Hearings of the
Committee on Rules
Wednesday, June 17, 2004
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in Room H-313, The Capitol, Hon. John Linder [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Linder and McGovern.
Mr. Linder. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will
come to order. We are here for the second day of the subcommittee's
hearing into the current legislative impact of Rule X, the Organization
of Committees. We will continue to hear testimony today from committee
Chairmen and Ranking Members on their oversight activities and their
thoughts on the effectiveness of the current Rule X arrangement.
In brief, we will continue welcome views on all areas of the committee
activity, the practical function of Rule X in the modern House, the
thoughts of the Chairmen and Ranking Members on the effectiveness of
the current Rule X arrangement, and their suggestions on any other rules
changes.
I would ask unanimous consent to put in the record the written statements
from the following Members: Chairman Hyde, Chairman Boehlert, Chairman
Hunter, Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, and Chairman Oxley
and Ranking Member Barney Frank. Without objection, they will be put
into the record.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your
testimony and welcome your ideas and observations.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Goss. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here, and I would ask leave also to be allowed to add some written testimony
for your record. I am not prepared to give it at this time.
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
Mr. Goss. But I would like to offer some comments that
I have thought about in response to your invitation to the Chairmen
of the committees. The Intelligence Committee, which I will speak to,
is a permanent select committee, as you know, and I think that is a
very important distinction, and I think it should continue in that vein.
I think the permanence question, inevitably we are going to continue
to need intelligence, in the war on terror and for our national security,
for the foreseeable eons. The select question, I think, is a very important
aspect to the committee because I think giving the speaker and the leader
of the Minority the maximum amount of flexibility in member selection
is extremely important.
There are three areas I wanted to stress today. One is the question
of jurisdiction with other committees. The other is the arrangements
between the authorizers and the appropriators as to our committee, and
the third is the question of continuity or seniority on the committee
as a permanent select committee.
I am going to start in reverse order if I may, with the continuity,
seniority question. This is a question that has been raised by the 9/11
Commission, by observers, pundits, all kinds of people, people who have
looked at our national security programs, and the question is asked,
is Congress doing a sufficient job of managing its oversight responsibilities
and attending to its responsibilities to ensure our Nation's capabilities
are up to snuff in terms of resources in the area of intelligence.
And one of the observations that has been made, I believe it is accurate
and worth noting, is that intelligence is unique enough and takes enough
study and enough background work and enough orientation and enough getting
used to, learning the jargon; getting involved with 15 agencies and
however many Cabinet officers that might -- secretaries that might mean
at a given moment; understanding the distinctions between the national
customer and the military customer and where the priorities are; how
the budget, which is unique, works. All of those things, in sum, take
the average Member quite a while, no matter how accomplished they are,
to master unless they happen to come out of that particular community.
And even then it takes a while.
So my view is that there is a unique argument. The Senate has recognized
that. In the intelligence authorization bill they brought out this year,
they are handling it through the mechanism of term limits. I am concerned
about using that mechanism because it may, in fact, impede the Speaker
and the Minority leader's abilities to do things they want to do, and
I think they should have maximum flexibility.
On the other hand, I do think it is appropriate to open the door to
the question of how do we ensure experience and continuity on a committee
like a permanent select committee on intelligence. I could offer some
observations down the road, and I could suggest to you that there is
a natural trendline that some Members -- if you take the average size
of the committee, if it stays at its approximate size that we have now,
you are going to have percentage-wise a certain group that are going
to be able to have that experience and continuity in all likelihood,
but you are clearly going to have some fresh blood, too, even momentarily.
So my view is do you want to talk about some kind of guidance or some
kind of suggestion somehow that when selecting members for the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, that consideration is given to the
question of continuity? Would you want to add that kind of a guidance
for the consideration of the Speaker and the Minority leader? And I
would be very happy to talk more about that.
I do think it is an important point, and the Senate has clearly put
it on the bill. Obviously we are not going to comment on Senate rules,
and they are not going to comment on House rules, but the issue is there.
The second issue I wanted to talk about is the jurisdictional question.
That is a harder issue for us. The Intelligence Community, as you know,
deals largely in classified information. This is not necessarily designated
by some, you know, mysterious arrangement. It is, basically, that there
are statutory laws that say you can't do certain things if information
is classified in a certain way. You can't talk about it. You can't reveal
it. You must safeguard it in certain ways. You must treat it in certain
ways. There are a special set of rules and a special set of penalties
if you goof up on it.
So we try very hard to make a distinction between what is the Intelligence
Community, and, as I said, it stretches across 15 agencies. Some of
those are in other components of government that are of various size
and importance, and they are major or minor elements in those components.
When I speak of the FBI, I speak of it from the intelligence perspective,
its counterintelligence/counterespionage requirements which fall under
our portfolio as intelligence because they are truly an intelligence
function. There is classified material. We have to protect sources and
methods and so forth, and we have a lot of classified material in the
FBI's possession on those subjects as we concern ourselves to protect
ourselves from foreign-sponsored mischief, and now it seems not necessarily
state-sponsored, just foreign-sponsored.
Then we come to the question of the line agencies and the military that
obviously fall under the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee.
But nevertheless, you will not talk to a military man who is put in
harm's way who will not be telling you about the need for good information.
And that gets us into the questions of tactical intelligence, support
to military operations, what we call JMIP, Joint Military Intelligence
Program.
We have levels and tiers of the way we break this out. It causes problems
right now. They are, in fact, effected primarily on the basis of the
chemistry among the players involved more than on any very clear lines
that are out there. And they are working very well, because I get along
with Duncan Hunter fine, and I get along with our counterparts on the
other side, and of course when we get to the subject of other agencies
like the FBI, we are then talking with Chairman Sensenbrenner.
So you take a look at the other Chairmen that we have to deal with in
the authorizing side, and you discover there are a number of Chairmen
that we are accountable to, we have shared interests, and where those
lines are drawn is not always clear.
We have taken the position on our committee, and we would like to reiterate
it again today, that the right way to do this is to clearly make known
to all hands that the intelligence portfolio is exclusively the prerogative
of the Select Committee on Intelligence in the House and the Senate,
and that is because of statutory arrangements as well as the working
trust arrangements that we have developed with the Intelligence Community.
We have the oversight and resource responsibilities for both. It is
critical that they trust us and that we trust them.
When we ask them for classified information, we claim that we have the
right to go anywhere and there is nothing that they should hold back
from us with the possible exception of materials that are privileged
in the executive branch that are obviously what I will call working
papers of the President or something like that. But when I am talking
about in the normal course of business and the exercise of intelligence,
the national foreign intelligence program, we can go anywhere we want.
And in return for that, the Intelligence Community has to be assured
that we are smart enough and good enough and understand our responsibility
well enough not to either unwittingly or for some other agenda reason
release information that could be harmful to the United States or its
interests. And indeed, we are talking about people whose lives may very
well depend on it, and, in fact, sadly there is history in the short
50 some years of our intelligence experience overseas where we have
had casualties because information did leak from the United States.
Mr. Linder. Bill Buckley?
Mr. Goss. Excuse me?
Mr. Linder. Bill Buckley.
Mr. Goss. That would be one. Dick Welch, also in Athens,
is pretty well documented. It is a sad story.
So we take the responsibility seriously, and it does justify the claim.
And I think that the rules are right on that we have made it very clear
that intelligence is the prerogative of the Intelligence Committee and
should stay that way.
Now, that doesn't mean that we don't want other Members to have maximum
transparency to information that is useful to them in their decision-making,
representing their committee work, national policies, their views on
it, or their districts, obviously. And we reach out to Members and other
committees to make sure that there are ways that we can brief them,
keep them informed, do all that. We are not trying to create a mystique
or a cult here or anything like that. We are just trying to do or responsibilities.
As you know, our committee operates out of a SCIF and normally operates
in closed session, not always. We are sometimes able to have open hearings.
We get to the next line, which is the line about how do we deal with
the appropriators, and we have to deal with -- I think there are three
appropriations cardinals we have to deal with now in our budget. As
you know, our budget is not public. It is hidden. It is a stealth budget,
as it were. It is blended in with other budgets, and when you look at
the list of the 15 agencies, you will see that we have the Department
of Energy, and we have obviously the military. We have obviously the
Attorney General. We have the Secretary of the Treasury. We have the
State Department, and Homeland Security now. And then, of course, we
have the big agencies out there, the 800-pound gorillas, the NRO, the
NSA, and now the NGA, which used to be called NIMA, the National Imagery
and Mapping Agency, which is a bunch of things that are pretty secure
that serve us very well.
But when you talk about how you pay for all that, and how you trade
off those payments, we have come to what my third area of concern is,
and that is the area of what I will call being wedged by agendas, other
agendas that are legitimate agendas, but they are agendas where we cannot
play on a level playing field because we cannot come out and compete
or talk publicly. We just simply have to say this is intelligence. This
is about the right amount. We have really looked at that very closely.
Trust us; please accept this number.
That is fine for us, but it is not always the best way to get reelected
if you have to go back home and say, well, I voted for it because the
Intelligence Committee told me it was the right number.
So we do have a little bit of a problem in trying to give assurance
that we have got the authorization and the appropriation lined up with
full understandings of all the programs that are involved. We never
have enough money, of course, for all of the wants and needs, so we
have to prioritize and parcel it out, and that process is a very difficult
process, but it has to be carried on the way we have to do our business;
i.e., talking privately and not being able to really make a public case.
We don't have people coming in and sending letters normally to dear
colleagues and, shall we say, the other expressions of democratic constituency:
phoning in to your Congressman by and large on an informed basis. It
just didn't happen.
Now, Members are invited to come upstairs and read the bill and stuff,
but, frankly, the truth is very few do. So we are in a position where
we are trying to figure out how to bridge the problem, to bridge the
understandings between the authorizers and the appropriators. And the
suggestion we thought for your consideration is that intelligence may
be a special enough case as to where we ought to make a special provision
for combining the authorizing and the appropriating function, and there
are some suggestions as to how that might happen.
I offer that as an idea. I am not wedded to it. I am trying to find
ways to make the system work better so that we don't have hollow authorizations
on one side, or the Intelligence Community thinking they are getting
money here from their authorizing committee and suddenly discovering
the appropriators have given it to another component. And those things
happen. Obviously they will continue to happen. That causes us a lot
of problems, and then we get into reprogramming and a lot of trouble.
The concept of supplemental budgets, it has made the problem -- it has
exacerbated it dramatically this year. So we are opening that door for
discussion among ourselves, and we suggest there might be something
that you as rulemakers with the authority might want to talk more about
or may not. I am not sure where it is going to lead, but I have some
concerns about it.
Those are the three areas that I am concerned about: keeping the lines
clear on the jurisdiction for legitimate reasons; that what is intelligence
stays in the intelligence box, with a clear understanding that we do
our best on outreach where we can, making absolutely certain that we
have experience, continuity, or at least the opportunity for our leaders
to appoint so there is continuity; and thirdly, that we would wrestle
with this question a little bit about how to get better efficiencies,
given how we have to deal with our budget between the appropriators
and the authorizers.
And believe me, I am not complaining, because Jerry Lewis is a fabulous
appropriator and has taken very good care of the community, as has Bill
Young. That happens to be a circumstance of two people who have served
on the committee, the Intelligence Committee, and happen to know it.
I would hate to think what would happen if I had somebody -- had to
deal with an appropriator, no matter how well-intentioned, who we had
to educate on what the Intelligence Community is about.
So those would be my remarks, and I thank you for your patience.
Mr. Linder. Does the Appropriations Committee decide
roughly X billion dollars we give to intelligence? How much we are going
to give to the CIA, how much to the FBI, how much to the Attorney General?
Mr. Goss. The answer to the question is in part yes
and in part no. It depends what funds we are talking about. There is
so much money in the pot, in the 302(b). If the appropriators decide
that the priorities are big Navy, it may be at the expense of the Intelligence
Community. There may be so much of the pot allocated that we cannot
get where we need to get.
So the answer is in part yes and in part no. The appropriators may very
well agree that a certain amount should go to the Intelligence Community.
When we get down to the line item work, we do probably, I think, the
lion's share of that. But the appropriators do get into the projects,
there is no question about that, but not all of them.
Mr. Linder. The FBI used to be considered to be a supercop,
tracking down people better than they do now. Are they moving more toward
the intelligence agency to stop terrorism?
Mr. Goss. Yes. There are two problems in the FBI that
are noteworthy, to answer your question specifically. The first is technologically.
They are eras behind. Culturewise they are well trained, have huge esprit,
and much tradition and practice that says your future is finding criminals,
arresting criminals, prosecuting criminals, and putting them in jail;
and the better you do at that, the more you succeed in the FBI. The
Intelligence Community's proposal, we would like to know who these people
are, wish to talk to them; please don't arrest them. We would like to
keep them out there where we can continue to glean information from
them. We will try and surround them so they can't do any damage, but
we would like to have them keeping the steady flow of information coming
in.
The cultures do not marry very well. What we are trying to do is figure
out a way to create a family center of fusion, which is what TTIC is
now. There is a full commitment and, I think, very noticeable reform,
certainly the commitment for the reform at the top under Director Mueller,
and noticeable progress so far, but is it not going to be done overnight.
And is it easy? No. It is a real tension, and for years there has been
a partial legality is the way I will express it that said, really, you
cannot use intelligence information in your prosecution, and therefore,
you don't want to be talking to each other.
So a wall really did exist. And now we have got the problem of trying
to -- as you see, the trouble with our judicial system is having to
prosecute people like Moussaoui. How do you bring sources into the court
to testify that you want to continue to keep as viable sources which
you can't identify in a transparent judicial system? These are huge
societal questions.
But is the FBI moving in the right way in cooperation? Yes. Is the CIA?
Yes. Are we going to get there in my lifetime? Probably not.
Mr. Linder. TTIC is located at CIA. Is the CIA getting
control over all the information?
Mr. Goss. Control -- exchange of information is better.
The missions are pretty clear. The CIA is not permitted to work in the
United States. It is the foreign intelligence program. As you know,
Americans do not spy on Americans. It is against the law. So now we
have to create the language that says we have got a law enforcement
capability that has the ability to get preventive or preemptive information.
Now, some people might call that information intelligence. Other people
might call it just helpful information for law enforcement. That is
sort of the quandary we are in. And as we debate the PATRIOT Act, that
issue is far from resolved.
Mr. Linder. You relate on a regular basis with the
House Armed Services Committee. Is that how you feel the fusion should
be with the relationship with the Committee on Homeland Security?
Mr. Goss. Yes. I am very comfortable with the Committee
on Homeland Security. I don't know what its final disposition will look
like and how it will function, but I equate the war on terrorism as
a long-term likelihood that Congress should accommodate in some kind
of organizational structure and I testified to be a permanent select
committee is not a bad way to deal with it. The jurisdictional questions
in Homeland Security I think are even more intense than they are in
Intelligence. Intelligence is pretty crystal clear. It is clear. It
is either in the Intelligence portfolio or it isn't. I know where my
lines are at State or INR. Once I get outside of INR I am into policy
stuff. I know where they are in the Defense Department. It is pretty
clear. It is the DIA and it is the services and the G2s, F2s and all
that stuff. I know where they are with the big agencies.
The issue for Homeland Security is not that clear-cut because what Homeland
Security is dealing with is information management and who knows what
a terrorist is, who knows what a threat is; who knows whether it is
just business as usual or whether it is something that -- if it is coming
in through the intelligence system it is pretty clear what we are dealing
with.
Mr. Linder. Do you think there should be a permanent
select committee, or a permanent standing committee?
Mr. Goss. I like the advantage of a select committee
because of the flexibility of melding relationships between chairmen.
But that is probably a preference rather than a judgment.
Mr. Linder. Chairman Dreier has asked a question about
what your reaction is to committees having the ability to file committee
reports when the House is not in session. Currently the house has granted
UC on a case-by-case basis for committees to have until midnight on
a business day when the House is not in session. Further, existing rule
allows for an automatic 2-day window, even on weekends or recesses,
when filing reports whenever the minority has requested a submission
of views.
Would it be helpful to your committee if the House allowed for filing
reports when the House is not in session or during a weekend without
asking UC? And what about longer periods such as the summer district
work period in August?
Mr. Goss. Well, speaking as the Chairman of the Intelligence
Committee I have got to tell you we have a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day
job. We do a number of things. We look at sore-spot information. We
look at threats. We look at things happening. The rules we have with
the Intelligence Community are if something of significance is going
to happen in the community, they are required to notify us, so we have
a notification process in play as well. And sometimes, whether we are
in session or not -- and in fact I am quite often here dealing with
that, staff certainly is -- it is useful for us to have the opportunity
to lay something on the record.
And I would suggest that that might be helpful to us. I haven't given
it a lot of thought. My view is that the more timeliness we have in
our business to find ways to help Members understand things that are
going on, the better it is, because our business is to give the best
possible information to our decision makers to make sure that we have
the capability and transparency to do that to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. McGovern. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Linder. I will yield to you.
Mr. McGovern. I guess my question -- I know you have
asked on behalf of Chairman Dreier several times that question. You
can get unanimous consent if there is a problem. We could pass a rule.
We met this morning at 7:00. So if there is a problem --
Mr. Linder. I think he is talking about summer recesses
and things like that.
Mr. Goss. That is the way I took the question, as to
mean when we are not here and in session. If I misunderstood, the question
I am sorry.
Mr. McGovern. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Let
me -- just a lot of my questions were the same questions that Mr. Linder
had. But let me just follow up on one point so I am clear. It seems
that one of the biggest problems with Homeland Security is a lack of
intelligence and other intergovernmental information sharing. And if
a Homeland Security Committee is established but does not contain the
CIA or the FBI, how does intelligence information sharing get resolved?
Mr. Goss. Well, it gets resolved the same way that
it gets resolved now with the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services
Committee. We quite often brief them with the concurrence of the Intelligence
Community. The same way with the appropriators. There is sort of a group
of Chairmen and Ranking Members who are invited in when it is a matter
that seems to overlap from -- it is clearly intelligence so it comes
through our channel, but there is clear Member interest and overlap
and jurisdictional concern in other committees, we make sure that there
is no ambushing, there is no short-circuiting. We are very careful to
try and keep that network going.
Maybe a good example I could give you would be the 9/11 review that
was done by the House and Senate committees. The fact that they were
joint is interesting but not relevant to what I am trying to say. What
I am trying to say, that both Chambers decided that the place to start
the 9/11 review was with the Intelligence Committees for a simple reason:
There is a lot of classified information. Now, we also knew there was
-- a lot of information that was not classified. So the question was
let's start with the people who are dealing with the classified information,
give them the responsibility, but they have the further responsibility
to outreach to all the other interested parties and make sure they do
get that information. And I think we discharged that very well and I
think that is still ongoing in the 9/11 Commission. They are following
up things with Chairmen of these standing committees on other subjects
like -- that we didn't get into, like transportation and the FAA and
that kind of stuff.
So I think that the ground rules are absolute. Sure, a part of it is
chemistry, and you know that will always be a factor. But my view is
that there is a way to draw a pretty clear line that will end border
skirmishing on jurisdictional matters as long as it is clear what that
line is.
It is harder for Homeland Security, I admit. I am speaking for Intelligence
here. I can tell you whether it is Intelligence or not from where it
came from.
Mr. McGovern. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Goss. Thank you very much. Appreciate your consideration.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Chairman, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES F. SENSENBRENNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I have a lengthy formal statement which I would like to include
in the record.
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Because I am sure you will appreciate
me not reading it.
Mr. Linder. I will be thrilled for you not reading
it.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am pleased to appear before the
Subcommittee on Technology and the House to testify concerning Rule
X. To summarize my position briefly, I believe that the Committee on
the Judiciary should retain jurisdiction over all matters that it currently
has. While I am not opposed to a Committee on Homeland Security as such,
I believe that the proponents of such a committee have the burden of
proving that a distinct Homeland Security Committee is an overall benefit
to Congress and the country. Today I don't believe that burden has been
satisfied.
Aside from the Homeland Security Committee issue, I believe that there
are a number of ways in which Rule X can be clarified to strengthen
the committee's jurisdiction and lessen the number of jurisdictional
disputes.
My written testimony consists of two documents. One is the written statement
I submitted at the Select Committee on Homeland Security on March 24,
and it comprehensively covers the homeland security issue. For today's
hearing I submitted an additional statement that covers other rules,
issues, and updates on our work on homeland security issues since March
24.
In my oral testimony I will focus on the homeland security issues. The
Committee on the Judiciary has actively participated in the response
to the 9/11 attacks. That is entirely appropriate because our jurisdiction
includes, “the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal,”
“espionage and counterfeiting,” “civil liberties,”
“immigration and naturalization,” and “subversive
activities affecting the internal security of the United States.”
I believe that the Judiciary Committee’s record demonstrates that
we are best able to meet the challenge in those areas that have been
traditionally within our jurisdiction. The creation of the Department
of Homeland Security touches on the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary in three principal areas: law enforcement agencies at
DHS, Federal and State law enforcement training, and immigration. The
committee has the unique expertise in each of these areas and it should
continue to exercise jurisdiction over them.
The first aspect of the Homeland Security Act that implicates the jurisdiction
of the Committee on the Judiciary is the transfer of law enforcement
agencies and their training activities. The HSA transferred several
criminal law enforcement agencies to DHS: the Secret Service, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Transportation
Security Administration, Federal Protective Service, and the Coast Guard.
The Committee on the Judiciary has general jurisdiction over the Secret
Service and the successors to the INS and it has jurisdiction over the
law enforcement functions of the successors of the Customs Service,
TSA, FPS, and the Coast Guard. The committee also has jurisdiction over
the functions of the former National Infrastructure Protection Center,
the Domestic Emergency Response Team, the law enforcement training activities
of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Office for Domestic
Preparedness.
The Judiciary has had jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement since
1880. This tradition largely derives from the committee’s jurisdiction
over “the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil or criminal”
and “subversive activities affecting the internal security of
the United States,” which was in the committee for a while, then
when the House had a separate UnAmerican Activities Committee, we lost
it; and when the UnAmerican Activities Committee collapsed of its own
volition, the Judiciary Committee got it back.
The committee has played the lead role in the House in criminal law
enforcement policy. We have had an extensive record of legislative oversight
activity that is set forth at length in the written statement. Our committee
has the expertise in these areas, and it simply cannot be matched by
a new committee with a short history. There is more to law enforcement
and training than just security. There is an important balancing to
be done between security and civil liberties. It is dangerous to put
that balancing task in a committee, the primary focus of which is security.
I fear the civil liberties interest would be sacrificed.
Finally, I believe that the Committee on the Judiciary should retain
jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, its prosecutorial activities
and its primary law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. Jurisdiction
over law enforcement agencies in DHS should remain in the same committee
as the DOJ law enforcement agencies. There should be one unified approach
that takes into account the complex balancing that must occur. Having
some agencies under the jurisdiction of the committee that has carefully
balanced civil liberties concerned with law enforcement concerns and
having others under a committee that is focused solely on security is
a prescription for disaster.
Turning to immigration and naturalization, the Committee on the Judiciary
has had jurisdiction over that subject since 1946. In the years since
then, the committee has played an integral role in immigration policy.
It has essentially created modern immigration law. It has an extensive
record of oversight and legislative activity that is set forth in great
length in my full written statement.
As the record and the written statement show, the Committee on the Judiciary
has unparalleled experience and expertise in the immigration area, and
it has demonstrated its ability to identify and remedy the vulnerabilities
in our immigration system that expose our nation to risk. For decades
it has done this work. Since 9/11, it has responded to the call to further
strengthen our immigration policy.
But there is another reason that immigration jurisdiction should remain
with the Committee on the Judiciary. Although countering the terrorist
threat is of significant importance in implementing our immigration
laws, that is not the only issue. Rather, immigration involves much
more than homeland security. It involves reuniting families, providing
needed workers for American businesses, offering haven to refugees,
and deporting those aliens who have broken our laws. Security and legal
immigration must be balanced. We must use our immigration enforcement
powers, both to protect our people from those who break our laws, as
well as to facilitate the admission of legal aliens.
Another complexity of immigration policy is that authority for immigration
policy is spread across four departments: Homeland Security, Justice,
State and Labor. The Judiciary Committee currently has jurisdiction
over each of those components as well as over other agencies of limited
jurisdiction that are charged with carrying out the immigration law.
The variety of concerns involved here cries out for the experience and
expertise of the Committee on the Judiciary. This committee has long
had the responsibility for balancing immigration, law enforcement, terrorism,
and civil rights issues. A committee narrowly focused on security, with
a much shorter history, is not the best place to try to balance these
complex interests. Rather, the Judiciary Committee's experience in dealing
with immigration components counsels in favor of its continued jurisdiction.
I also want to address the argument that the DHS cannot function effectively
if it must report to multiple committees. First, DHS reports to several
committees now. While there is always room for improvement, it is functioning
effectively.
Secondly, every agency in the Federal Government reports to at least
four committees: House authorizing and appropriating committees and
Senate authorizing and appropriating committees. Moreover, many existing
agencies report to more than one authorizing committee in the House.
All of these agencies are able to function effectively within these
arrangements.
The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Homeland
Security have already shown an ability to work together effectively
on projects of mutual interest. We have had two joint hearings. We are
currently working on first responder legislation which the Committee
on the Judiciary reported out yesterday. We are also working together
on DHS reauthorization legislation. Regardless of how this matter is
resolved, if there is a Committee on Homeland Security, either select
or permanent, I expect this working relationship to continue.
In short, DHS is functioning effectively under the current committee
system and can continue to do so in the future. However the question
regarding the future of the House Homeland Security committee is resolved,
I emphatically believe that the Committee on the Judiciary should retain
jurisdiction over all the matters that it now has. We have the experience
and the expertise and over the years we have shown the ability to apply
the unified balanced approach that these issues require. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.
Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. You have been on the committee for over
two decades, haven't you?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Since I first came to Congress 25
years ago I've been on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Linder. In my personal experience in my district
offices, the least functional agency of the Federal Government is the
INS.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. No argument from my district office
either.
Mr. Linder. How many hearings did you have in the last
25 years on oversight of the INS?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Many. And as you may recall, it
was the Committee on the Judiciary that bit the bullet and put together
a bill that split the INS in two as the Jordan Commission recommended
in the early 1990s. And that bill passed this House by a vote of 405
to 9 and ended up getting folded into the DHS bill and transferred over
to DHS. And in addition to the hearings that we have, we send numerous
oversight letters basically to find out what's going on there.
Mr. Linder. Why does nothing work?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. It is a management problem. I will
be real honest with you. Between 1992 and 2002, the appropriation for
the old INS went from about a billion and a half to $5.6 billion. So
they got about a 360 percent of their original appropriation, which
is more than practically any other single agency in the Federal Government
received. And things got worse rather than better.
And I can say that there was a succession of INS commissioners, both
under Republican and Democratic administrations, that really was not
able to get a handle on the bureaucracy in the INS, make them efficient
and set forth a budget plan to computerize, for example, all of the
files of legal entrants that had made petitions for things like work
authorizations and green cards, all the way up to naturalization.
My district is about as far away from the border as you can get, and
the weather in Wisconsin is not conducive to many people who come to
the United States from what they were used to where they came from.
I have six times the number of INS complaints pending in my district
office at any one time as I do IRS complaints. And the IRS deals with
money.
Mr. McGovern. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Linder. Of course.
Mr. McGovern. Must be the cheese in Wisconsin that
all these immigrants are going to. But just let me --
Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have better cheese than your
friends in Vermont, by the way. I will give you some.
Mr. McGovern. But I mean, the complaints that we get
on the INS in my district office are that if somebody calls the INS
they can't get a human being on the phone. It is all, you know, pre-recorded
messages and pressing the first three letters of somebody's last name,
so it is hard for anyone to get a human being. And then the second complaint
is just the backlog; for routine immigration matters, it takes months,
if not years; and there is kind of no relief in sight. And so I don't
know whether that is a lack of personnel to deal with all that, or maybe,
as you say, it is a bad management but --
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. McGovern, I can just talk specifically
about the Milwaukee office of the INS because that's the office that
my district office and my constituents deal with. They haven't had a
permanent district director for a long time. Even when we had a permanent
district director, we had wave after wave of temporary employees. Because
things were so poorly managed, as soon as the temporary employees could
get out and get transferred someplace else, they left. And there was
no real institutional memory at all. And again there is a lack of computerization.
After 9/11, I went to three major ports of entry to do oversight. I
went to San Diego, I went to Miami, and I went to Detroit, which is
the largest land crossing on the northern border. And if you go into
an INS office, you see these file folders like this that are piled from
floor to ceiling. And if there is a need to pull a file folder to see
if something is missing, good luck finding the needle in the haystack.
Mr. McGovern. We often get complaints from people who
submit all their paper work and the files are lost.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And, you know also we get complaints
about the fact that people are fingerprinted and for some reason the
fingerprints get out of date in 15 months. Now, you know, I didn't learn
that in my science class, but I didn't do very well in science when
I was in college.
We are having a hearing on the INS backlog this afternoon in the Immigration
Subcommittee that is headed by Congressman Hostettler, and Representative
Jackson Lee is the Ranking Member. So, we are doing oversight and we
are dealing with this as we speak.
Mr. Linder. With all due respect, when you became Chairman
and put through a bill that was very thoughtful and split the two agencies
-- but there hasn't been very good oversight for the last 20 years on
anything.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. No. And --
Mr. Linder. And oversight is to find these problems,
expose them, and get them fixed.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And, I will publicly criticize here,
as I have in the past, President Bush's appointee to be the Commissioner
of the INS, James Ziegler. Right after he was confirmed by the Senate,
he came into my office and I said that we are going to need legislative
assistance to help you fix it. I was, frankly, told to buzz off, he
was going to do it all by himself. Now I am still here and he is not.
Mr. Linder. At the request of the Rules Committee,
CRS is looking at the issues of the committee that we are talking about
now called homeland security issues. No hearings were held by your committee
after the terrorism in the Pacific Northwest in 1984. One hearing was
held after the world Trade Center bombing in 1993. Two hearings after
the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. And, of course, a great number after
9/11.
That seems to argue to me that a committee focused on homeland security
issues from all aspects would have nothing else to divert its attention.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, as I have stated in my prepared
testimony, when you are dealing with the various aspects of homeland
security, you are dealing with agencies whose task it is, or laws whose
task it is, to deal with issues that are not related to homeland security.
You know, take for example, immigration. You know the Immigration and
Nationality Act determines who can be admitted into the country; 99.9999
percent of the people who enter the United States as either immigrants
or as nonimmigrants do not have a criminal or terroristic intent. And
the same agency that would process them, and hopefully deal with them
in a professional, courteous, and much more prompt manner, are also
the ones that are supposed to attempt to spot people who are coming
into this country to do us harm.
So, how do you deal with doing oversight at the facilities at the Boston
Logan Airport or the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, who are designed to
process people who are coming into our country for perfectly legal and
law-abiding purposes, with legitimate and genuine documents that are
issued by the government of their citizenship, with spotting the people
who are coming here to fly a plane into the Capitol or blow up a shopping
mall?
You know, when you are also dealing with law enforcement agencies like
the FBI, the FBI does have a counterintelligence function. Now, you
know, to split the counterintelligence function off and have budget
authority as well as oversight authority in the Homeland Security Committee
for counterintelligence, but not for the rest of the FBI that doesn't
deal with the terrorism, is going to end up putting up another wall
like the one that we have been talking about that was put up between
the CIA and the FBI in terms of sharing intelligence.
And the final point I would like to make is there are significant civil
liberties components involved in any of these issues. And when we deal
with laws and when we deal with oversight, there has to be a balance
between security needs and civil liberties needs. This is not an easy
line to draw. And it is a line that has to be reviewed constantly, which
is one of the reasons why the House Judiciary Committee put the sunset
clause into the PATRIOT Act, because when we passed the law after 9/11,
we didn't know whether we drew the line in the right place or not, and
we wanted to know how that law worked.
And I guess I will sign off -- you know, you quoted from the CRS report.
The lack of hearings on homeland security subjects took place before
my watch as Chairman. You know, I think that we have been hyperactive
on this, and I can tell you as far as the INS is concerned, former Congressman
Gekas and I were going to have a press conference to announce the bill
to split the INS in two and to set a hearing and markup schedule on
that. The press conference was scheduled for September 12, 2001. And
we had to postpone it for obvious reasons.
Mr. Linder. You made several interesting comments in
your written statement. One that intrigued me was some sanctions when
one committee exceeds its authority and encroaches on another committee
jurisdiction. What should those sanctions be?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I really can't be very specific
on that. As you know, the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce
Committee have had, you know, pulling and tugging, particularly on telecommunications
issues. And one of -- we recognize that the Commerce Committee has got
jurisdiction over the FCC and telecommunications regulation. However,
there are antitrust aspects of telecommunication which we on the Judiciary
Committee, again on a bipartisan basis, feel are very important in providing
low-cost telecommunications services to the public at large.
Monopolies don't provide low-cost services. That goes with the territory.
So this is one of the reasons why we have been adamant, in saying that
antitrust standards should be applied to the telecom industry like they
are applied to everybody else.
And there have been some questions relative to approaches on patents
and copyrights and data base protection and things like that. I guess
my concern is not so much legislatively on that, because if there is
poaching when a bill is reported out of committee, that gets caught
by the Parliamentarian, and the other committees of jurisdiction get
sequential referrals from the Speaker. But in terms of oversight and
in terms of hearing, there has got to, be some kind of a check on poaching
in those two areas like there is on the legislative area when a bill
is reported out.
Mr. Linder. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. Yeah. Just one final question, just to
understand that. So what is your vision of this Homeland Security Committee,
that it just runs out and then we -- the committees, the current committees
then absorb their responsibilities, or do the current committees establish
a Subcommittee on Homeland Security within them?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I don't object to there being a Select
Committee on Homeland Security. And we have developed a fairly professional
working relationship with them. We have a philosophical dispute over
State minimums on first responder grants. That is something that the
House will vote on. We are working on the DHS reauthorization bill in
conjunction with the Committee on Homeland Security. The fear that I
have is that if the Committee on Homeland Security actually becomes
a standing committee with the Rule X jurisdiction, you are going to
have the problems that were outlined in my prepared statement, both
oral and written.
I think we have an urgency basically to clean up and make more efficient
and effective our homeland security operation in a manner that does
not trample on the civil liberties of the American people.
Setting up a new committee with a Rule X jurisdiction is going to have
that essential element ignored, as the existing committee and the new
committee end up jockeying around on what is on one side of the line
and what is on the other.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Let me ask you what I asked Chairman Goss.
With respect to filing and the 2-day window, would it be helpful for
the committee if the House allowed filing of the reports when the House
is not in session, or during a weekend, for a longer period without
asking UC?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have not had a problem with filing
on this. And we have filed very few nonlegislative reports with the
House. I would guess the committees that issue more nonlegislative reports
would have more of a problem. But with the legislative reports, the
committee meets when the House is in session, and if there is a problem
with the 2-day rule, which we give everybody as a matter of course who
are filing dissent or minority or additional reviews, usually what we
do is we pop the report in first thing Monday. If the Rules Committee
wants to meet and grant a rule on the legislation on Monday, the report
is there.
Mr. Linder. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Gentlemen, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Stenholm,
welcome. Happy to have you here.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Linder. If you have a prepared statement we will
be happy to, without objection, make it part of the record; and if you
would like to summarize we would be happy for you to do that, too.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will summarize.
First, before I do that, let me say that we have focused in our recommendations
to the committee on two things: First, homeland security; and second,
three smaller areas but nonetheless important areas that are new, they
are modern. They relate to changes in technology and advances that leave
some issues unaddressed in current rule X.
There are a number of other areas that I believe the Agriculture Committee
could better address and would more appropriately address than where
they retain jurisdiction today. However, unless other committees are
making a major effort to revamp those sorts of things, we are not seeking
to change things like child nutrition, food safety inspection, rural
housing. There are a variety of things that the Agriculture Committee
would have a keen interest in and would probably most appropriately
reflect the needs of rural America than any other committee would, and
would treat them in a different way than another committee that looks
at a number of other issues would.
I would also ask the committee that if there are other committees that
submit requests for big chunks of our jurisdiction, that we get the
opportunity to respond to that and address those if that is appropriate.
Now, turning to the issue that I think is foremost on the committee's
mind, and that is the Homeland Security. We have basically two areas
that Homeland Security has an interest in and we believe we should retain
jurisdiction over. First is the Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection
Service as it relates to border control.
Mr. Linder. Is that APHIS?
Mr. Goodlatte. Right. And second, it is the Plum Island
Research Facility. That facility has been transferred to the Department
of Homeland Security. Our concern is primarily centered around the fact
that the Agriculture Committee has a long history of maintaining very,
very strong expertise in an area that has an overlap between homeland
security issues and broader, purer agricultural issues.
For example, as our one face of the border program attempts to restrict
bioterrorism, which is obviously a major concern, there is an even greater
danger that has been ongoing for a long period of time and will continue,
and that is the inadvertent admission at various times of invasive species,
diseases, a wide variety of animals, plants, insects and so on. We maintain
on our committee veterinarians, individuals with Ph.D.'s in biosciences,
people with degrees in animal sciences, and a wide variety of other
expertise that we don't think the Homeland Security Committee, with
its broad array of duties with relation to homeland security, will ever
be able to maintain.
The understanding we reached, when the legislation was originally crafted
setting it up, retained in the Department of Agriculture, and with us
as well, the ability to write and implement the policy that is carried
out by the Department of Homeland Security.
There are certain benefits and advantages to having the one face at
the border, with the ability to place more people in more places, and
they are looking out not only for animal plant and health violations
but also for immigration concerns and customs concerns. But there has
to be -- and we have fought very hard throughout this process to maintain
the Department of Homeland Security having a strong contingency in this
area and that we be looked to as the folks who can tell them what the
policy issues are.
I did not bring all of my charts of the various types of things that
enter the country, not just food products, but handicrafts and almost
any kind of import can contain things that are a threat to American
agriculture. And therefore for us to lose jurisdiction over establishing
the policy that stands behind that is of great concern to us. We believe
that a department whose main function is law enforcement is not going
to give that kind of attention to these kinds of concerns.
The other three areas that I would like to mention to you briefly that
we think need some clarification are biomass energy, food and fiber
biotechnology, and rural broadband technology. The committee requests
the codification of House rule X of our jurisdiction over agriculture-derived
energy sources, commonly referred to as biomass. It has been statutorily
defined as any organic material that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis and is composed of agriculture crops, trees grown for
energy production, wood waste, wood residue, plant residue, fibers,
animal waste and other waste materials, and fats oils and greases.
Our reason for asking for this is that this is very much integrated
with agriculture. What you do with waste for example, what you do with
the products being used to create energy, is very much related to those
same products being used to create a food supply, and therefore our
jurisdiction in this area is important to us and is a new area that
hasn't been clarified and we think should be.
Second, similarly with biotechnology issues, we believe that this should
be a part of the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction list. This is
limited to food and fiber biotechnology. We are not trying to get into
health sciences and that sort of thing, but again very interrelated
to the production of corn and soybeans and so on is the production of
biotech altered corn and soybeans. It is very important to the agriculture
community that this be clarified and retained in the committee.
And, finally, rural broadband. Continuing with our technology theme,
Committee on Agriculture jurisdiction includes rural affairs. It is
something that is very important. We are the committee that speaks for
rural America in terms of examining policy issues. We are the committee
that looks in to make sure that when another committee is acting in
an area that deals for the entire society, that rural America is not
overlooked in that regard.
And the local satellite legislation that passed the Congress a few years
ago was an Agriculture Committee primary jurisdiction product because
it is overseen by the Rural Utility Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, which started out with telephones and wastewater treatment
facilities and so on. But for rural America to keep up with the rest
of America it needs to be engaged in promoting the use of new technologies,
including, most importantly, broadband technology. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I associate myself totally with the Chairman's comments, and would just add two or three other observations.
The House Agriculture Committee has a long-standing, and, I believe, earned the reputation of working together bipartisanly, second to no other committee. And I think that is the key, and the key to when we start looking at jurisdictions.
Now, I did not believe that the creation of a Homeland Security Committee was a good idea at the time, but some of the things we objected to, APHIS for example, ultimately came back under the jurisdiction of the House Ag Committee, where it should be.
One of the outside witnesses asked the question during the hearings last year, is the issue of homeland security important enough to warrant a separate committee focused exclusively on the policies, programs, and problems of homeland security? I believe the correct question should have been, is the issue of homeland security important enough to warrant getting our policies right? And getting policies right mean we, as Members of Congress, need to spend a little bit more time in oversight of those things that we have jurisdiction of.
For example, last week the chairman convened some oversight on country of origin labeling, and we had a full committee -- or we have introduced a bill regarding this, because we are working now to solve a problem that is rather controversial and we are trying to do it in a bipartisan way.
We also had an oversight hearing this past week regarding Iraq and food, which gets into both our committees' jurisdiction, but also into other committees' jurisdiction. But the bottom line is, Iraq, in getting food and developing their own food capabilities, that is something that the Ag Committee has a little bit of knowledge of, and, therefore, we performed our oversight responsibilities.
Again, on rule X, I agree with the chairman. I think we ought to take a little better look at often not-used rule XII, and that is dealing with ad hoc committees. Many times you can solve some of these problems with an ad hoc committee, in which you get all of the committees that have jurisdiction to sit down and to provide some oversight and work together in an ad hoc fashion.
And the reason I say that is better, because, you know, it is I think a good idea for this Rules Committee to take a look at another rule that has kind of been waived, and that is House rules were amended to limit each Member to two committee assignments. Right now, we have 125 Members of the House that serve on three or more committees. We should strive to achieve the goal of a two-committee limit. Because if you are really going to do the job, whether in this case it is Homeland Security or Oversight, no one contends that you can serve on as many committees and do your job.
In fact, the chairman and I were rather lonely through most of the hearing on Iraq, on food. It is very difficult to get Members, and I think this could be one of the most helpful rules changes that we could have. Smaller committees and less committee assignments and more concentration on oversight. So I add those.
I have a written statement here which the chairman basically outlined the same positions.
Mr. Linder. We will make them both part of the record, without objection.
Mr. Linder. Defend for me why Agriculture should be
in forests and not Resources.
Mr. Goodlatte. In forests? Well, first of all, forests are
a major, major agricultural crop in this country. This is something
that occurs both on public lands and on private lands. The Committee
on Resources has an interest in our Nation's public lands, but in terms
of the production of forests, the fact of the matter is that most farmers,
in my part of the world, also have woodlots. So that is certainly one
very direct relationship that occurs.
Mr. Linder. Would you encourage Resources to get out of the
business?
Mr. Goodlatte. Would I encourage them to get out of the business?
Mr. Linder. Or change rule X and do all the forests dividing
public versus nonpublic, and let one of these committees have them or
just join them?
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I certainly believe that the Agriculture
Committee reflects the multiple use purpose of our national forests,
and I would argue that that should continue. I wouldn't want to speak
to the Resources; position. They have national parks, and so on.
Mr. McGovern. This is all off the record, so you can say what
you want.
Mr. Goodlatte. I doubt that. But I will just say that
unless you are going to move the entire U.S. Forest Service out of the
Department of Agriculture, I think it makes no sense to maintain a break
or to create a break between the committee that has jurisdiction over
the Department of Agriculture and a key and integral part of agriculture
in America.
Mr. Linder. Isn't the Forest Service the largest part of Agriculture?
Mr. Goodlatte. It is a big part of it. I don't know overall,
but it is certainly a big part of it. And, in our opinion, if you would
break that tie, you would be lending credence to those who believe that
our forests are something that do not include -- because I would include
other uses in our forests, but do not include fiber as a very, very
important part of our agricultural industry in this country, including
coming out of our national forests, not just out of private lands.
Mr. Stenholm. Trees are an agricultural product. Wood products
are an agricultural product. There is no difference to me in a tree,
in a cotton, a wheat plant, or a corn plant. And I point out that in
agriculture we are very serious about conserving the soil and water
in which commodities grow. Same application that the House Agriculture
Committee gives to our forests.
There is always an inherent difference between those who look at forests
as being something different other than wood to build houses with. I
submit that the Agriculture Committee does a good job in the area of
other crops that grow on land and it is common sense to keep the two
together.
Mr. Linder. Transportation and Infrastructure also
has an interest in stream and soil erosion. Should they?
Mr. Stenholm. Yes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Certainly as it pertains to building highways
and other forms of transportation, they should have an interest in that.
But in terms of the overall impact, there is no doubt that man's agricultural
uses of billions of acres of land in this country is the No. 1 place
where you have soil and water issues. So it is vitally important that
we have a jurisdictional role in meeting that.
And let me point out that on this committee you have representatives
from rural America that work, as Mr. Stenholm points out, in a bipartisan
fashion to make sure that that ability continues.
Mr. Stenholm. I had an unfortunate happening in my
home community. We had a county government jurisdiction that made some
decisions regarding where they put some drainage, and it ended up changing
the directional flow of water. Hindsight being 20/20, we should have
had the Soil Conservation Service, now the NRCS, should have been involved
and looking at this changed diking and daming in order to avoid a flood
problem in one location that created a massive problem in another location.
Therefore, I would argue strenuously that when you talk about building
highways, that, yes, there is a direct relationship between where you
build a road and how deep you dig the ditches, where you put the covers,
where you redirect as you change it, but that needs to be done in the
context of an overall conservation plan for a watershed. If you do it
strictly from the standpoint of building a highway, you will get in
trouble.
But if you do it from the standpoint that we are accustomed to doing
it in agriculture, looking at a watershed, and I say accustomed, we
have a little ways to go to getting to a perfect system, but we do a
pretty darn good job of looking at the big picture that affects the
cities as well as the farmer.
Mr. Linder. How often in a year does Agriculture Committee
get involved in a joint referral or a sequential referral?
Mr. Goodlatte. I have to ask my counsel. I think we get quite
a few. Several a week.
Mr. Linder. Several a week?
Mr. Goodlatte. Yes.
Mr. Linder. So for both of you, the system is working?
Mr. Goodlatte. I think for the most part, yes. I think the
committee which has a reputation for working in bipartisan fashion for
itself also has a reputation for working with other committees. And
I don't think you will find some of the same tensions that arise in
other areas between other committees.
Mr. McGovern. Are you through?
Mr. Linder. Go ahead
Mr. McGovern. First, thank you for your testimony and thank
you for all your suggestions, and I think this is very helpful to us.
But let me kind of raise another issue that I raise repeatedly which
I think is equally important as we talk about jurisdiction and rules
and who should be responsible for what.
The fact of the matter is, there should be a rule that forces whoever
is in control of the House, in other words, Republicans this year or
hopefully Democrats next year, or whoever it is, that they have to respect
and follow the rules, the spirit of the rules. It seems to me that jurisdictions
are being trampled over all the time.
Today we are debating this FSC/ETI bill. And a part of that bill, if
I am not mistaken, really falls under your jurisdiction. And I don't
know what the deal was so that you don't act on it, but it just seems
that is not the way this is supposed to work. We had a bill a couple
of days ago before the committee that was introduced, referred to the
committee of jurisdiction, but no hearings held, no markup held, and
it is on the floor. It is a pretty big bill that has significant implications.
People, whether Democrats or Republicans, who serve on these committees,
fight to get on these committees, and they try to develop an expertise
for a reason, so they can make legislation better, amend it, change
it, whatever, so that when it goes before the full House you have a
better product. And I guess what I am worried about is this discussion
that we are having here is all fine and nice, but at the end of the
day, it may not mean as much if we become more and more leadership driven.
Again, it just so happens that the Republicans are in control this year.
I hope to say this to the Democrats when they are in control at some
point as well, that there needs to be some insistence that we follow
the rules, and the committees of jurisdiction are able to do their jobs.
There should be an outcry when those rights are trampled on.
I would be interested in your comments, because today, again, there
is a bill --
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me address the tobacco. I will be
happy to do that. First of all, thank goodness we do have a Rules Committee
that really means something as opposed to on the other side of the Capitol
where, the fact of the matter is almost anything can be attached to
anything. We do, in our committee, very much respect that, and we communicate
regularly with this committee to let you know when we think somebody
is trampling on the jurisdiction of our committee.
There are occasions that arise when it is not possible to move something
through our committee because, for one thing, one of our rules separates
the people with the money from the people with the ability to authorize.
So in our case, we have never had the ability to move legislation to
get rid of what we think is a bad program and needs to go, the Tobacco
Program, and have not had the means to pay for it.
Now, in these circumstances, we suddenly find ourselves with, for all
kinds of reasons that I am sure you are as aware of as I am, the desire
to move that legislation, the desire to move other legislation, but
no money to pay for that. So it has resulted in the Ways and Means Committee
moving to the Rules Committee with a proposal that includes that.
But I will say they have done that in consultation with me, with my
staff, and that this is legislation that I feel very comfortable with.
I would feel even more comfortable if I had the ability to say here
is how we would like to do it, which is very close to what they have
done, and here is how we will pay for it. We don't have that ability
at all times, and, therefore, sometimes you have to have cross jurisdictional
work, which we have done. We have exchanged letters with the Ways and
Means Committee on this particular topic.
But there have been plenty of times when I agree exactly with your point,
and I think you will find the Agriculture Committee raises points of
order and asks the Rules Committee to allow us to raise points of order
on jurisdictional issues many, many times, and we do.
Mr. McGovern. I appreciate the fact that you and your staff
are consulted. I don't know whether -- I had in mind the whole committee
being consulted. And I think that is one of the things that I think
I get worried about. I appreciate the compliment on the Rules Committee,
and I am happy to serve on this committee, but increasingly, this committee
is becoming more and more and more important in terms of what bills
look like when they come to the floor.
I am not sure that is the way this is supposed to work. Maybe if I was
the chairman of the Rules Committee, I would like all that power. But
in a perfect world, it diminishes the work of the committee. It takes
away some of the influence of the chairman and the ranking members,
and I think it is a bad trend.
I guess people in the minority are expected to scream about that a little
more, but I would like to think there would be more concern about it
expressed by those in the majority.
Mr. Goodlatte. I think it is a point well taken. And I would
say overall I agree with much of your philosophy. I think there are
exceptions, though, when the impossibility of doing something doesn't
eliminate the desirability of working together amongst committees. But
I think it is the exception, rather than the rule.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. Stenholm. I would say specifically regarding tobacco, I
agree with the chairman's analysis of what was doable and not doable.
In the case of the committee, I believe I am safe in saying that all
of the minority were informed. And when I acquiesced to the same thing
the chairman did, as far as jurisdiction, we did it in a bipartisan
way for all of the reasons the chairman has outlined.
I share your frustration, and I spoke very strongly against this rule
today, because I believe that the leadership erred in the manner in
which they interpreted it. Because I believe that it is really stretching
the point when you do not allow the minority to offer a substitute dealing
with the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee not getting into
the Agriculture Committee. I thought that was proper, and I really believe
that the manner in which the leadership interpreted that was wrong and
is a very unhealthy direction for the workings of the House, no matter
who is in control. And I expressed that and we lost.
I have had 25 years that I have been here, and I used to have the same
frustration with my party when we were in the majority. And as long
as they could deny the Republicans a substitute and still pass it, they
did. But when it also was something I was interested in, I was perfectly
willing to come forward and say to my leadership, no, this is not right.
And we made some real progress in that. That is what is lacking today.
You know, term limits was a great idea 8 years ago, but it is not as
good an idea today. I was opposed to it 8 years, I am opposed to it
today. Concentration of power in the hands of a chairman is bad, but
worse is concentration of power in the Speaker's Office. That is worse.
And that is what we are seeing in the House as it is currently being
run. And until we can find other committees willing to stand and work,
as Bob and I do, regarding our jurisdictions and the challenge you have
taken on, which I applaud you for, and I want to be, in the minority,
helpful with you in developing new rules, if required, but just enforcing
some pretty good old rules from time to time is not a bad way, and it
would do more.
Remember the farm bill? Controversial? You better believe. We worked
on it for 2 years. But when it came to the floor, twice we had two-thirds
Democrats, two-thirds Republican. Now, that is the way the legislative
process should work. What we are about to vote on in a little bit is
a horrible process, a terrible bill, that I might vote for. Because
of what? We have to keep the process moving. We have a FSC problem that
needs to be solved.
Now, we can fuss about it and we can do all the things being done, and
legislating is not the most perfect art, but I applaud you for what
you are attempting to do here. I hope we will find some bipartisan backbone
after November 2nd, no matter who wins, to put some rules and some just
plain good manners back into the operation of the House. Forget the
partisanship. We are always going to be partisan. But if everything
you do has to be structured for a partisan win, you get what we are
getting, and I submit the American people don't like what they see.
Mr. Linder. I want to ask one question that the chairman has
asked me to ask each of you.
Currently, the House grants UC on a case-by-case basis for committees
to have until midnight on a business day when the House is not in session
to file committee reports. Further, existing rule allows for an automatic
2-day window, even on weekends or recesses, for the filing of reports
whenever the minority has requested the submission of views.
Would it be helpful to your committee if the House allowed for the filing
of reports when the House is not in session or during the weekend without
asking for a UC?
Mr. Goodlatte. I have not encountered difficulties under the
current rules. I can foresee some circumstance when that might be useful,
but I don't know enough about what difficulties that poses in terms
of the scheduling of the movement of legislation.
We have, again, always tried to make sure that people had ample opportunity
to get reports in, and we have no objection to their having that ample
time. So we always like to have the access to such time, but if it poses
other problems in terms of acting judiciously, we would reserve our
judgment.
Mr. McGovern. Are there examples of what the chairman is referring
to? I'm trying to see what problem we are trying to fix.
Mr. Stenholm. I am not aware of a problem, and my staff informs
that they are not, but if we have a little time to think about, there
may be a problem out there we haven't found. But I am not aware of any
problem in that regard.
Mr. Linder. Thank you both. I appreciate your being here.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there may not be a problem
now, but we can sure go find one, if you want us to.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
Chairman Barton, do you want to step up? Mr. Dingell is coming.
Mr. Barton. He is supposed to be here.
Mr. Barton. Do you want to defer until he gets here?
Mr. Linder. We will go ahead, Mr. Chairman, and start with
you, and then Mr. Dingell can join us.
Thank you for coming. If you have a prepared statement you want to make
part of the record, it will be added to the record, without objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. I will just ask that both my statement and Mr.
Dingell's statements be made part of the record, and I will briefly
summarize.
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
Mr. Barton. I have been chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee about 2 months. We are active. We are doing a number
of things legislatively. We have passed some health care bills that
have been on the floor. We have had all of our cabinet secretaries come
up to do oversight or general overviews of their agencies. We have a
number of oversight investigations underway. There is one today that
chairman Greenwood is holding on the E-RATE scandal. We have raised
about $13 billion in user fees since 1997. There is quite a bit of evidence
that a large share of that money has been wasted, so we have a hearing
going on on that right now.
Mr. Linder. Have they done a hearing in Atlanta?
Mr. Barton. Yes. And then, of course, on the bigger issues,
we are very active on the Medicare issue, very active on the energy
issue. We have passed one of our energy bills this week. We are going
to continue to do that. We have a number of bills that have passed the
House that we are waiting on action of the Senate, the indecency bill,
public indecency on the airwaves would be one. We passed a bill out
of subcommittee today on spyware that is, I think, going to become law
very soon. That was a bipartisan bill. I mean, there is absolutely no
negative debate about it at all.
So I think the committee has made a smooth transition from Chairman
Tauzin and myself. Even though Mr. Dingell is not here, I want to say
I am in support of his activities. He has been a delight to work with.
When he is with me, it is a joy, and when he's against me, it is still
exciting because he is so professional. As he comes in right now.
Mr. Linder. We were just hearing compliments for Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Linder, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. Barton. When we get to changing the rules in the
next Congress, we like the fact that we can do suspensions of the rules
on Wednesdays. That helps my committee a lot, because we tend to be
bipartisan and we tend to get a lot of the less controversial bills
done on voice votes, and it is very helpful to have the ability to come
up on Wednesday on the suspension calendar. So I hope you will continue
to do that.
In terms of rule X, we are not interested in ceding any more jurisdiction
from the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have lost securities at the
start of, I think, the 106th Congress, we lost railroads, we have lost
a number of major issues. We want to start gaining some of that back.
So if you want to give us jurisdiction, we will take it, but we are
not interested in losing any more.
In terms of creating a Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security,
I oppose that. I hope that you all will see fit not to create a permanent
committee. If you don't, I am going to create a Homeland Security Subcommittee.
I currently have five authorizing subcommittees, and then an oversight
and investigation subcommittee, which means I have six. So I would request
to have seven subcommittees in this Congress. There are a number of
committees, full committees, that have more than six subcommittees.
So I would ask to do that.
I think other than to say on the homeland security issue, we have held
a number of hearings, we have passed a number of bills. All of my subcommittees
are doing homeland security hearings this summer. I have asked each
of my subcommittees to do at least three, and we expect that that is
going to happen.
We have passed a first responder bill out of committee. The BioShield
bill came out of committee. We had joint referral on the PATRIOT Act.
And I think under anybody's estimation, the Energy and Commerce Committee
has acted very responsibly on homeland security.
Mr. Dingell and I have held a number of -- been briefed privately on
classified material from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and so we
are working together on that. And with that, I would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I ask unanimous consent
my full statement be inserted in the record.
Mr. Linder. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, out of mercy for my friends here
in this great committee, my remarks will be brief and will be a summary
of my statement.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to commend and to congratulate the Homeland
Security Committee on the work that they have done. We are very grateful
for that. I also wish to echo the remarks of my respected chairman and
friend, Mr. Barton. I would observe that our committee has a long history
of diligent and vigorous application to the business that is assigned
to it: Legislation, oversight, and other matters. And if you will look
at the history of this committee, it has a great history of addressing
the business of the House in a proper and a responsible way. And under
the leadership of Mr. Barton, we have carried forward that tradition.
His comments to the committee, as I mentioned, do have my full support
and do reflect the business and the attitude of the membership of our
committee. There was a place in the halls of Congress for a Homeland
Security Committee. That place has now vanished, and the function of
the regular committees in carrying out their proper responsibilities
should be adequate to see to it that anything that needs to be done
in this area is widely and wisely and thoroughly and vigorously addressed.
I would note that if you are a lover of confusion and overlap of time
and resources wasted, setting up new committees is usually a fine way
to do it. The Peter principle tells us that when you can't figure out
what to do about a problem, set up a committee to study it. And as Mr.
Barton and I can tell you, on the basis of our experience, these kind
of devices will create a fine level of confusion and appearance, at
least for a while, of something useful being done. At the conclusion
of which time, however, we will find that there is no really useful
service.
If you will look, you will find there has been relatively little business
of a legislative character conducted by this committee. You will find
that they have provided a useful mechanism for coordination of the business
of the House. That was done largely under the auspices of the Office
of the Speaker, who has provided the leadership in seeing to it that
these matters were properly coordinated, something which went on well
before the creation of this particular Committee on Homeland Security.
Our committee has never been criticized for being less than vigorous
in addressing its business or in dealing with the questions before it.
And if you look, you will find that almost every issue that has been
before the Homeland Security Committee, which lies in the jurisdiction
of the Commerce Committee, was under vigorous consideration in our committee,
and we really did not need any additional help on this matter. Our expertise
in these matters, because of long experience here, is something which
enabled us to serve the House well and to address the legislative questions
well.
I would point out that on emotional issues, like homeland security,
having a committee which has a measure of wisdom and experience both
in how the matter should be handled legislatively and substantively
is a useful thing. To set up two committees, one of which will know
how to do the job and one of which will not, is not the way to resolve
difficult legislative questions.
Our committee has been vigorous in its oversight. It has a long history
of that during the days I was chairman. I am satisfied it will have
the same vigorous approach to these matters under the leadership of
my good friend, Mr. Barton. And I am equally satisfied that we will
satisfy the House both with our work product in terms of quality, and
in terms of volume, and also in terms of the speed with which we will
address the business of the House.
I would observe to you that setting up another committee will do very
little to speed that process, but rather will probably give us a new
level of bureaucratic disputes and differences, which is particularly
unneeded on these matters.
Having said these things, I think you would note that our committee
has a long institutional knowledge of the business before us. The same
situation is true with regard to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the other committees which have responsibilities
in these areas. And I think you will find each of them will essentially
make the same presentation to this committee, and that is that there
is really no need for this entity.
Although I do want to express again, Jim, my appreciation for the work
which they have done, and we can now allow that committee to lapse and
we can get down to the business of legislating without the unfortunate
responsibility of trying to resolve conflicts with another committee
which has just been created and the costs that will be associated, both
financially and otherwise.
Having said that, there are a number of jurisdictional questions which
I refer to in my statement to the committee, including some of the reorganizations.
And as I mentioned, the Peter principle also gives you the statement
that you don't know what else to do with other matters, one of the early
things you should do is to reorganize. That will create a sufficient
level of confusion that it will look like work is being done.
So having said these things, I thank you for your courtesy. If you have
questions, I will be pleased to respond. And I want to make it very
plain I am very supportive of what my chairman has told you today.
Mr. Linder. Thank you. You referred to issues that
have arisen since September 11 that might fall in the purview of your
committee and that were already under vigorous consideration. What were
those issues?
Mr. Barton. We did a bioterrorism bill and a BioShield
bill. That came out of our committee. The first responder bill originated
in Mr. Cox's select committee. Had he not done it, we would have done
it in our committee. All of the issues dealing with the security of
nuclear power plants, with our refinery complex, our waterways, the
securities of our waterways, those are all issues we have either legislated
on our held hearings on.
We have jurisdiction over all the nuclear power plants in this country,
and that is some of the classified briefings Mr. Dingell and I participated
in with the chairman of the NRC.
Mr. Dingell. Our chairman has made a very wise observation.
All the questions relative to health, first responders, security at
nuclear and chemical plants, enforcement of laws relative to those matters
have been under vigorous consideration by our committee. And we have
been pressing, for example, the EPA to address the situations with regard
to safety at chemical plants and institutions of that kind.
We have been vigorously pressing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission towards
proper action in those areas. This has gone further than just briefing,
but has involved consideration of legislation in our committee which
has, in fact, become law, which has, in fact, addressed the question
of the behavior of the NRC with regard to the safety of nuclear facilities,
a matter which is, as you know, Mr. Chairman, a matter of very significant
concern.
We have also dealt with health questions, SARS and some of the more
exotic kinds of bacterial and viral agents that could be used for terrorist
acts and activities. So I am able to appear before you very comfortable
with the high level of effective work our committee has done in these
times of business.
Mr. Barton. We have a 5-page list of legislative accomplishments
and hearings we have held.
Mr. Linder. Is this part of your statement?
Mr. Barton. It is a formal part of the statement.
Mr. Linder. We will make it part of the record.
Your committee has, perhaps more than any other committee, overlapping
jurisdictions.
Mr. Barton. That is true.
Mr. Linder. How do you get along with that?
Mr. Barton. Well, we wish we had more jurisdiction.
If you want to consolidate all of the committees and let Mr. Dingell
and I take care of it with the authorization, we would love to do it.
Mr. Linder. What would you do to minimize the overlap?
Mr. Barton. Seriously, I don't think you can. Because
of the complexity of the economy, the Energy and Commerce Committee,
by definition, we have all interstate commerce. So we are going to have
a hand in just a little bit of everything.
Obviously, on ag issues, the Committee on Agriculture is preeminent;
on the transportation issues, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
but we have some jurisdiction.
The good news is that Mr. Dingell, on his side, and myself on our side,
I think, has a great personal relationship with the chairman and leadership,
and in his case the ranking member and the leadership. So I am not aware
that we have had any major discontinuities with these overlaps. But
I think I have to be honest and say there are overlaps.
Mr. Linder. Why do you think you need to have a say
on fish and food inspections?
Mr. Barton. Why do we need to have a say on what?
Mr. Linder. Fish and food inspections.
Mr. Barton. Because some of that is in interstate commerce,
the food products. Food labeling is an issue under our consumer protection
subcommittee that we have jurisdiction over.
Mr. Linder. If a permanent committee is not created,
as both of you have suggested, how would you propose that the rules
and precedents operate for the designation of a primary committee for
homeland security issues?
Mr. Barton. I think you would differentiate to some
degree between civilian and military. Obviously, if it is a military
issue, you have the Intelligence Committee and you have got the Armed
Services Committee. If it is a civilian issue, I think Energy and Commerce
Committee would have an excellent case to make that we should be primary
jurisdiction.
We passed the PATRIOT Act. That is something that originated largely
in our committee. The Bioterrorism Act I talked about. Homeland Security
Act. And on the nuclear side, Price Anderson has been under our jurisdiction
for probably 30 years.
So as I have already pointed out, if you do not create a permanent committee,
Mr. Dingell and I both support creation of a Homeland Security Subcommittee
that will be one of the prime subcommittees of our committee.
Mr. Linder. Would that be a good idea for all committees
to think about?
Mr. Barton. Well, I won't speculate on the other committees,
but I think it is a necessary thing for my committee, yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. I would simply observe, Mr. Chairman,
never in my recollection has there been a complaint about our committee
not having vigorously addressed the business that lay before it in terms
of what we are supposed to do under the rules of the House.
If you look at every one of the pieces of legislation we have considered
with regard to homeland security and terrorism, you will find that the
committees of jurisdiction, not just ours, but the Judiciary, the Transportation
and Infrastructure and the other committees, have moved forward in ways
which indicated no need of help by the creation of a new committee.
You will find that all of this legislation really was developed using
the expertise of existing committees, which knew how to do the business,
and that the insertion of another committee into the committee process
simply added a worthwhile level of confusion and difficulty to the process
of legislation, which was quite unnecessary, and which history says
is unnecessary.
Mr. Barton. I want to say something else that is going
to sound like self-congratulation, but I think it is worth saying.
The institutional memory in the membership of the Energy and Commerce
Committee is without parallel. Former chairman Dingell is the dean of
the House and was chairman of this committee, I think, for 13 years.
Henry Waxman is on this committee. He is a ranking member on government
oversight. Ed Markey is on this committee. He is a ranking member, I
think, on natural resources. Ralph Hall, who just switched parties,
has served in the House almost 20 years. Chris Cox serves on this committee
in addition to being in the Republican leadership and the head of the
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
If you look at the Energy and Commerce Committee and you go down the
line, we have some senior guys on both sides that have been in Congress
and have a great personal institutional memory. I am not saying there
aren't other committees that don't have that, but with the exception
of the Approps Committee, I don't think any other authorizing committees
have the depth of experience that the committee I chair has.
Mr. Linder. What do you say to the Secretary who is
getting exasperated by having to report to 88 committees and subcommittees?
Mr. Barton. I would tell him or her that we have a
big government and we have a lot of committees in the House and the
Senate and that is the price they will have to pay. Not all that overlap
is a bad thing. Each committee will have some specialization and a certain
slant that they look at things a little different way. For the taxpayers
and the citizens, it is a good thing.
So, obviously, in a perfect world, they would probably rather have to
report to fewer committees and subcommittees, but it hasn't been a perfect
world for a long, long time.
Mr. Dingell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this is something
you have to consider. There is no problem that I can think of in our
committee that doesn't have a component which relates to homeland security
and which relates to the regular day-to-day business of the government
of the United States.
Health? How do you define what the difference is between SARS or something
else which is introduced into this country by terrorists? And we have
already an establishment inside the government which is supposed to
address those questions, which does, and that is the agency we would
go to for help in the event there were this kind of problem.
Similar situation with regard to telecommunications. Similar situation
with regard to transportation. Similar situation with regard to any
one of these problems that you would confront, either in our committee
or in any other committee.
Now, the Speaker has and can do a fine job of addressing these questions.
I have heard this same complaint about people from government agencies
having to go up and testify before the Congress. I happen to think that
is a good thing. I think they ought to come up here and account for
what it is they do and whether or not they are adequately serving us.
We had this problem way back on energy. We said these other committees
have a legitimate concern. There is no way that you can wall off a committee
with broad responsibilities from consideration of questions associated
with homeland security any more than you can with regard to energy.
And these people downtown should be willing to come up here, be frank
with the Congress, describe what it is they are doing so that we can,
in fact, oversight them from the different areas of expertise and responsibilities
which exist in this place.
Mr. Barton. And if you look at some of the oversight
investigations that the House and Senate has done in the last 4 or 5
years, a fair number of those originated in the Energy and Commerce
Committee. The Enron investigation, the Firestone investigation, are
two that come to mind right off the bat. This one that we are talking
about right now, the E-RATE investigation. We are doing a major investigation
in the National Institutes of Health. Other committees have gotten involved,
but many of those started in this committee, and I don't apologize for
that. I think oversight is something we specialize in.
Mr. Dingell. We also, though, have had good legislative
responses. Sometimes they originated here rather than downtown, sometimes
they originated downtown. Sometimes they were done by this committee
and by other committees. Sometimes the work was done with the active
prompting of the Speaker's Office, where the Speaker would actually
interest himself and his staff in how it was that the business was conducted
and how the relationships between the different committees were dealt
with on a day-to-day basis. That is good.
We have in this institution the means to address the concerns that we
have with regard to homeland security, but also to address them from
the standpoint of and with the expertise of the sitting committees which
know how to address these problems.
Mr. Linder. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. You both make a very convincing case
why we should let the Homeland Security Committee just kind of lapse.
Mr. Dingell. With gratitude.
Mr. McGovern. With gratitude, in a loving Irish way,
which is great gratitude.
But when Mr. Cox and Mr. Turner were here, the point that they made
over and over was not that the existing committees did not have the
expertise in their own areas, but that the issue of homeland security
in post 9-11 required kind of a different approach to addressing the
issues, in other words, that we need a committee with kind of a more
holistic view. Not just bits and pieces that fall into a particular
committee's jurisdiction, but they need to look at the whole thing and
put everything in context.
Their argument was there was value to doing that because, again, some
committees have only narrow jurisdiction and they look at things in
a very narrow way but not necessarily considering all the implications
of homeland security concerns.
I guess I would be interested in your response to what they have urged,
which was that you need a committee that is looking at this issue holistically,
not in bits and pieces.
Mr. Dingell. I would answer your question with another
question. What has been different or better than the way that this Congress
has worked since the Homeland Security Committee was set up, with specific
emphasis on the behavior of the different sitting committees? I think
you will find there is nothing there.
Second question is: What has been the failure of the sitting committees
to address their responsibilities or to address it in a holistic fashion?
I think you would find there is no failure there.
What has been the failure of the Speaker's Office or the Speaker to
provide the leadership in addressing these questions in a holistic way
from the standpoint of the overall concerns of the country? None.
Have there been any disputes or differences or inadequacies on the part
of the sitting committees to address these questions? The answer to
that is no.
Have they worked together? Yes.
Have they resolved the occasional differences that exist of a jurisdictional
character amongst them? Yes.
Did they greatly need the additional level of confusion that comes about
from having a Homeland Security Committee? No.
Did the Homeland Security Committee do anything that could not have
been done or would not have been done or was in fact not being done
by the sitting committees? No.
It always sounds good that we have a problem so we are going to set
up a committee. When I was a small boy, this place had committees on
every damn thing. And every time something came along, they would set
up a new committee. Well, finally, in 1946, they decided they had too
many committees, so they went through this traumatic experience of getting
rid of all these extra committees.
I don't think we want to go through that again, although we are approaching
the situation in this Congress where we are going to have to do it because
we simply have too many committees doing the same thing. I would say
if you want that date where we have to address that to come forward
rather more speedily, then keep setting up committees like Homeland
Security, and I can assure you that you will have that, and that the
Congress, which already has an enormous problem doing its business,
will have increasingly difficult times in addressing its concerns simply
because you bring in more committees, more jurisdictional difficulties,
and less focused responsibilities.
Mr. Barton. I would just say that if you take that literally
and put all the jurisdictions that deal with homeland security in our
Homeland Security Committee, you are going to have less oversight, not
more. You are going to have less oversight and depths, not more. You
will create the potential for a more cozy brother-in-law relationship.
And the holistic approach, as they put it, that may have been necessary
for the first 2 to 3 years, but does anybody honestly say we don't have
a big picture idea of what we want to do in homeland security? And then
you get into the cost of it, with additional staff, Members that have
to serve on one more committee. It doesn't make sense.
When we Republicans became the majority, we patted ourselves on the
back because we eliminated committees. We eliminated the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee, we eliminated the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee. We did reorganize some of the jurisdictions, which was to
the detriment of this committee, but those were good structural reforms.
A select committee for a short amount of time makes some sense. A permanent
committee? Really doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Linder. I have two questions for you, that the
chairman wants answered.
Mr. Barton. I think the answer is yes.
Mr. Linder. Did you hear me ask it?
Mr. Barton. Have the ability to file reports?
Mr. Linder. The ability to file reports without a UC.
Mr. Barton. I would add an addendum to that. As long as the
minority is fully briefed when those reports are filed and has the right
to file a minority report, if they want to.
Mr. Linder. You didn't hear the question?
Mr. Dingell. I didn't hear the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Linder. The question is what your reaction is to committees
having the ability to file committee reports when the House is not in
session?
Currently, we grants UCs on a case-by-case basis for committees to have
until midnight on a business day when the House is not in session. Further,
existing rules allow for an automatic 2-day window even on weekends
and recesses.
Would it be helpful to the committee if the House allowed for the filing
of reports when the House is not in session or during the weekend without
asking for a UC?
Mr. Dingell. I don't remember any instance where the
asking of a unanimous consent has, in any way, deterred the House from
conducting its business in an adequate fashion. We have on our committee
a great relationship, and although I'm somewhat distressed about the
fact that sometimes we only get 2 days, Mr. Barton and Mr. Tauzin and
Mr. Bliley have been very accommodating to the minority in terms of
protecting us, and we have been very accommodating in response by not
dawdling or delaying the process of either the committee or the House.
We would consider that.
I don't see any great need for it. We will continue to try to cooperate
in the business of the House. We will not use the right to make comments
or something of that kind in a report as a device to delay the business
of the House. I don't think that is the way it should be done. There
are other ways to do it, and we might want to use some of them, but
not this mechanism.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Stenholm pointed out the fact that there is
a House rule that says no Member can be on more than two committees.
Mr. Dingell. That is not actively observed.
Mr. Linder. He made a very good point that it is sometimes
difficult to get people together for hearings because there are so many
committees.
Mr. Barton. We have attempted to restrict members on the majority
side, and I will let Mr. Dingell speak for the minority, to this being
the only committee they are on, although there are a number of waivers
to that.
The last two classes, though, I believe the Members have served, the
majority of Members that come on, are allowed only this one committee.
So we are trying to enforce it on our committee to just one, with the
exception of some senior Members that are serving on select committees.
Mr. Linder. Michael Bilirakis, Charlie Norwood, Cliff Stearns,
and Nathan Deal, are the ones on our side.
Mr. Barton. Are those the ones?
Mr. Linder. Thank you, both.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to exclusive
committees. I think that is a fine idea. Getting a quorum in our committee
is oftentimes difficult because of this problem.
I would support it, but I would ask only if you are going to do it,
be fair. Do it to everybody. I got kicked off another committee because
I was a member of an exclusive committee. I always thought that was
unfair, because I looked around and saw other Members that had not had
that happen to them. I think it is probably in the interest of the House
that this occur, but it should be a rule that is universally, uniformly,
and fairly applied.
Mr. Barton. What committee is Cliff Stearns on?
Mr. Linder. I think he is on Veterans.
The committee will be in recess until 2:30.
Mr. Linder. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr.
Oberstar is on the way but we will start with Mr. Young, if you would
like to submit any written draft for the record without opposition.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. McGovern.
We are here to talk about, I believe, the views on jurisdiction of committees.
First, let me say that Rule X works pretty well for the Transportation
Committee. I see no reason to change the jurisdiction. Moreover, I do
not believe the Homeland Security Committee is necessary to address
the problem of terrorism.
Frankly, terrorism is a question of substance, not process. There is
no substitute for experience and institutional knowledge. Other than
that, the Homeland Security Act and its technical corrections bill the
standing committees have enacted every homeland security legislation,
including the bill itself, creating it that came out of that committee.
The Transportation Committee has a long record of protecting the Nation
from terrorism and for your review, I have submitted to you -- or will
submit to you -- a list of bills produced by our committee with my written
testimony, along with a list, and it ranges all the way from the Aviation
Security Act, the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Reauthorization
Act of 2004. You need strong standing committees with expertise.
I have to say one thing, and Mr. Oberstar will be here later on. We
handled with Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar aviation and we passed the aviation
security bill. And I, frankly, do not think anybody knows the issue
of aviation security better than Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica. They have
spent days and hours with the staff that they have and the expertise
they understand this issue.
And our aviation system is based on the careful balance of highly complex
rules and infrastructure. The system has produced the safest aviation
industry and preserving that balance without impossible without the
expertise that comes from these committees. What I am trying to say
is that the Coast Guard, FEMA, aviation, all of this legislation comes
out of our committee. And I can remember when the so-called Homeland
Select Committee was suggested, it was explained to me at that time
this was to be a select committee to try to keep the heads of committees
not having -- of homeland go down and testify before all of the committees.
I don't think we have had that problem. We have had some oversight on
our committee, but I would suggest that what we ought to do if we have
a committee set up -- which I do not support, but if there was one set
up, that it be strictly oversight and that would be their main task
in the battle against terrorism in homeland security. But to break down
other committees and reconstruct the wheel, I think would be inappropriate.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I came here as well as yourself, with the
understanding that this party, the party to which you and I belong --
not Mr. McGovern -- was going to eliminate -- in fact, we did, we eliminated
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Post Office Committee, we
eliminated committees and it is sort of like I read in the paper we
have now been a majority going on 12 years, and we are beginning to
recreate what we said was incorrect.
And I very strongly suggest what we ought to do is leave the committees
intact with the expertise and do the job that is correct and should
be done for this Nation. To go beyond that, I think, would be inappropriate
for this Congress, and I don't think we would accomplish what we are
trying to do, and that is try to address the issue of terrorism. That
is my present statement, and you have a written statement and I am glad
to answer any questions.
Mr. Linder. I am interested in looking at the list
of legislation you have passed in these areas. But if we do keep a Homeland
Security Department, what would its form be?
Mr. Young of Alaska. Well, see, I think it ought to
be just purely oversight. That is all they should be doing.
Mr. Linder. Would the other committees be doing oversight?
Mr. Young of Alaska. We would not do oversight. It
would be their main job. And concentrate on terrorism. That is what
they really ought to be doing. But they are beginning to expand into
the Coast Guard. And I -- you know, when the Homeland Agency was set
up, I told the President specifically that the Coast Guard, they have
the bottom responding to the Customs Service and the missions that you
and I charged them with were being neglected, and they are attempting
to do that now. I think that is inappropriate.
FEMA, we have this big battle, and you will have it on the floor when
we ever get the homeland security bill up or the responder bill up,
FEMA was set up and should be for what we call all hazards, all disasters,
including terrorism. But now we have a group of individuals who are
saying well, we are just going to have the concentration on terrorism
and the rest of it can go by the wayside.
I want to ask you, how many tornadoes did we have in the midwest last
month? How many floods in Texas? How many hurricanes in the southeast
States and how many earthquakes have we had?
Mr. Linder. Who are these individuals suggesting this?
Mr. Young of Alaska. Mostly it is coming out of staff of the
select committee. I don't believe Mr. Cox is really part of this, but
I can see this creeping attempt to try to create something that should
not be created. I think we have the expertise in the standing committees.
I will give you the list, by the way, Mr. Chairman. Here is the list
of all that we have done.
Mr. Linder. We have that here.
Mr. Young of Alaska. That is a big list.
Mr. Linder. CRS has been looking into the issue of how interested
committees have been over time in what we now call the homeland security
issues. And I recognize you and your committee staff are the final arbiters
on this, but it appears that no hearings were held by your committee
on the World Trade Center bombings in 1993.
Mr. Young of Alaska. That was not in our jurisdiction.
Mr. Linder. Three hearings were held on the Oklahoma City bombing.
Mr. Young of Alaska. That was prior to my time.
Mr. Linder. And a great number after 9/11.
Mr. Young of Alaska. But we did not have a hearing
on 9/11 because we believe it is outside -- that would be a great oversight
hearing for the select committee. But why should they get into these
-- the Railroad Sabotage Law, Federal Aviation Authorizations Act. We
did all of that for security purposes. And I don't understand why some
other committee could do this.
And again, I want to get across we are losing sight of mission for those
agencies. If we focus so much on what I call the "sore ankle"
and not recognize the cause of the sore ankle, we will never walk anywhere.
And that is what we are doing right now.
And by the way, we will supply a list of the hearings we have held.
But on 9/11, as far as -- we think that the other committee should do
it.
Mr. Linder. Is there an argument that we should try and thrust
more clearly defined lines in our rules so that there is less overlap?
Mr. Young of Alaska. You can. If there is less overlap
go back to my concept and premise of what should be done if this committee
is going to be permanent: Make it totally oversight. Make it concentrate
on terrorism. But to take an overlap in the FEMA and their roles in
natural disasters and overlap in the Coast Guard -- and this is dear
to my heart and I will fight this committee and every other committee
to my dying breath, because the Coast Guard plays such a vital role
in my State.
I have more coastline than any other state in the United States. I have
more fishermen and I have more search and rescues and I am also closer
to any other foreign country that is a potential enemy than any other
State.
We have the largest Coast Guard base in the United States. And to have
this changed, and they are thinking about doing it in the homeland security,
taking the headquarters out of Juneau and putting it in Seattle because
that is closer to terrorism. But it is not closer to patrols or search
and rescue or navigation aids or interdiction of foreigners crossing
from the eastern shores.
That is what I do not want to happen. That is incorrect for the mission
we charged them with. It is not closer to oil space. We gave them that
charge. All of the sudden it is concentrated on just terrorism then
they lose the sight of the mission which they should be and we did charge
them with.
Mr. Linder. If a Homeland Security Committee was just for oversight
and we had another seven or eight committees dealing with legislative
activity for the various aspects of the Department of Homeland Security,
who would the leadership of the Homeland Security look to as the primary
committee.
Mr. Young of Alaska. For oversight?
Mr. Linder. For legislation. Authorization.
Mr. Young of Alaska. Authorization should come from
the committees as we are doing now.
Mr. Linder. Would there be a primary committee?
Mr. Young of Alaska. Anything that covers FEMA, Coast Guard,
and TSA, yes, would come out of our committee. As it has always done.
It originated there.
Mr. Linder. Would you have another committee that would be
the primary committee that they would look toward?
Mr. Young of Alaska. No, not as far as I am concerned. If they
want to set it up that way, but not creating a new committee -- and
I will say, our oversight activities are very active right now. But
if they had a special committee to concentrate on the terrorism end,
the terrorism end of it, then that would not hurt my feelings as much.
My concentration is on the missions that we have charged these agencies
to have. I am afraid if we set up a Select Committee on Homeland Security,
there would be the neglecting of the other missions which we have charged
them with. That is my biggest concern.
I guarantee it will happen because I have seen it already within the
agency itself. They are sort of putting everything in the second spot.
First responders, a lot of the moneys going out to terrorism. How many
people have we lost to terrorism in this country other than 9/11? How
much damage has been done and lives lost because of natural disasters?
That is the thing we have to ask ourselves, and if we do not do that,
we are focusing on something that is relatively small. And, yes, dramatic,
but it does not take care of the big problem. And I would like to suggest
we can do the big problem better than any other committee.
Mr. McGovern. I thank you for being here. What you are saying
is not too different from what a lot of other chairmen and some of the
ranking members who have been up here before explaining quite clearly
and strongly that their committees of jurisdiction actually do a pretty
good job. The people on their committees have an expertise in whatever
the field is and over the years they have been doing the job.
I was on the Transportation Committee before I got this committee. I
probably need my head examined why I changed. But anyway I was on the
Aviation Subcommittee, I remember a classified briefing that was set
up for the members of the subcommittee by the FAA and others about some
of the problems with airline safety. And all the things that people
could get through the metal detectors and what have you.
And everybody was concerned. But I think what is different post-September
11th is that prior to September 11th you could not get a majority of
this Congress to believe that you needed to address all of that money
in upgrading airline safety. It wasn't that people did not talk about
it; it was that there wasn't a political consensus to do it. It unfortunately
took a tragedy and now there is a climate to move on it.
So I don't think the fact -- I think there was lots of discussion prior
to September 11th on safety issues at airlines. But I don't think the
political will was here at that time for a whole number of reasons.
Mr. Young of Alaska. Can I respond to that? I wish Jim was
here right now. He was on the committee that did the research on the
flight that went down.
Mr. McGovern. Right. Pan Am.
Mr. Young of Alaska. Pan Am. That committee, that special committee
that they had gave great recommendations to this Congress what should
be done and none of it was done because nobody had any interest in it.
And in our TSA bill, we adopted some of those things that were recommended
by Mr. Oberstar when he was chairman of the committee. We adopted them
after the Act, after 9/11. So it wasn't the leadership of this committee
that was at fault, and I was not the chairman at that time. It was the
lack of interest of the Congress.
And I am saying now in our interest we cannot overreact and do something
that I think is inappropriate and not really I would say for what we
really charged them -- just for terrorism and we forget all the other
issues. There is a lot more to airports and FAA than just terrorism.
So I think we have to emphasize that too.
Mr. McGovern. I will ask you the same question. When
Mr. Cox and Mr. Turner were here, they made the case that the reason
why a permanent committee or select committee was necessary was that
when you deal with homeland security issues, you need somebody who is
looking at it more than just from a transportation perspective or an
immigration perspective. That there needs to be somebody to look at
it holistically to put all the pieces together in the puzzle to make
sure we are all working kind of in tandem and complementing each other
and everything fits together nicely. That was their case.
Mr. Young of Alaska. My response to that is it depends on how
holy you want to be. I am concerned that the committee becomes holistic
in the terrorism end of it and that is the only thing they see. They
become narrower than, in reality, we are, because we have been in this
business, we have these units, but their main goal will be avoiding
the possibility of a terrorist attack ever in the United States. And
in the meanwhile, they are forgetting FEMA, they are forgetting TSA.
They are concentrating so much they forget the other parts of this mission.
And that would be a disservice to this country.
I think our committee is very honestly more efficient in what we are
doing. We have done the job. As long as the Congress is willing to follow
us. And if they are not, we have a problem. If the people in this country
want to forget terrorism, we will have a problem implementing anything.
We can do the job making sure it is broader. It goes back to oversight.
If the oversight finds out that homeland security is not doing their
job for security programs, then that is their responsibility. But to
take care of the Coast Guard and FEMA, those are my two big things and
TSA, we created TSA. But those two things primarily had a history of
being in the committee and we know what should be done and how it responds
to a problem.
Mr. McGovern. Speaking of homeland security, are we going to
get a transportation bill?
Mr. Young of Alaska. We are in high hopes. I am supposed to
be at the Speaker's office in 5 minutes and we are going to try to make
a decision. It is not on this record, but this is a very difficult process.
We are attempting to reach a realistic figure. And if that is impossible,
we are going to have to have an extension because next week it collapses.
And I want a 30-day extension so we come back in and try to get it done
in August. If we can't, do it in September. Some people want an extension
throughout 31st of September and that would be a disservice because
the pressure is not on.
Mr. McGovern. One last thing. One of the points that
I have made throughout yesterday and today to the chairman and ranking
members is that one of my concerns is that we are having this meeting
on -- we talk about jurisdictional issues and what committees' responsibilities
are and one of the trends that seems to be occurring here in this Congress
is that more is more and more committees are becoming sidelined. That
the bills reported here never go to the committees of jurisdiction.
The bills that come here have no hearings, no markups increasingly,
are more leadership driven and less committee driven.
That is not the case with your committee. Both you and Mr. Oberstar,
I think, have been really good about insisting -- not insisting, but
demanding that your jurisdictional authority be respected. And I think
that that is really important, because otherwise all of this talk about
rules and procedures and stuff really does not mean very much. And so
I want to pay you a compliment because I think it is incredibly important.
We can talk about changing rule X all we want, but if no one is going
to follow the rules to begin with and ignore the process and ignore
the rules, it is an academic discussion.
Mr. Young of Alaska. I have to be careful because it is my
leadership, but I have been here long enough to know, to recognize the
importance of the committees because you get better legislation.
Mr. McGovern. I agree.
Mr. Young of Alaska. The hearing process, I can remember,
and people say you are getting senile, I can remember when the committees
did their work and there was only a substitute by the minority that
was allowed because the work had been done in the committee.
And I really strongly suggest that for good government we have to start
to recognize the importance of the committee structure. If we do not,
we focus the power into the few and never does that succeed. It does
temporarily, but eventually there would be the revolution, regardless
of whether it is a total society or a legislative body, and it is not
good for this House, which I love or I wouldn't be here. I have been
here 32 years. And I strongly suggest that we ought to recognize the
importance of the work of the committees.
Mr. Oberstar and I have done this for a long time. And it would be better
for the House. And I have given you great compliments and now I have
to go meet the Speaker on the transportation bill. So be careful what
you say because the recorder has been on.
Mr. Linder. One question from Chairman Dreier. With respect
to the committee's filing committee reports when the House is not in
session. Currently we use the case-by-case basis. Would it be helpful
to your committee if the House allowed filing of reports when the House
is not in session or a weekend or long recess period without having
to ask for UC?
Mr. Young of Alaska. If I could say it would help the
committee. Would it help the process of the House? It would expede the
process of the House. But there would be a tendency, I am very concerned,
about of being misused in a fashion which would put many members in
the shadow not knowing what is going on. And I am not sure it is the
right way to go.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, I would feel comfortable with that
in our committee because I think there is comity. It has been demonstrated.
We work together, as I have said, not only shoulder to shoulder but
kneecap to kneecap in developing the TEA-LU legislation and the other
bills reported from our committee. But I know that there are committees
where that is not the case and where there is mistrust and lack of comity.
But even in the almost idyllic arrangement of our committee, the perception
that should be could be rushed through without appropriate consideration.
And the rules of the House, as leader Bob Michel said just last year
when he was honored for his many years of service, the Rules of the
House were crafted to protect the minority. Whatever that -- whichever
party that minority happens to be. And we should always be sensitive
to that in the democracy which distinguishes our system from parliamentary
system where minorities count for zero. We should be careful that the
rules protect the rights of the minority so that there is always a process
of inclusiveness. And I think there is a risk, as the Chairman Young
said, of missing that inclusiveness.
Mr. Young of Alaska. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Oberstar, we are prepared to listen to your
comments on Rule X and if you have a written statement submitted for
the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Oberstar. I have a statement for the record. I apologize
for being delayed. This last series of votes caused me to go back to
my office to meet with constituents.
Mr. Linder. I understand that.
Mr. Oberstar. I will summarize my views in this fashion.
I believe that the substantive jurisdiction over the issues within the
homeland security category should remain with the committees of jurisdiction
rather than creating a new committee of legislative authority. I think
the select committee played a useful role in bringing -- in overseeing
the bringing together of numerous departments and agencies of government
that were knitted together to create the Department of Homeland Security.
But that role should not continue in a legislative function for this
reason, principally: legislation should be holistic, not piecemeal.
Example, in aviation security, I don't think that you can effectively
separate the security function in aviation from the safety function
in aviation, from the commercial service function, from the economics
of aviation over which our committee has jurisdiction. There is a synergistic
relationship and understanding and a benefit gained one discipline from
the other.
To simply separate out the security function in aviation and say we
will deal with that by itself will cause an overlooking of the role
of safety that is dependent upon security and the role of the economics
of aviation.
In the Coast Guard, for example, the Coast Guard is a multitasked entity.
In fact, since my first term in Congress in 1975, we have added 27 new
responsibilities to the U.S. Coast Guard without increasing their personnel
to accomplish those functions.
Among them, enforcement of the 200-mile economic zone, drug interdiction,
immigration interdiction. And then the usual safety at sea, search and
rescue, buoy tending. Now folded on top of that has been a security
function. It is within our jurisdiction to oversee the overall operations
of the Coast Guard and understand their interrelationship between a
call to a security-related matter, while the Coast Guard is performing
safety at sea function, rescue mission. We need to look at the overall
responsibility of the Coast Guard and see how many more personnel do
they need, how much more funding do they require for high endurance
cutters, high endurance fixed wing and rotor aircraft and relate those
to one another, rather than just the security part parceled out from
the Coast Guard.
FEMA similarly. The Federal Emergency Management Administration was
for years civil defense. And when the civil defense role sort of dissipated,
civil defense had been doing disaster response in hurricanes, floods,
blizzards. And it was the premier response agency and over time -- in
fact, when Mr. Ridge, Secretary Ridge was a Member of the House, the
Reagan administration proposed drastic changes in FEMA and he came to
me as chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee saying,
would you hold hearings on this and highlight these needs? Out of that
emerged legislative changes that reformed FEMA, which I drafted and
gave to Mr. Ridge to introduce. We talked about it just a week or so
ago.
We enhanced the role of FEMA. We understand, our committee staff is
trained and steeped in the subject matter. We understand how these functions
relate to one another.
I think a homeland security function would compartmentalize FEMA and
to the detriment of the other roles and responsibilities.
There is the argument for a single legislative jurisdiction committee,
that the homeland -- absent that, the Homeland Security Department would
have to respond to a multiplicity of committees. That is the way our
committee system functions now. And I submit that it is far more beneficial
to the public interest to have a multiplicity of eyes reviewing a department
than to have only one committee overseeing. If that were the case, if
it were more efficient, then I would say give to all the legislative
committees it is appropriations authority to authorize and appropriate
within that committee. That is much more efficient and more streamlined,
but that is not the way we do it.
The appropriations function is a check on the legislative function.
And the Budget Committee is a check on the appropriations function.
So our checks and balances system I think works more effectively. Democracy
does not have to be efficient, it has to be open, transparent and responsive
to the public interest. And that is the way our committee system works
and I think it works very effectively in the public interest. And I
have submitted as an attachment to my statement a listing of all the
Departments of government the committees that have overlapping or concurrent
jurisdiction over their functions.
Mr. Linder. I saw it, thank you. Why do you think
the appropriators quickly moved to putting all homeland security appropriations
into one subcommittee?
Mr. Oberstar. I have not had that discussion with Chairman
Rogers or Appropriations Committee Chairman Young. I suspect it is because
they anticipated that this would be a long-term role, that there would
be a legislative committee, for homeland security and that they would
be -- it would be more efficient for them to put everything together
in one appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. Linder. At the Homeland Security Committee hearing
of March 24th, it was the Rules Subcommittee, Mr. Diaz-Balart's subcommittee,
the testimony from T&I Committee suggested if the select committee
would be useful in coordinating. If such a committee is created, should
it be given primary jurisdiction over the bills affecting homeland security?
Mr. Oberstar. Well, if such creature were established
and then its jurisdiction should be very narrowly limited, yes, but
I would argue against the establishment of such a committee.
Mr. Linder. Would you think that you could, if there
was a committee, do you think you could take the security portion of
the Coast Guard and give the legislative authority back to one of the
standing committees.
Mr. Oberstar. I don't think you can do that effectively.
Again I come back to relating the parts to the whole. By separating
out, say, the Coast Guard's homeland security role, I think you create
an entity or you create a legislative fiction. Security as performed
by the Coast Guard does not exist in a vacuum separately from its other
responsibilities. And recognizing that our committee has increased the
authorization for personnel for the Coast Guard, for example, because
for 29 years, the Coast Guard's personnel has been at 39,000 in authorization:
27 new functions, 39,000 personnel until just very recently, and we
increased it to 43,000. That, in itself, is inadequate to handle all
of the security.
For example, Coast Guard gets notification that there is a vessel of
interest 96 hours out from port. They have to divert personnel to meet
that vessel. They may be diverting personnel from a search and rescue
function or from a drug interdiction mission or from some other role
that the Coast Guard normally plays. And they have to make that determination,
we are going to send a vessel out, interdict this ship, put two of our
personnel in the engine room, two in the crew room and two on the bridge.
And then sift through the records and report.
So they need more personnel to perform that function. They also have
to make a call on do we divert our personnel from search and rescue,
from buoy tending, from enforcement of the 200-mile economic zone and
send them on the security mission or do something else?
We have that overview capability within our committee to understand
these functions and relate them to one another. Further, the Coast Guard,
under the Port Security Act, has responsibility to inspect port security
plans of foreign flag nations that ship into the United States. They
have to have the sufficient personnel to do that. We are in the position
of relating their personnel to their total function. The Security Committee
would not be in that same position.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you for your testimony. One of
the points I was making when Chairman Young was testifying was that
there seems to be some impression out there that committees in this
House were not concerned about security issues prior to September 11th,
which is obviously not the case, and I mentioned the fact I was on the
Transportation Committee before coming here. I remember sitting through
classified briefings when I was on the Aviation Subcommittee about some
of the concerns.
Chairman Young mentioned your involvement in the investigation of the
Pan Am flight tragedy and numerous recommendations that you made, many
of which were not acted upon but since September 11th, a lot of those
things have been moved into -- have moved forward.
And so I think it is important that people understand that in many respects
that the problem before September 11th was there really wasn't the political
will or just the commitment to putting the resources into some of these
security areas that now, after have terrible tragedy there is the political
will. So it wasn't that people were not look at some of these issues.
In fact, in your committee, particularly, you were. And I think it is
important to state that for the record.
One of the things that --
Mr. Oberstar. Could I interrupt you just at that point?
The last of the 64 recommendations to the President's Commission on
Aviation Security and Terrorism on which I served John Paul Hammersmith
on the Republican side, Senator D'Amato and Senator Lautenberg and three
public members appointed by President Bush, the last recommendation
was political will. That in a democracy we observed, in a democracy
it is difficult to sustain public attention at a sufficiently high level
to remain alert to the dangers of terrorism. That required political
will. That is one item we could not enact into public law.
The second recommendation we made was for the establishment within the
intelligence community of a single entity whose responsibility would
be to gather intelligence from domestic and foreign sources, evaluate
and disseminate that information to the need-to-know committees such
as aviation, FAA, or ports, maritime. And that creation of such an entity
to gather evaluate and disseminate information would have avoided a
false alarm, the consequence of a false alarm just prior to Pan Am 103.
That recommendation was never carried out.
And as we are seeing now in the present Commission, they are pointing
to the failure of coordination of intelligence information within the
U.S. Government and with Interpol and other intelligence agencies of
our partner countries.
Mr. McGovern. Just one other thing, and correct me
if I am mischaracterizing Chairman Young's statement, but he was against
it, the Homeland Security Committee, but if there was going to be one
I think one of the things he suggested was that their responsibilities
should be limited to oversight on issues related to terrorism. And I
am not quite sure what that means in terms of whether your committee
would lose oversight or not. But do you have any opinions on that at
all? Do you just prefer there not be one?
Mr. Oberstar. I believe the congressional oversight
function is one of the most important responsibilities we have as a
legislative body. That the executive in the Constitution shall take
care of the laws are faithfully executed, but it is our responsibility
to see that they are carefully executing the laws that we enact. And
Homeland Security Committee with oversight responsibility would not
exclude such a role for other committees of legislative jurisdiction.
Every time we hold a hearing on legislative issues, we are overseeing
concurrently the functions of the agency for which we have jurisdiction.
When I chaired the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, which
is a descendant of the Special Investigating Committee on the Federal
Aid Highway Program established in 1959 to correct abuses that were
beginning to appear after the establishment of the highway trust fund
and the interstate highway program, my predecessor, selected by Speaker
Rayburn, to head that committee. I said we have got some issues in security
in aviation and held closed sessions with my ranking member, Newt Gingrich.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Linder. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
being here.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
forbearance.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Maybe we could make it short and sweet,
because I understand that you guys were here about 7 a.m. this morning,
and if you want to make it short, that is okay with me.
Mr. Linder. If you would like to submit a written statement
for the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONALD MANZULLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Manzullo. I will take about a minute and a half.
Let me just, first of all, thank you for the opportunity. We have taken
the Small Business Committee and decided to use it as a means to impact
policy. It has become the committee of last resort and people who are
absolutely desperate that are getting pulverized by government mostly
come to us, and that is why 2 years ago we held six hearings on HCFA.
And the other committees of legislative jurisdiction have so much on
their plate that there just is no time for them to have hearings on
little people.
Mary Walker is a lady who developed this device that you could put in
a nursing home and walk along to keep the senior straight, and then
there was a little seat on it. So it was a combination of exercise and
everything. And HCFA drove her nuts and said it is a restraint because
there was a bar in front because it is a walker. They just demonized
her. And we had two hearings where she flew out from Illinois and finally
we sat down with HCFA and they created a whole new category of equipment
in order to allow her to have that device.
But this government is so big and so impersonal and it continues to
get worse. We are now faced with contract bundling is absolutely outrageous.
We busted a $100 million Army contract into about 300 pieces where they
were going to give all of their office products contracts to one big
guy and smoke the little stationary ma and pop stores across the country,
and we held hearings and beat them up. Sometimes it is the only thing
they understand to have a committee that is continuously -- you know
how persistent I can be.
Mr. Linder. Yes.
Mr. McGovern. Keep on being persistent.
Mr. Manzullo. You know why? Little people get squashed
in this town. They just do not have the voice. And that brings us to
what we are requesting. Government Reform has all original legislative
jurisdiction on procurement and that is wrong. Because the ones that
get killed, the people who are the victims of improper procurement are
all small businesspeople and all we have is oversight. And as much as
I respect Tom Davis, we are at opposite ends of this thing. And in the
1990's, as you know, we were overzealous in our efforts to streamline
procurement, et cetera. And now it is so bad that 3 years ago the President
issued a directive to unbundle and help these small businesspeople.
We would respectfully ask to you take a look at some expansion of legislative
jurisdiction so that the ones who are most impacted by these procurement
policies could have the committee with legislative jurisdiction be in
the position of writing them. I will give you the rest of this statement
and the written statement is in the record.
Mr. Linder. You have no piece of homeland security;
is that correct.
Mr. Manzullo. I do not -- just an oversight in procurement.
We have gotten involved with one contract when we found out that TSA
had preferred one weapon over the other. This is for arming the pilots
in the cockpits. We held several hearings or actually we did not have
a hearings we had a lot of meetings in our office because they were
going down the track of just one bureaucrat saying pick this gun to
the exclusion of everybody else. And, in fact, there is Heckler and
Koch in Georgia, a German firm setting up shop in Georgia. And by the
time we were done, they expedited their plans to set up a shop and buy
machine tools in the United States and do to extra manufacturing here
because most of the gun manufacturers in the United States are foreign-owned.
And so we meet periodically with people like that. And every day we
get calls from people who have been -- were just getting smoked continually
by big government that has giant contracts. What was the size of that
Department of Veteran Affairs pharmacy contract? It was a couple of
billion dollars and we said just a second there is room in there to
get these independent drug manufacturers and distributors to have a
piece of action without costing any more money. Unless somebody complains
and throws a fit and screams at them, they do not do anything. So we
would like to be able to put some feet on this thing and protect the
people.
Our biggest concern is the fact that the small businesses continued
to get smoked. I do not want to bring up what just happened on the floor
today, but I am going to do that. The reason I have been fighting this
FSC/ETI bill for 14 months is the fact that the only companies that
are helped are those that are "large C" corporations. They
are only ones that get a tax cut for manufacturing in the United States.
I have 2,000 factories back home. 2,000 of them. Probably 95 percent
are sub-S. And those guys that are actually exporting are going to have
an increase in their taxes because they do not accrue to the benefits
here.
I can't get that thing through. You can't get people to listen. And
we are not asking for jurisdiction over taxes but at least we need some
foothold in this Congress besides the Small Business Administration.
Something that we can hang our hats on. Some way that we can impact
legislation and do that on procurement is the best way to help us out.
Mr. Linder. Is the SBA the only one you have legislative
authority over?
Mr. Manzullo. We share jurisdiction on the Paperwork
Reduction Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act we share that with Government
Reform, and Judiciary on Reg Flex.
Mr. Linder. Do you have sequential referrals with them?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes, that has worked very well. It gives
a tremendous amount of input on it. And the reason we are asking for
legislative jurisdiction on procurement is that is the only bite that
these little guys can get. And you know, Chairman, a lot of these, they
are not only just little people, but a lot of minorities. We have people
come in the office from all different ethnic backgrounds and different
races and we have all of these programs that are out there, and to a
certain extent they serve some good. But all they are asking for is
the opportunity to go up against the big guys. And if the procurement
bills are written right they can do that and it still will not cost
the government any more money.
Mr. McGovern. I think you have a good point. Actually, I am
glad you came before us to raise it because I do think that you have
a good point and it is something that we should consider here. So thanks
for being here. I appreciate it.
Mr. Manzullo. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Mr. Linder. I ask unanimous consent that the written statements
of all the chairmen and ranking members appear in the record. Additionally,
the record will be held open for 5 legislative days.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
