Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Hearing On Possible Rule Changes For New Congress 20240712

Potential rules to next congress which begins in january with members elected in knost elections. Live coverage on cspan3. Regard also of who covers Congress Next year, i think we can all agree that the integrity means listening to all members like well be doing here today. We took a similarly collaborative approach with the rules package for this congress. Im proud to say the first bipartisan vote on a rules package in decades. That didnt just happen, it took time a lot of conversation and a situation to acknowledge that no party has a monopoly and good ideas. Im proud of what we created together and with the consensus calendar to expedite ideas, with support, the Diversity Office to get the congress to look more like the real world and ideas from both sides to get this place functioning better. And although we were already holding these hearings in committee, we also required that other committees hold them, too, so that all members had a chance to meet across the congress. Hopefully, all good ideas now have a chance to see the light of day and move forward. I couldnt ask for a better partner in this process than Ranking Member tom cole. We caome from different parties but we share the same dedication to this institution. We wanted to work better not for one Political Party or the other, but for the American People because that is what this is really about. To tackle issues that can make a positive difference in peoples lives. And that is why we all ran for congress in the first place. Before i turn to our Ranking Member, i want to acknowledge on the job for the house of new parliame parliamentian. Mr. Jason smith. Mr. Cole and i have said a lot about him to his predecessor. And he and his predecessor tom wickham on the floor. Im not going to repeat all of the stuff, but sufficed to say that our members spent a lot of time consulting with the parliament tari parliamentarians office. I think its fitting that hes starting as parliamentarian on a rules committee day. All of that is good news. So, now, i want to turn to our Ranking Member, mr. Cole, for any comments he would like to make. Can you hear me . So, i think we have a little bit of a Technical Glitch here. Were going to just wait a minute while mr. Cole gets check, check, one two. I can hear you. Its working. So, mr. Cole, i said a whole bunch of nice things about you. Im not sure if you were plugged when i said that . Just now . Yeah, i just said a whole bunch of nice things about you. Oh, mr. Chairman. This is the prehearing, so its not recorded in any way, youre in the clear. No, were in the hearing. Oh . Thank you for thank you nice things about me. Ill reciprocate and take your word that you said nice things, i feel obliged to say nice things back but theyre pretty easy to say. First of all, mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for holding the hearing, and i dont think theres anyone more dedicated to the institution than you and frankly making it member friendly and having a forum where we try to make this as responsive to each individual member as an substitution as it can be while we discharge our functions. Weve been a good partner in defending the powers and prerogatives of the institution and, again, trying to position members where they can be successful as they fight to achieve whats in the best interest of the people who sent them here. And the interests of the country as a whole. So, i look forward very much to the ideas well hear today. I have no preconceptions. I would be shocked if i agreed with every one of them. But i appreciate every one being offered. And i know the members who want to present ideas are doing it, again in the best interest of the institution. So, i thank you very much for making this forum available to our colleagues. I look forward to working with you to see if there are suggestions that we can in a bipartisan manner work on together to try and improve the functionality, the flexibility and the effectiveness of the house of representatives. And i know that we all want to do that. I applaud you for your leadership. With that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. I thank you very much, Ranking Member cole is back. And im grateful for his opening. We will be calling up witnesses in panels as they logon to the virtual platform. Id like to welcome our first panel to propose rule changes to congress. Were delighted to you have. Without objection, any written materials that you submit to rules documents house. Gov before the conclusion will be entered into the record. The first panel is majority leader hoyer, clyburn, thompson, mr. Landerman and miss esche. Well yield. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, im glad to be with you today, and i thank mr. Cole as well. I think the house is advantaged by the new relationship that you and tom cole as the Ranking Member have. And the fact that both of you care about the institution. And i might start with my remarks with no matter what we do in the rules. No matter what our rules say, if we dont have comedy and respect from one another, the rules will not make us work better. They can set great guidelines for us, they can be the rules of conduct. They can be the rules of how we consider bills, but one of the things that we all need to work together, in the next congress is to raise the respect for one another, raise the consideration for one another. And i think, mr. Chairman, you and the Ranking Member reflect that kind of attitude and working relationship. So, i appreciate the opportunity to participate in the days member listed day on the rules package for the house for the 117th congress. As we look ahead, many are anticipating a busy start to next year. I certainly do. Rulings ought to facilitate the houses moves for the most pressing challenges facing our country. Others have spoken or will speak, im sure, at length, about several of the proposals for next years rules package including the importance of our pay as you go rule. But i want to focus on the restoration of congressionally directed spending. Now, thats a great phrase. And you i both know the press and the public will call them earmarks. But congressionally directed spending with the safe guards that democrats put in place in 2007 and 2009, very, very important. The safe guards are discussed at the same time we discussed the focus on congressionally directed spending. Let me add, before i go further, on the pay as you go, that we created the pay as you go waiver for emergencies and the covid19 crisis. And we have to meet a serious threat by investing in immediate priorities and needs. We now have substantial fiscal challenges however about that. And they will confront us in the years and years ahead. And we must work responsibly together to address them in the coming years. With regard to congressionally directed spending, after abuses in the system were brought to light, we implemented significant reforms, as i referenced, that made it transparent and held members accountable. A couple of those reforms are included in the rules. And i number of those reforms included in the committee rules. As you know, weve restricted to governmental or nonprofit recipients and required every request to be push lehred online for the American People to see and judge. One of those rules is in the rules of the house. We made the system work and kept it honest. Unfortunately, however, when our republican colleagues took control of the house in 2011, they used congressionally directed spending as a partisan talking point, unfortunately. And eliminated this valuable tool for congress and surrendered part of our power to the executive branch. Tom cole just said, and i agree with him very much, that the powers and prerogatives of the institution need to be protected. Ill speak just a minute about that. Restoring this power in congress, i believe, is essential to restoring the balance of our constitutional systems of checks and balance. A major mofocus, mr. Chairman, d Ranking Member, if i am fortunate enough to be the majority leader in the next congress will be finding ways to restore that balance. That is the balance between the executive and the congress. And looking now, congress can better assert the powers that our founders intended us to have as a coequal branch of government. And as the Sole Authority on spending taxpayer funds. Not the executive, that is why i think the restoration of the congressionally directed spending for projects, that is so important. And my belief is that members of congress elected from 435 districts around the country know, frankly, better than those who may be in washington what their districts need. What their states need. And we ought to return to a time when members can make that decision. But obviously, have that judgment reviewed by the other 434 members of the congress. The founders neither intended nor envisioned the expansion of executive power the kind weve seen in recent years. Through many administrations, democrat and republican, however, we have seen that concern heightened by the actions of the Trump Administration. This president in my view sees congress not as a coequal partner in governing, but as an impediment to his authoritarian tendencies. We much approach the issue of congressly directed spending within this context. Since the elimination of congressionally directed spending in 2011, decisions about funding requests for projects in communities across the country have been made by the executive branch, not by the members of congress, who under the constitution are solely responsible for the spending of money. Members know the needs of their district as i said and are in contact on a daily basis with local leaders and civic organization. Thats why i strongly support restoring safe, transparent and accountable congressionally directed spending of the 117th congress. And i will work towards that end with whomever is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Several of the reforms we adapted during our previous majority are still part of the current house rules. But others were adopted as committee practices, and we ought to consider whether codifying them within the house rules between the 117th congress. I want to thank the chairman and his fellow commit members, mr. Chairman, for working hard on a number of recommendations for the next congress which include restoring congressionally directed spending. And i thank him for that. I believe strongly that this spending ought not to be, however, conditioned on any way on the involvement of entities outside of congress. When i say involvement, let me explain that i mean without the necessity to have a checkoff or an approval of a local official or state official. This is the congress judgment. However, obviously, we would involve all of those in communications for their advice and counsel on what spending may be helpful for local jurisdictions. I, therefore, would say that we ought not to have any requirement for outside approval, other than the voting members of the congress. I hope you will consider this proposal seriously. That you can help us better serve the people and communities that we represent. Again, i want to thank you again for holding the listing day and the hearing and the many important and positive ideas members are bringing to the table for next year. I would close as i began, however, i think all of us, agency leaders, as members of the congress of the United States, when we get through this toxic partisan battle that were now participating in, hopefully, well be able to restore the kind of comidy, mr. Chairman that i experienced working in the congress, the kind of comedy, not only on the rules committee but with the congress of the United States. One of the finest members with whom ive served in the congress over the last 40 years was bob michael who was the minority leader. He was a partisan republican from peoria, illinois. The middle of our country. He cared for his party and his partys leader. But he cared for his country, and he cared for the institution. And he respected and worked with in a positive way his fellow members. I appreciated that. I think other members appreciated that. And as a member for over 20 years on the Appropriations Committee, when i came there, it was a very partisan committee. And mr. Conte was an extraordinary member, a passionate member, but also a before bipartisan member. And thats what we need. Not bipartisan in the sense that im going to change my philosophy, or my republican counterpart is going to change his or her philosophy, but that we both have a philosophy that your ideas are worth listening to, as are mine. And we may disagree, but we can do so in a positive way. And that furthers the work of the congress of the United States. And our country. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be with you. Thank you very much. I appreciated your testimony. Were now going to majority w. H. I. P. Clyburn. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And mr. Ranking member, Ranking Member cole and members of the committee, thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this members hearing today. To discuss what may be ways to take back the Spending Authority that we have in article 1, of the constitution, which in recent years have been seated through the executive branch. I joined this office proudly back in 1993. By the time the appropriations process allowed members to direct funds to activities and communities they deemed worthy. This process directed a small percentage of the appropriations levels to be congressly directed, there by, not adding thing to the cost of the spending bills. And as a result of this process resulted in federal employees with no knowledge of the needs decided on the merit of our requests. Even with the process fair, such as the competitive process is inherently unfair because they were on skills, rather than needs. I represented many committees, each with its own challenges and needs. These committees have limited resources and are unable to hire writers and lobbyists. What they do is their congressmen who lives among them, interacts with them regularly, understands their needs. And has been elected by them to represent their needs. When i was first elected to congress, i was told by my states secretary of commerce that until all the problems in my district was solved, theres little chance that retracting the levels of investments needed to improve the health, education and welfare of the citizens who had overwhelmingly elected me to serve them. I needed his advice. I needed to hear my process to secure funding. Through the United States army corps of engineers, to create and expand the late marin regional water. And might i add, i was criticized severely, by many of the people in this district, because that to them was wasting federal dollars. Well, we moved not just to stab establish it but to expand is it. And they closed a six county rural area. Today, i am pleased to say that South Carolina won the first plant in this country because of their water system. And now, theyre creating what is the 4,000 jobs in this rural area. Were it not for this water system, these jobs would surely have gone elsewhere. 25 years ago, South Carolinas economy was driven by textiles and tobacco. And many of these communities relied on them. Today, South Carolinas economy is driven by tourism. 25 years ago, South Carolina had no today it has two. South carolina had no what would be called national farmers. Today, South Carolina has three. The initial funding for the nationally acclaim ed Program Designed to recruit, educate and train africanamerican natives to become School Teachers in elementary schools. That program was funded with an earmark and is now a national program. Many of the communities in my district have been chronically neglected over the years. I alwas elected to address this and help these communities that can been in poverty for generations to help them get their fair share. While ive spoken to a few successes, many other communities in our district are still struggling. Them need clean water. They need sewage systems. They need targeted federal investments. Mr. Chairman and members, we can fit into our rules the safe guards needed to protect the process. We should prohibit a member from sponsoring a project that their own family members have financial interests in. We should require transparency, so that the public can see what the members have requested. I have always been proud of the spending i requested for my district. And i welcome the public knowing about every one of them. As our districts elected representatives, our rules empower us to request spending we deem to be in the best interest of the people we represent. We do our constituents a disservice by acceding to the democracy, the power that the constitution has given us to improve the lives of our constituents. And help them pursue their dreams and aspirations. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. And i yield back. Thank you very much. Now to chairman thompson. Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member cole. Listen, chairman, 16 years ago the Bipartisan Commission recommended that congress should create a single principle point of oversight and review of Homeland Security. That should be one permanent standing community for Homeland Security in each chamber. At the time, the commission acknowledged that their recommendation to reform congressional oversight was the most difficult to realize, but was among the most important of these recommendations. When the 109th congress convened on january 4th, 2005, the committee on Homeland Security became the 20th Standing Committee of the house. And the first new one since 1974. At that time, the Committee Jurisdiction statement reflected the reluctance of other committees to relinquish jurisdiction to this new committee. The structure of committees on Homeland Securitys jurisdictional statement is unlike any other authorizing committee. It does not include broad subject Matter Authority like, for instance, the Armed Services company as common defense generally. Instead it utilizing a novel structure where it mostly limited committee Homeland Security black letter jurisdiction to six narrow drawn activities within dhs. Over the years, with adequate service jurisdictional statement has been criticized in independent reports by a host of groups including the bipartisan politics center, the heritage foundation, the Brookings Institution. George washington Homeland Security policy institute. And the center for strategic and international studies. A 2013 Task Force Report by the astin institute and annanberg foundation concluded that fragmented jurisdiction impedes dhs ability to deal with three major vulnerabilities. The threat posed by small aircraft and boats, Cyber Security, and biological weapons. Yet, over the past 15 years, on under both republican and democratic leadership, that statement has remained unchanged. It concluded that dhs should have an oversight structure that resembles the one governing other critical departments such as defense of justice and the committees claim of jurisdiction over dhs should have overlapping membership. And just this past august, mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Council in its future dhs project recommended reform explaining that more than 90 committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over all or part of dhs. And that the best window of opportunity for this will be during the 90day window between the november 3rd election and the start of the 117th congress on january 4th, 2021. Chairman mcgovern, i could not agree more. There is no question that the moment is right for reforming dhs jurisdictional statement in the 117th congress. Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the 9 11 attacks, a catastrophic event that drove the creation of the department of Homeland Security. And in, turn, my committee. For those 15 years have passed in which theres been more than justi enough evidence to support the exclusion that the jurisdictional statement is inadequate and undermines the crucial rule as dhs authorizer. Finally, were at a moment when public trust in the department is at an alltime low. Given its role in the president s cool immigration agenda, and on the streets most recently, where protests and calls for reform have grown more and more urgent. Dhs does not need dismantling, it needs reforming, but for that to happen, the committee of Homeland Security must have adequate legislative authority to produce and bring to the floor a dhs reform package. Ive been on the committee since its earliest days. And im proud of the work weve been able to accomplish, despite our jurisdictional limitation. However, the committees woefully inadequate jurisdiction causes many functions of dhs, a wide reaching agency, with Collaborative Missions in many fields, to fall under the jurisdiction of far too many competing congressional committees. The result is where the referrals have bogged down important legislation to shape the future of the department. And to rein in bad policy decisions and the leadership of various administrations without effective leadership from congress, including consistent, reauthorization of the department, secretaries have been able to carry out wrong, ineffective and dangerous policies. I am proposing, as chairs on both sides of the aisle have in the past, that congress reorganize the committees jurisdiction to bring it in line, with the goals of the 9 11 commissions recommendation. And give the department a true authorizing committee, with authority to advance, reform legislation, and put it on a positive path. I recognize the challenge that presents, and remember the difficulty in simply creating the committee in the first place. However, its the right thing to do. And believe that the time has come to do it. With that, mr. Chair, i yield back. And thank the committee for the opportunity to present my position. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You can hear me okay . Yes. Very good. Good afternoon, chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole and members of the committee, let me begin by thanking you all for your commitment for letting me give you feedback as you consider rules changes for the 117th congress. As im sure my colleagues on this distinguished panel may be well aware, Cyber Security has been an issue of great importance to me for more than a dozen years. And for more than a decade, ive made protecting our nations Critical Infrastructure, from our health care system, to our power grid to election a top priority. I served as the chairman of the intelligence emerging capability subcommittee on the house Armed Services committee and served as a Senior Member of the committee on Homeland Security subcommittee on Cyber Security, Infrastructure Protection and innovation. Congressman mike coyle and i cochaired the congressional caucus. I come to you today to share position in improving the position. I had the privilege of this pig by House Speaker pelosi. Congress comprised the commission, with members of the executive branch and six private sector experts that resulted in a strategic approach of better protecting the United States from cyber attack from significant consequence. We met for a year before releasing my report on march 11th that called for it. In addition to this strategic vision, we had 82 recommendations how the government can implement it. More than 50 of those recommendations are directed to congress. Thanks in no small part to your leadership, chairman mcgovern, the house has included more than 20 of these bipartisan recommendations in this years mba, including within the executive office of the president. Id like to reiterate my thanks to you and your staff to make sure that these particular proposals were presented to the full house for today. However, one of the commissions most critical legislative recommendations is directed not at the administration, but congress itself. The recommendation 1. 2 of the Commission Report states, and i quote, congress should create house permanent select and senate collect committees, cybercommittees, on Cyber Security. Consolidate budgetary and legislative jurisdiction over Cyber Security issues as well and traditional oversight. And this is what i submit for your recommendation today. The challenges of Cyber Security jurisdiction were on full display earlier this week when we considered three suspensions redding to grid Cyber Security. Jim thompson was absolutely correct in the concerns he expressed on the floor during debate. But it did not reflect the views of the intraagency and would increase in conducting this Critical Infrastructure sector. Chairman pallone was correct that in his jurisdiction the bills were squarely in the remit of the energy committee. Had commerce included language to avoid that they warned against, the bill included a referral to any number of additional committees. So, i can think of no clearer example on how the Committee Structure is broken than it incentivizes the kind of silos that are empathetical to all of the approaches we need to combat cyberthreat. So, our proposal directly today, directly counters, the stove piping by centralizing jurisdiction around among its many benefits it will increase substream making capacity by increasing staff and expertise. It will streamline oversight from the dozens of committees and subcommittees that currently claim some jurisdiction over cyber. And it will help congress with the speed and agility needed to have any hope of keeping up with the pace of technological innovation. Mr. Chairman, i understand that matters of Committee Jurisdiction are extremely important. I realize it represents a sea change. I believe its inevitable. We have seen Cyber Attacks that have failed the national economy. We have seen our adversaries invest in their offensive cybercapabilities. And we remain a country that because we best take advantage of the internet were made the most vulnerable in signcyberspa. I believe this congress will recognize we could have done more and because the current Committee Structure is actively undermining our ability to do so. Mr. Chairman, what im hoping you and your esteemed colleagues will do with the next rules package is take a page out of the cybercommissions playbook. From the outset, we time have the impact of the 9 11 commission without the reciprocating event of the National Tragedy on scale of that 9 11 event. No small task. But as it was said, i devotquote warning lights are blinking red again, end quote. This organization will change not by itself prevent disaster. But it will Position Congress to ensure the internet is free, open, interoperable and secure in the decades to come. Foll finally, mr. Chairman, let me Say Something about chairman thompsons remarks we heard a few minutes ago. First off, i want to fully associate myself with Jim Thompsons remarks. Dhs has heard. And around jurisdiction, its quite frankly, part of the problem. Secondly, while i believe a cybercommittee is inevitable, i appreciate that its a big step. If the rules committee feels more comfortable consolidates jurisdiction within the existing committee, i believe that will significantly improve the situation. And i believe the committee on Homeland Security is the only sensible home. So, again, i thank chairman thompson for his leadership on many issues. Again, i appreciate myself with him. With that, mr. Chairman, i want to thank you. I yield back and look forward to answering any questions you may. Thank you. And the final person on the panel is miss esche. Thank you chairman mcgovern and Ranking Member cole. The two of you, i think, are a source of pride to all of the members in the house, by the way you work together. And all of the members of the committee. I appreciate being able to offer my suggestions for updating the house rules for the 117th congress. Specifically, i urge to you consider four changes. The first is to expand multi factor authentication requirements. The second is to establish a working group to combat recommendations. And the third is to make sure all house documents are machine readable and the fourth is to make permanent Electronic Commission of legislative tearless materials. I certainly respect the hard work of the house staff to protect Cyber Security, but i think we have more work to do. You might notice that the i. D. Cards of our staff have a chip. Except its not an actual chip. Its an image of a chip. And this measure is called security theater. So, i urge the Committee First of all to acquire multifactor authentication for all access to the house network. Executive branch employees have i. D. S with real chips which they insert into their laptops for multifactor authentication. We currently require multifactor authentication for remote access. But our requirements are actually incomplete. Id be happy to share vulnerabilities with the committee privately, so as to not to publicize them. Secondly, i urge the committee to establish a working group, to tea l stu study and combat potential surveillance of congressional communications. On august 28th, i wreet to tote director of national intelligence, the dni, and i expressed my concerns regarding recent allegations that Edward Snowden unveiled communications with congress when he was an nsa contractor. I asked whether it surveilled congress or whether it has protective safe guards for it. Most frankly, the responses to my letter really ignored answering the questions. Weve all received letters like that so i think you know exactly what im talking about. But, sadly, this isnt the first time that the i. C. Has surveilled congress. In the 70s, the cia maintains files on 75 members of congress. So, we know that our constitution established three coequal branches of government, with separation of power, one branch being able to spy on another is totally unacceptable. Now, press reports also indicate that washington is littered with stingrays. These are devices used to intercept cellular communications. And while dhs confirmed the problem, its not clear whos operating the devices. Third, i urge the committee to require all legislative material to be posted in a machine readable format. Today, the bills are posted to congress. Gov, and a machine readable format. But the materials for markups are posted online, as pdfs and sometimes, they arent even searchable pdfs. And why does this matter . If we receive amendments in the nature of a substitute 24 hours before marking up lengthy bills we cant compare the amendments to original bills without manually reading the documents line by line. Its the 21st century, so, we need to do something about this. With machine readable formats, members, their staff and the public can easily analyze amendments. And finally, i ask that the committee make permanent procedures for submitting legislative materials to the clerk electronically. On august on april 16th, excuse me, on april 16th, the clerk announced procedures for secure process to introduce legislation. Add cosponsors to bills. And insert statements to the congressional record electronically. This decision remains essential for the safety of members and staff. And my observation is that this process is working quite well. So, making this change permanent makes our operations more efficient. And electronic time stamp also means we have a paper trail as to when items were filed. So, again, i want to thank the committee for considering my recommendations. I welcome any questions that the committee might have for me, moving forward. And i yield back. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for your testimony. And you know, i think everybody has important ideas here. And i associate myself with suggestions of the majority leader. I do think congressional directed spending is something. Not just because we know our districts better, i think, than the executive branch, but also because i think if the past is any indication, the people have skin in the game when people know passing certain bills will make a difference in their district. We tend to get more bipartisan support. I look forward to this discussion continuing and i, again, jim clyburn was in clarify favor of this. And he was direct and persuasive about the value of that. I appreciate your recommendations and we will work with you i think the issue when you talk about Committee Jurisdiction is always a little bit delicate because sometimes when you want to expand your jurisdiction, it means somebody else is diminishing theirs and even though this makes sense, its not always easy to get everybody on the same reading off the same sheet of music. But i we will in the coming weeks, our staff will work with your staff to see whether we can begin these conversations and get a consensus among committees that may be impacted by a consolidation on Homeland Security that maybe we can come to some sort of accommodation. I think all of your suggestions are we will work with you. Some of these i think are rules changes. Some of them may not necessarily be rules changes. But we will work with you to make sure theyre all to the extent possible adopted. We appreciate it very, very much. Mr. Cole . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to joining you in thanking all of the members of the panel. This may be the most distinguished panel that appeared before the rules committee. All the suggestions were well thought through. Let me make a couple of remarks, if you will. Im going to broadly agree with the majority leader about congressionally directed spending. As the appropriator, i dont think hell find that as a shock. I will disagree that its any worse than the loss of power with this president as opposed to any previous president. This is an institutional question. I point out that our former president , president obama, i think requested the most earmarks of anybody in congress when he was a United States senator. As soon as he became president , he was happy to be rid of them. Let me emphasize i speak only for myself. I dont speak for my conference or my leadership. We lost an important tool. I think the majority leader is exactly right. We lost an important tool and whip clyburn made this point, to help our constituents who they send us here and many of them are not in a position to get paid lobbyists. They rely on their member to look after their interest as part of the job, i think, and i agree with, again, both the majority leader and majority whip who made the point face cards have to be appropriate. Theres no question theres been abuses in the past. We have members who went to prison for abusing this system. The idea of publishing them, making them accountable, not being able to air drop projects into conference bills, all of those things make a lot of sense to me and the idea of moving away from profitmaking institutions. I will add this, just as majority whip clyburn pointed out, really Important Program that encourages africanamerican males to go into teaching began with a single congressionally directed spending project. Thats true of one of our most important weapon systems, the predator drone which the pentagon resisted. This was a case where congress has a much better idea than the bureaucracy and our former colleague jerry lewis had a lot to do with making sure that particular weapons platform is available for our use. Its been very valuable. Controversial, ill grant you, but unquestionably valuable. Again, this idea of shipping power over to the executive branch i think is a mistake. I think its a failed experiment. I had these discussions frequently with our former colleague, my late friend, tom, who was famous for earmarks. But i actually made the point in one of our discussions, look, when we actually had earmarks, we actually balanced the budget. Weve gotten rid of them. How close have we come to a balanced budget since then. Im not suggesting that earmarks or congressionally directed spending result in a balanced budget. Im not saying theres any relationship between the two. Thats become a way to demagogue things and its cost us a tool, its cost us power. I very much agree with that. I very much am interested in chairman Thompsons Point about Homeland Security, hes wrestled with the appropriations side of to issue. I think those are important suggestions. They are difficult, i will grant you. I see this same sort of thing, mr. Chairman, probably should submit an idea to the rules committee. But i give you a perfect example of this happening within the Appropriations Committee itself. We have the Indian Health care service funded in the interior subcommittee because it mostly deals with indian issues. That seems like it makes sense. But it really ought to be in the labor health and Human Services. Its the only part of that agency that is not controlled and has two practical consequences. The first is, Indian Health is always underfunded. Its the largest item in the interior budget. You move it over to an agency that has 190 billion or a committee within its purview, they have a much better chance of getting that to where it needs to be. Second thing, and this is a separate problem, but ive presented it to the budget committee, under both republicans and democrats, its the only health care agency, number one, that we dont use mandatory funding in except this third party payment. Its subject to limitations of the appropriations process and that needs to be looked at. Number two, because its an appropriated item, for instance, when we had sequester and we held medicare and medicaid exempt from cuts, Indian Health care was cut. I dont think that was delivered, anybody, on anybodys part. We treat it differently. Theres some real merit to these suggestions in terms of looking at redistributing authority because they have live consequences. This isnt a power game on capitol hill. Where you happen to be placed in the appropriations budget since each one of those subcommittees has a different top line really determines what your prospects are. As ive told my friends in Indian Country on many occasions you will never get ihs funded appropriately as long as its stuck in interior because theres too many responsibilities within that agency and too little money. And thats actually an area where the two parties have worked very, very well together for over a decade now trying to do the best they could under that limited session. I thought i would take the occasion to put my particular favorite in front of people who might be able to help me down the line as we work through this. I want to thank every member for their testimony. I thought this was exceptionally thoughtful, good sessions, a lot of areas here, mr. Majority leader, where you and i agree and where i hope we could work in a bipartisan manner. As the chairman pointed out, this is about institutional appropriate power. This isnt about trying to score political points against anybody and i very much appreciate the spirit in which the suggestions were offered. They all have considerable merit and i look forward to working with my colleagues. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments . Yes, just a couple. Thank you. And i im 100 with mr. Cole on this, both on the directed spending. You want to present some kind of a rule change as to that Indian Health because it has come up on a number of occasions. I think you brought it up here. We ought to formalize it a little more. I remember we had two colleagueles, one of them became my senator, mark udall who was supposed to earmark and jeff flake was very much. He would go down to the mic and make his statements and they were wrong then, and i told him so, and i think it really has hurt our institution. A lot of us took pride i know almost everybody took pride in the ability to provide an irrigation, help channel some kind of a difficult ravine or help with a laboratory at a local college and actually you can take ownership of that. As a personal matter as well as a community matter, its very beneficial. So mr. Clyburn, youre absolutely right. I felt personally like i was more effective and more connected to my district with the ability to do some of those things for our boys and girls clubs or Something Like that. Im with mr. Thompson. I served on Homeland Security security many moons ago. I dont remember if they remember that. But we had similar problems back then as to not being able to really do all of the things that are required of that committee because we kept bumping into jurisdictional issues. I would be supportive of you two gentlemen and your requests. And that would affect Financial Services because we have a cybersecurity component to that when it comes to the Financial Sector and the hacking potentially and the disruption of the Financial Sector. We should all get together and do that. I appreciate the testimony. But particularly on the directed funding. I think we did ourselves a disservice by doing away with that and i yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We always are able to make time to do those things that are in our wheelhouse. I liked ms. Eshoos concerned. Whether its showing your i. D. When you pass the entry points instead of expecting people to recognize or two factor identification when youre logged into your computer. By the time we come together on the concerns, its going to be too late because something awful will have happened. We have to exert in the name of protecting the institution some discipline to inconvenience ourselves in ways that ms. Eshoo has taken the time and made a career of understanding for those who do not understand them and will not until its too late. I want to thank her for that and its not in our wheelhouse. We are uncomfortable going down this road sometimes and its easy to put on the back burner until its too late and i hope we will take her advice and her pointed solutions to heart and make sure that we benefit from those. With that, i yield back. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you ill echo the remarks of my colleagues in thanking such a distinguished panel. I want to note, i find it hard to imagine anyone who stood on a Standing Committee with Ed Perlmutter wont remember that. I was thinking back as mr. As mr. Leader and mr. Whip were having making their comments. I think about the Clinical Sciences building at the university of rochester or the eastman theater or the center for integrated manufacturing studies or the Sustainability Institute at rit. It was for students in the nationally ranked gaming, film and animation schools. Those are all things that i was able to actually get funded when i was a member of the new York State Legislature and what we called member items which is effectively the same different term, same thing, that relates to directed spending. I dont think theres any question that you could meet both objectives of insuring transparency and accountability and yet allow members who know their districts, know their communities, the very best to make decisions on priority projects in their regions. I thought mr. Clyburns discussion of what he had been able to do in South Carolina was so right on the money because each of us, each community has challenges, but each are different than every other community. And so i would be a strong supporter of doing that and as i said, i dont think its mutually exclusive that we have transparency and accountability as well as congressionally directed spending. Frankly, i think its so inherent in article 1 responsibilities of the congress and the power of the purse. I would agree with my colleagues who have spoken before and thank the panelists. If its okay, ill admit to not having very much of a Knowledge Base on jurisdictions and i suspect that i i appreciate very much the chairmans acknowledgement of the sensitivity of jurisdictions. Can you just give me sort of an example of how you and your colleagues on the committee feel constrained in ways that would help give me some clarity around what it is exactly that youre asking to do without divulging too much. Perhaps you could give me a sense of an example. Thank you very much. Ill give you a good example is one of the challenges we have is Natural Disasters. Fema is one of those 22 agencies thats in homeland. Well, before fema can move in the resources pertaining to a hurricane, flood, wildfire, tornado or anything like that, the stafford act has been to be engaged that gives fema the authority to go out and perform its mission. And may i interrupt you . Do you mean the staff in fema staff itself or our staff . The stafford act im sorry. Im sorry. Right. Which is the trigger that provides the resources. Well, stafford act is on another committee. Its not in homeland. So fema is sitting here with all the resources to address the Natural Disaster but theyre neutral because they dont have the authority to go and help american citizens. And sometimes our experience has been those authorities are sometime days, if not weeks, before they engage. But if that authority was within homeland, fema could do its job day one. And so its those kinds of things. The other thing give you a good example, is with i. C. E. , immigration customs enforcement. Well, if you have a problem in your district with i. C. E. , that jurisdiction is in another committee because its considered interior enforcement. But guess what . I. C. E. Is in homeland because part of their mission is border security. So i get the call from many of my colleagues saying, we have this issue with i. C. E. In our district. And then when i try to explain jurisdiction, the first thing they said, arent they in homeland . Youre correct. What im trying to do, we need to get the authorities and jurisdictions to match. And im done after this. Armed services. Anything pertaining to the military goes to Armed Services. Thats it. Agriculture. Anything that goes related to agriculture. Im just trying to connect the mission with the authority and responsibility. Those are very good examples and i shouappreciate that. My background is in the state legislature and we have discreet jurisdictions for the various committees. At one point i chaired the insurance committee, and Health Insurance ended up being depending on which section of law could be in the insurance committee, could be in the health committee. I guess theres no perfect way to divide that up. I note here in the house, health care could be, could come under ed and labor, energy or commerce, ways and means. Is the situation you face more acute than some of the jurisdictional challenges that would face us on some of the issues like health care, et cetera . You think its unique and more of a bright line. Absolutely. And its a matter of function. You want the agencies to work. So much of what we do is predicated on being able to respond in a timely manner. And so that response is limited simply because the agency that youre located in does not have the authority to execute on that issue. And so i give you another example im done after this. Family separation that we had big issues separating families from others. Well, that authority is not a homeland authority, per se. Its vested in another committee. But the agency that created the problem is in homeland. And so were just trying to to the best that we can tie the authorities and the functions with the agencies. I see. And nothing more than that. And, you know, if the committee would like, i could provide you with several other examples of what were talking about. Just so we can serve the American People in a timely manner. Well, i will say i apologize for the extended questioning. This has been helpful and i apologize, mr. Chair. I would i assume that some of this came out of the fact that as you mentioned 9 11 gave rise to the department of homeland securi security. So i assume some of this is the developing of an agency and a committee that follows it youre getting shoe horned into existing law and existing wires that preexisted 9 11 and the committee. I think you make a compelling case. I cant imagine the frustration of having to have agencies that are under the jurisdiction of my committee or you have oversight for but you cant really effect or connect with on the issues that colleagues are and the American Public is talking about. I really appreciate very much your leadership and your comments here. The last thing i would say, i agree with my other colleagues. Ms. Eshoo i think you make compelling arguments on Electronic Submission and cybersecurity. Just to go back for a second. The notion of creating a select committee if we were able to address the Homeland Security Committee Issues in the way that you, mr. Chairman, chairman thompson, have suggested, would you then simply create potentially a subcommittee on cybersecurity . Is there no conflict between what youre recommending and others were recommending . No. Absolutely. We created cisa which is a cyber entity that has responsibility across the federal agency platform. And so what were saying is, keep the mission of federal Agency Cybersecurity within that agency. The minute you pull it out, we start creating the same problem we had before we created homeland which is the siloing of information that ended up with 9 11. And so were trying to avoid that by creating a system where everyone is here talking to each other and not everybody trying to come with a turf issue. The other thing i can say is, all of the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission Report spoke to that issue and the only one we have not completely fulfilled is this notion of jurisdiction for the Homeland Security commission. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I apologize for the length in my questioning. But i appreciate all of the panelists and the opportunity to speak. I yield back. Ms. Lesko. Thank you, mr. Chairman. No questions. Ms. Shalala . Did i miss anybody no, im fine. Ive got ive got a couple of things. I agree with directed spending and i agree with representative eshoos recommendation. And mr. Cole, i would love to see the Indian Health service. I struggle trying to get resources for the Indian Health service as well as the food and Drug Administration which was stuck in agriculture because they just were not High Priorities for those committees. Even when i went and personally testified, it was just very difficult to get proper resources. So i would even think about the bureau of the Indian Education being moved to education just to get some attention to these really important agency. Frankly, the only reason the Indian Health service during my years at hhs and the food and Drug Administration, the fda, ever got significant resources was because i was ted stevens doubles partner. And he helped me get resources for those two for those two agencies because it was hard to get the attention of those of those committees. So i just think that thinking through the right alignment is just the right thing to do. Will the gentle lady yield for a question and comment . Yes. Thank you for your focus on this and your time in the and your continued focus on it. But to your point, this is actually an area i will tell you where i would compliment both democrats and republicans on Indian Health for over a decade. Theyve exceeded consistently what republican and democratic administrations have suggested. Theres just not enough money there. Its just a matter of what their exactly. And the second area that i should have mentioned earlier, your opinion on would be really valued, a number of years ago we made the decision i think it was a smart decision, to forward fund veterans health. Its never at risk if were in some sort of political spat up here. We havent done that with Indian Health care. And we ought to do the same thing, particularly if were going to keep it within the discretionary budget. That, again, is something we just simply ought to do so that if theres a squabble up here, all of a sudden theres not a dramatic decline in the availability of health care on some remote indian reservation through, you know where people there have done absolutely nothing wrong. We just havent gotten our job done up here. Thanks for your work and commitment. One of a distinguished record and its much appreciated. Thank you. Does the gentle lady yield back . Are there in other questions of this panel . I want to thank this panel and you are all now dismissed. Thank you. Calling up our next panel, mr. Davis, ms ms. Wassermanschultz, mr. Cline, mr. Castro and mr. Kris. Any written materials that you have, you can submit to rules documents before the conclusion of this hearing. Without objection it will be entered into the recognize. I recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Davis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wanted to make sure i was unmuted. I appreciate being here, chairman, good afternoon. And to the rest of the committee, thanks again for allowing me to testify today. The 116th congress has been full of surprises. The Silver Lining is our ability to learn from challenges and adapt and make our institution work member for the American People. Im going to highlight three buckets of changes to pave the path for continued improvement. The first set of changes is a clarification of mr. Davis, could you put your video on . I thought i had it on, sir. I apologize. Youre on now, yeah. Youre in stereo and in tech color. The first set of changes that im asking for is a clarification of current house rules regarding the use of proxy voting. I warned that proxy voting would likely be abused by members if authorized. I was assured that controls would be in place and being implemented in order to ensure member in order to ensure member, family and staff safety. However, mr. Chairman and mr. Ranking member, today, the trends are emerging that family and that signal abuse of this option. As infection rates stabilize and in many states fall, proxy voting is being used in increased numbers by up to 20 of all members and often inconsistently with members picking and choosing when they want to be in d. C. Were also seeing increased use of proxy voting on fridays, a sign that members are using it to take a long weekend back home. They show us that the use of proxy voting is no being utilized in the which it was implemented, safety. I would encourage the next congresss rules package include additional guardrails if the proxy voting remains at all. The second bucket is an acknowledgement of the work of the select committee on modernization of congress in which i and my peers passed our final report of nearly 100 recommendations last week, unanimously. These recommendations emphasize the need for the house to increase transparency, streamline operations so all of our constituents can engage in the work that we do. Rules changes to require our legislative documents be publicly shared in a machine readable format and for all Committee Votes to be recorded and compiled into a database are realistic improvements. Similarly, they can permit some of the advancements weve made such as continuing the clerks use of the hopper and allows the cosponsorship of bills. It saves our staff time and the taxpayers money. We expand electronic signatures or discharge petitions. Modernizing our institution to be accessible by disabilities is a duty and priority in which we are behind. We have dedicated considerable resources to making our campus physically accessible but need to put the same emphasis on to who interact from afar. Two are ensuring that all congressional websites are accessible to the disabled and that all video products of the house have closed captioning. I encourage you and your team to read the finalist recommendations for more details on each of these proposed rules changes and dozens more. The final bucket i encourage this committee to consider when crafting the rules for the 117th congress, as a previous staffer and member who has had the honor to serve on the committee of House Administration and the select committee on modernization, i see opportunities before us to better this institution and to do it in a bipartisan manner. The efforts of the select committee need to continue. I know there are different ideas on what form that should take and im open to the various options including authorizing another select committee, creating a subcommittee of House Administration, or a less fiscal year structure. We continue the momentum that is been created. Again, thank you, chairman and Ranking Member for holding this hearing. It can push us all to be better. I applaud this committee for submitting input and look forward to working together. At this time, i yield back. Let me assure you we do take the recommendations of the committee of modernization seriously. We created the committee. And we extended its the life of the committee because we thought that the work was important. We will look at those. Some of the recommendations that are would require rules changes, some of them we dont need rules changes to do. We need to get various other committees to act on them. But i assure you, we take it seriously. Im happy to yield to ms. Wassermanschultz. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, and i appreciate the opportunity to present my proposals before the House Rules Committee to my colleagues. This really is a fantastic opportunity at the beginning and on set of the 117th congress for us to really continue to make the entire process that we go through each and every day more transparent, more and more inclusive. In 2011, congress chose to surrender a great deal of its power of the purse to the executive branch. And i associate myself with the remarks of leader clyburn, mr. Cole and many others who have testified this afternoon that it is past time that we take back the power that we surrendered. Any congressionally directed spending and giving that power to the executive branch has made the appropriations process less accountable and more arduous. Its contributed to a lack of comedy and too many members feel too little direct impact in their district and are not able to be as involved in the process. I believe that the ban on spending is one of the factors that contribute to breakdowns in the process and delays that end with frantic yearend negotiations and government shutdowns and leaders on both sides of the aisle have realized this. They recognize that the institution granted congress the power to make important decisions about spending. The Brookings Institution recognized that, quote, the removal of congressional earmarking does not make earmarking go away. Its simply transfers that power and practice from the legislative branch to the executive branch. It does not make sense for congress to surrender control over federal funding. Members of congress are in the best position to know the needs of our districts and the needs of our constituents. The band does not exist in law or in house rules as you know, but only in practice. And it can be easily changed next congress if theres only the political will to do so. We need to do this as many of my colleagues have testified the right way. We need to add additional requirements that will ensure transparency and Good Governance while prohibiting wasteful spending. I offer the following proposals to start us off on the responsible pathway. One, prohibit spending for for profit entities. Post spending on the committees website, in bill reports and on members personal websites. Establish a spending database that is publicly accessible and media friendly. Four, direct the Government Accountability office to submit an audit that examines the benefits of spending and the efficacy of the proposed transparency and accountability methods. Direct inspectors general to review a sample of spending for waste, fraud and abuse. Seven, require that all restrictions on congressionally directed spending be enshrined in house rules and any new requirements will apply to all legislation at all times as was discussed by other members this afternoon. Currently, many vehicles are left out of the requirements including floor and selfexecuting amendments and amendments considered under the rules. Congress could reassert its authority in a transparent manner while members to better represent targets for our districts. It wont fix everything wrong with the appropriations process but it can go a long way in negotiations over funding the government. Second, mr. Chairman, i also want to mention my support for restoring the collect Intelligence Oversight Panel. The 9 11 report included several recommendations for the intelligence community. That responsibility is really only handled by the defense appropriations subcommittee right now and thats why the house established the select Intelligence Oversight Panel in the 110th congress. I was proud to be a member of that panel. The panel was abolished in the 112th congress. We should consider bringing it back. Revisions to the structure of the committee could update the approach and ensure its able to have oversight. Now more than ever, we need additional accountability over the budget. With an administration that continues to abuse its authorities and defy the intent of Appropriations Bills, making sure that we have this important layer of accountability and oversight in the portion of the budget of appropriations is essential. And this panel would be useful no matter which administration is in power. Its important that congress assert our authority over the intelligence budget and ensure that responsibility funding decisions are made and made thoroughly with a lot of eyeballs and its just so important for us to make sure that in terms of protecting our national security, the members coming before the committee today have raised as being an everincreasing threat, having an Oversight Committee once that would be specifically focused on the oversight of our of the administrations budget request and the intelligence spending that we do for our entire nation would be a critical oversight component that would allow us to make sure that we can continue to improve our national security. Thank you for the opportunity to present my suggestions and i yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Cline . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And Ranking Member cole. I really appreciate you holding todays hearing to listen to concerns from your colleagues regarding rules of the house. Hearings like this are critical to the effective function of congress and i appreciate this opportunity to testify on practice that is can improve the operations of this body. Many of the house rule that is are in place, provide the necessary transparency in the legislative process but unfortunately these rules are worked around or waived when it matters most. Im here today to highlight practices already established that i believe we should be exercising to increase transparency and accountability by following these well thoughtout rules, we can rein in the dysfunction that has plagued the process. The 72hour rule was established so members of congress have time to read and review legislation before having members vote on it. This rule can be waived and can be worked around by amending an existing bill by an amendment. Sadly, these occurrences are frequently used on appropriations in larger authorization measures. For example, last week, the text of the continuing resolution introduced less than an hour before members had an opportunity to vote on it. This flies in the face of responsible governance. Measures should not be passed under suspension of the rules. Managing it in that manner takes away any transparency to the voters. It was happening well before this congress. Both sides of the aisle have utilized this tactic while in the majority. Whats why i introduced a resolution to tighten the rule in instances where a bill is stripped of its text. Its not a matter of transparency that members should have time to be voting on, its a matter of respect, respect that all members have a right to read the legislation, not just those who are in leadership drafting it. In addition to the ability to read bills before voting on them, members should be given the opportunity to offer amendments on bills they were not able to help draft. Way, way back in the day, i was a staffer on the hill and we considered more appropriations and larger authorization bills under open rules and this allowed members who did not have an opportunity to amendment bills when they were in committee an opportunity to do so on the floor before having a vote on it. There have been no open rules on the house floor during this congress and the last time an open rule or revised open rule was reported out of rules committee was in the 114th congress. Many members do want to participate in the legislative process. We believe we have serious amendments to improve legislation. I have 16 years in the state legislature working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve legislation throughout the process and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should have the chance to improve legislation here in the congress. The last area for improvement that i would like to recommend today is the importance of individual bill of consideration when it comes to appropriations measures. While its not specific to this committee, this committee has great sway and influence and i would urge you to help encourage regular order when it comes to Appropriations Bills. Each of the appropriation subcommittees work hard to produce a bill. And members should be afforded the opportunity to vote on and offer amendments to individual Appropriations Bills. As was said earlier by my colleagues, article 1 of the u. S. Constitution establishes that revenue bills should start in the house. When these bills are passed as massive packages or funding, pushed through as a continuing resolution that impacts members ability to thoughtfully consider legislation. The American People should expect more fiscal responsibility and focus from Congress Instead of relegating those duties by passing appropriations packages. Congressional leaders need to return to a regular order and the rules committee should encourage leaders to produce appropriations measures that are report today the floors as their individual bills instead of as packages. It can be fixed by using the existing processes and respecting the rules that are established. It would establish a baseline of respect that all members deserve in this chamber. It extends the same respect to the voters who elected each of us to represent them here in the house of representatives. Thank you for the work that you do and i look forward to working with the rules committee to bring about more transparency and accountability in the legislature. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you to chairman mcgovern for holding this hearing. Im here to discuss a proposed change for the next congress that would institutionize the witness diversity witness. Its composed of the congressional asiapacific american caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the congressional black caucus. This year, the caucus launched this initiative to track the diversity of the expert witnesses who testify before house committees. Our announcement included support from speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, the womens caucus, the congresswoman davids, cochair of the lgbtq plus caucus and cochair of the native american caucus. While a witness Diversity Initiative has never existed as part of the Core Functions of the house, two bodies in the United Kingdom are already leading this work in westminster and in scotland. Our initiative has in large part been modeled after their work to track the gender diversity of their witnesses. And while this is the first initiate of its kind here, research on this topic as it pertains to gender does exist. For example, an American University report published earlier this year shows that during the 2017 hearings on tax reforms, less than 19 of the witnesses who testified were women. As you know, the 116th congress is the most Diverse Congress in our nations history. Yet too often our witnesses do not reflect the nations diversity. Unfortunately for many years, many communities have often been underrepresented including latinos, africanamericans, a a asian, women, and lgbtq folks. At this moment and as a Global Pandemic disproportionately harms communities of color, now is a time for change and for our rules to reflect our values. As Congress Continues to draft legislation to support our countrys fight against covid19, its critical that members of Congress Hear from diverse witnesses in that process. The institutionization of this initiative will make clear to the American People make clear its diversity in congress. We should aim to improve on the ways we serve our American People. I believe this proposal is an important step toward a more just, a fair, and a more inclusive congress. And with that, i yield back my time. Thank you very much. Mr. Krist . Can you hear me all right . Yes. Great. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and Ranking Member cole along with all of the members of the rules committee. You all work hard in the entire house and we are grateful to you. Earlier this summer, americans from big cities and small towns across our country took to the streets to peacefully protest Racial Injustice in the largest demonstrations in American History. Between income inequality, wealth inequality, Educational Achievement gaps, criminal justice inequality, discrimination in lending and appraisals, voter suppression, Maternal Health disparities and armed White Supremacists marching through american streets, American People said enough. Americans of all shapes, sizes and colors said, quote, black lives matter and committed to fight racism. We committed to dismantle systems of racism that hold black americans back instead of going about business as usually. Going on autopilot is no longer going to cut it. Its on all of us to do whatever we can to truly deliver equal opportunity and equal justice you arent the law. We as legislators should be aware of the impact of the policies we make. Thats why im proposing a small but potentially significant change to the rule of the house for the 117th congress. Just as Committee Reports are required by house rules to include items like a Congressional Budget Office score or budgetary impact, we should ask for a score on racial impact of legislation the house is considering. Awareness will be important tool for fighting racism. However, insidious or accidental in our policies. This information will help members who want to tackle racial gaps and it will help members who at the very least dont want to make things worse. The Congressional Budget Office already has this capability and already provides this analysis upon request. I ask that we work together, the party of lincoln and the party of obama, to say that although we may fall short sometimes, we as a house are committed to try. A racial impact score wont end injustice, but it will be a good start. I thank you for your consideration and welcome any questions about my proposal and yield back, i want to associate myself with my good friend and fellow congresswoman Stephanie Murphy for her amendment to raise the threshold for members to recommit. Thank you for your testimony and i would and i really i have no questions. I do want to point out for the record, mr. Davis, that you mentioned the infection rates have been stabilized. The latest news shows that infection rates are going up. Were not out of the woods with regard to this terrible virus, im sad to say in large part because we have not had a National Strategy to manage it appropriately. In any event yes . Mr. Chair, i agree there are pockets where were seeing an increase. I was referring to the last four months. But i would urge this committee also, i agree with you, we havent prepared the house, either. I think we need a plan to be able to get the house back to work and be able to begin implementing some of the same measures that have helped stabilize other parts of country. And i think we should do what we believe we can to better protect this chamber. But i also dont believe the answer is to make it more challenging for members to participate during a pandemic. In fact, my counter argument would be i think its really sad that the minority has decided to enforce against its own members a demand that they not participate in proxy voting which is basically disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters. You have members, you know, depending on what week it is, a considerable amount of republicans that dont show up, and they cant vote with the exception of one, your leadership says they cant. Lets figure out how we go forward. I hope this is not an issue in a few months. But that all depends on how the nation handles this. I now yield to mr. Cole for any questions he may have. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Just on the last point, i do want to say i do agree very much with what mr. Davis said. There are legitimate cases where people cant here. I respect that. While i didnt agree with the methods we adopted, we adopted them. Thats fair enough. I am concerned a lot of members are abusing them, a lot of members are not can you yield to me, one second . Certainly. Let me just say that if if members are abusing this, if members are using this based on convenience, that is certainly not what i had intended and i think that that is wrong and, you know, i certainly every chance i get reinforce this message. Its not about convenience. Its about necessity. Mr. Chairman and thats unfortunate. Please dont think that i question you at all because i dont. I know you take it seriously. I think its worthying abo thin about what we can do on that score because it seems like a legitimate problem to me. Thank the panel. A lot of great discussions here. A couple i dont agree with. But broadly, i do. And so a couple of comments for specific members and a question. I want to go first to my good friend ms. Wassermanschultz who i had the pleasure of when i first got on props and have her at my Ranking Member when i was fortunate enough to share that committee. Theres nobody more thoughtful from an institutional standpoint. Number one, i want to associate myself with the very thoughtful comments she had about congressionally directed spending and the safeguards and the ability to evaluate the effectiveness. I think if theyre ever coming back, those kind of tools are actually indispensable in providing the public with some confidence that these things are being used as they are 95 of the time or more in an appropriate and productive way. But i do want to also ask my friend, she talked about bringing back the select committee on intelligence and, you know, i said on defense appropriations, we do a lot of great work there, but, again, i take my friends suggestion very seriously. Can you tell me why we did away with that . Whaf what was the rational for not continuing that select committee . So when we when it was done away with, it was done away with by the new republican majority. Im not sure what their motivation was and so i cant speak for Speaker Boehner at the time. I think it was Speaker Boehner that did away with it. Yeah. But it was in place and working effectively so that we had if you recall, the select committee was a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, but it was a special select committee that combined intel authorizers and appropriators from across the Appropriations Committee and it was a combined pair of more scrutinizing eyes. We held hearings and reviewed the budget, the budget requests, we go more deeply and specifically into the black portion of the budget than the defense Appropriations Committee is really about to do because the defense appropriation subcommittee is has such a huge responsibility being 50 of this discretionary funding. The my understanding why it wasnt brought back was that it had some cumbersome elements of it that perhaps it wasnt functioning in the most efficient way. So my proposal isnt specific to replicate it and bring it back exactly the way it was. But that there does need to be a select intelligence subcommittee panel recreated, perhaps, you know, new and improved, so we can make sure there are either combined authorizers and appropriator eyeballs together or maybe just appropriators so that we can really have more attention paid and franklin the defense appropriators are able to i think theres considerable merit to what youre talking about. Speaking as an defense appropriator, youre exactly right. Its a vast budget and honestly most of the intel hearings we have of course theyre classified, im not getting into detail. The reality is, what were doing is consuming intelligence but were not overseeing the intelligence were being given and asking the tough kind of questions. Again, nobody admires and loves Speaker Boehner than me. He wasnt exactly the appropriation committees biggest fan in congress. And its it doesnt surprise me that were talking ability congressionally directed spending and this particular item now that hes gone. And i, again, i say that with great affection and respect for my friend the former speaker. But this is a good idea, i think and i would really like to think about this because i just just speaking as a defense appropriator, youre exactly right. Were just not able to get into the detail of this vast budget any way you can when youre dealing with interior at 30 billion. Its a function of the dollars and i dont think you could probably have too many eyes on this particular area and i say that with no disrespect to the administration. I think the bureaucracy needs to be watched as well. Its a good idea. Let me move to my friend mr. Cline and tell you as an appropriator, i couldnt agree more and i bet every appropriator would want each bill to come individually. Thats the way we treat them in the Appropriations Committee itself. We have unlimited amendments in the appropriation committee. Obviously any member either side of the aisle got a good idea, can offer those amendments. I long for the day when we did that in the full house. I will tell you, theres two problems and theyre bipartisan in nature. The first one is the absolute explosion of the number of people who decide they want to add amendments to the appropriations bill. And so it gets down from a management question, how many time do you want to spend on appropriation, how much and, but i dont know that when you we have 100, 200, 300, 400, amendments, thats a problem, and how you have discipline that its actually a problem from this committee, too. The rules committee. But its an enormous problem. Before we took it just from the management. The second thing i will tell you, and i will also tell you both sides were equally guilty, the number of got you amendments have multiplied extraordinarily in my time here. You know, and, frankly, the fear of voting on those amendments by members, when republican majority came back in, one of the things it actually did do is restore open rules on Appropriations Bills. But we actually got to a point, i remember it was very well, it was on a Confederate Flag issue, of all things, over national monuments, and it blew apart a bill and members were then afraid i mean, when i originally got here, you would literally, if you were republican, youd vote on the amendments however uyou wanted but youd always vote for the republican bill. It was just kind of assumed because it was considered to be better. Democrats were the same way. They were in the majority. But, you know, if you got any thoughts about, number one, how to control the number of amendments, and number two, again, you know, we have lots of republicans ill just be honest with you, wont vote for republican Appropriations Bills. They dont want to vote for anything other than defense and veterans. If you have that, you cant move the bill. Because you cant expect democrats to do the work that a republican majority is supposed to do. This is a real problem inside our party. They think, you know, and, again, i have no problem with people voting against bills if they exceed what the budget caps done. Ive never seen republicans do that. I mean, we write the budget, we write the bills within our budget, so theres got to be, again, some way of dealing with the sheer number of amendments and, again, im all for them. I like individual bills. I like open rules. So, i agree with you, but you got any suggestions for how we avoid got you amendments and how we say, okay, after youve had a crack at your amendment, we do have to govern the country, that means the Defense Department needs to be funded. That means that health and Human Services needs to be funded. You cant only vote for the things you like. You have responsibility to govern here. You cant expect the other party to do it when youre in the majority. Thats a problem. So, anyway, thats a lot of rambling thought, but im very youre one of our brightest members, very interested in what you have to say. Well, i appreciate the question, the opportunity, to respond. The Appropriations Committee does a great job, and i think the answer is to get it get skin in the game on the parts of the various members regarding the bills, to get broader support, and getting them to vote for amendments definitely gets their skin in the game. I would say in 16 years in the state legislature, when we had amendments that went on and on on the floor, we had to sit through them all, so i would say if you just asked for people to submit amendments by a date certain, and then offered them on the floor in the order received and the ones and you have to sift through all the amendments before you offer your then youll have a lot of people giving up on their amendments. Yeah, i just thats actually a very clever idea. Im not sure i want to subject myself to it, being a responsible member. Theres a lot of members that offer pretty frivolous amendments and theyre not confined to either side. So, but, an interesting thought. Anyway, again, appreciate the testimony. Appreciate all the testimony. Yield back, mr. Chairman. I thank you. And i when you were just making the give and take, what mr. Klein, i was thinking of the time that jeff flake offered several hundred 500. 500 amendments all on an appropriations bill. All reducing the amount by, like, a small amount. I mean, but, you know, thats anyway. Mr. Chairman, thats when you penalize him by putting him on appropriations. Yeah. Mr. Chairman mr. Chairman can i respond to that . They tried that. It didnt work. Couldnt move it out of the subcommittee because we had members that wouldnt vote to move a bill out of subcommittee that cut the top line by 14 . Oh, boy. Because it wasnt enough. So, please just send us real appropriators, democrat or republican, alike. Not people that you think will learn there, what people that want to be there. Like my friend, ms. Wassermanschultz. Im sure you would be a great appropriator if you chose to be. Thank you. Let me see. Thanks, mr. Chair. And just on that last subject, mr. Klein, i remember in the rules committee we were doing appropriations by an open rule. Our chair at that time was a guy named dave oby and we had been going for 24 hours straight because so many amendments had been offered, and he finally i dont know, mr. Mcgovern, if you remember this i do. He always had about five pencils in his pocket and hed broken them all. He was so bad. And he came to us and he said, i quit, unless you guys go back up and limit this appropriations. He said, ill do 100 amendments, thats it. And we had to leave the floor and go back and change the rule because its like breaking a filibuster. Make him sleep there. Well, he felt like he was being punished and he didnt deserve to be punished. And right. He said it and we agreed, so i just there has been some real abuse, and so id like to change just i want you to know that and thats why there has been limitation, and mr. Coles recognized, we recognized it, you may have some points as to a limiting fact e yer, you go have your amendments in so many days in advance. You have to sit back. That may make it a better approach and people feel that theyre more involved, but i can tell you there has been abuse on that process. And i appreciate that and ive combined talking about the two issues in my testimony, but the open rules apply to nonAppropriations Bills as well. And i think more open process would put more skin in the game on the part of members and get them supporting the bills on final passage. We have jeffersons rules in virginia, where if you contribute to the product, youre bound to vote for the product. Well, and thats another issue here because you could get an amendment and still vote against a bill, and thats been Something Else that we watch closely and, but i hear you, and i recognize what youre suggesting. I did want to respond to the chairman and mr. Davis and mr. Cole and then sort of in advance of my friend, mr. Morelli, because i im a little bit in disagreement with all of you on the proxy voting piece of this thing. The way the rule was written, and i have it in front of me, is that proxies are only available during a covered period and a covered period is defined very specifically as a period where there has been a pandemic declared, the sergeant at arms and the house physician have to advise the speaker who then says this period this covered period will now ask for 45 days. So youre in a very restrictive time to be able to use a proxy. So this isnt a proxy that we would have, you know, when its sunny and warm and everybodys healthy and theres no pandemic. Now, we may want to actually offer proxies or some virtual voting, but thats not the system that we created, and it is very restrictive. And there isnt, mr. Davis, and i know mr. Morelli had the same concerns, but there isnt a call for a doctors note to be able to say, i get to do proxy voting. Thats not what is required. What is required is a declaration of a pandemic, which in my opinion is far more restrictive. So, i just wanted to say that, but i do believe, and i would say to the chair, to mr. Cole, we really do have to look closely, again, at what we did sort of in an emergency measure with respect to proxies, with respect to virtual voting and with respect to that whole rule 25 which is the rule on the continuity of government. In the event of a catastrophe. And how we continue the legislature in place. So i will leave it at that. Obviously, im for the congressional congressionally directed spending, but i do think our committee has to take a good look at i guess its rule 20. Its the its when we have a quarn r quorum, its really the catastrophe of an attack or pandemic. With that, i yield back. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And true rules committee pass n fashion, we outlasted many of our witnesses. Im thinking about mr. Castros testimony on diversity during testimony which i think is incredibly important, probably more so now when im in the minority than when i was in the majority, but as we talk about faith and trust and institutions, the majority has the prich ledvilege of setting agenda, but when we have these panels that include five majority witnesses and one minority witness, it does appear that were preparing for a press release more than were preparing for shedding light on difficult and partnered subjects, so i would not only like to see the metrics that mr. Castro has been focused on, but also that diversity of ideas as we enter eras where i hope we will have fewer republican ideas versus democratic ideas and just more more good ideas versus bad ideas. I think theres an opportunity for that. I want to find out from mr. Cline, you know, the first open rule i got to be a part of was in 2011. We took up the entire appropriations package at once. The entire omnibus appropriations bill. We went from tuesday to saturday morning. So five days. 24 hours a day. And considered every amendment that any member had to offer on anything in the entire 12 appropriations bill package, exhausted, as you suggested, ultimately, won the won the day, but, you know, we will now have more amendments offered under a structured rule from the rules committee than were offered under an open rule in the late 1980s. So there is a a habit that has been formed, both as mr. Cole suggested, that members are offering frivolous amendments designed to take down bills instead of build up bills, and leads to a reluctance to vote on tough amendments. We dont have the experience voting on tough amendments. The leadership sorts that out ahead of time so leaders can be more comfortable on the floor. Secondarily, we lost those relationships with our committees. As a young freshman member, i dont need to offer my amendment on the floor of the house, i need to take it to the chairman two weeks before the Committee Bill gets marked up so i can get it included in the text so it will survive conference down the road. As you have struggled with these issues, have you seen any steps to get members back in good habit because i fear if we flip the switch tomorrow and make things the way you and i would like for them to be, we would encounter the exact same uncomfortable situations that have brought leaders on both sides of the aisle to shut the process down. Well, i appreciate the question, and you all, with respect, have been here a lot longer than i am. From my experience there at the state level, for example, theres a lot more contact between the chairman and the Ranking Member as bills are constructed. So maybe the Ranking Member does go to his members on his committee and say asked for input. Heres your opportunity for input n input. Not on the floor. Ultimately refuse to acknowledge that, but if earlier input is solicited from both sides and they feel vested in the product as it comes out of committee, the less likely you get these efforts that gum up the process just for the sake of gumming up the process. There may be a legitimate issue as the bill goes to the floor, but as a freshman, i feel like my opportunity to weigh in as a committee, especially on issues of jurisdiction, important, which i serve on, not floor to a bill where i didnt see it come through committee and maybe i have a good idea, but i should have weighed in at the Committee Level to make that point. I was a big fan of open rules when i arrived here. And having watched that broken process continue, i now see the wisdom of providing some structure. Even if it is giving the as we have done many times giving freshmen and the Ranking Member on the floor the ability to consider 30 extraneous measures of their of their choice. Providing some some parameters. But excuse i always hear is we dont have enough floor time, and as you and i both know, we start sometimes fairly late and end sometimes fairly early. I believe we can make time on the floor. We might not have enough pencils for david oby on the floor because the chairman and Ranking Member do bear the brunt of that workload when it happens. I thing we would be derelict not to try to move back in that d direction. I dont believe any member of this chamber believes shutting your colleagues down leads to better work product, including their colleagues in it, so i appreciate those suggestions. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. And mr. Chairman, i would just say if you had one open rule on any it doesnt have to be an appros bill, each year you kind of learn the lessons and the freshmen get to learn the lessons over again of why you dont necessarily have open rules on every bill and why structured rules have benefits. Well, i i appreciate that. But i think the problem we have is deeper than just an open rule versus a nonopen rule. We do have a problem. I think its fair to say that there are members on both sides who, you know, look at their role very differently, and so any other problem, quite frankly, with Appropriations Bills is we do everything perfectly here but do not have a process in the senate. Youre back to, we dont want to be in these big omnibus bills because otherwise theres no way to move forward. So i, you know, i hopeby bwe resolve that problem in the short term. I share that frustration. Anyway, thank you. I now yield to i dont know if mr. Morrelli has any questions. Just a couple questions or maybe just thoughts. I, first of all, dont feel that i know enough about the appropriations process or even, frankly, lawmaking yet here. Im trying to unlearn everything i learned in new york for decades. I do think problems in any legislature, well articulated, balance between trying to allow as much participation and as many good ideas from members but also to your point, mr. Chair, actually have to enact law. Have to pass bills and only got so much time here to do it and we got some big issues, so id be delighted to work with all my colleagues and mr. Cline in trying to figure out how to balance better, perhaps, those interests and end up with hopefully better product. I wasnt going to mention it, but since mr. Perlmutter uttered my name, i will say this. As it relates to proxies, i think two conditions ought to be met. Mr. Perlmutter rightly points out when we created the rule around this pandemic, one condition had to be met and that is you essentially had this National Emergency which we recognized would make it very difficult for members to be herehe physically in washington voting. We didnt want to disenfranchise them or more importantly their swapt swa constituents. If we pursued a flrule in the 117th congress, two rules ought to be met. National emergency that declares there to be a covered period has to be met. That would be the same individuals who need to confer to declare a National Emergency that we did in the 116th rules, even if its not covid19, if its a future disaster of some kind. I also think a second condition, that is the failure to appear to vote in person and use the proxy ought to be by virtue of your inability because of the National Emergency. I think my concern which i expressed i think when we were First Talking about this and implemented the rule which i voted for but some concern that we could be down a slippery slope. I dont think simply meeting the first test is enough. I think i could have said, for instance, gee, i dont want to fly, its an hour flight from rochester, but the drive is 6 1 2 hours each way, yet, since the beginning of march ive driven virtually every week with one exception. So i spend 13 hours in a car to come down and back. That is, in my mind, an inconvenience. I suppose i could say its a covered excuse me its a covered period, i adopt dondon spend 13 hours many a car do come down, vote, for a few days and go back. Its not a reason because of the covered emergency which would prohibit me, or prevent me, from being here. I think that ought to be the second condition or test that needs to be met when we go to will the chairman yield for one second . Of course, mr. Chairman. Right now, if you want to vote by proxy, you have to sign a letter. That says that you cannot physically be here due to the pandemic. Now, i mean, thats the requirement. We have that requirement. I dont think its in the rule. Frankly, im not sure well, i would always defer to the chair. The deal is, were trusting members to abide by, you know, you know, by the regulations that we have put out there. You know, i the point is well taken, if there are people who are doing this simply out of convenience, thats not that is not appropriate. Right. And, again, you know, i think thats something we need to think about. Yeah, i could say tightening it up or perhaps putting it in the actual rule. By the way, i think by and large, this has used very effectively. I think people have been very, very good about observing not only the letter but the spirit of the rule. Openful hopefully that will continue. Some small adjustment to ensure that would make our friends on the other side of the aisle more comfortable. Where th with that, mr. Chair, i yield back. Thank you, zblsir. Thank you. Ms. Shrksstalala . No questions. Thank you. I enjoyed the discussion. Did i miss aeeverybody . Mr. Chair, i had a question for mr. Crist. Can i ask that question . You they. Mr. Crist, im trying to find out in the racial and ethnic impact score, what is it that youre actually is there Something Like that that exists today, not so much in the congress, but maybe florida does Something Like that or some place i dont know, im trying to figure out what it looks like. Youre muted, charlie. Youre still muted. We cant hear you. There you go. Yeah. I understand that it does exist in the congress. Presently, if requested. And this would make it more of a mandatory thing so that any legislation that we would put forward, it would give us an idea about whether or not the legislation is going to be disadi disadvantageo disadvantageous, if you will, to a minority. Or not. Okay. Thank you, i yield back. Excellent question. Thank you very much. No other questions. This panel is dismissed. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. We go to our next panel which is mr. Kilmer, miss murphy, mr. Davids no, im sorry, miss davids. Mr. Taylor. And mr. Woodall. Well begin with mr. Kilmer and let me just say say before i yield to mr. Kilmer, i want to thank chairman kilmer and vice chair graves, in particular. I want to thank i want to take a moment to congratulate both of you on an incredibly successful congress. I mean, under your leadership, the select committee on modernization did more work on analyzing how congress could work more effectively and efficiently on behalf of the American People and identifying specific recommendations, somewhere i think near 100, i believe to do just that. A feat unto itself. Your staff must be exhausted. Mr. Chairman, you and vice chair went even further and pushed the committees recommendations into results. As all our colleagues will recall, this select committee ushered in two critical resolutions the help of the House Administration committee. While we may not have known at the time, select committees recommendations to improve Host Technology systems, enhancing unified telework practice and generally push the house into the 21st century helped pave the way for Key Technology changes that were critical to ensuring the house could work and do it safely in the wake of this terrible pandemic and did it all while having to endure nickelback, whatever that is, and woodall who we all know so well. But we will have more time for this in the coming weeks. To mr. Woodall and mr. Graves, thank you, both, for your service to your nation. I know chairman kilmer and ms. Scanlin, our rules colleague, and the rest of the Modernization Committee, i hope youre all proud of the work that youve done. I thing its had a Lasting Impact and thank the hardworking staff of the Modernization Committee. I think you improved this institution. Im grateful for your leadership. Anyway, i just wanted to say because i think a lot of people may not appreciate the extent of your work and how hard you work. And the fact that, you know, this is the way this place should work. Where democrats and republicans come together and try to do things for the good of the institution. Let me thank you. I will now yield to mr. Kilmer. Thank you, chairman mcgovern. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you, rankin member cole. I appreciate you hosting the hearing and appreciate the hearing to share you ideas for improving house rules for the 117th congress. Two years ago in testimony before this committee, i proposed as part of the house rules for the 116th congress a committee to consider measures to improve the operation of congress and independent as an independent and coequal branch of government. Under your leadership, this select committee on the modernization of congress was created. As part of the rules package for the 116th. As chair of the select committee, im hear to say thank you for your guidance and support of the past two years. Very grateful to you and to your staff. With that help, this select committee unanimously passed 97 bipartisan recommendations to make Congress Work better for the American People. Im proud of what we achieved and lead the effort with vice chair tom graves, mr. Woodall, and ms. Sanlin from your committee who shared very ably. Im here to share bipartisan recommendations the committee passed. The select committee spent a lot of time focusing on ways to reclaim Congress Article 1 pows a and made a number of recommendations in the space. The first id like to highlight will help restore Congress Article 1 power of the purse. We recommended on a bipartisan basis a communityfocused Grant Program to reduce dysfunction in the annual budgeting process. And restore congress unique Constitutional Authority to appropriate federal dollars to support projects that have the broad support of local communities across the United States. This competitive Grant Program calls for transparency and accountability and supports meaningful and transformative investments in the communities we represent. Taxpayer dollars will be spent more efficiently and transpar t transparently on local projects. The subcommittee believes this program could help end the era of government shutdowns and i urge the committee to include it as part of the 117th congress rules package. In addition to the communityfocused Grant Program, id like to share a couple of ideas designed to strengthen Congress Article 1 powers. The first has to do with encouraging the article one principle of debate and deliberation. The select Committee Recommended establishing a pilot for weekly oxfordstyle policy debates on the house floor. Debate exposes us to perspectives that are different from our own and requires us to really think through our positions in order to build the best arguments we can. It requires the ability too listen as well as speak. Thats incredibly important. Emanuel cleaver constantly reminded us as we treat each other matters. Oxfo oxfordstyle debates could have exchanges about the issues of the day and we should encourage more of that. A i long the sa the committees experiment with alternative hearing formats to encourage more bipartisan discussion. Committees should try questioning witnesses in ways of discourse rather than grandstanding. Recommending more committees follow the select committees lead and experiment with mixed seating arrangements. Democrat and republicans sit side by side rather than opposite sides of the dais. These encourage dialogue, civility, and often strengthen congress. This would help congress store article 1 capacity. Another way to build capacity is build efficiency into the congressional schedule. Between Committee Work, floor work, constituent work in the district, the time is constant. The select committee tried to find ways to reduce frustrating conflicts. We recommend that the house establish specific committeeonly meeting times web congress is in session. We also recommended the house establish specific days or weeks where Committee Work takes priority. Creating a Common Committee calendar portal to help with scheduling could also reduce conflicts. These ideas will make Congress Work more efficiently and productively on behalf of the American People. Finally, id like to thank you for your continued attention to a number of operational issues the select committee has recommended. Prior to the covid19 pandemic, we recommended the house update its procedures to allow members to electronically add or remove their names as bill cosponsors. Were happy to see this now in effect and think it should be permanently authorized. Same goes for our recommendations to expand the use of digital signatures and make permanent the option to electronically submit Committee Reports. We should adopt procedures that make congress more efficient rather than reserve them for emergencies. The covid19 pandemic forced us to take a hard look at continuity issues and think about how we can better prepare for the unexpected. The select Committee Recommends that committees established bipartisan telework policies and update systems to encourage inperson electronic voting and other modern technologies. Cyber security, telework, and Emergency Preparedness training should also be given to all members of congress. By taking these steps we can ensure congress is fully prepared in the event of another crisis. Continuity of government plans should be built into our procedures and happen as a matter of course. From day one, the select committees guiding principle has been to make Congress Work better to better serve the American People. That simple but profound goal guided all of our work, some of which i shared with you today. Vice chair graves and i believe the bipartisan ideas we proposed to improve the house rules can help build capacity and ultimately strengthen congress and hope they will be ill imp lemt. It should be an ongoing effort, not once every 20 or 30 years or so. On behalf of the select committee, i appreciate your consideration. Happy to provide Additional Information to support your work and thank you, begiagain r if y leadership, partnership, and opportunity to speak before the committee today. Thank you very much. Ms. Murphy. Chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole, members of committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to testify about my views on the rules that will govern the operation of the chamber in the next congress. So, my first set of recommendations involve fiscal discipline in transparency. First, i respectfully request that we retain the rule 21, clause 10, of the current house rules. This rule was also in effect for the 110th and 111th congresses when democrats were in majority. In general, it prohibits the consideration of direct spending or revenue legislation that is projected to increase the deficit over two discreet time periods. Second, i would recommend that we strengthen the transparency around this rule. If the rules Committee Reports a special rule providing for a consideration of a bill, the company Committee Reports should be required to include a specific statement indicating whether the special rule waives the pago rule in particular. As opposed to a vague statement waiving all points of order against the bill. This can be established by ruling clause 3. My office is preparing draft language and share it with your staff. Third, id like to work with the committee on crafting a carefully calibrated amendment to the house rules that would accept exigent circumstances prohibit the house from considering a bill, unless cbo and jct have prepared and published a cost estimate of that bill. I seek these three changes for a simple reason. You know, contrary to Wishful Thinking in some quarters, deficits and debt do matter. They matter to our economy, they matter to our security, and to our children and grandchildrens future. And i recognize that deficit spending to combat the health and economic consequences of covid19 is necessary. And i support that spending, but congress will need to bring spending and revenues into better balance once the pandemic is behind us and shouldnt keep digging ourselves into deeper fiscal hole and if we do, we better be upfront with the American People about it. My second set of recommendations involves a motion to recommit, provided foreign rule 19. Unlike some of my colleagues, i do not believe we should eliminate the mtr, which i view as an important tool for the Minority Party in an otherwise majori majoritarian institution. I understand the mtr is frequently used be i the Minority Party to engage in, you know, cynical politics, campaigning on the house floor, rather than as a part of a genuine effort to improve a bill. The text of the mtr doesnt does not undergo Committee Review or otherwise get vetted through regular order. And so its often poorly written and confusing and members rarely have the sufficient time to review the language and to determine what it actually does as opposed to what the Minority Party claims it does. And i think this is a recipe for bad legislating. So, for those reasons, i believe we should retain the mtr but require twothirds support for the mtr to pass. Rather than the current requirement of majority support. This will put the mtr on the same plane as a suspension bill. Finally, i recommend that we continue to find new ways to foster bipartisan ship in the house by considering floor bills that have a mass of cosponsors. At the urging of myself and other members the house established the consensus calendar in rule 15, clause 7, of the current rules. Im deeply grateful to you and your staff for helping make that happen. In my coming weeks my office will propose a way to strengthen the calendar and promote bipartisan cooperation during these otherwise highly partisan times. I think the American People want their representatives to Work Across Party Lines and house rules should reward lawmakers who conduct themselves in that spirit. With that, thank you, and i yield back. Yeah, thank you very much. I should just point out for the record, though, because in the current rules Committee Reports, we dont just say, waive all points of order. We actually in the section on explanation of waivers, if we waive pago, it specifically s s says, you know, in our report that we waived clause 10 or rule 21 which is the pago provision, so rules Committee Report is pretty explicit. Aboutw aboutw about waiving pago. It is there. But any event, thank you. And now i turn to ms. Davids. Sthaunk ythank you. Thank you, chairman mcgovern and Ranking Member cole for holding this hearing and allowi ining ue opportunity to comment on proposed house changes for the 117th congress. So my recommendation for rule change is pretty straightforward. I propose the director of the Congressional Budget Office be provided to make a fiscal address to congress each year. Right now were in a crisis which necessitates spending to keep our economy going, our federal budget is on an unsustainable trajectory. And i believe this is the sort of report that could provide a common base line for my colleagues and i to work from. Using the same data and operating under the same budgetary assumptions year to year. You know, as this body formulates budgets and votes on appropriations packages each year, it would be helpful to have the general input and objective position have that general input of an objective position so we can set goals based on facts. I also think this sort of annual report could help remind our colleagues that the very real effects of congressional spending, and, perhaps, facilitate a conversation on how we could direct federal resources in a responsible way. Of course, we should be adhering to the existing house rules that pay as you go, which we were just talking about or hearing about, rule, which requires congress to pay for legislation, proposing and voting on, you know, budgeting is about priorities and deciding whats important and what price were willing to pay for it and that principle is at the fundamental core of pago which is why i support its inclusion and continued inclusion in the house rules for this congress and the next congress. Weve seen the disastrous consequences of fiscal irresponsibility with deficit finance tax cuts for the wealthy and out of control budgets and it is worth noting and weve already heard this but ill reiterate were going through a pandemic right now and this spending were doing and relief we need is real and necessary. This is the kind of process where pago rules might need to be waived. This is a good example of that. When were in a crisis, we need to make sure the people of this country are being cared for and its also times like these that we see a real demonstration of a necessity for greater fiscal responsibility in normal times, in times that are good. So we are setting ourselves up to go through times like this. So i would encourage the adoption of this rule change and any other changes that would help promote the adherence to fiscal responsibility as we aim to use our taxpayer resources in the most effective way possible, and with that, i will yield back. Thank you for having me. Thaurk ynk you very much. Mr. Taylor . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Can you hear me . Great. Yes. Its great to be with you and the Ranking Member and all the members of the rules committee and just want to say sthat im a big believer in rules and process and the process that we have i think is really important. One statistic that kind of strikes me is in the 100th congress, this is when i was in high school, in 1987, 88. 8 of every bill, of all bills that were filed, actually became law. And now in this congress, were at about 1 . And thats because were filing about 50 more bills. Were passing many fewer bills. So the percentage of success has dropped as well as the as well as the number of bills that are being filed has gone up. So im concerned about the ability of members to play small ball, to do small common sense pieces of legislation and get those all the way through the president s desk have been i want to offer three solutions. I have talked to some of the rules committees staff about this. This has been a discussion within the Problem Solver caucus. The first one is to build on the 290 rule that was successfully implemented in the last congress. And that is to have 290 to apply that same rule to senate bills. So most legislative chambers in this country, in state legislatures, have a provision that allows house members to support senate bills, senate bills to support house bills. So that so you would have to create that mechanism in order to do 290 for senate bills. Allow members to not only to advocate for a bill, to take credit for it, but also for members to then in turn be able to take that get behind a senate bill then actually compel it to get on the floor, get on the consensus calendar and really expand what i think has been a big success and your staff has been very complimentary of the Problem Solvers success, getting the 290 rule into effect and seeing it work. The second thing i wanted to talk about is what i call fourfifths twothirds. That is, again, allowing bills that are modest and intent then are singular in focus to be able to come to the floor of the u. S. House. So this will be if a bill gets fourfifths of the Committee Members to sign onto the bill, 80 of the Committee Members, services committee, there are 60 members. Getting 50 members, you would then in turn be able to actually bring that bill to the floor of the u. S. House and then basically be a suspension bill. Youd have to get twothirds vote. I put it on the consensus calendar. We could have discussions about some of the details about it. Again, youre trying to allow a bill that is youd have to get fourfifths of the committee of jurisdiction. There are some bills that are big, complicated, that are referred to many committees and jurisdiction. I think we probably have to have some mechanism to allow Committee Chairs if they wanted to to waive it, and if not, say i want fourfifths ofmy committee then theyd have that power. Finally, the third idea is trying to make sure that bills that are, again, common sense, where they passed the house and the snas, actually go to the president s desk. If you believe most congresses, there are half a dozen bills that pass the house, pass the senate. Theyre companion legislation but actually dont get to the president s desk. So what about a half a dozen state legislatures have done, they have a rule process called ov ov ov overineligible. This a very difficult one to explain. Its very simple in pack misrac. You have a senate bill that comes over. Its in the house. The house companion passed committee. Its now on the floor. The house author of the house bill can say, you know what, im going to take my bill, put it on the table, its down at the chamber, the well, im going to pull that up to vote on the senate bill. Some state legislatures actually have it automatic. When the senate bill comes over to the house, its automatically whoo moved to whatever point in the process it was in. No one loses any power, per se. One of the ideas i have is to protect the house member, the author of the bill, to say, you know what, i want to use the senate bill and move this on so it goes on to the president s desk. Again, theres a small number of bills every congress this one other thing this will do is actually encourage members to do more to work on companion legislation so in turn it will improve the probability. I have actually talked a member of the senate about having a similar bill. Over on the senate side to say, were doing this to help expedite your bills, you should do this to help expedite our bills. Ive gotten a favorable response from democrats and republicans ive spoken to about all of these rules as ive discussed it with my colleagues in the Problem Solver caucus. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Woodall. Hey, thank you, mr. Chairman. I know ours is not supposed to be based solely on competition, our business. I think its worth pointing out that under your leadership, youre on the rules committee, i have voted 100 of the time against ms. Scanlin and her against me, while serving under chairman kilmers leadership on the select committee, we voted 100 of the time together so i dont know if theres anything that mr. Kilmer has to add that he wasnt comfortable sharing in open session about how you might bring people together here on the rules committee as hes been bringing people together on the joint select committee. But i did want to put that out there. And tell him how much i appreciated his leadership. I will tell you, mr. Chairman, i think we were disadvantaged by not having ms. Davids and miss murphy on our committee. I support both of their ideas. They sounded very similar to some of the ideas that you and i and the committee had worked on throughout the year. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to solve the good work you did at the very beginning of this congress by requiring that bills be reported out of committee before they are considered here in the rules committee. And i would go one step further, section 3, paragraph 3, to the section 103i that was passed in hres6, shall not be an order to consider the rule or order that waives the application of p paragraph one after the bill has been referred to committee for 15 legislative days. The point of this change, mr. Chairman, is to say that we have found reasons, and there are always reasons, to waive the rules including brandnew rules that were done with the best of intentions as this one that you promulgated. If a bill has been sitting in committee for 15 days, clearly theres not an emergency that requires it move forward without a hearing. If its just been sitting in committee and no ones been acting on it, surely it doesnt need to be rushed to the floor with no input from the committee whatsoever. I recognize that no matter whos in the majority, we have emergency measures and, in fact, the rule as it exists today makes an exception for emergency designated legislation, but this would further the building of trust in the Committee Process that you began by saying were not going to use this process to short circuit a Committee Process. Were only going to use it to expedite things that are simply coming so quickly they havent had an opportunity to be dropped in committee, and the chairman hasnt had an opportunity to have the hearing or the markup. Making the point that the reason we dont follow your rule isnt because we dont want to, its because we havent had an opportunity to if the opportunity is presented, then we need to be able to say yes to that opportunity as your rule was designed to achieve. It requires that that the point of order under this paragraph be the question of consideration shall be debatable for ten minutes and the member initiating the point of order and an opponent to have that time, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion, except for one that the house adjourned. And, again, this is not intended to disadvantage the majority which is in charge of running this institution, and it is only intended to complement the effort that the rules Committee Chairman made at the beginning of this congress. With that, isla yield back. I think thats thats i think that youre the last person on this panel, mr. Woodall. Let me just say this. I appreciate your words, mr. Woodall, trying to with regard to the mcgovern world. Let me say before that, there was no such rule, there was nothing in place. And i said when we were doing this that we would try, you know, to do as well as we can, but it wouldnt be perfect because there would be times when it one difficult to do that. I think we were much better at it last year than this year. But this year, to be fair, were in the middle of a pandemic and theres a lot of things that arent normal. So i so well continue to try to do better. I really do believe in principle its a mistake to short circuit the Committee Process, but i think we have been making a concerted effort and a fairly effective effort in trying to comply with that. And, again, i in my perfect world, thats the way this place should run. I mean, there should be hearings and a markup in committee before it comes to the rules committee. And then we can, you know, bring a bill to the floor. So i will try to do better. Anyway, having said that, i think there are really good ideas that have been presented here today, you know, we will, obviously, be working with the members who are here today and their staff to try to figure out how we can move forward on some of these. Again, there may be some, you know, maybe do some tweaks here and there, but i really appreciate your time. Let me yield to mr. Cole. Oh. Let me yield to mr. Woodall for any yquestions. You might want to question yourself. I do, mr. Chairman. Ive been conflicted about several thing. Im hoping were going to be able to sort those out together right here. The only other thing ic wanted o mention, mr. Chairman, is whether or not theres a process related to attaching unrelated legislation to a message between the chambers without bipartisan concurrence. Thats something you and i have talked about in rules committee on many occasions. I have tried to work out some language but it does have to be incredibly nuanced to protect the ability of the majority leader to continue to operate the floor while still protecting minority rights. I appreciated ms. Davids i believe it was ms. Davids, was it you, miss murphy . The nature of the motion to recommit at being that one opportunity that the minority has as you recall from the articles when the leader decided he was going to start attaching unrelated legislation, messages between the chambers. Folks sle s celebrated that as this wonderful new procedural tool thats been crafted to prevent the minority from getting in the way of with their messaging motions to recommit. Again, i recognize the need to attach legislation and i recognize the need for the desire for the expedited process between the chambers. I certainly want to craft something that was so restrictive the majority could not could not assert its agenda. I do think because there has been so much consternation about that year, whether celebrating on one side or bemoaning on the other, its worth looking at these habits that we get into, not passing Appropriations Bills individually, not having open rules, not send things through committee, again, you took major steps at the beginning of this congress to try to get us out of some of those bad habits. That we spent a couple decades getting into. And i put messages between the chambers in that category. And i appreciate you recognizing me. I yield back. Ms. Tosh rrres. Any questions . No questions, mr. Chairman. Mr. Perlmutter. Have a couple. To the modernization Committee Members. Weve seen it in a number of different proposals that weve had is try to streamline and modernize the calendar and be more efficient in our travel and more efficient in our work days, if you will. Im curious what you all concluded in our kind of summary of what you proposed, its pretty general. Weve got some more specific proposals, but generally, what did your committee come up with . Maybe ill take first crack at that then if either of your rules Committee Colleagues who served on the select Committee Want to weigh in as well, i welcome that. So, we focus primarily on principles, rather than on proposing a specific calendar. One of the principles that we proposed is there should be more days in session than travel days. I think last calendar year we had 65 full days and 65 travel days. In session. Again, if the notion is how do we have Congress Work best for the American People, i would argue we need to increase time legislating. Reducing the amount of time in transit is important. The other thing we looked at, though, was the productivity of the time that we have. And the Bipartisan Policy Center did i think a very strong report looking at the conflicts that exist between committees. They looked at one day and found on just one morning 131 members of the house had a conflict between two or more committees. So the concern, of course, is, you know, if, you know, i dont raise that as an individual member who feels like i need a clone to attend all my committee meetings. But rather as someone who thinks that important learning and work is intended to happen in committees. You know, that work is challenged when folks arent there. And that can negatively impact the ability of congress to deliver. And so we made recommendations in that space as well to crea create to encourage blocked scheduling when committees meet. To create a Common Committee calendar portal. So that committees can have visibility into other Committee Activities and potential conflict s for their members. You know, over covid, youve actually seen the house do committeeonly weeks and i think that has been very positive. We received by members, you know, where you have days that are Committee Activity only without floor activity. So we recommend recommended continuing that as well. Just to try to drive as much productivity as possible. The other thing, ill just mention quickly, it may not seem like a big deal, but related to the calendar, we also said that the congressional calendar should accommodate a bipartisan member retreat because actually having democrats and republicans engage one another to try to advance an agenda and to try to enhan enhance civility was the something 12 members of our committee all felt were important efforts. Thank you. And for ms. Murphy, a question, more, might be, the twothirds proposal on mtrs, kind of your logic behind that, please. Sure. So mtrs are often presented at the very last minute on the floor with very little Time Available for for members to consider what the mtr is actually saying. I have to say, having had to, you know, do that all congress, those mtrs are so poorly written sometimes its hard to read it and figure out exactly what the mtrs trying to do. Bumping it up against the legislation, the law that its trying to change. So, one, mtrs are written a bit h happen haza haphazardly. Introduced with very little time for members to view and understand the impacts. Finally, if youre going to make a change to the bill thats already come through the entire process and has had, you know, debate, youre going to throw something on at the last minute, it really shouldnt be passed and be a part of that bill, successfully be a part of that bill, unless it meets a higher threshold, i think. We just picked the threshold that suspension bills of course, with a suspension bill, thats the level that would say, okay, this is harmless enough, enough people would agree with this that we should make this last, you know, this change. And i just think, you know, when you allow a bill to be added with just simple majority when its gone through very short and sloppy process, it makes it ends up making for bad legislation. I mean, we have a process for a reason. I dont want to take away minority rights. I dont want to and i think i dont want to eliminate an mtr, but i think if an mtr is going to have the impact of law then it should pass a higher threshold than a simple majority. Thank you. And then last question for you, mr. Taylor, so, you know, theres a desire, and i think we all share the same desire, to see legislation through through both chambers and get to the executive and signed, and i dont care whether its a democratic senator or republican senate, weve all i remember in my first four years here we had a Democratic Senate, but wed send four years we had a Democratic Senate and it would get all boxed up over there. How do you think in the proposals youre suggesting, i dont want it to be a oneway street that we pass everything that the senate sends to us, but everything we send to them gets bottled up. How do you think this helps that . Again, i think were in a position to start going to the centers and saying, look, were doing a 290 rule for your bills. You should do Something Like that for our bills. Were doing an eligible bills to expedite your bills, to improve the probability of your legislation passing. You should ive already had that conversation saying im going to offer this in the house. This is a commonsense thing. Everybody gets their say. The speaker gets their say, the author gets their say. But i think but i think we one of the divides one of the divides as i described to my constituents, what they dont see is the divide. Theres a lack of interaction between the chambers that is striking to me. I actually before i got here, i read the house rules and the senate rules because i wanted to see who had floor privileges. Could the house senators come on the house floor . And i got in an argument with two members who insisted to me that senators couldnt be on the house floor unless they were house members. Youre wrong, senate rule 127, we could go on their floor. But just, even if thats technically true, culturally its not true. One of the intents of both bills, it encourages senators to come and work their bills, to come to the house floor and say, hey, i want your significant because im at 270 signatures. If you sign on, i can get this thing on the president s desk. Also, it encourages companion legislation. One of the advantages of companion legislation i was a state legislator in texas, sometimes you cant figure out what the problem is. But the legislator figures out where the problem is here heres the fix, i found out where the problem was. And they wouldnt tell you because of these reasons. I put these amendments on and now its good. Youre ready to go. You have to lend with a step of faith and start working on their stuff and lets just say i will say this, for every ten bills that are sent from the house to the senate, the senate sends one back. There are for more effective legislative body from a volume point of view than they are. Theres there can be no debate about that. I believe that thats because our calendar is a 95 calendar. Their consent calendar is unanimous and having an incredibly high bar makes it very difficult for them to play small ball. Until they drop that from unanimous to 90 or 80 or some other more reasonable number, well continue to have bills get blocked, and thats happened. All right. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want to thank each of the members. I think their suggestions while i may not also agree with each of them, i think theyre very thoughtful and appreciate their participation. I also want to, if i can, the members of the Modernization Committee, i theres a lot to take in in the list that i have in front of me, but obviously some of the changes that would allow us to have an Electronic System that have to be done in the physical world, i would embrace. I think they make a lot of sense. The other thing that i would just say, just as a general observation is the ability for members in committees to take advantage of witnesses who are in front of the committees and engage in a little more thoughtful dialogue instead of what at times to me appears to be making speeches. One of the things that i particularly appreciate about this committee is the ability to have more back and forth and to really ask questions and thats why i value these opportunities and whenever a rule is before the house, before the committee, so i appreciate his thoughtfulness on that as well. I will yield back, mr. Chair. Ms. Scanlon . Im going to pass, thank you. Ms. Shalala . Ill pass. Very thoughtful. Did i miss anybody . Okay. I think were all set. I want to thank the panelists for being here. Youre now dismissed. And were going calling our next panel, mr. Schneider and mr. Lieu and as theyre getting ready to testify, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record testimony from katie porter. I also unanimous content to insert in the regular, the regulations to accompany h. Res. 965. I will turn it over to mr. Schneider. Thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. I want to thank the chairman and members of the committee for hosting todays hearing for members on rules for our next the 117th congress. I would like to discuss my views on the motion to recommit as outlined in rule 19. As a majorititarian institution, its one of the last places to influence legislation being presented on the floor. In practice, however, Minority Party both democrats and republicans, use the mtr as a partisan. Using the wedge along partisan fault lines is the prerogative of a Minority Party and both democrats and republicans have used the mtr toward that end over the decades. What has been different this congress and what i find not just reprehensible but in fact dangers is the republican use of American Jews to divide us. The great seal of the United States bears the motto e pluribus uno. It should be a principle that unites us. Its concerning when any group of americans is used as a prop to sow division. Using American Jews who have faced bigotry and violence is different. The unite the right rally in charlottesville and attacks in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, are examples that dominate the news that theyre just the tip of the iceberg. According to the antidefamation league, incidents increased by 12 in the 2019 and marked the highest number in the four decades of record keeping. I have no doubt that all of my colleagues oppose bigotry and hatred including antisemitism. No party should assert theres unanimous opposition against antisemitism. I want to repeat myself, the mtr provides a venue of debate on opinions, but when action on the floor of the u. S. House of representatives dehumanizes any group in this case American Jews facing antisemitism, it disservices the institution. Weaponizing antisemitism for political gain is as offensive as it is dangerous. Again, mtrs should be a tool to insert healthy debate in the legislative process and parties should choose to use it to push their agenda or put the party on the record. The Minority Party should not use any of our citizens or group of citizens as a wedge or a pawn. We dont know who will be in the majority in the next congress. I believe that we can now take this opportunity to prohibit the use of mtrs in the next congress until theres an agreement that while we can and often shouldnt vote controversial issues on policy disagreements we must never use the mtr to condemn antisemitism. I refuse to condone how its been used when democrats or any member of this body are not sufficiently opposed to antisemitism. I support proposals to require a high bar for a passive of an mtr similar to suspension bills. When were legislating on the fly as is the case with mtrs, its important that we get the details right. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak on how mtrs have been used in this congress and i yield back. Mr. Lieu . Thank you, chair, mcgovern, for your time. Im going to talk about two subjects. The first is my proposal is on inherent contempt and the second is the mtr. The Supreme Court has upheld this power, congress has repeatedly used it in the past. My proposal is simply puts in procedures and the house rules to let us execute this power. Specifically content gives us the ability to enforce congressional subpoenas and in my proposal, it does that through the imp sigs of a fine for witnesses who do not comply with subpoenas. Its not a partisan issue. We have seen congress over time give too much of our powers away both democratic, republican administrations have thumbed their noses at congressional oversight. And what this rule change does is it provokes witnesses in this process. For example, it creates a process for dialogue between the witness and the committee. It puts in procedures for the witness to lodge objections. It puts in procedures for the administration to lodge privilege on sections. The witness to negotiate, but at some point, it allows the committee to then forward a resolution to the house floor where the chairman of the committee will present and then members can ask questions and it allows the house to vote on a fine and the witness will in fact be fined up to 25,000. Before that can be imposed it puts in another 20day delay for negotiations to continue. There are numerous due process protections for witnesses for the administration, but at the end of the day if the administration or a private witness is not going to comply with the subpoena, the house can impose a fine of up to 25,000 and if it continues, then we can impose a fine of up to a hundred thousand dollars at the end of the day. Thats my proposal. And its, again, also not partisan in a sense that i fully believe joe biden is going to win in november and i think many of you do as well. This would apply to the biden administration. And so i would seek favorable consideration of this proposal and then i would like to talk about the motion to recommit. First of all, its just a stupid way to govern. What does this process do . It literally hides language from the members of congress and then the language is dropped in and gives us 15 minutes to cast the vote. That is not really governing. Thats called a game. Thats what makes the American People hate us that we play these games. And it was wrong when we did it to you. It was wrong when the democrats were the minority and we did this to the republicans, its wrong that you do it to us. This is not to actually influence legislation. This is simply to play games on the taxpayers time. Thats what makes it so offensive. And i reject the notion that this is the ability for the Minority Party to speak. It is not. The Minority Party has numerous ways to influence legislation. You get to participate in committees, introduce amendments in committees, and when the bill leaves a committee, you introduce amendments in the rules committee. If theres a problem with a bill thats about to be voted on the floor, what happens is the whole purpose of your committee that youre on is to allow amendments to that bill. And then the Minority Party gets to speak about the bill on the house floor. They can go to the press. Theres so many ways to influence legislation. The mtr is not designed to do that and it doesnt even do that. None of the mtr proposals are real or changes. Theyre just designed to be gotcha moments for the members of congress. This is a procedure where literally the language is hidden from the vast majority of the members of congress and were asked to vote on it. We just have to get rid of the motion to recommit, stop playing these games on taxpayers dime. It doesnt make my sense to continue any motion to recommit. We should not be playing these games. We should be trying to make legislation and not do an end round around the rules committee. With that, i yield back. Thank you very much for your testimony. Look, i appreciate your words. Let me talk about the contempt issue. Ive been frustrated as well at the lack of cooperation with somebodies that have been issued by committees here in the house. If we impose a fine, i dont know what that fine would be. To compel some of the people who dont want to comply with subpoenas in this administration would have to be very, very high, because a lot of these people are multimillionaires and billionaires and you wonder whether they would rather pay the fine. And then on the other hand, you know, if it was if you if you had a Different Congress that, you know, is and they were trying to compel a government worker to come and testify but that government worker may be told by his or her adviser not to come and heres somebody on the government workers salary, whether or not they would be bankrupted if it were abused. Im trying to figure out the idea i think we need to do something because we cant whats been going on with lack of compliance and lack of respect for congress is unacceptable. I just want to make sure that we thought this out and that were doing this in the way that is most compelling. And i dont know if you have any response to that. You have to unmute. Unmute. Thank you for those questions. Youre absolutely right. If someone is superwealthy, then this isnt going to work. Thats also a function of our capitalistic system. People who are superwealthy, for example, get tax breaks that none of us on this committee get. And so, yes, that is a problem. Im not sure we can fix that and people who are superwealthy get certain advantages. The vast majority of people subjected to congressional subpoenas or not like wilbur ross are not superwealthy. There is room in this proposal to allow the head of the agency to be fined. We can do it so that we go after the head of agency if theyre the ones that are ordering a subordinate to not come. Thats a modification that can definitely be made. Thank you. Mr. Woodall . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ill start where you left off with mr. Lieu. I think its absolutely critical that we are able to compel the executive branch to comply with congressional subpoenas. I think our challenge has been the partisanship here in the chamber. It was obvious to you that the Trump Administration was practicing this obstruction more than any other. I came to town in 2011, so my first vote along these lines was our criminal contempt against attorney holder which passed the house, was referred to the Justice Department and the attorney general decided he was not going to pursue the criminal contempt resolution against himself. It passed in a largely partisan way. I think we had 17 democrats vote with us. But the problem was not that we were not able to issue the subpoena or pass the contempt resolution, its that the enforcement, which ought to be zeroing out somebodys budget, making sure the head of the agency doesnt get their pet project funded, all of these things that we ought to be doing together we end up being divided on and i fear collecting those fines would be yet another one of those things given that youve spent some time thinking about this and constructive ways to solve it, did you come across something that would lead to us passing more of these subpoenas and contempt resolutions in a participateship fashion than in the fairly partisan fashion that weve seen . Thank you for your question. Youre absolutely right. And i noted in my Opening Statement both democratic and republican administrations have thumbed their noses at congress. To me, this is not a partisan issue. Its simply taking back its not even taking back our power. We already have this power, the Supreme Court has in fact upheld it and congress has used it in the past. Im putting in procedures to allow us to execute it if we want to. We still dont have to execute this power next term. But at least theres an option to do that. And right now it just seems silly for us to have no ability to execute that option even though we have the power to do so. It is my hope that we could get more subpoenas issued on a partisan basis. I think that would be better for the institution. You may recall republicans grappled with this when we were in control and went down the line of creating procedures to zero out individual Government Employees salary if we didnt like the way they were treating congress and creates an incredibly punishing tool to just your average government worker who had no idea they were getting ready to get dragged into a congressional fight. But i do hope we can solve that because i believe that we are both irrespective of who leads the congress and who leads the white house, we are all disadvantaged as americans when Congress Becomes feckless in its attempt to do oversight of the executive branch. Let me go to the motion to recommit. They taught me in freshman orientation ten years ago that that was a procedural motion. It had no policy aspect to it whatsoever and vote no. And so i recognize that that is not the sign of something that is valuable legislation, thats the sign of something that you would think could go by the wayside. But in our very new era of having almost all closed rules all the time, right, not a single open rule in paul ryan in paul ryans administration, not a single open rule now in speaker pelosis operation, there is no opportunity sometimes for the minority to have input on the house floor. If we had open rules, the challenges would be very much the change as the ones you pointed to, mr. Lieu, those amendments are offered, dropped right there on the floor, can be written on the back of a cocktail napkin, no opportunity for the for legislative drafting and perfection. Folks dont have time to consult with their staff and under the fiveminute rule, ten minutes later you could be asked to vote on a very consequential amendment that had not been seen before. So lastminute legislative language used to be a hallmark of this institution, wasnt used to disrupt the institution. It was common as a function of the legislative process. I remember once on our Prescription Drug bill last year the majority saw in its wisdom the ability to offer the minority an amendment in the nature of a substitute and in exchange the minority said, were not going to press for our motion to recommit. We traded away what you and i would agree was not an effective legislative tool and we got a very substantive conversation about how we wanted to reform Prescription Drugs in the country. I support that. Im particularly concerned about mr. Schneiders concerns because raised the very same issues in the rules Committee Last night, mr. Schneider. We were talking about a bill that was a resolution that was intended to speak out against horrific treatment that has been alleged of noncitizens in the country after they have been detained by federal forces. And the resolution, i believed, was designed to divide us on something that we should have been speaking in one voice to condemn. Theres no benefit in the america of having it appear that someone condones inhuman treatment by federal authorities against noncitizens. So is it clear to you that there is a difference, the occasional majority bills that are brought to the floor for a vote, that are designed apparently to divide us as opposed to unite us, versus the motion to recommit which i would concede is often designed as something that makes it appear that we are divided when in fact we may not be so . Thank you. I appreciate the question. The distinction i would draw here is its never good to divide us. But thats part of the politics and part of the process here. Its using a group as a pawn, as the wedge to create that division. To try to create a false impression of antagonism to a group or an individual that doesnt actually exist, that i think becomes so dangerous. And my concern specifically with respect to the use of American Jews and the issue of antisemitism in our country is on the rise in the country as it is around the world. Were empowering groups that are trafficking antisemitism and were diminishing groups that are being used as the wedge. I think back on some of those im sure you are referring to. I would say we were talking about protecting this group or that from some groups that rightfully need production and the motion to recommit said, yes, those things are important, but someone needs to speak out against antisemitism and theyre not. Someone needs to speak out against antiisrael and theyre not. So were going to do this, we cant move legislation to the floor on our own and so were going to put it in and in this context. In our last panel we heard members on both sides of the aisle talk about the need to protect the motion to recommit. I do hope that we can find a way to make it more valuable as a legislative tool. But i am i could not agree with you more that the politics of division that we play have dangerous consequences in many ways. Again, i believe not being able to speak with one voice on behalf of noncitizens in u. S. Custody is dangerous because it suggests that something is acceptable when it in fact is not. And that is certainly true as it relates to antisemitism and so i would be happy to work with you in a republican majority as were sure to see in january, i want you to know ill be just as willing to partner with you as i am in a democratic majority today. I appreciate that and all of our intersections weve had good comedy and i think its that comedy that allows us to put forward to advance the nation. There will be arguments and division of opinions, but we should never use individuals as a pawn in advancing that cause. I will share with you, i dont believe our conversations in the Modernization Committee are privileged any longer. We tried not to out one another while those conversations were going on. But we grappled with the motion to recommit because folks did have strong feelings about it and i while it was while reforming it was in our final recommendations, i thought one of the more fruitful places was how can we encourage the minority to surrender that motion in favor of getting a more substantive legislative alternative path . Lets not use lets not eliminate the motion to recommit to silence the minority. Lets change it to empower legislative discussion and just give the minority one opportunity to take it where they would like to take it. And so your counsel is well taken. I yield back. Thank you. Ms. Torres . No questions or comments, thank you. I have a couple of comments. And i would like to start where rob and brad just left off. And i had not opposed mtrs before as a general principle, but the mtr from a week ago on antisemitism really bothered me in a whole range of ways. Obviously as a member of the rules committee, its procedural, you know, and i sort of went down that path and i voted against it. And then it passed and then we vote on the bill as amended by the mtr and every single republican voted against the bill with that amendment. And we had mr. Cline on just a few minutes ago and we talked about the virginia rule where if you amend something, you vote for the bill. That doesnt seem to be commonplace around this place. But i was making some fundraising some calls and a guy answers and he says, why are you antisemitic. He didnt say it quite like that. Why did you vote against the antisemitism amendment . I just i dont understand. I said, it was procedural. I said, but then i voted for the bill, so it was part of the bill. And i said, all of those guys who presented the amendment, it was just a phony baloney stunt because they all voted against the bill. And it did create precisely what brad is concerned about, that i could say all the republicans were antisemitic and he could say, he was worried that any democrat who voted against the amendment was antisemitic and it really went right to right here for me. Thats a core value thing for me. And so i i have to admit, im attracted to mr. Lieus proposition here on mtrs, that what is the value of them . Is this really something important that its the last word for the minorities . Is that really something, or is it a gotcha thing. And we certainly did it. We would do our mtrs. So i have some reservation about these things that i didnt have until about last week. And so i just i want to raise that. And i guess my other comment to mr. Lieu on the contempt is the enforcement component that mr. Woodall raised, that what are we going to do . Add to the Capital Police . Are we going to get fines . Are we going to sell somebodys house on the courthouse steps . I mean, i dont understand how we have the i dont understand what you would put into place to actually enforce something in some substantial way. So i guess im presenting that to you, mr. Lieu, because i have some skepticism about this. Could i answer that . Sure. So right now, in fact, our congressional subpoenas can be enforced as mr. Woodall pointed out when they went after attorney general holder. Towards the end, that wasnt enforced. It just took many years. We have to litigate it through the courts, meaning that the district court, Appellate Court and the u. S. Supreme court. It takes years to enforce a subpoena. The difference with this proposal is, lets say you assess a hundred thousand dollars fine ultimately on a witness and, yes, it will be litigated through the courts. But at the end of the day, if the witness is wrong on the issue and the courts find, yes, we have the ability to enforce this subpoena, that witness will be on the hook for a hundred thousand dollars. Though it flips the burden where the witness now knows, if they ignore the subpoena, they could in fact be on the hook for a lot of money at the end of the day. Well take the don mcgahn case. Weve been litigating that issue through the district court, the Appellate Court. At some point there will be a decision and lets say we in congress win. What happens . Don mcgahn comes in and testifies. But if there was also a threat that he might think, oh, i might be on the hook for a hundred thousand dollars, i dont know if he actually would ignore the congressional subpoena. Thats the difference. It puts this burden on the administration that if they lose, they could be on the hook. So i guess i follow up and yield back. Lets say we get a hundred thousand dollars, so you in your scenario, the court said, yes, its a hundred thousand dollars fine and we have to collect through the courts, thats what i was saying, option it on the courthouse steps. Do you think were going to do that . Same way that the courts right now impose fines on people who ignore court orders. And, yes, there would be at some point a collection would occur. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. I just have a little im not sure that we have the staying power to do that. But i hear you and i yield back to the chair. Ms. Scanlon . Thank you. Mr. Morelli . I just want to add my thanks to mr. Schneider and mr. Lieu for their comments. I yield back. Ms. Shalala . No questions, mr. Chairman. Thank you. And i think mr. Raskin may have some see if mr. Raskin mr. Chairman . Yes. Mr. Raskin . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just i wanted to say a word about mr. Lieus proposal which i think is and put your video on, please. Sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now, mr. Chairman . I can hear you, but we cant see you. We need your video. I thought it was on. Okay. There you go. I just wanted to say a word on behalf of mr. Lieus proposal. You know, at a certain point earlier in this congress, i looked at the Supreme Court precedent governing contempt of congress, going back to anderson versus dunn and this goes back to the beginning of the congress and the Supreme Court has been very clear from the beginning that congress has the same Institutional Authority to impose sanctions for disobedience of its orders that a court has and, you know, as a body equal in stature and powers to the Supreme Court, we have the authority to enforce our orders. And if we dont have that, then the lawmaking function is fatally compromised because its inherent in lawmaking that we have the power to obtain the information that we need. And, you know, James Madison was clear about this when he said that those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. And so what does it mean for us to have the power to legislate over all of these subjects over war and Foreign Policy and commerce and bankruptcy and piracy and banking, you name it, if we cant get the information that we need. The lawmaking power implies the power to go out and collect information, the power of subpoena, the power to have people come and testify before us. If we get an executive branch, if we get a president of whatever Political Party or persuasion who decides to thumb his nose as congress or give the finger to congress, thats a crisis in our form of government. And so we need to have the full powers to enforce our orders and that goes beyond any particular party or any particular president. But we are the preeminent branch of government. The reason were in article 1, we come first, like the First Amendment and all of its rights comes first. And the reason why the congress has the power to impeach the president is because we are the lawmaking power and the representatives of the people. So with all of that, i just want to say, im in strong support of what mr. Lieu is doing and we have to move a process forward that allows us to make the contempt power not just latent within our arsenal, but something that is explicit and right there so people understand it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Does any other member of the committee wish to ask a question . Seeing that, i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. You are now excused. Are there any other members who wish to testified on proposed rules changes for the 117th congress . Last chance. Seeing none, this closes our member day hearing. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight a look at the Supreme Court historical society. Founded in 1974 to collect and preserve the history of the nations highest court. We begin an evening of their programs with yale law professor justin driver on the 1956 southern man test tifesto. It ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. Trump telling us not to worry, that the virus will, quote, disappear, that a, quote, miracle is coming. Joe biden saying we need a plan. A National Strategy. A president who is willing to lead. Willing to be a role model for our nation. While joe biden said at their National Convention that no miracle is coming, we actually think we might just be a short time away from when america will produce the first safe and effective Coronavirus Vaccine and we will begin to deliver it to the American People the moment its approved. Watch the Vice President ial debate between Vice President mike pence and senator Kamala Harris live wednesday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern from the university of utah in Salt Lake City and stay with cspan for the second president ial debate town hall with President Trump and former Vice President joe biden taking audience questions live from the Adrienne Arsht center. Watch the debates live on cspan. Listen live on the cspan radio app and go to csp cspan. Org debates. See social media feeds on debate happenings and reactions and watching video from the cspan video library. Christopher wray testified before the sena h