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