The military construction bill this year was particularly unfortunate as an example of frustration in being able to get adequate information. We tried to get that report and couldn't get it until 2 hours before the bill was considered on the floor of the House.

I would like to urge the committee to consider sending committee reports automatically to the offices of Members. At present time you can get them but you are not always aware exactly when they are available and you have to make a special effort to get them. It seems to me that to legislate in an orderly manner, having those reports sent to the offices would be very helpful.

I would like to urge on the subcommittee a matter which I know it considered, and that is requiring copies of amendments on the floor of the House to be placed in writing. I don't think this would unduly inhibit the freedom of Members to add amendments on the floor of the House if we would provide duplicating equipment to be in the majority and minority cloakrooms. The duplicating equipment today is such that you can make a copy a second on many of these machines and you could within a matter of 5 minutes-plenty of time within our 5-minute-rule procedure-have enough copies available for anybody on the floor who wanted to see them.

I would like to also urge consideration of abolishing altogether the institution of the closed rule. It seems to me that the closed rule is a basic denial of democracy. It expresses a lack of confidence in the ability of the House as a whole to consider matters intelligently. It is a matter of controversy every time it is used. It shuts off people who want to be heard, and who want to have alternative measures considered, and I think it is undesirable as a tool within the legislative process.

The last thing I would like to mention, which is not in my statement is the subject that came up during Mr. Dellenback's statement on majority and minority staffing. I would like to urge very strongly on this committee that if it does permit the minority to have control over is own staffing, which I would advocate, that it also let the majority have control over its own staffing rather than having the full committee act upon that--at least with respect to some staff members on the committee.

We have a situation that exists, as a matter of fact, within our House, where the party majorities and minorities are not always majorities and minorities with respect to various issues before the House. You have a situation where groups of Republicans and Democrats on a committee can in fact control the situation to the detriment of what truly are minority points of view.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present these views.

Mr. SISK. Thank you very much, Mr. Ottinger. I appreciate your making your statement brief. I have glanced through your statement. I think you raise some good questions. For example, the one in connection with having printed amendments. I recognize this would be a good thing. It would be much better and you have a much better understanding. We have had problems in getting this into the rules. I might say it was discussed and has been considered. It is not foreclosed as far as that goes.

I might say you agree with some other members about exemptions in connection with appropriations committees. There will be other members testifying on that subject because they are very much concerned.

Here again we have removed some of the extensions. We have actually brought the Appropriations Committee in line with other committees in certain areas. I agree we have not gone all the way. Maybe we should.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH. I don't think I have any comment.

Do you agree we should operate under the theory of the majority rule?

Mr. OTTINGER. Absolutely. That is one reason I think the closed rule should be abolished.

Mr. SMITH. Any time the members present and voting vote down our resolution of the Rules Committee, then the rule is open.

Mr. OTTINGER. That is true, but there is a practical ambiguity there. That is that many people hesitate to vote against the rule because they will be accused of opposing the subject matter of the bill. On controversial matters, you find it very difficult to get that result in the House. I don't know how many times the House voted down a rule, but I would suspect it is very seldom. In my 5 years here, I have never seen it happen.

Mr. SMITH. It has happened twice as I well recall.

Mr. SISK. We have been voted down.

Mr. OTTINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SISK. Thank you very much.

I would like to apologize to our colleague who is our next witness, Bob McClory. Your name had been canceled out on my copy of the list. We apologize to you. We appreciate your patience.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MCCLORY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. MCCLORY. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. I was in attendance at another committee meeting and it was not possible for me to leave until just about this time.

May I say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that my principal reason for appearing here today is to indicate to you in as forceful and as earnest a way as I can my continuing interest in the importance of congressional reorganization. I salute you for your willingness, actually your courage may I say, in undertaking this extremely controversial subject, one which grates very noticeably on a number of other Members who hold to the status quo, to the traditions of the House and to other shibboleths that are seriously hampering the Congress in its efforts to modernize and come up to date with regard to its operations.

I was one of the first witnesses who appeared before the special committee. As the members know, I have had a special interest in several categories which can enhance the work of the Congress and improve the decisionmaking efforts which we undertake.

I believe I have introduced the first legislation to establish an automatic data processing facility available exclusively to the Congress. I am extremely pleased with the way in which this subject is treated in the draft of the bill which the special subcommittee has developed because I think that the various directions in which automatic data processing operations can go belong strictly under the control of the Congress.

The establishment of a joint committee to determine what we will do in the field, what hardware we will use and what software will be developed seems to me a positive method of moving the Congress toward the prompt utilization of computer techniques, while at the same time keeping control of the final decisions within the House and

Senate.

I am also pleased with the authorization, under strict control, of the televising and radio broadcasting of committee hearings and sessions of the House. I just think it has been a pity that some of the historic debates that have taken place should be dependent upon subsequent reporting, with the implicit opinions that go into such secondary type transmissions of our activities to the American people.

I am pleased that televised sessions of committee hearings and sessions of the House under rules and controls will be authorized under the committee's draft of the bill.

The other special interest that I have had is with regard to the subject of fiscal control in the House. I realize that we are treading in a very sensitive area when it is considered that there might be impingement on the authority of the Appropriations Committees, but I feel that we leave too much of the budgetmaking process, too much of the fiscal control to the executive branch. It is too disorderly, too disconnected, too haphazard insofar as the House of Representatives is concerned and the other body, for that matter. The authority granted in the bill and the greater utilization of the General Accounting Office and Comptroller General are therefore, it seems to me, in the direction of much better management of the economic affairs of our country and a more appropriate assumption of the responsibility which is directly ours under the Constitution.

So I don't find any great fault with this legislation. In my opinion, the committee has done a very good job. If this bill in its present form could be brought to the floor of the House, I would be very well pleased.

Thank you.

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Bob. That is about the nicest thing that has happened to us.

Mr. SMITH. The nicest witness we have had.

Mr. McCLORY. I didn't come here to make any enemies.

Mr SISK I was feeling just a little bit buffeted prior to that. We appreciate your comments.

Let me say seriously that we appreciate your long interest in this subject. I have had an opportunity to talk to you personally about it. I know of your knowledge in this area, particularly in the area of your interest in computers, what they can do, the fact that so far we have

just not simply availed ourselves of the new modern techniques. I am most appreciative of your comments and look forward to your help, too. The gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH. I have no questions. I agree with the chairman. Thank you very much.

With that, the committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning, in this same room.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, December 4, 1969.)

LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a.m., in room B-374, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. B. F. Sisk (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Sisk (presiding), Bolling, and Latta. Also present: Laurie C. Battle, committee counsel; Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel; Walter Kravitz, Library of Congress, specialist in American Government; Gordon E. Nelson, administrative assistant to Representative Sisk; Wes Barthelmes, administrative assistant to Representative Bolling; and Miss Jonna L. Cullen, staff member. Mr. SISK. The committee will come to order.

Congressman Ruppe, we are very happy to hear from you this morning. We have had some cancellations this morning so we have not had an earlier witness.

Do you have a statement?

Mr. RUPPE. I have a statement.

Mr. SISK. You may read it or simply summarize, whichever you prefer.

Mr. RUPPE. I do not think I would go into too much detail. Considering the fact the gentlemen of the committee are very knowledgeable in this area, I suspect my 3 years in this legislative body perhaps does not give me the expertise you gentlemen would have.

Mr. SISK. Sometimes a fresh view gives you more ideas. Some of us may get in a rut and get tunnel vision. We will appreciate any ideas.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP E. RUPPE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Rules, to add my voice to those supporting the effort to institute a broad series of reforms for the Congress.

Certainly, the bill presented to the Members by this committee goes a long way toward making the Congress a more effective, and more responsive, part of Government. It will help create a Congress which can more clearly define the wishes of the Nation's people, and more readily transform that will into the law of the land.

For example, the provisions set forth in the committee bill governing the open conduct of committee hearings are an extremely signifi