Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned here today, as well, with the first amendment's guarantee of the rights of all Americans to petition their government. We ought to welcome their participation in our own committee work. But what are we doing in these rules? We are creating a new and absurd barrier to public participation in House hearings by saying that any nongovernmental witness testifying in committee will have to file, as a precondition, a full report of all contracts, subcontracts, grants, subgrants received by that individual, his organization, or anyone he is representing. What in the world are we trying to do here? I think erect a barrier a la the old Istook amendment to discourage and intimidate citizens from around the country in coming to talk to us about the public's business. What will this mean? What unworkable prospect can we look forward to under this crazy proposal? Well, the head of the Farm Bureau, wanting to testify about agricultural policy, will have to disclose every Federal agricultural aid, grant, or contract received by every member of the Farm Bureau. That is nuts.…
David Skaggs: “Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned here today, as well, with the first amendment's guarantee of the rights of all…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about new rules limiting public participation in House committee hearings.
Share
More from David Skaggs
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is the third time in as many years that we are considering amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority of both Houses regarding any increase in revenue. Note revenue, not just taxes. I guess…
Thank you, Mr. President, I appreciate your yielding the time, and I am proud to be able to report to our colleagues about the Congress to Campus Program activities for this past academic year, 2005-2006. As the gentleman from Missouri…
I hope the chairman would review this matter when we do go to conference to see if a similar provision could be included in the final version of the bill, which I think would be a good idea.
a year ago, when I announced my decision to support fast track trade negotiating authority, I told my constituents that I was supporting it because I believe strongly that good jobs depend on expanded trade--especially for a state like…





