Mr. MOAKLEY. A very wise Historian. After all the nice things that have been said about you, Doctor, do you get any salary for that job? Dr. SMOCK. Yes, I do. Mr. MOAKLEY. I am only kidding. Dr. SMOCK. I am not sure with the new sequestration orderMr. MOAKLEY. Let me just ask the same question I asked Lindy Boggs: Do you feel the House Historian's proper place should be under the Clerk of the House? Dr. SMOCK. Yes; I think it offers us opportunities. As I said in my statement, our life blood is the records of the House. We know and understand the use of historical materials, and as historians we cannot exist without constant exposure and contact with those records. Under the Rules of the House, the Clerk is the jurisdictional officer in control of records, and so under his administration, I think we would have the best access and the best opportunities to perform in those areas. Mr. MOAKLEY. Do you see your role as Historian changing at all, being shifted to the Clerk's Office? Dr. SMOCK. I see with the new Fine Arts Board coming along, and with opportunities to work more closely on records issues that, yes, the focus would shift. A lot of the things that we have done in the past have been designed specifically to meet the demands of the Bicentennial and the Bicentennial schedule, although in the future, I would assume we would continue to work on ceremonies and exhibits and be engaged in special events that have historical dimensions; but we will also be more focused in the area of records and research in those records and the production of documentary histories. These are the best changes that could be made in the Office. In this sense, there will be a shift in emphasis. Mr. MOAKLEY. I know because of the present Clerk we have and his interest in the history of the House, you will have a great relationship, but I mean, is the system such that regardless of who the Clerk is, that you feel that relationship would still be the same? Dr. SMOCK. Well, I can't predict the future. I do know that the Senate experience under any number of Secretaries of the Senate and through changes in control of the majority parties in the Senate, the Office has stayed the same; there has not been a ripple in the professional staff. The Senate history staff has demonstrated that they can function and do their job regardless of the personalities or the parties in control. Mr. MOAKLEY. Any questions? Mrs. SLAUGHTER. I would like to make a statement, if I could. I couldn't let this morning go by without telling you how much the film, "The Congress," has meant to me. Those of us who serve here often don't have any concept that we are living history. One thing I learned from the film was that Presidents come and go, but the continuity of this government and preservation of it reside in this building, and that has meant a great deal to me. I appreciate more than I can tell you the work that you have done, and I think if we could translate some of that even more closely to the public, it would be better for us who serve in Congress. As a person who never keeps anything, who throws it all away, this hearing has given me a greater sense that something I might scribble sometime might be of some interest in the future, and I will take better care to fulfill my responsibility to safeguard records of historical interest. Again, I thank you for what you are doing. Dr. SMOCK. Well, I appreciate that comment very much, and I hope you will save your historical materials. That is one of our missions, too. I will be glad to come and talk to you any time about that. Mr. MOAKLEY. We had a Member from Massachusetts named Jimmy Burke. I think you could call him an anti-historian. He used to say, "Don't write if you can talk, don't talk if you can wink, and don't wink if you can nod;" so you can see the records that he kept. Dr. SMOCK. Historians never have a complete record. We keep trying. We occasionally think the purpose of all this recordkeeping is to keep historians employed, but we know that historians always deal with imperfect records, and the truth of the matter is the great bulk of the material that is produced in the Congress is of an ephemeral nature. This is true of any recordkeeping procedure. The key is separating out the 1 or 2 percent that really is important and that has meaning for posterity and from which future generations can learn important lessons. They can't always learn from memos of transmittal, but they can learn from the decisionmaking process which can be found in those records. Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, I think the Congress is indeed lucky to have people like you and the people who testified this morning who are so dedicated to keeping the history of the House, because many of us, like Mrs. Slaughter said, aren't that neat with our papers, and we are glad that somebody is and is going to be around to put them in order. We don't seem to have enough members to vote, so I will close the hearing at this time, thanking publicly all you people who testified. Your testimony has been a great contribution to this subcommittee. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will now adjourn. [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] MARKUP OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 7 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1990 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE, COMMITTEE ON RULES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. John Joseph Moakley [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Moakley, Beilenson, Slaughter, Solomon, and Pashayan. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE Mr. MOAKLEY. The Subcommittee on Rules of the House will now come to order. The first order of business is to mark up House Joint Resolution 7, which I introduced last year. This bill repeals obsolete statutory provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970 which require the House and Senate to adjourn sine die for each session of Congress no later than July 31 of every year, except in time of war declared by Congress. Of course, we have other sorts of provisions in other laws, such as the Budget Act, which want to prevent us from adjourning until we pass appropriations bills and a reconciliation bill in the House. Representing our constituents in Congress is now a full-time job, we are full-time Members, and we can expect to stay in session every year beyond July 31. Congress has not adjourned sine die on or prior to July 31 of any session since July 27, 1956. During the past 20 years, the earliest adjournment date has been October 1, 1976. The obsolete provision repealed by House Joint Resolution 7 is either waived or ignored each year. There is bipartisan support for simply getting rid of it. The House and Senate will control their schedule each year through adoption of concurrent resolutions allowing both chambers to adjourn for more than 3 days at a time. The Chair at this time will be in receipt of a motion offered by Mr. Beilenson. Mr. BEILENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the Subcommittee on Rules report House Joint Resolution 7 favorably to the full committee. Mr. MOAKLEY. Any discussion? Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman. |