred on the particular project requiring that if the earmark is to occur within a governmental that jurisdiction have a hearing. And requiring leveraging that any earmark only amount to no more than 50 of the overall project cost so that state local dollars and federal resources can be applied. We had abuse 100 earmark projects occurring and those tend to be the ones with not full broad support so as we look at the abuses, i think openness and transparency is where we need to go. All the committees when receiving earmark requests has to have hearings in an open process and members should have accountability and have open hearings and process before they sub submit request us to apply earmarks. I support what you are doing. I think this is important and we need a fact statement for people to understand what were dealing with. As we continue to hear that earmarks create more spending we know that is fiction. We should get facts agreed upon so we can debate the issues on what the abuses are and how to fix them and how to get to transparency. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and i recognize you all need to, all of us need to go and vote. So i ask unanimous consent of my statement. Of course. Theres about 200 who didnt vote so theres still a few minutes. I wont bore you all. You know where i stand. I want to highlight some of the things when we did have earmarks. In the city of Fort Lauderdale i was able to assist in developing a corridor that had been undersevered and we brought there an African American library. I helped to get some money started in the city of West Palm Beach i was able to get an earmark dealing with youth mentoring and Gang Violence prevention. I also helped the university of miami which was not in my district but something that helps all of us i do research and to hurricanes and support critical maintenance on intercostal water ways and did the same for Florida International university which is not part of the Congressional District i serve and countless measures with roads since earmarks i have not gotten one thing for my district and somehow or another i was able to have everyone by working in south Florida Republican and democrat mindful of what our responsibilities were to the every glades and collectively when we had earmarks and we even aside from working together to try to make sure we maximized our potential. We also worked with the state legislature at that time to make sure we were coordinating which shoots down my Friends Point of duplication. We were able to avoid it. With that i yield back. Thank you. Any members taking questions . All right. Thank you for your perspective, but i think one of the things before we close this hearing has brought out issues of both sides, to this place. I think it is interesting that mr. Turner, what you brought out is establishing baseline facts. If you do that, we can make another physician about what to do going forward. Hearing is now coming to a close and we will be adjourned. [indiscernible] joined us on the phone is Lindsay Mcpherson from cq roll call. Congress has a midnight deadline a shutdowno avert and they need to come up with some kind of deal. Whats the status . Well, its an impasse at the moment. They dont seem to be there quite yet