    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROXY VOTING AND REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS AS
                ESTABLISHED BY H. RES. 965 OF THE 116TH CONGRESS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON RULES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov
                 Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules

                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    49-396                   WASHINGTON : 2022

                               COMMITTEE ON RULES

                   JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts, Chairman
    NORMA J. TORRES, California          TOM COLE, Oklahoma
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado                Ranking Republican
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California,
      Vice Chair
    DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
                           DON SISSON, Staff Director
                 KELLY DIXON CHAMBERS, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                 Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

                            JOSEPH D. MORELLE, Chair
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina        Ranking Republican
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 TOM COLE, Oklahoma
    JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
                                     ------

              Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

                       NORMA J. TORRES, California, Chair
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       TOM COLE, Oklahoma
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
    JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
                                     ------

                      Subcommittee on Expedited Procedures

                         JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chair
    DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina      MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
      Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
    NORMA J. TORRES, California          TOM COLE, Oklahoma
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 March 17, 2022

    Opening Statements:
                                                                       Page
        Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules.     1
        Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of
          Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules......     1
    Witness Testimony:
        Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Illinois..........................................     5
            Prepared Statement.......................................     5
        Hon. C. Scott Franklin, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida...........................................     8
            Prepared Statement.......................................     8
        Hon. John H. Rutherford, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Florida.......................................     9
            Prepared Statement.......................................     9
        Hon. Veronica Escobar, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas.............................................    10
            Prepared Statement.......................................    10
        Hon. Jason Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Missouri................................................    12
            Prepared Statement.......................................    12
        Hon. Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................    13
            Prepared Statement.......................................    13
        Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida...........................................    36
            Prepared Statement.......................................    36
        Hon. Steny Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Maryland................................................    38
            Prepared Statement.......................................    38
        Hon. Mike Gallagher, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wisconsin.........................................    42
            Prepared Statement.......................................    42
        Hon. Chip Roy, a Representative in Congress from the State of
          Texas......................................................    44
            Prepared Statement.......................................    44
        Hon. Andy Biggs, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Arizona.................................................    48
            Prepared Statement.......................................    48
        Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Illinois................................................    50
            Prepared Statement.......................................    50
        Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................    76
            Prepared Statement.......................................    76
        Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California..............................................    77
            Prepared Statement.......................................    77
        Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Tennessee.........................................    79
            Prepared Statement.......................................    79
        Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................    81
            Prepared Statement.......................................    81
    Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
        Hon. Deborah K. Ross, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of North Carolina....................................    94
        Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Texas.........................................    97
        Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Pennsylvania......................................    99
        Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................   100
        Hon. Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................   103
        Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................   107
        Hon. Nydia Velazquez, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York..........................................   111
        Hon. Paul McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas...................................................   114
        Hon. Raul Grijalva, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................   116
        Hon. Rick Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Georgia.................................................    00
        Hon. Stacey Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin
          Islands....................................................   121
        Hon. William Timmons, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of South Carolina....................................   124
        Article by Punchbowl News, entitled ``Will House Dems get it
          Together?'' dated March 9, 2022............................   126
        Article by Rep. Matt Gaetz from the Washington Examiner,
          entitled ``Republicans are getting it wrong on remote
          voting'' dated November 18, 2020...........................   139

    MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROXY VOTING AND REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS AS
    ESTABLISHED BY H. RES. 965 OF THE 116TH CONGRESS [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                                    HEARING]

                                  ----------                              --

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

                      House of Representatives,
                                            Committee on Rules,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in Room
    H-313, The Capitol, Hon. James P. McGovern [chairman of the
    committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives McGovern, Perlmutter, Raskin,
    Scanlon, Morelle, DeSaulnier, Ross, Neguse, Cole, Burgess,
    Reschenthaler, and Fischbach.
        The Chairman. The Rules Committee will come to order.
        Happy St. Patrick's Day everybody.
        March 2020 was a month unlike any in our history. In just a
    few days, the COVID-19 pandemic crystallized in our national
    consciousness and brought the world to a wrenching halt. Within
    a matter of weeks, hospitals were overwhelmed and thousands had
    died. Millions more were laid off as markets crashed and global
    supply chains were upended.
        Life changed overnight. America was in crisis, and Congress
    took action. Starting with an emergency supplemental
    appropriations bill in March of 2020, the House and Senate then
    worked together to quickly pass the Families First Coronavirus
    Response Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
    Security Act, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health
    Care Enhancement Act; vital bills that helped to keep millions
    of Americans safe and healthy and brought families, small
    businesses, and communities back from the brink of economic
    collapse.
        Yet despite the safety measures we put into place, Congress
    itself was not exempt from the virus. By the end of March of
    2020, over 50 Members of Congress had been diagnosed with
    COVID, jeopardizing our ability to pass important legislation
    during a national emergency, not to mention putting into danger
    every single person those Members came into contact with on
    their way to and from Washington from every corner of the
    country.
        Not wanting to turn every session of Congress into a
    superspreader event, I am proud that the Rules Committee got to
    work, consulting with experts, constitutional scholars, and our
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to develop a system for
    proxy voting and remote committee proceedings that allowed us
    to continue conducting the people's business during an
    unprecedented time.
        We weren't alone. Around the world in Canada, Mexico,
    Spain, Japan, and dozens of other countries, parliaments
    adopted various forms of remote voting and hearings to keep
    their respective governments functioning. I am especially proud
    that the House did it in a way that it ensured the integrity of
    the institution and protected the health and safety of
    thousands of workers who make this place function every day;
    from the cafeteria workers and congressional staff, to the
    custodians and the Capitol Police.
        Just over a century ago, the 1918 influenza pandemic
    brought Congress to a standstill. Sickness sidelined so many
    Members of Congress that the House lacked a quorum and was
    literally unable to vote, proceeding only through unanimous
    consent agreements. Contrast that with our response today, and
    the numbers speak for themselves.
        Proxy voting has enabled Members to safely vote on over 600
    recorded votes since the start of the covered period. In fact,
    76 percent of the House, Democrats and Republicans, has voted
    by proxy at least once during the covered period. And I am told
    that House committees have held over 900 virtual hearings or
    markups, enabling them to continue their work.
        We passed lifesaving COVID rescue bills, including the
    historic American Rescue Plan, while ensuring the continuity of
    government during an unprecedented time, advancing
    appropriations bills, the National Defense Authorization Act,
    conducting oversight on the Executive Branch, and much more.
    And I believe that a century from now, historians will look
    back at the work we did to keep this place running, and they
    will say that, during a once-in-a-lifetime global crisis, we
    got the job done.
        And let me just say for the record that I have not voted by
    proxy because I have been lucky. I haven't had COVID. I haven't
    had to care for a child with COVID. I haven't even had to
    quarantine for weeks at a time like so many others. As a person
    who wrote this rule, I followed it to the letter. But at the
    end of the day, I am proud that this option is available for
    both Democrats and Republicans, and I am proud of the fact that
    even most Republicans have voted by proxy.
        Some people have used it because they had to take care of
    children who had COVID. Some people have used it to protect
    vulnerable family members. This rule, I believe, has saved
    lives.
        That is why I look forward to today's conversation. For
    example, we have a member on this committee who currently has
    COVID and will only be able to participate because of the rule
    we passed. I think there is value to that.
        We have been able to hear from witnesses from around the
    world in our committees, broadening our perspective and
    improving our work here. I think there is value to that too.
        America has changed, and Congress met the moment. We didn't
    get everything perfect. There were certainly things I wish we
    would have done differently in this role. But now, as this
    pandemic enters a new phase, I believe that it is important for
    us to discuss how proxy voting and remote committee proceedings
    have worked over the past 22 months, how they helped Congress
    safely operate through the public health emergency, and whether
    what we have learned can instruct the work of this institution
    moving forward.
        You know, I have always said that Congress works best when
    we get to know each other in person, face-to-face. I felt
    strongly about that when the pandemic started, and I still feel
    strongly about that. I also feel strongly that the system of
    proxy voting that we instituted is something that we should all
    be proud of and something that we can learn from. And that is
    what this hearing is about.
        So I hope we have a productive and positive conversation.
    It is hard to do in this place--everything is political--but I
    do hope that is the way the hearing proceeds.
        And, with that, I am happy to turn to our distinguished
    ranking member, Mr. Cole, for any opening comments he may have.
        Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I begin, I want to join you and wish everybody a
    Happy St. Patrick's Day. And I have to say, just looking around
    across the room, I have never seen such a stunning display of
    green ties.
        The Chairman. And if anybody wants coffee, it is Irish
    coffee. We could begin the morning.
        Mr. Cole. Well, in that case, I am throwing this out; I
    will join you. But thank you very much.
        And we are here today to hold a Member Day hearing on proxy
    voting and remote committee procedures.
        In May of 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
    House took unprecedented action and created a system of proxy
    voting on the floor and a system for remote committee
    procedures. At the time, I noted that this was the most
    consequential change to the rules since the establishment of
    the modern committee system in the Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1946.
        I believe our experience over the last 2 years has borne
    that out. This action was indeed consequential. Unfortunately,
    in my view, the results have not been as positive as all of us
    I think would have wanted.
        Sadly, as I feared, the introduction of proxy voting on the
    floor and remote committee procedures have changed the nature
    of the institution and not for the better. Although some
    temporary form of procedural change in response to the pandemic
    was likely necessary, particularly for Members who physically
    could not get to Washington, D.C., in the early days, I believe
    that both the proxy voting and remote committee procedures have
    long since outlived their usefulness. Continuing these in their
    present form will undoubtedly lead to significant long-term
    damage to the culture of this body and to our ability to
    continue functioning as a Congress.
        We must never forget that the word ``Congress'' literally
    means, quote, ``a physical meeting between delegates,''
    unquote. Over the past 2 years, we have rarely met this
    definition. Instead, 2 years on, Members often use proxy voting
    and remote committee procedures to avoid traveling to
    Washington and, consequently, never spend time in the same room
    as their colleagues. I just note that, magically, proxy voting
    doubles on Fridays. I am sure that that is something we ought
    to consider. Not every weekend is Super Bowl weekend, and
    probably a few of those proxies that are much more for
    scheduling convenience.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Why were you looking at me?
        Mr. Cole. I actually--just because of that attractive green
    tie. It is eye-catching. I certainly would never accuse my
    friend of anything untoward.
        But, 2 years on, again, as I said, Members often use proxy
    voting and remote committee procedures to avoid traveling to
    Washington and, consequently, never spend time in the same
    room.
        The failure to congregate in person has had serious
    consequences for the culture of this institution. Over the past
    2 years, I personally have observed the decline in civility. I
    think this can be directly linked to the inability of Members
    to get to know one another face-to-face, which is in turn a
    direct consequence of these emergency remote procedures.
        The author Margaret Wheatley once noted that, quote, ``You
    can't hate someone whose story you know.'' In failing to
    routinely come together in person, we are losing our ability to
    learn each other's stories. That has helped contribute to
    rising animosity on both sides of the aisle. Relationships,
    both between Members and with staff, are important. And it is
    important to have all Members physically present in Washington
    to ensure that these relationships are both created and
    maintained.
        In addition, continuing to utilize proxy voting and remote
    committee procedures has negative consequences for legislating.
    When Members are not present in Washington, that lessens the
    ability of the institution to achieve consensus. Without the
    ability to discuss matters in person, face-to-face, Members
    aren't able to fully consider legislation and propose an
    alternative, often leading to a top-down, take-it-or-leave-it
    approach. It is hardly the way to ensure that all Members'
    voices are heard or to ensure a productive legislative process
    that leads to consensus.
        The use of proxy voting has also resulted in the failure to
    maintain a productive and efficient legislative process on the
    floor. With proxy voting, individual votes are sometimes held
    open for long periods of time, frequently extending up to 45
    minutes or longer. With such a long vote time, the majority has
    limited votes to no more than a handful each day. This is meant
    that we instead are avoiding votes altogether, which is
    especially apparent on legislation with a huge number of
    amendments.
        Rather than doing individual votes on each amendment, the
    majority is instead liberally embracing large en bloc amendment
    packages, which makes it very difficult for individual Members
    to know what they are voting on and, likewise, makes it more
    difficult for an amendment to be adopted. This contributes to
    the same take-it-or-leave-it legislative approach and
    contributes to a waiting of voting procedures in such a way
    that frequently benefits the majority at the expense of the
    minority.
        I would also note that while technology has created the
    ability for committees to hold remote hearings, such technology
    is not foolproof. We have seen a myriad of problems emerge from
    these technologies over the past 2 years, ranging from Members
    unable to enter virtual hearing rooms due to technical glitches
    and low bandwidth preventing Members from speaking or appearing
    on camera. None of these problems exist with in-person
    committee hearings.
        Mr. Chairman, I grant that it may have made sense to
    experiment with some alternative procedures at the beginning of
    the pandemic but, today, we are moving steadily toward a broad
    reopening of society. The CDC is no longer recommending broad
    mask mandates and, indeed, the House eliminated its own mask
    mandate 2 weeks ago. Vaccines and boosters are widely available
    to anyone who wants them, testing is widespread and reliable,
    and the Nation as a whole is ready to get back to work and,
    quite frankly, back to normal. This should include the House of
    Representatives.
        It is now time for Members to return to Washington to
    conduct the business of the Nation. We can do this safely in
    person, and we should do so at our earliest opportunity.
    Indeed, there is no reason for us not to.
        Before I conclude, I want to welcome all the Members of the
    House who will be appearing before us today. Member Day
    hearings are an important tradition in the House. And I commend
    you, Mr. Chairman, for doing that today.
        Member Day traditions are--excuse me, gives us all a chance
    to hear perspectives from Members who do not sit on a
    particular committee, and it allows us to hear and incorporate
    new ideas. I have often found these hearings to be invaluable.
    And I am delighted to be hearing from my friends and colleagues
    today, particularly on a topic that is so important to the
    future of the House as an institution.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome our witnesses to today's
    hearing, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        I just want to point out for the record that we are here in
    person. And the only way that Mr. Neguse, who unfortunately has
    COVID, will be able to participate with us later today is
    because we do have the ability to do remote hearings. And I
    think that is important. That is important for his
    constituents. But we want everybody to be able to participate.
        In any event--and we are going to do these in panels of
    six, if that is okay with my friends here, because there are a
    lot of people who want to testify today. So Representatives
    Davis, Franklin, Rutherford, Escobar, Smith, and Sanchez.
        So why don't we go in that order. Mr. Davis.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman McGovern,
    Ranking Member Cole. Thanks for hosting the hearing on this
    important topic or, should I say, here we are again.
        Two years ago, I sat here when we first discussed this
    issue, and I said then that there is not one Member serving
    today, nor will be there a Member elected in the future, that
    today's discussion does not affect. And it is as true today as
    it was then, that Members might vote by proxy or participate in
    the duties of our elected office by video link from vacation
    homes, in fishing boats, and occasionally in the wee hours of
    the morning, maybe from the comfort of their own bed.
        These are fundamental changes to the fabric of our
    institution, which has operated in person since before the
    American Revolution, following a tradition that began with the
    Battle of Runnymede in 1215. To paraphrase from the English
    philosopher and writer G.K. Chesterton, sometimes processes
    exist for a reason. And it makes sense to uncover that
    rationale before tearing them down.
        And for Congress, meeting in person is vital for us to be
    able to accomplish the people's work. This is one reason why,
    from the very beginning, many of our colleagues and I have been
    cautious, if not outright opposed, to these departures from
    important and valuable tradition. How dare we be the Members
    that decide not to show up at the Capitol for the American
    people. Generations before us, through a Civil War, two world
    wars, horrific terrorist attacks, pandemics and more, cut no
    corners in service to the American people. And yet over the
    last 2 years, the Speaker and the outgoing majority have quite
    literally allowed Representatives to phone it in.
        And, now, we are here today to discuss how proxy voting or
    remote proceedings should be continued in perpetuity, not as an
    answer to a national emergency, but as a convenience. Where is
    our sense of duty and sacrifice?
        Now as I sit here again, my worst fears about the effects
    of proxy voting and remote proceedings have been proven true.
    We have 22 months of proof that proxy voting and remote
    committee hearings do not serve the American people well.
        And, Mr. Chairman, your own party is experiencing the
    impact. I would like share an excerpt from an analysis from
    Punchbowl News in advance of the Democratic Member retreat last
    week, for which I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Punchbowl said: The multiyear
    COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated the physical and personal
    distance between lawmakers. Proxy voting, remote party
    meetings, and virtual hearings mean House Democrats have spent
    far less time in the same room with each other for the last 2
    years than they normally would. A lot of Democrats, especially
    newer Members, don't even know each other that well. And across
    the entire Caucus, there is a clear lack of trust, Progressives
    versus Moderates, younger versus older, leaders versus rank and
    file. These are just some of the fault lines inside the party.
    Legislative political priorities and prerogatives do not line
    up, end quote.
        Mr. Chairman, you personally predicted that this would be
    the case. In a Dear e-Colleague from May 13 of 2020, you wrote,
    quote, ``In normal times, we work best when we work together,
    face-to-face, and side by side; however, this is an
    extraordinary time and we must adapt,'' end quote.
        Majority Leader Hoyer had similar sentiment stating on May
    20 of 2020, quote, ``Let me be clear at the outset that there
    is no substitute for the personal interaction of members in a
    committee room or on the House floor. But when that is not
    possible because it poses a mortal danger to the health of
    Members, staff, press, and the public, we must provide for
    alternative ways to do the people's business,'' end quote.
        And, in fact, in the same e-Dear Colleague I mentioned,
    Chairman McGovern made clear in his question and answer section
    the following: Will remote voting by proxy be a permanent
    change to the House rules? Would we continue to use it post-
    pandemic?
        And the chairman's response, and I quote, ``No. We would
    temporarily implement remote voting by proxy through a special
    order resolution that would allow the Speaker to put the
    process in place for 45 days during a public health emergency
    due to a novel coronavirus.'' Two years later, proxy voting
    remote committee hearings remain in effect.
        Mr. Chairman, even if such extraordinary measures were
    required at the beginning of the pandemic when none of us knew
    how to live with COVID, the pandemic is fading and is no longer
    a sufficient rationale to prolong this deviation from standard
    practice.
        It has become clear that the chairman's words were, at
    best, overly optimistic, and at worst, willfully short-sided.
    If we were to rely on the promises and assurances given by this
    majority, then proxy voting and remote proceedings would have
    ended long ago. Yet, in typical fashion, the majority continues
    to cater to the loudest voices in their caucus, those who have
    become comfortable with the conveniences of the current system.
    And to be frank, it is clear that this has nothing more to do
    with the outgoing majority's weak margins in the House than
    anyone's health or safety.
        So President Biden declared earlier this month in his State
    of the Union Address that thanks to the progress we have made
    this year, COVID-19 need no longer control our lives. I say it
    is time that COVID-19 stops controlling Congress as well.
        The state of Congress is not better today than it was 2
    years ago. That is undeniable. Governing is built on trust and
    relationships. Proxy voting and remote proceedings haven't only
    broken down the communication between Democrats and
    Republicans, they have done so within the parties, within State
    delegations, and within committees as well.
        The halls of the House office buildings used to be
    corridors of open doors, fostering the exchange of ideas and
    common ground. Today, the doors are shut, the halls are empty,
    and the public is locked outside.
        We are no longer in extraordinary times. We have learned to
    live with COVID, and threats to the continuity of Congress have
    subsided. It is time to show up and get to work for the
    American people, period. If that is not the direction this
    majority adopts, it can only be assumed that permanent proxy
    voting and remote committee hearings were the plan from the
    beginning. If that is the case, I hope you at least will pay
    the American people the courtesy of telling them the truth,
    because I assure you, Republicans are here to work.
        Mr. Chairman, it is time to get back on the job in person.
    And I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Representative Franklin.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Franklin. Good morning, Chair McGovern and Ranking
    Member Cole. Thank you for allowing me to address the Rules
    Committee on this important topic.
        I would like to express my disappointment at the outset
    that we would even consider making proxy voting permanent. The
    proxy vote was only instituted in response to the global
    pandemic, but that pandemic is now shifting to an endemic. The
    House is moving back to normal operations, thankfully, so the
    requirement to vote in person must be reinstated.
        I am a freshman who has never voted by proxy. And, frankly,
    I took a lot of flack for missing votes last year when I flew
    home to Florida to make an official event appearance with my
    Governor at his request. Other than those missed votes, I have
    been present for every other vote. Missing votes will always
    happen, it always has. Allowing Members to skip voting in
    person, a critical part of our duties, is wrong.
        Many of my colleagues have abused the proxy vote. We all
    know it. We do. Some Members have missed 31 days of floor
    votes, the equivalent of seven full weeks of voting.
        The American people sent us to Congress to debate
    legislation, advocate for our constituents, and be present to
    vote on their behalf.
        In the 117th Congress, the House has been in session for
    124 days. That means some Members have been absent for a full
    quarter of the days that we voted. I don't know a single job in
    America, outside of government perhaps, where you can skip work
    25 percent of the time and still be allowed to have a job and
    remain employed.
        While much of America shifted to telework during the
    pandemic, many of my colleagues have chosen to hand over their
    proxy vote to another Member for a variety of non-COVID
    reasons. Colleagues who vote by proxy sign a legal affidavit
    stating that they are physically unable to attend proceedings
    in the House Chamber due to the ongoing public health
    emergency. I am not a lawyer, but it is worth noting that an
    affidavit is, quote, a written statement confirmed by oath or
    affirmation for use as evidence in court.
        I've seen colleagues attend virtual hearings in their cars
    while in route to events in their districts, stand outside the
    Capitol holding press conferences while others voted their
    proxy inside the building, or even post on social media about
    their exotic vacations taken during vote days. But they
    submitted affidavits swearing they were physically unable to
    attend proceedings in the House Chamber due to the ongoing
    public health emergency. And we wonder why the American public
    has such a low opinion of Congress.
        The truth is many of my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle, and it is truly both, like the convenience of proxy
    voting, but that is not a good enough reason to shirk our duty
    to the American people. It is disgraceful and it needs to stop.
        The success of this institution relies on personal
    relationships and our ability to make the case for priorities
    that our constituents need. We need to build coalitions to get
    our bills across the finish line. We cannot advocate, build
    coalitions, or effectively serve the American public over Zoom
    or voting by proxy.
        As you debate this important issue, I would ask you drill
    down to the heart of the matter and ask yourselves this
    question: Would permanent proxy voting make us a better
    functioning institution and would it make it--or would it
    better serve the American public? Based on the abuses I have
    witnessed, I am certain that answer is no, and I think you know
    that answer too.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Franklin follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Rutherford.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
    Member, and committee members.
        First, let me say that I have never proxy voted. I also
    refuse to participate and assist other Members who wanted to
    proxy vote. And that is because I believe it is a fundamental
    role of every Member of Congress to be here in D.C., to be
    present, to cast a vote, and to do their committee business.
    That is what taxpayers pay us to do.
        Unfortunately, proxy voting started out as a solution to
    pandemic challenges, as the chairman eloquently said earlier,
    but it has now devolved into a method of convenience for some
    Members to avoid their responsibilities.
        In our changing world, it is easy for folks to--and it is
    understandable that they would compare proxy voting to working
    from home, but they are not the same. You see, here is the
    thing about proxy voting that many folks don't understand:
    Members don't need to be physically present at their computer
    to cast a vote, and so they simply have another Member submit a
    vote on their behalf. It is not the same as working from home.
        When a proxy vote is placed, as we have mentioned earlier,
    a Member of Congress must submit a signed document that
    explains the absences due to the ongoing public health
    emergency. Now, this made much more sense when COVID-19--at the
    beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, back before we had vaccines
    and therapeutics.
        There is no excuse anymore, Mr. Chairman. It is being used
    for convenience, not fear of illness. You don't have to use
    hypotheticals to see how this situation is ripe for abuse.
        Instead of being present for a vote, my colleagues have
    gone to political fundraisers, campaign events, space shuttle
    launches, and many, many other nonwork-related get-togethers.
    In another instance, one person even called in to a committee
    hearing from his boat. In fact, there are a few Members who
    have only been up to D.C. a handful of times since the proxy
    voting began. That is unconscionable.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Say that again. What did you say?
        Mr. Rutherford. They have only been to Washington, D.C., a
    handful of times since proxy voting began. In fact, I know one
    whose been here, I think, one time. And the only reason he came
    then was because you couldn't proxy vote for the Speaker. So it
    is obviously being greatly abused.
        It is no longer about the pandemic, and this committee must
    end this practice. We cannot create a scenario where the main
    function of a Representative which is voting on legislation can
    be done while a Representative votes physically and virtually
    absent.
        In the most recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans
    said they did not approve of the way Congress is handling its
    job; 75 percent. It seems that the perception is that nothing
    gets done around here, and proxy voting sure isn't helping to
    change that perception.
        Finally, proxy voting creates hour-long voting cycles,
    where the people who actually come to work are the ones who are
    punished because it is our time that is being wasted on the
    floor because Members don't want to show up for work. Those who
    proxy vote and those who help them are doing a disservice to
    those here in D.C. trying to get things done.
        The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the pandemic is over, so
    we need to return--everyone is to return to D.C. and reconvene
    again in person. It is what our constituents expect. And I am
    asking the committee to finally put an end to this wasteful
    proxy policy. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Rutherford follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        So I am not skipping over you, Mr. Smith. I am just going
    in order.
        Ms. Escobar.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
    be back in the coziness of the Rules Committee. And I want to
    apologize to the members behind me for giving them my back.
        This is a great conversation, and I think it is really
    important that we all listen respectfully to one another to
    really truly try to come up with a productive and good path
    forward.
        I had the incredible privilege of serving as the El Paso
    County judge for many years. And in Texas, the county judge is
    effectively the head of county government. And when I came in,
    we had no continuity of operations plan. And that was one of
    the first things that I knew I had to do because, if we had a
    flood, or if we had some kind of storm, or if we could not get
    into the building, we had to have a plan. And as I began
    engaging with other organizations about their approach, it
    really became very clear to me that every major organization
    needs to have a continuity of operations plan.
        And Congress did not have one when the pandemic hit, and I
    am proud that we came up with a plan. Could it be more
    efficient? I think we could be more efficient. Should we have
    boundless proxy or remote voting or virtual meetings? I don't
    think we should.
        I think there--and I don't think it needs to be an either/
    or proposition at all. I think--and, Mr. Cole, I agree with
    you, I think the human contact and interaction is so important
    when we are talking about policy, when we are trying to come
    together, when we are trying to find ways to solve some of our
    great challenges.
        And, yes, it is true, Congress is so divided. You know, I--
    personally, I blame extreme gerrymandering for that, where, you
    know, folks are able to pick their own districts and we are
    getting further and further and further apart. That is
    something I hope we do solve at some point, because we have got
    to do a better job of working together. And we have got to come
    together to do that.
        But I think that we are in a moment where--and it is not
    just Congress, but I think all of America should learn from the
    past 2 years. And every organization should learn from the past
    2 years. And that means looking at what works and what didn't
    work. That means looking at best practices, and it means
    looking at where we might have failed. So that when the next
    pandemic hits or when the next emergency hits, we are ready, we
    are prepared, and we are approaching all of this thoughtfully.
        But when it comes to bringing Congress into the 21st
    century, as I mentioned, does not have to be an either/or
    proposition. And I--you know, I--what I would like every member
    on this committee to think about is every time you have had to
    make a decision between being with your loved one for the birth
    of a child or a grandchild, or attending your child's
    graduation--I remember when my son graduated from college. I
    remember praying when I texted him and asked him when is your
    graduation, I really, really hope that that is an in-district
    workweek so that I don't have to make that decision.
    Thankfully, that momentous occasion landed during an in-
    district workweek, and I was able to change my schedule around
    and I could attend my son's college graduation.
        How many of us have had to make the decision between
    showing up for work sick or missing votes? Again, it doesn't
    have to be either/or. I think we can be not just grownups about
    this and trust one another, but I think we can approach this in
    a practical way.
        So if we have--if we create rules around this prospect,
    let's say every Member gets 20 proxy day votes, and so that
    every Member gets a certain number of days where they can proxy
    vote. If they want to spend those 20 days attending, you know,
    in-district events or attending--you know, saving it for sick
    days or saving it for special occasions that they know are
    coming up that year, that should be the Member's prerogative.
    We should treat Members like adults.
        And outside of a COVID pandemic, outside of an emergency
    where we need this continuity of operations plan, then we
    should allow Congress to operate in the same way that most
    other organizations operate. And that way we preserve the
    integrity of the institution, we maintain the advantageous
    nature of being in close proximity with one another that helps
    us chart out a path for a policy and for relationships, but we
    also allow Members the ability to be there for a birth, to be
    there for a funeral, to be there for an important event in
    their lives, or to stay home when they are sick, and to not
    have to make the decision between casting a vote on behalf of
    their constituents and these important life events or in-
    district events.
        So my hope is, is that we can be reasonable, and that we
    can look at Congress in a way that where we acknowledge the
    fact that we are all human, the fact that we all want to do the
    right thing by our constituents. I hope this conversation does
    not devolve into pettiness or finger-pointing. That doesn't
    serve anybody well.
        And, again, as my Republican colleagues have noted, on both
    sides of the aisle, we have seen abuses, but we have also seen
    people recognize the challenge that we faced for 2 years as we
    tried to keep one another safe and ourselves safe and our
    families safe.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
    Rules Committee, thank you for this really important
    conversation. Thank you for the opportunity that you have given
    me to share my own views. I yield back.
        [The statement of Ms. Escobar follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Mr. Smith of Missouri. Thank you, Chairman McGovern,
    Ranking Member Cole, and members of the committee. It is always
    a great opportunity to participate in a hearing in the Rules
    Committee.
        The American people have a lot of reasons to be upset with
    the direction of our country. Inflation just hit nearly a,
    well, 40-year high last week at 7.9 percent. We have the
    highest gas prices in 13 years. And we have seen more than 2
    million illegals cross the southern border in the last year.
        These are the kind of national problems the American people
    want Congress to solve. They elected us to do a job, to have
    robust debate, and to make tough choices to take real action in
    Congress. But at the very least, they expect us to show up to
    work.
        And yet for going on almost 2 years now, the idea of proxy
    voting has made a mockery of the legislative process. Under the
    proxy voting rules that still remain in place in this House, a
    Member of Congress could vote to authorize military action.
    They could spend trillions of dollars or to fundamentally
    rewrite our Nation's laws. All of their--all while sitting on
    their couch at home, on a cruise ship, or on a boat, or even a
    fundraiser that just a phone call--with just using a phone call
    to a fellow colleague. Think about that. This has all happened
    in the last 2 years in this body.
        When it comes to committee work, we marked up two
    reconciliation packages in the House Budget Committee. This
    Congress, with a combined price tag of over $7 trillion, $7
    trillion, that is with a T. One of these bills, the so-called
    Build Back Better Act, is the most expensive piece of
    legislation in the history of the United States. Guess how many
    times we met in person in the House Budget Committee. Zero, to
    spend over $7 trillion; the most in the history of this Nation.
        The American people have had their lives turned upside down
    for the last 2 years. In some cases, their lives have been
    destroyed, completely and entirely. The very least Congress can
    do is we can show up for work.
        Like many a bad policies in history, proxy voting starting
    out as a limited measure. Back in May of 2020, it was
    authorized for 45 days. Seventy House Members proxy voted then.
    Fast forward to now, and more than 300 Members have submitted
    letters to the Clerk delegating their votes to other Members.
        Speaker Pelosi has extended proxy voting, not once, not
    twice, but more than 10 consecutive times. In fact, over 17,000
    votes, over 17,000 votes, almost 10 percent of all votes cast
    in the House last year was by proxy.
        A single Representative can cast the vote of 10 absentee
    Members. Theoretically, that means it would take no more than
    20 Members of Congress to conduct business on behalf of the
    entire House of Representatives, on behalf of the Nation. This
    isn't just a wrong way to govern, it is completely backwards.
        It runs counter to the design of democracy. Our Framers
    settled this question over 200 years ago, back during the
    Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention.
    They rejected proposals to permit proxy voting.
        Congress is meant to convey in person. For over 230 years,
    we have operated with in-person quorum calls and voting during
    pandemics and world wars. In 1814, when the British set fire to
    this building, Congress convened in a hotel until the Capitol
    was rebuilt the next year. During the Civil War, troops were
    trained on Capitol Grounds, and they were even quartered in the
    House and Senate Chambers for a brief time. Despite all that,
    Congress, guess what? They still convened in person. In 1918,
    during the Spanish Flu, considered one of the deadliest
    pandemics in world history, Congress still voted in person.
        The job is not meant to be easy. We all knew that when we
    signed up to represent all of our constituents. Nor should we
    make it easy by phoning it in. We are each responsible for
    representing hundreds of thousands of hardworking good
    Americans that should be able to depend on us to show up for
    work, just as so many of them have done, especially during this
    time of crisis.
        With that, I am thrilled to take any questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Smith of Missouri follows:]
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. And just as a personal
    favor, we want to have a productive conversation here. Some of
    us take offense when you refer to people as illegals. I would
    hope that we can stay away from that kind of rhetoric so we
    could actually have a conversation about the topic here. But I
    find that, quite frankly, to be offensive.
        Ms. Sanchez.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with
    that comment.
        I want to thank you and Ranking Member Cole for the
    opportunity to testify about proxy voting and how we can adapt
    the rules of the House of Representatives to the realities that
    face working parents and, in particular, working moms.
        It is ironic that one of the biggest leaps forward that
    this institution has taken to being more family-friendly was
    actually caused by a global pandemic. When I gave birth to my
    son in 2009, I was only the eighth Member of the U.S.--Member
    in U.S. history to give birth while serving in office. Nearly
    13 years later, I am still one of only 11 Members of the House
    who have given birth while in office.
        In an institution that has always been dominated by men,
    there are all kinds of issues that disproportionately impact
    our small club of moms in Congress. And we have to face many of
    those rules that were created back when only men, quite
    frankly, served in this institution.
        Some are easily solvable. Like, hey, installing a women's
    bathroom near the House floor, which we didn't even have until
    2011. That was 13 years after I was first elected.
        But there is one obstacle to raising children as a Member
    of Congress that has never been easy to solve, and that is the
    schedule. We all understand the obligation to serve the
    constituents of our district, which means day or night, rain or
    shine, and we show up to do the people's business. But too
    often that obligation means we as parents have to choose
    between taking care of our children when they are sick or hurt
    or making sure that our constituents' voices are heard.
        I want to put a little context into some of the challenges
    that working moms in Congress face. I come from the State of
    California. I represent a district there. Washington, D.C., is
    approximately 3,000 miles away from my home. All of my family
    lives in California. When I chose to give birth, I chose to do
    it in Washington, D.C., knowing that I would need to go back to
    work pretty quickly after the birth of my son. I had intended
    to take 4 weeks of maternity leave to heal from the cesarean
    section that I had to undergo in order to give birth to him. I
    had to actually get up out of bed 2 weeks after my cesarean
    section to come and vote in the House of Representatives on an
    important vote.
        I wonder how many of you, after a major surgery in which
    you have stitches and are told by your doctor that bedrest for
    2 to 3 weeks is recommended, would drag yourself out of bed to
    come to work and cast an important vote. But I did it. And I
    understood the sacrifice, and I am proud that I showed up for
    work to do that. But that does not mean that we cannot build in
    flexibility for those types of situations.
        I will never forget when we were facing a government
    shutdown, and my son was a toddler asleep in his bed at night,
    we got called in to vote at 11:30 p.m. at night on a Saturday.
    What person here knows the specific challenge of having to find
    childcare for your child when all of your family is 3,000 miles
    away, and you are here by yourself, and you have to go in to
    vote? It is a question of either waking up your son and taking
    him to the floor with you, which I have had to do, or knocking
    on a neighbor's door and begging them to stay in your home with
    your son asleep until you can return from votes. Those are the
    realities that moms in Congress face.
        We shouldn't have to make that difficult choice to choose
    between our families and our obligations to our constituents. I
    have been here in Congress when I have gotten a call that my
    son was injured at school, and I had to take him to the
    emergency room. And I had to miss votes. And then you get
    criticized for not doing your job or being there when you are
    supposed to be there.
        It is a special kind of situation that women encounter.
    Some men as well. I don't mean to, you know, to overgeneralize.
    But more particularly, the burden falls on women who are still
    the primary caregivers for young children.
        When you are forced to choose between your family and your
    responsibility to vote, it makes you feel like you are letting
    one or the other side down. And that is a hard thing to live
    with. But if proxy voting had existed back then, I wouldn't
    have had to make those choices.
        Congress wasn't built for working mothers, and it really
    shows. And for those who are arguing the historical rules and
    our Founding Fathers and the rules they made, remember that
    when those rules were created, women were not at the table
    helping craft those rules. Women were not even allowed to vote.
    In fact, in those times, women were actually property.
        Make no mistake, with healthcare and the salary that I
    earn, I am more fortunate than many working moms. But if we
    want the United States Congress to look like the people that we
    serve, we have to be more flexible for parents. Preserving the
    option to proxy vote will help us do so. And I agree with
    Veronica, that with proper safeguards, we can reduce the
    abuses.
        I can honestly say I have never proxy voted from a boat. I
    have never proxy voted from my couch. I come into work, and I
    do my work as best as I can, but there are emergencies that
    come up in which proxy voting makes life just a little bit
    easier for me.
        I want to thank the chairman for this opportunity to give a
    perspective that is not often heard here in the hallowed halls
    of Congress, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Let me thank all of you for your testimony. Just a couple
    of things. I just want to cover them for the record. It was
    mentioned--the 1918 epidemic was mentioned. Let me, again,
    remind my colleagues that the House back then was unable to
    function without unanimous consent agreements, because many
    Members couldn't attend in person because of the pandemic. They
    even needed unanimous consent to pass an urgently needed bill
    to get doctors to rural areas after days and days of
    negotiating.
        So let's be honest, does anyone here think we could get a
    UC for something like that today? I mean, we can't even get a
    UC to fix a typo in a bill. So, let's be realistic about what
    the reality is in this Congress.
        Proxy voting and remote committee procedures have allowed
    us to continue our work as normal, unlike in 1918. So I don't
    look at 1918 as, oh, boy, that is our model. If you think it is
    our model, then I would again urge you to go back and read your
    history.
        Secondly, the notion that people are not working if they
    are not in this building. Maybe you know people in your
    conference who that was the case for. But, I don't know
    anybody--most of the people I know who have been operating
    remotely during the pandemic were working pretty hard. I mean,
    we did remote hearings. Sometimes they went really long.
        I wasn't sitting on my couch watching TV; we were engaged
    in trying to move legislation forward. And we have this thing
    called technology, which enables us to do things a little bit
    differently than they did back in the 1800s or 1918. We have
    electronic voting, by the way, which many people opposed when
    it came into being because they thought it was somehow
    unconstitutional or violated the old traditions. I think most
    of us are grateful that we could vote electronically because,
    otherwise, votes would take days to cast here in the House.
        The other thing is that for those Members who have utilized
    proxy voting in a way that we all think they shouldn't have, we
    know about those cases because the news media reported them.
    And those individual Members have to explain themselves to
    their constituents.
        As I said at the beginning, I think this saved a lot of
    lives here. I really do.
        I know Mr. Davis, you had COVID, but you had it during one
    of the breaks. Maybe you think if you had it when we were in
    session, that your constituents should be disenfranchised and
    not have a voice. As much as I disagree with you on most
    things, I still think that you should have the right,
    especially during this pandemic, to be able to represent your
    constituents.
        Mr. Davis, Mr. Smith, Mr. Rutherford, you all feel very
    strongly about this, as evidenced by your opening statements,
    but just out of curiosity, why did you remove yourselves from
    the proxy voting lawsuit?
        Mr. Smith of Missouri. I did not. I mean----
        The Chairman. Yeah. You did. I mean, we told you--your
    names were----
        Mr. Smith of Missouri. Someone else. I didn't sign
    anything.
        Mr. Rutherford. Nor did I.
        Mr. Smith of Missouri. And I have never proxy voted.
        The Chairman. Yeah. And that is fine. I haven't either. And
    I am lucky, right? But going to what Ms. Escobar and Ms.
    Sanchez talked about, life is complicated, right? I mean--and I
    guess the purpose of this is that--hopefully, we are moving
    beyond the pandemic. We all hope and pray that that is the
    case. But this is a time to say, okay, some of the things that
    we put into place, what makes sense and what doesn't? And could
    things be changed? Should we keep some of this stuff?
        I mean, I have heard from many people, Democrats and
    Republicans, who say they like the idea of being able to have
    remote or hybrid committee hearings because somebody could
    testify who lives in California and not have to fly all the way
    here to be there in person. Or you can talk to somebody in
    Ukraine. Or you can talk to somebody halfway around the world
    someplace else. They see value in that. I do too. Personally, I
    think there is something to be said for that.
        And then when it comes to proxy voting--by the way, the
    reason why we did it the way we did--you know, you have you sit
    at your computer--is we wanted to be as transparent as
    possible. You have to file a letter with the Clerk. Your name
    has to be announced on the floor, so everybody knows that you
    are voting by proxy, how you voted. Let me just repeat it
    again. When your vote is counted. You know, computers can be
    hacked. And we thought a low-tech approach, quite frankly,
    would be the best way and the most secure way to be able to do
    it. And so that is the whole reason behind all of that.
        If there is a natural disaster in your district and you
    can't make it here, should you not have the ability to vote? If
    your child has COVID; if you give birth; if you have a major
    surgery; if there is a death in the family. I--you know, those
    are the things that I think are worth talking about.
        And, again, we are in 2022. This is not 1918. And
    technology is advanced. Other parliaments around the world are
    embracing technology more than we are. And the question is, is
    there any room for that kind of discussion? And if we continue
    any part of this--I am not saying that we will--but if we do,
    what do we keep, and what do we not, and how do we make it
    better?
        And, Ms. Escobar, I am told you have to leave. So does
    anyone have any objection if Ms. Escobar leaves?
        You can leave. You are free. All right. But thank you very
    much for your testimony. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you for the opportunity.
        The Chairman. I just think this deserves a more serious
    conversation than just the usual political, you know,
    everything is perfect or everything is bad. I mean, this
    requires a lot more thought than that.
        And, again, the idea that this is the cause of the
    polarization in Congress, give me a break, all right? I have
    thoughts on why Congress is so polarized, and a lot of it has
    to do with the aftermath of January 6th, among other things,
    but we won't go there.
        But to say that this is why things are the way they are. We
    spend an inordinate amount of time here together, you know,
    even during the pandemic. So I don't think that that is the
    reason.
        But, anyway, I yield to Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Well, first, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr.
    Franklin probably needs to leave as well. So we would ask
    unanimous consent that he be allowed to leave.
        The Chairman. You are free. You are liberated.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. And Ms. Sanchez has to leave too.
        Yeah. If I can say one thing, I just want to clarify for
    the record here. The Supreme Court petition from September 2021
    clearly says the only remaining parties were Minority Leader
    McCarthy and Representative Roy on the suit. So I don't know. I
    am just saying, you got cut.
        So, anyway, I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent to insert for
    the record the statement of Republican Leader McCarthy.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Leader McCarthy was unable to be with us in person today,
    but I hope--I took the time to actually read----
        Mr. Perlmutter. He could be here remotely.
        Mr. Cole. I think that would probably contradict his
    position. But, you know, again, he's got things to do. It is
    not unusual for us to submit statements for the record. I think
    my friend has have done that for his colleagues on many
    occasions.
        The Chairman. We happily accept it.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
        And I hope you have a chance to read it. It is actually--I
    read it this morning. It is actually quite good.
        And like you, Mr. Chairman, Leader McCarthy has never
    proxied, and that he feels very strongly about that and what
    this does long-term to the institution. That is why we are
    having the discussion today.
        Let me begin, Mr. Davis, with you, because I consider you,
    actually, one of the great institutionalists of the House. You
    worked as a staff member for a lot of years. I think 17 years,
    if I recall right, before you became a Member of Congress. So
    you know the institution very well. You have looked at it from
    a variety of perspectives.
        And we have had a number of colleagues make the point that,
    you know, the private sector has adapted to the pandemic
    through expansive work from home, leading to, you know, good
    results for them. In your view, how is Congress different? And
    what would you say to those who say Congress should adapt to
    21st century, you know, set of conditions or rules and
    maintain--as opposed to maintaining the procedures that have
    existed before, you know, modern technology?
        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Look, there is modern
    technology. And we have adapted, which is why we are having
    this discussion. But in the end, I think our jobs are much
    different than many in the private sector. Our job depends upon
    interaction. Our job depends upon being able to work together.
        And I can't tell you, countless times, I have had
    conversations with my colleagues over my--over my tenure in
    Congress, on the floor, an idea that I say take to your
    leadership, and I will take it to my leadership. And you know
    what? And sometimes those ideas become law. But it takes being
    able to be on the floor and be together. That, to me, is what
    the American people want us to do.
        We have been required to come vote in person until this
    proxy voting was allowed, and it was--even, Mr. Chairman, you
    must have changed your mind considerably over what you stated
    when these proxy rules were put in place, that they would only
    be temporary; that you agreed that we didn't need to make this
    something that was permanent. If that changes, that is okay,
    but I have not changed my opinion on this. And I think it has
    torn the fabric of this institution by tearing us away from
    being able to be with each other.
        Let alone, it has turned votes into days. At some point, we
    have got to get back to the 15 minutes, 5 minutes, maybe even--
    you know, I know it is probably folklore, but we used to
    actually have 2-minute votes around this institution that
    cannot happen under this proxy system.
        But if you look at many jobs in the private sector, Mr.
    Cole, have been able to take advantage of technology. But a
    vast overwhelming amount of jobs in this country are requiring
    people to get back into the office. And let's not forget those
    individuals who kept coming to work every day during this
    pandemic. And we should learn from--we should learn from them
    being able to operate in a normal economy, in a normal--in a
    normal situation.
        I mean, we saw grocery store workers on the job every day.
    Now, was there a higher prevalence of grocery store workers
    passing away from coronavirus infections? No. We can work
    together. We can be around each other. We can make this place
    work again. We can harass each other like Ed and I do on a
    regular basis. But we can't do it when Ed is proxy voting
    because I won't.
        The Chairman. He hasn't been on our remote hearings. Ed
    Perlmutter gets harassed all the time, so it's okay.
        Mr. Cole. He may well be the most harassed Member of
    Congress, but he has earned that right, and he gives as good as
    he gets, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me ask you to elaborate on something. So you mentioned
    this in passing, but, you know, and I will just add this as an
    observation myself. It is really unique even on our own staffs,
    you know, what works face to face and what doesn't. I have
    found my case workers are able to do a pretty good job
    remotely. Obviously, my field representatives not so much.
        And so I do--I take my friend's point that, you know, it
    might be different for different occupations, even for
    different positions within the same occupation. But I think we
    are different. And I do think, you know, for the institution to
    work well--and, again, I am not saying this to be critical of
    anything that was done during the pandemic. We are not under
    the same conditions that we were 2 years ago, so I would hope
    we don't maintain the same regimen that we did 2 years ago. And
    we have learned some things in that 2 years as well.
        And I want to commend the chairman for having this
    discussion. I think it is a good discussion.
        But back to my friend, Mr. Davis, again, you have got vast
    experience in this institution. Talk to us a little bit about
    the importance of face-to-face interaction for Members of
    Congress. It might be a lot different for somebody else in a
    different profession, but, again, you have seen this animal
    from about every direction. Why is that, in your view,
    important for us to maintain and get back to as much as we can?
        Mr. Davis. Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have countless
    examples of me working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues
    who I have gotten to know because we have been able to interact
    with each other personally, and we have turned ideas into law
    that benefit all of our constituents. But that wouldn't have
    happened if I didn't have the chance to actually socialize, get
    to know them in an in-person setting.
        And when you look at--you look at where the institution is,
    I think--I agree with probably everybody in this room. This
    place has never been more polarized in my career. It is as high
    in political temperature as I have ever seen it. And I think
    the only way that we can bring that temperature back down again
    and begin to see us all work together is to focus on getting
    together in person, focus on that face-to-face, focus on in-
    person committee hearings.
        I used to work in the district office. When my former boss
    would come home, he was in the district doing district work,
    meetings, one-on-ones, you know, open office hours. We have
    seen this majority hijack the days that should and could be
    used for district work period with remote hearings because it
    is convenient rather than doing those hearings in person.
        And those hearing rooms in person are a great way--and as
    you know, it is a great way--look around this room. You guys
    spend a lot of time together in Rules, but you get to know each
    other. And you get to discuss, debate, and disagree, and then
    you go have a beer together, then you go crack a joke together
    because you realize it is more about personal relationships.
    That is what is not happening with remote proceedings. That is
    not what is happening with proxy voting. We are getting away
    from what our forefathers envisioned.
        And I know there are plenty of times that many Members of
    Congress throughout history had to make the tough decision to
    miss some votes. I had to do it to go back for my wife to get a
    colonoscopy checkup. It was during approps season. My
    percentage of voting went down substantially. But you know
    what? If I am criticized for that, I am very happy to remind
    whoever is criticizing me of the reason I missed those votes.
    That should not be an excuse to give people an excuse not to
    come to work.
        Mr. Cole. Well, I couldn't agree more. I have to tell you,
    though, as much wonderful time as we have spent together up
    here and as good friends as we are, it is still nine to four
    pretty much every vote, so--and I say that to make the point,
    each committee is really different.
        And I just want to add this before I get to my last
    question to my friend: I want to single out a committee
    chairman that I think has done this extraordinarily well and
    that is Chairwoman DeLauro of the Approps Committee. You know,
    we certainly had remote hearings and whatever, but every markup
    we did was in person.
        We would go to the Ways and Means meeting. We would
    socially distance. We would put on our masks. We got all 12
    bills done by July of last year, by the end of the August
    break. And I actually give the House a lot of credit here. We
    were ready to move on a lot of them. We moved nine of them
    across the floor. I see my good friend, the majority leader
    back there, who got that done.
        And the reason why we had a good outcome, I think, last
    week where we came together and in a bipartisan way passed an
    omnibus bill is a lot the relationships and the manner in which
    Chairwoman DeLauro operated throughout the pandemic. She
    adjusted to the reality. She played by the rules, but we
    certainly didn't go any lengthy period of time. I don't think
    we ever marked--matter of fact, I know we never marked up a
    bill and weren't in person. And that makes a huge difference in
    terms of the amendment process and everything else.
        So, again, I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned
    there, and she did it the right way. And I think that made it
    possible for a lot of Republicans who had not supported any of
    those bills last year, but once the bargaining was done and,
    hey, this is my concern, here or whatever, and we had a lot of
    Members, you know, on both sides come together for both of
    those bills because of the manner in which they had been
    crafted.
        And I know she would get us back--I don't presume to speak
    for her, but everything she did would suggest to me that she--
    you know, she likes the traditional give and take in committee
    hearings. She conducts it very fairly and very openly. We don't
    win a lot of votes because we are not the majority, but we have
    our opportunities. And, again, it just builds a lot of good
    relationships and helped us a lot last week when I think we
    really needed to come together and get something done for the
    country.
        Let me just ask you this last question, Mr. Davis, you have
    mentioned that 22 months, in your view, has provided a lot of
    proof that proxy voting and remote proceedings do not serve the
    American people well. Can you expand a little bit on that
    point, the differences that you have seen, and maybe why we
    should certainly reconsider the current regime for sure? We may
    have some differences on whether this is ever appropriate or
    not. I tend to fall down in the more traditional category
    there.
        But I think give and take, it is hard to see, even if we
    had to do this why we would continue to do this, because I
    think, on balance, you made the point, this is not good for the
    institution; it doesn't get us where we need to be. So, if you
    are looking at the whole 22 months in totality, how would you
    describe what happened and where we should go based on our
    experience in that time?
        Mr. Davis. Well, remember, this proxy voting was
    implemented by the majority as a temporary emergency measure.
    We are not in an emergency anymore. It should only have been
    temporary. But this is--these are some of the concerns that I
    brought up to this committee when Majority Leader Hoyer and I
    testified in front of the Rules Committee in the Ways and Means
    room 2 years ago, and it is exactly what I was afraid of then.
        It has led to the hyperpolarization. I am glad Chairperson
    DeLauro is doing in-person markups because, in three of my
    committees, that is not the case. We did multiple highway
    reauthorization markups via video. And they were nothing--all
    of the markups I have had in the committees that I serve on in
    this Congress have been partisan. And I agree with you, Ranking
    Member Cole, that a lot of it has to do with the lack of being
    able to have bipartisan interaction in that committee room.
    That is where I have developed some of my best bipartisan
    friendships.
        So those are just--those are the end result of this so-
    called temporary measure that we are debating to make somewhat
    permanent now. But you don't have to go too far. All you have
    to do is look at some of the remote hearings that have been in
    place. We lose our ability to exercise our oversight
    responsibility with executive branch officials and private
    sector officials.
        When they are sitting on the other side of a computer,
    they--we don't know who's standing behind them, telling them
    what to respond to our questions. The ability for us to do our
    job has been impacted by technology and not necessarily
    positively all the time.
        But there is also a distinct difference because--one other
    thing to answer your question though. At GovTrack, they
    recognize that this Congress is on pace to actually be one of
    the least productive Congresses. But if you look at how many
    remote hearings we had, I mean, that has taken our productivity
    away back home, and I think those are concrete examples, sir.
        But there is a distinct difference between the proxy voting
    process and the remote technology being utilized. I hope the
    majority and the minority take that into consideration. Proxy
    voting has been a disaster that has torn this institution
    apart, and I will continue to believe that because I have
    witnessed it, and we have all witnessed it. Now, we can put our
    heads in the ground. We can act like the Broncos are going to
    win the AFC West because they got Russell Wilson.
        Mr. Perlmutter. We are. You guys don't have a chance.
        Mr. Davis. Not going to happen. Not going to happen. And I
    will--go Raiders. Broncos suck. I yield back.
        Mr. Cole. Let me--before we go on, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
    I actually want to refer to an individual case just to make
    this point. When we were holding a markup for the Interior
    Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to provide
    additional funding for something called the McGirt case in
    Oklahoma. You know more about it than most Members of Congress
    because you have had to listen to me. But it is a Supreme Court
    ruling that basically, you know, reestablished reservation
    status in vast parts of the State in terms of criminal
    jurisprudence. And it put a lot of burdens on Tribes that had
    to then stand up police forces and judicial systems that had
    not had to do that as robustly.
        So I offered the amendment, explained the problem. The
    majority didn't know a lot about it. There is no reason why
    they should. It is peculiar to my State. And they had not
    allowed for it in the bill. They had allowed in the--earlier in
    the justice bill for additional Federal resources that the
    Biden administration had requested with my support, but nobody
    had really thought about the Tribes.
        So I offered the amendment. I knew that it would--and, you
    know, it was going to fail and on a party line vote. So I
    withdrew the amendment so that the committee would have more
    time. Then I got up, walked over to my good friend, the
    chairwoman of Interior, Ms. Pingree from Maine, explained:
    Okay, here is the issue. Here is the problem we are running
    into.
        And she goes: Tom, we can't fix this right now, right here,
    but I want to learn more about this. I want to talk to you
    about this. I want to negotiate, see what we can do to help.
         mean, just exactly what you would want any chairman to do
    in a situation like that.
        It took a while, but lo and behold, we passed the omnibus
    bill. There was $60-odd million to help these Tribes that were
    impacted deal with this problem. But if that had been a remote
    hearing, I couldn't have gotten up, walked over to my friend,
    explained off the record or, you know, out of the context of
    the hearing, here is the deal. You know, we have worked
    together on a lot of things. She is a terrific appropriator and
    very sympathetic on tribal issues, very knowledgeable about
    them because there is certainly Tribes in Maine.
        But the point is, you know, the more of that kind of action
    we have, the more a lot of problems can be taken care of. And
    it certainly made it much easier for me to vote for that bill
    when it happened and much easier for us to address the problem.
        And I don't think anybody deliberately, you know, wants to
    get away from that, but I think it is something we ought to
    think a lot about just as an institution as to how we work,
    because the reality is a lot of problems around here get solved
    that way. They get solved not even in a hearing but in--because
    we are all together in the hearing, you can get up, walk over,
    here is the deal, here is why I am offering this, last thing I
    want to do is put you in an embarrassing spot. I am going to
    withdraw the amendment because I don't want to get you down as
    a ``no'' right now until you know more about it. If you are
    still ``no,'' that is fair enough. But, you know, again, we
    lose that kind of thing.
        So, again--and I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
    having, again, this hearing so we can have this kind of
    discussion about where we want to go and how we want to operate
    in the future, and so thank you very much.
        Mr. Davis. Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. I would yield to my friend.
        Mr. Davis. One last thing I hope the committee considers:
    If and I think when the majority changes, I mean, many of these
    discussions--many of these policies may change in the rules
    package. So consider this now, we are talking about a matter of
    months that you want to--that you may want to try to implement
    technology and processes that could be changed by new
    leadership in this Congress. So I want to make sure that the
    committee considers that as you are moving forward.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you. And, again, Chairman, thank you very
    much. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Yeah, thank you. And let me, again, remind
    people why we are doing this hearing. We don't have a bill to
    do anything right now. We thought this would be an appropriate
    time to hear what people thought about what has been in place.
    Some want to keep things as they are; some want to get rid of
    everything. You heard Ms. Escobar come up with a kind of a
    creative way to approach this. Others have different opinions.
        So this notion that somehow, here we are, continuing this
    forever, I think we are trying to get information from people
    about what worked and what didn't work.
        I would just say, I really have to take issue with the fact
    that somehow this is the least productive Congress. I mean, a
    historic infrastructure package that many of you guys voted
    against but are taking credit for in your districts. The
    American rescue package, incredible legislation to combat the
    COVID pandemic. I could go on and on and on. You may not like
    all the things that we produce, but to somehow say that this
    has been the least productive Congress I think just defies
    reality.
        Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And I will save many of
    my comments for the next panel, but just to you three, and, Mr.
    Smith, you have been up here a lot. In fact, you were up here
    several times on Build Back Better. So we actually had in-
    person hearings where you testified, and I can remember them
    distinctly because you have a very distinct way of making a
    presentation.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Perlmutter. So--but, I guess, I couldn't be farther
    away from all of your testimonies, because--and I would say to
    my friend, Mr. Davis, and we actually had this debate 2 years
    ago when we talked about this. And I am much more Libertarian
    than anybody, Democrats or Republicans, because I think we
    ought to just do everything by remote--I mean, not do it but
    offer that without any kind of, well, you have got to come in
    here with your doctor's excuse. Because I don't want Mr.
    Morelle saying: Well, you don't have cancer, you have got--only
    have a bad cold, you should have been here.
        And I don't want Mr. Cole deciding: Well, you know what, it
    is not a wedding, but it is a bat mitzvah.
        You know, is that really what we should be doing? And I
    don't think we need to police each other.
        And this is where I disagree with you, Mr. Rutherford, and
    I appreciate your testimony, but it is the 820,000 people that
    I represent that are the ones that are going to make a
    determination as to whether or not I have done right by them,
    not you, not Mr. McGovern, not Mr. Morelle.
        And I appreciate Mr. Cole's comments about, you know, this
    place works better when you are here. And I--look, I agree with
    that, all right. I think this place serves somebody with a
    bubbly personality like mine, okay. But, on the other hand, you
    know, if my dad has passed away and I have got to be at home as
    part of the funeral, which I did and I missed a defense
    authorization and a whole bunch of votes on that, I don't want
    to disfranchise all the people that I represent. And I could
    have been able to at least participate in that and not miss
    those particular votes.
        So, you know, I personally think that this thing has worked
    out well. One of my best friends now is--and he will probably
    deny it--is William Timmons. And the reason he became--we
    became close is we were on a Zoom where you are facing
    everybody actually, as opposed to the way--and you and I are
    supposed to be in another hearing right now as to how we set up
    the committee rooms instead of, you know, either looking at the
    back of somebody's head or in opposition, which leads to
    conflict. It doesn't lead to collaboration. This one is a
    little more, we are closer, we can see each other's face, but
    in most committees, you can't. And we had some down time, we
    started talking. I brought up something, he responded.
    Everybody kicked in. And all of a sudden, we had a conversation
    on Zoom like we rarely have in a committee room, and he became,
    you know, one of my best buddies here.
        So I--you know, this--it is what you take advantage of, how
    do you use the technology, and we have the technology. We
    can't--we have got to be in this century. We can't just deny
    where we have come. Ms. Sanchez' testimony is about as
    compelling as anything I have ever heard. It really does--you
    know, a young family has--you have got to give them a break so
    that they can represent the people that sent them here.
        So I will yield back. I was curious, Mr. Davis, who wrote
    that Punchbowl News thing that you read? Did you?
        Mr. Davis. It must have been one of their crack reporters,
    Ed. You will have to ask them.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. No, I mean, this place, you have got
    to--you know, you said, and I think you almost proved the
    opposite of the case, you say, on the one hand, let's really
    speed up votes on the floor so we can get out of here and not
    waste people's time, but at the same time you said let's all be
    together because then we really, you know, get along and we
    come up with new ideas.
        Mr. Davis. But you are not together when you have a
    cumulate of proxy votes because every proxy, everyone who is
    catching that proxy vote is not there.
        Mr. Perlmutter. But I hear you on that. But, on the other
    hand, what I am saying is, if we are--before or after, if we
    are here and we take time, let's say we make everything 15-
    minute votes whether we have proxy voting or not, you think
    that is going to make the place better because now you and I
    can visit a little more? Maybe it will. I mean, that is your
    testimony.
        Mr. Davis. Well, there have been plenty of times that I
    probably think we have had better conversations walking back
    from votes in the hallway----
        Mr. Perlmutter. True, or playing catch.
        Mr. Davis [continuing]. So--or playing catch. But those are
    the things that--the institution has not been positively
    impacted by proxy voting.
        Mr. Cole. Would the gentleman yield----
        Mr. Perlmutter. Certainly.
        Mr. Cole [continuing]. Just for a quick question, a quick
    point to my friend? And this isn't meant in any sense other
    than just an observation. I will tell you, one of the things
    that has bothered me the most about what we have done is the
    extensive use of en bloc bills, and the reason why is simply we
    are all confronted with these deals whether it is maybe one you
    agree with in 10 votes. And you put them in these things, and
    we know--we all know who the Republican ones are, the Democrat
    ones, the bipartisan ones. And so a lot of amendments that
    might otherwise have passed or gotten serious consideration
    just simply don't. That is nobody's fault. I am not being
    critical of anybody. But that is something I would like to see
    us get away from and back to the 2-minute vote, because it is
    an individual vote. Then I can vote for something that one of
    my friends offers on the other side without voting for the nine
    things I disagree with when I really want that. And it does
    push us into partisan thing. Now, again, I don't blame that on
    anybody, but that to me is something I would really like us to
    get rid of and go back.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Cole. I yield back.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I agree with you. I agree with you 100
    percent. I am just trying to say, if what we are looking for is
    that we all be together all the time on the floor because then
    we will come up with better ideas and more collaboration, okay,
    you know. But then, on the other hand, you say, well, let's
    speed it up and get out of here. I mean, let's--you have got
    to--you can't have it both ways. So----
        Mr. Davis. My initial comments, I didn't mean to say that
    just spending time on the floor is only the opportunity. It is
    also that interaction that you can have throughout your day.
        Mr. Perlmutter. And, look, I agree with you. And if this
    were a perfect world, yes, but people get sick, people have
    things that go on in their lives.
        And, Mr. Rutherford, you are absolutely right when you
    said, you know, some folks have violated the affidavit that
    they signed, and you are right. Now, me, I am going to say, you
    don't need to sign an affidavit. You can come or go, vote
    remotely, vote not, and the people will decide whether you
    ought to be returned or not, you know, as opposed to you trying
    to be the doctor: Your excuse is not--Perlmutter, your excuse
    is not good enough to have voted proxy.
        And with that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. And I too--I thought
    Representative Sanchez' testimony was very, very powerful, and
    it forces us to actually think about this place from a
    different perspective.
        Dr. Burgess.
        Dr. Burgess. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Being respectful to the
    majority leader's time, do we need to let him give his
    testimony or should we continue? I mean----
        Mr. Rutherford. I need to go.
        The Chairman. Oh, Mr. Rutherford needs to leave.
        Dr. Burgess. Okay. Well, then part of what I have to say
    reflects on your testimony.
        So, Rodney, I do--Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Davis, I
    do have to correct one of the things that you alluded to. I
    have never had a beer with Chairman McGovern nor do I ever
    intend to, but--because I----
        Mr. Cole. That, my friend, it is worth the experience. I
    have.
        Dr. Burgess. It is because I don't drink beer. I mean, it
    is really as simple as that.
        You are right on your observations having to remain home
    while your wife was having a procedure done. One of the
    problems that has been encountered with the length of time that
    we have been in this proxy voting situation is that we have got
    a five vote difference between Republicans and Democrats.
        There are times when I would have missed a vote in the past
    and been able to justify it to constituents back home. But I
    also come under some pressure from the whip to not be
    unrecorded on a vote because it is going to be very narrow.
    Now, it is all very difficult when the majority always comes to
    the floor with 223 votes so you--there is no drama. There is no
    guessing about what is going to happen. But if there were to be
    one or two votes that peeled off or went differently than would
    be predicted, suddenly things become a contest again, and the
    unilateral disarmament that was required of our side really was
    untenable with the fact that this has gone on so long and
    doesn't really seem to be any prospect of ending.
        So I just want to make that statement in defense of people
    who felt it necessary to be at home for a very important and
    good reason and at the same time didn't want to disadvantage
    their conference by not being there to have their vote
    recorded.
        And, Mr. Rutherford, and I think Mr. Franklin also brought
    it up, you are right. The disrespect of the amount of time, the
    disrespect to Members because of the amount of time that is
    required to be on the floor for a vote, I long for the day we
    can get back to 2-minute votes. I wish we could get Doug
    Collins back in the chair because, man, those 2-minute votes
    they were 2-minute votes. And, if you blinked, you might miss
    one.
        But that is--it just allows so much more input from us
    rank-and-file members, particularly on things like
    appropriations, NDAA, some of these--transportation bills, some
    of these big things we consider to have our amendments
    considered individually and not in an en bloc and then defeated
    en bloc, and it is like you never existed. But it is also--I
    mean, it is an imposition for us to have to sit on the floor
    for every vote being a 15-minute vote. And you can never
    curtail that because of the length of time it takes to proxy
    vote. So I hope we are on the precipice of being done with
    this. I do think it is time. Mr. Davis, to your observation
    that the polarization, yeah, it is a problem. It is not new. It
    has been there for a while.
        Columnist George Will back in the Clinton administration, I
    remember, said the country is evenly divided, but it is not
    sharply divided. Well, guess what, we have been sharply
    divided. And that is why Congress is sharply divided because we
    represent the people that send us here. Our division is a
    reflection of the status of the country, and what we can do to
    perhaps try to improve that is certainly something we should
    spend our time doing.
        I am grateful we are having this. I think a Members Day is
    extremely important. We don't do that nearly enough in any of
    our committees, and having this in person to be able to see
    each other eye to eye, I think, is important.
        Mr. Smith, it is my first term on the Budget Committee.
    Yesterday was the first time I have sat at the dais in the
    Budget Committee for an in-person hearing and discovered that
    you have the longest dais in any of the committee rooms that I
    have ever been in. You can barely see the people at the other
    end. They are in another ZIP Code.
        But it is important, and it is important that we--you are
    right. We spent so much money on those reconciliation bills,
    and the markups were perfunctory. We really couldn't add or
    delete items. We were just--it was really just almost a pro
    forma type session, and that is not the way it should be. The
    least productive Congress, I would agree with you. Most
    expensive Congress, without question.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. And I--just for the record,
    I want to remind my friend that we are doing this hearing in
    person because I miss being with you so much, so I----
        Dr. Burgess. And I understand why, and I respect that.
        The Chairman. But also I should say that, during the height
    of the pandemic, this room was always available----
        Dr. Burgess. Yes, it was.
        The Chairman [continuing]. For the minority to meet and so
    we tried to make every accommodation possible. But----
        Dr. Burgess. I appreciate that you did.
        The Chairman. And we all have to deal with the
    inconvenience of long votes. You know, maybe what might help is
    if we could curtail the number of procedural votes, that might
    also--because that is an inconvenience, not just to members but
    to staff as well.
        But, in any event, Mr. Morelle.
        Mr. Morelle. Ms. Scanlon is here.
        The Chairman. Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Scanlon.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chairman McGovern. I appreciate it.
        You know, proxy voting and remote hearings, I believe, have
    been an invaluable resource the past 2 years. I fought to make
    this rules change at the outset of the pandemic because I
    wanted to protect my family, my community, and to protect the
    continuity of government for this body. And I believe those
    measures have been successful and should be continued in some
    form. During this time, the House has been able to function
    smoothly and efficiently, allowing us to quickly respond to the
    COVID pandemic and economic recession.
        You know, I have not used the proxy voting allowance,
    although I fought hard for it to be included. But I am not with
    you this morning because I had an inconclusive test yesterday,
    and I didn't think I should be there in that cozy Rules room
    until I got a negative test, which thankfully I have, but I
    didn't think I should be infecting other Members of Congress
    when there was an option that allowed me not to.
        So these tools have allowed floor action to continue
    unabated when Members can't congregate. They have allowed
    Members who contracted COVID to participate in floor
    proceedings and hearings, and they have greatly improved the
    quality and diversity of witnesses for committee hearings.
    While the rules change were put into place to respond to
    specific circumstances, they have also shown that Congress can
    greatly benefit from moving into the 21st century along with
    our business, education, research, and other communities.
        Yesterday was a great example of that. We were able to have
    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy address Congress from
    an active war zone halfway across the world. In our hunger
    roundtables here in Rules and in hearings in my other
    committees, we have been able to have witnesses testify from
    all over the United States, bringing their invaluable, unique
    experiences to the legislative process.
        And we were--it is incredibly valuable to hear those
    people. And I believe we have also saved tax dollars by saving
    the expense of bringing folks to Washington or forcing them to
    bear that expense, which has prevented many witnesses from
    being able to testify before us in the past.
        Proxy voting, on the other hand, is a low-tech solution to
    our pandemic problems which has proved useful well beyond its
    original purpose. It has allowed the House to function through
    the worst of the pandemic when the Nation was experiencing
    thousands of new cases a day. And even today, as we see Members
    having to deal with positive tests, it allows us to continue to
    function. It has kept us safe, it has kept our families and
    loved ones safe, and Congress has been able to work through the
    pandemic without interruptions.
        These two things, proxy voting and remote hearings, have
    also allowed Members to do their jobs while attending to the
    emergencies and necessities of everyday life. We have had
    Members use these tools to undergo cancer treatment and
    maternity leave, to handle personal and family emergencies, and
    to actively respond to disasters and other emergencies in their
    districts.
        Moving forward, I believe we should keep proxy voting and
    remote hearings, but I do agree we should make some changes to
    promote transparency and accountability. I am glad the
    committee is having this hearing today so we can look at what
    some of those changes should be, but we need to acknowledge
    that we need to maintain these rules for some time until we
    truly get past the pandemic because the pandemic is not through
    with us yet.
        And, while we have made so much progress in beating back
    COVID, cases obviously persist. We know a new variant is
    spreading and will soon likely be in the U.S. as well. So I am
    looking forward to hearing everyone's perspective on this and
    having a serious discussion about these rules.
        So, with that, I would yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    having this hearing on this topic.
        And there has been some charges about en bloc--I just want
    to start by saying, there has been some charges about en bloc
    amendments and certain people, yeah, in certain caucuses making
    procedural votes. But I would say that to disfavor a certain
    caucus, for example, or certain personalities deprives
    everybody the tools necessary to use, especially when there are
    some Members that have been just unilaterally taken off
    committees. They have absolutely no other recourse other than
    to make procedural votes. But I want to explore that topic with
    Chairman Biggs and Mr. Roy on the next panel.
        But with that--you might be one of those Members that
    people don't like, Mr. Roy. I am just--I am kidding, but I like
    you. I mean that. You know that.
        Mr. Davis, would you like to talk about the en bloc
    amendments and the procedural implications?
        Mr. Davis. I don't know why you don't like Mr. Roy. I do,
    so----
        The Chairman. Could the gentleman yield just for one
    second? Mr. Smith has to leave. Are you okay? We are okay?
    Yeah. Any objection?
        Mr. Perlmutter. I want you to stay. I object. He has to
    stay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I had questions for both of them. It is
    okay.
        The Chairman. You can require them to stay if you want.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. No. If you guys have to go, go ahead.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I withdraw my objection.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Jason has to stay, but Rutherford has to
    go.
        Mr. Davis. So the en bloc issue, the vote time issue, you
    know, it is a problem. And I think it goes beyond the
    discussion we are having today, Mr. Reschenthaler. I think this
    is a majority process to keep a very small majority they have
    of voting for the bills that should be more bipartisan.
        I mean, I know Dr. Burgess talked about how, you know,
    there have been times Members of both parties had to make the
    decision to proxy. They are getting a lot of pressure from our
    whip team or their leadership or what have you. Let me just
    say, can you imagine what a discussion on an infrastructure
    package or a Build Back Better might have been if the majority
    was even closer? Maybe the bills would have been more
    bipartisan. Maybe we would have gotten back to what vote
    margins that I used to see when I got here when this place was
    somewhat less polarized.
        The length of time with voting, I do believe en blocs are
    put in place because of the long vote times that are required
    because of proxy voting right now. I think that is a cause and
    an effect, and I am glad you, Ranking Member Cole, brought that
    up.
        And we do have a lot of Members of Congress that have been
    sworn in over the last two Congresses that don't know what it
    was like to have 2-minute votes. They don't know what it is
    like to have this campus open and have meetings being brought
    to you in the Rayburn room. And it is going to be a shock when
    that happens unless we can gradually get them back to that by
    getting rid of proxy voting, by making sure that we don't rely
    upon remote technology.
        And I appreciate the comments Ms. Scanlon had, but there is
    absolutely no comparison of what President Zelenskyy had to do
    from a war zone to us having a hearing in the United States
    Congress. We can use technology to our advantage, but we can't
    continue to allow technology to take advantage of us.
        And, Mr. Chair, if it helps, I will sit by you every 15-
    minute vote if it gets us back to quicker votes.
        The Chairman. It won't help.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Ranking Member Davis, the juxtaposition
    of people remoting into these hearings when you had President
    Zelenskyy remote in from a war zone is an amazing
    juxtaposition. It is also an amazing juxtaposition that the
    Ukrainians are literally being bombed right now, and they are
    still meeting in person. There is no proxy voting in Ukraine,
    so it is clearly astonishing.
        There is some talk--I have heard some testimony about folks
    that have proxy voted somehow forfeiting the right to object to
    proxy voting. And I have proxy voted, but I am against proxy
    voting. But I think the argument needs to be made, and maybe
    you can explore this, that we may disagree with this rule, but
    we are not going to play by rules that have been changed to
    favor the majority. And I would be willing to bet that if we
    got--that if we didn't proxy vote, even though we disagree with
    that, you would artificially inflate the majority's vote count.
    Would you like to talk about that?
        Mr. Davis. Yeah, we are not in the majority. We don't set
    the rules. Being a Raider fan, we have seen how rules have
    impacted games at very inappropriate times in the playoffs,
    numerous examples of that. Then the rules change. We are no
    different than the NFL when it comes to, once the rules are
    set, you have to operate within that system.
        And that is exactly why I don't begrudge our Members who
    are adamantly opposed to proxy and for utilizing a process that
    is now in place. But that doesn't mean that it justifies
    keeping it. It doesn't mean that it has helped the institution.
        And I go back to my original comments that I said 2 years
    ago, that this is a process that was about more control. And we
    think back, we used to have proxy voting only in committees,
    and there are some Members who served back then, some in
    Democratic leadership. And when the Republicans took over in
    1995, we got rid of that process. It was because it was--it
    became a power grab and a source of power for the committee
    chairs.
        You always knew you had enough votes to get what you want
    passed, and it hurt the institution. We got rid of it because
    it was bad. And I believe the proxy voting process on the floor
    has similar negative consequences for the long-term viability
    and the ability for us to govern in a bipartisan way.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Ranking Member Davis, to that point, you
    made some comments about you worried about future Members and
    how this is going to affect future Members. Could you elaborate
    on that?
        Mr. Davis. Yeah, we had a disastrous orientation during
    COVID. I mean, it couldn't be the same as what an orientation
    normally was, and we have got to do better. We have seen that
    we have got--I mean, we had some fresh--too many freshmen get
    caught up by not understanding processes like the STOCK Act.
    Obviously, that means the majority and I, on House
    Administration, we need to do a better job of orientation.
        But there is no better orientation than actually the floor
    processes here in the House for a new Member of Congress to
    understand. But the processes that have been in place for these
    new Members have been, you know, supposedly temporary, but they
    have been much different than what we all experienced when we
    got here.
        And I am afraid when we have got not just one freshmen
    class, the most recent one, but even the class before had--they
    at least had a year. But as we go into this new remap class,
    which are traditionally larger, we are going to have to retrain
    when it comes to floor procedures some of the existing
    colleagues that we have because they haven't been used to it.
        And, really, a lot of time that we have spent on the floor
    during this pandemic has been Members not wanting to talk to
    other Members because they have been afraid of getting COVID.
    So the sooner we get out of these temporary measures like proxy
    voting, the sooner you have Members of Congress who might have
    been more fearful of the virus than others that may feel
    comfortable enough to actually build that relationship.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Yeah. You have been talking a lot about
    Congress as the whole, but obviously you are the ranking member
    on House Admin. Could you testify as to how this has impacted
    House Admin. the committee itself?
        Mr. Davis. Well, I enjoyed Mr. Cole's comments on the
    Approps Committee being very bipartisan. I used to see that on
    House Administration. That has not been the case over the last
    two Congresses. It has been unfortunate. It has been much more
    partisan. And, frankly, I believe the pandemic itself plus the
    overuse of remote processes and proxy voting has really hurt my
    ability and Chairperson Lofgren's ability to work and interact
    together to make the House operate. I mean, there are things
    that so shouldn't be partisan that we deal with on a regular
    basis.
        And, frankly, at the beginning of last Congress, it started
    out much more bipartisan, but as the pandemic wore on and our
    disagreements in response and some of the legislative activity
    that we disagreed on, I think the partisanship was exacerbated
    by the remote processes and especially by the proxy voting, if
    I could not go talk to somebody in person during votes who
    might not be here.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Ranking Member Davis. I
    appreciate it. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Yeah. And I just want to say for the record,
    at least I hope I didn't--I wasn't critical of Republicans who
    voted by proxy in my opening statement. Although, I have to say
    that I do have a tough time getting my head around the fact
    that many who have voted by proxy signed on to a lawsuit saying
    this was unconstitutional. And so I get it that the rules of
    the game are the rules of the game, but if you think something
    is unconstitutional, how do you go ahead and then utilize it?
    But, anyway, I will grapple with that.
        Mr. Morelle. Okay. You are going to defer, and you will be
    the first person we go to for questions in the next panel.
        Mrs. Fischbach.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And, you know, I guess Mr. Reschenthaler started to touch a
    little bit on the freshmen, and since I am the only freshman--
    and it looks like even on our panel, there is only a couple of
    freshmen who are going to testify.
        And, you know, Mr. McGovern, I think you touched on it when
    you said you met the moment. In your opening, you used that
    phrase in your opening statement. And I think--but I think that
    moment is in the past now, and I think we need to move forward.
        This body functioned for over 200 years without proxy
    voting, and I think we should go back to those traditions of
    having people come here, do what they need to do. You know, it
    has been obviously much more challenging for the freshman class
    to create those relationships, make those relationships. And,
    sad as it may be, the Rules Committee is probably the closest
    relationships I have had because we have been here in person
    and--no, and that was a joke, so I am just----
        The Chairman. Yeah, we are a family, the Addams family.
        Mrs. Fischbach. The Addams family, there you go. I love it.
    But it really,--you know, because we have probably met more in
    person or at least, you know, than any of my other committees,
    you know, I look--I sit on the Ag Committee and the Judiciary
    Committee. Judiciary Committee met a little more. But my
    relationship with people is that little box and getting--you
    know, and they get their 5 minutes, and that is about all I get
    to hear from them. And there isn't--you know, in many cases,
    Mr. Perlmutter, you mentioned there is, you know, discussion
    over Zoom, but not during the committee hearing. You know, it
    is a little more formal. It is a little more controlled.
        And so it is unfortunate, because my experience in the
    Minnesota legislature, I understand how important those
    relationships are. I understand that there is a lot that
    happens in the hallway just passing people by saying: Hey, you
    know, I have got a great bill. You should look into it and have
    your staff look into it.
        And we are missing that.
        And I really feel like it is so frustrating for the
    freshmen in many ways because they don't have that; they are
    not able to do that. And they will be at a huge disadvantage,
    and I think even into the future, I think this institution will
    suffer from the lack of relationships with that freshman class.
        And, you know, obviously, when we talk about, oh, you know,
    we have to miss votes, you have to miss votes, this is a full-
    time--it is a full-time job, and we are here. And there are
    obviously very valid reasons why you have to miss votes,
    whether it be giving birth, whether it be, you know, caring for
    a sick child or going to see your parents, your, you know,
    elderly parents, whatever the case is.
        But I think Mr. Perlmutter touched on it, it is the voters
    that get to decide, and for over 200 years, the voters got to
    decide if a vote--if a reason to miss a vote was a valid
    reason. And I think--and I can't remember which of the
    testifiers mentioned she had had a child while she was in. I
    think the voters probably said, that is a pretty valid reason
    for missing a vote because they sent her back.
        So--and that is the way the institution was set up. And you
    do have to make those hard decisions when you have a family. I
    served in the Minnesota Senate when my kids were little, and
    you know what, I made some of those hard decisions. I missed
    votes. But I had to make those because of the profession that I
    had chosen, that I had been elected to the senate.
        And so I think that we need to put more trust in our voters
    to help us make those decisions, and we need to get back to the
    way this institution is supposed to be. It is supposed to be
    based on relationships. It is supposed to be based on those
    discussions we have, you know, with people across the aisle.
        And I, as a freshman, it saddens me that we have missed
    that, that we have missed that. Yes, it was a disastrous
    orientation because we--I mean, we couldn't even talk to the
    other freshmen. We had to sit, you know, further apart. We had,
    you know, masks on. And let me tell you, I introduced myself to
    the same people like eight times because they had on masks, and
    they all had the same hairdo. So it was just--it is very
    difficult, very difficult.
        And so I am--and maybe--Mr. Reschenthaler mentioned a few
    little things about the freshman class. But, Mr. Davis, maybe--
    you know, you became kind of the, I don't know, the den father
    to the freshman class because you were the only----
        Mr. Perlmutter. No wonder there is such a problem.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Okay. It says something. See, this is why
    we can't have proxy voting because if he becomes the guy in
    charge of the freshman class, it is--but maybe you can--and I
    know that I am not the only freshman who has some of those
    frustrations, and so maybe you can talk a little bit more about
    the effects on this institution that it is going to have in the
    future and some of those difficulties that the freshmen have
    experienced, if there is more that you want to add to what you
    mentioned to Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Davis. I will be very quick because I know we have some
    others waiting. You know, I mentioned I think the process
    itself has led to more partisanship. I agree it has led to more
    en bloc votes. It has led to less relationship building. But,
    really, I think it goes down to the individuals not being able
    to serve their constituents as well when the normal processes
    return because it is going to be such a surprise. It is one of
    the things I tried to reiterate during orientation, but there
    are so many things coming at the freshmen at the time. And we
    are learning from that too as we move into planning for the
    next freshman class.
        But, in the end, I think your class above all, in my time
    in Congress and my time as a staff member, has sacrificed the
    most at being able to build those bipartisan relationships that
    transcend politics, transcend even, in my case the freshman
    classes, some who ran for President. You know, we are still
    friends. And those relationships were developed by having a
    drink after the day was over, that if we tried to do that at
    the Hyatt during COVID, the mask vigilantes would come flying
    around and say: Oh, you can't be here. You can't do this.
        That is where your class suffered the most, and I do
    believe that we, as House Administration, should develop some
    type of ongoing process, education about what the processes
    will look like when we return to normal so that it isn't such a
    surprise to you and your fellow classmates, both Republicans
    and Democrats because, again, that was in person.
        I was there in person every day for those orientation
    meetings and orientation events, and I feel a connection to
    your class even though you are a little more difficult to train
    than others. I don't know what type of breeder, you know----
        Mrs. Fischbach. Oh, Mr. Reschenthaler just told me you are
    his official mentor. Okay, now I know.
        Mr. Davis. That is his problem too, Ed.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Okay.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you.
        Mrs. Fischbach. But, you know, just--and appreciate the--a
    few laughs, but it really is, I think, a serious issue, and I
    do think that it is going to have long-term effects just given
    the issues that the freshmen had in developing those
    relationships.
        And, before I finish up, I did want to--I forget--I want to
    ask unanimous consent to enter the testimony, a letter from Mr.
    Thompson of Pennsylvania.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you very much. And, with that, I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
        I want to thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being
    the last remaining person standing on this panel. I just want
    to just say before you leave, we talk about this as either/or.
    It either has to be this or that. I mean, there are nuances
    here that are worth discussing.
        And, again, going back to what Representative Sanchez said
    in her testimony, I mean, Congress has changed. In a lot of
    ways, including more women getting elected to Congress, and
    there are some realities that I think we need to be a little
    bit more considerate of.
        And I don't think constituents should be disfranchised
    because there is a natural disaster in your district or because
    somebody is ill. I think most of you do too, because people
    continue to vote by proxy on the Republican side as well. So
    there is some utility here. The question is, as we move
    forward, what do we keep and what don't we keep or do we keep
    nothing or do we keep at all. I mean, that is what we are
    trying to figure out here. And so I appreciate very much your
    testimony, and you are free to go.
        Oh, Mr. Neguse is with us here. Do you have questions of
    Mr. Davis or can we go to the next panel?
        Mr. Neguse. Yeah, just a quick question of Mr. Davis to
    underscore the point that you had made, Mr. Chairman.
    Obviously, as you all know, I am not there in-person. I am
    participating remotely because I tested positive for COVID
    earlier this week.
        And, to get to the question, I missed the top of the
    hearing, but, for Mr. Davis, is it your contention that there
    should be no exceptions, that we should just eliminate proxy
    voting in its entirety?
        Mr. Davis. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. Okay. And so, I guess, I would query to you,
    and I suppose you have given this some thought, but, you know,
    this week there are 10 Members of Congress who have tested
    positive for COVID, who, like me, are unable to participate,
    but nonetheless are able to participate via remote voting or
    proxy voting, if you will.
        And I guess, what would you suggest to the 7 million people
    whom we collectively represent who would be deprived of the
    ability to, you know, opine on various different pieces of
    legislation that we are considering on the floor essentially
    because their representative happened to be diagnosed with this
    illness?
        Mr. Davis. Well, as I stated in my testimony, I would
    provide 200 years of precedent before this pandemic began and
    before this majority decided to implement proxy voting for the
    first time ever in American history. So we have got 200 years
    of evidence. I mean, there are hard decisions that have to be
    made, but we also have to look at COVID as a risk-management
    issue now.
        You have the Queen of England, who 95, I believe, was--came
    down and tested positive with COVID, asymptomatic, as I see--
    and I hope you are too, Mr. Neguse. But there comes a time
    where the Queen of England was able to still conduct business
    while being infected. We have got to get to a point where we
    look at this virus and learn how to deal with it as a risk-
    management issue because it is never going to be a zero-
    tolerance issue. And proxy voting was established when there
    was a zero-tolerance mentality in dealing with COVID.
        And we have learned so much more. And what we have learned
    about proxy voting, Mr. Neguse, is that it has destroyed the
    fabric of the institution. It stopped a lot of bipartisan
    activity. It stopped a lot of interaction that I think is
    crucial and what our forefathers envisioned when they created
    the House of Representatives. So that is----
        Mr. Neguse. Well, look, I respect your opinion, obviously
    and enjoy working with you, Mr. Davis. I think the notion that
    it has destroyed the institution is a bit much. You know,
    certainly a lot of bipartisan agreement is still happening in a
    variety of the committees of jurisdiction and bipartisan
    agreements that we have been able to push through the floor.
        You know, obviously, I understand that you would like to
    see this practice eliminated, that others would like to see the
    practice reformed. I think I land in the latter category. But
    fundamentally, I don't--I think that that is a bridge too far
    to suggest that it somehow has sort of destroyed the entire
    institution.
        I also would say, I don't disagree with you regarding the
    risk tolerance question, but I think that is a different line
    of inquiry. From my perspective, simply because the precedent
    suggests that we haven't had remote voting or proxy voting in
    the past, that is not a reason alone to not have proxy voting
    today. And I, for one, would be devastated to deprive, you
    know, the minority of my star performance during the Rules
    Committee proceeding earlier this week simply because I was
    diagnosed with COVID.
        So I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I will
    yield back to the chairman.
        Mr. Davis. Got to be a Broncos fan.
        The Chairman. Yeah. I think we are all set. Thank you very
    much.
        Let me just say, just because we have been doing something
    for 200 years doesn't mean we should continue the same old,
    same old. The bottom line is, if that were our rationale, some
    of the people who are serving in this Congress wouldn't be
    here.
        So, in any event, I now want to call the next panel:
    Majority Leader Hoyer, Representative Castor, Representative
    Gallagher, Representative Roy, Representative Rose,
    Representative Biggs, Representative Takano, and Representative
    Bost.
        Mr. Hoyer is not here, so we will begin with Representative
    Castor.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Ms. Castor of Florida. Well, good morning, members.
    Chairman McGovern, and Ranking Member Cole, and committee
    members, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
    today. I want to----
        The Chairman. Order.
        Ms. Castor of Florida. It is wonderful to return to the
    Rules Committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
        I wanted to simply highlight some of the benefits that we
    have learned from holding remote hearings. We were forced to go
    to many of virtual and hybrid hearings out of necessity due to
    this global pandemic. But as we come out of the pandemic and
    move to the next phase, there is a lot that we have learned
    that we can now incorporate into the operations of the House of
    Representatives. And I want to highlight three benefits in
    particular.
        One, remote hearings gave us the ability to hear from a
    wider variety of Americans and witnesses during our committee
    meetings, and to hear from people who are underrepresented, who
    have never had the opportunity or cannot afford to travel to
    Washington, D.C., to provide testimony in front of a
    congressional committee.
        Two, because we were able to have remote and virtual and
    hybrid hearings, we reduced the carbon footprint across the
    Congress, across the country. That is a tremendous benefit.
        And, three, it provided significant cost savings and energy
    savings to the Congress, and to the nonprofit organizations,
    and the wide variety of Americans who want to have the ability
    to have input on--in the legislative process.
        So, first, the benefit of greater opportunities of a wider
    variety of Americans and a larger number of unrepresented
    groups to participate. Just think about the hearings that you
    have had in your committees where there were witnesses from
    farther flung states, there were witnesses from rural areas
    that typically would not have the ability to travel here;
    farmers, Tribal nations had the ability--greater ability to
    access the legislative process.
        Each of the 14 hearings that the Select Committee on the
    Climate Crisis held during the 117th Congress has included at
    least one remote witness. And this really added to the weight
    and depth, breadth of the testimony, everything we learned on
    both sides of the aisle to move forward. And I know you
    experienced that in your committees, especially the
    underrepresented groups, environmental justice communities,
    frontline communities, all--everyone who is underrepresented
    had a greater voice in the democratic process.
        Two, carbon pollution reduction. Remote witnesses also
    allowed us to reduce the carbon footprint because they didn't
    have to travel to Washington, D.C. And I just want to get these
    stats quickly into the record.
        As an example, three out of four witnesses for the Select
    Committee's remote hearing on July 15, 2021, would have needed
    to fly into the D.C. area to testify in the hearing in person.
    The three resided in Montgomery, Alabama; Los Angeles,
    California; and Flagstaff, Arizona. And based on the data that
    the committee gathered, these three round-trip, nonstop flights
    would have equated to a total of 1,894 kilograms of carbon
    dioxide. This is the equivalent to the emissions of 230,390
    smartphones, fully charged, over 2,000 pounds of coal burned,
    or 213 gallons of gasoline consumed. And those--this reflects
    just one hearing. Multiply that across all of the Committee's
    hearings, and all of the Congress, what a tremendous benefit in
    savings.
        Third, remote hearings allowed us and the witnesses, this
    broad cross-section of Americans, to reduce their travel costs
    and to reduce their energy costs, not just avoiding carbon
    pollution, but it saves people money. And isn't that critical
    at a time that we are dealing with coming out of this global
    pandemic, dealing with the global challenges of supply and
    demand, the higher cost that Putin's war of aggression now is
    exacerbating?
        We know that we can reduce demand for energy by allowing
    witnesses to Zoom in or Webex into our committee hearings.
    Again, a lot of expertise all across America.
        So, in closing, remote and hybrid hearings have really
    helped reduce the economic time and geographic barriers for
    witnesses. We have benefited from it. We have a wider cross-
    section of experts and everyday Americans that we have been
    able to hear from.
        And, committee members, America is the leader in technology
    and innovation. Times have changed. Things have modernized, and
    that Congress shouldn't be left out. The American people
    shouldn't be left out. We can all benefit from it.
        Thank you very much. And I yield back my time.
        [The statement of Ms. Castor of Florida follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        I want to call our majority leader, distinguished Majority
    Leader Steny Hoyer, to testify. Welcome.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Oh, am I on? Can you hear me?
        As I listened to the previous panel, I thought to myself
    that--you will probably all remember, Ben Franklin turning to
    James Madison and arguing about whether we ought to zoom or
    not. The world has changed. Technology is extraordinary. And
    every business in America, every enterprise in America is
    utilizing technology to its benefit. I think that is what this
    is really about.
        But I do want to say at the outset--I am sorry that the
    ranking member of the House Administration has left--this is
    one of the more productive Congresses in which I have served,
    and this is my 20th Congress. And I am going to make a better
    case for that at some point in time. But this representation
    that somehow proxy voting has made this a less productive
    Congress, I think, is demonstrably untrue. And I will make that
    case, but not today. I know all of you are happy about that.
        A lot of talk about proxy voting. This House of
    Representatives is a relatively, perhaps, very unique body,
    because we have 435 people who come from every place in
    America: high risk, low risk, and every risk in between. And we
    gather together in a relatively small room for 435 people. So
    it was uniquely a place where transmission could be very much
    magnified.
        Doctor, I am not a medical doctor, but I think that is
    self-explanatory. And so in answer to an extraordinarily once-
    a-century pandemic, we responded. And we responded in trying to
    make sure that we could keep Members, staff, press, visitors as
    safe as possible. We don't know what safe as possible is, but
    we made that effort. I think it was the right thing to do. The
    courts indicated we had the authority to do that, which did not
    surprise me, and we proceeded.
        And now the issue is, as we hopefully are passing through
    this pandemic, what do we do? During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr.
    Chairman and members, much like the other legislatures around
    the world and like business across America, took steps to adapt
    our working to the challenge of social distancing, which we
    were advised to do. We took unprecedented measures to ensure
    that Members and committees could continue to do our jobs and
    serve the American people uninterrupted.
        I made the observation on the floor that my people voted
    for me; none of them, not a single one of them cared where I
    expressed their opinion, if it was going to be affected. They
    didn't care whether I voted from a machine on my side of the
    aisle, a machine on another side of the aisle, or from
    wherever. That was not in their minds. It was that I was
    available to express their opinion on a particular issue, which
    we have allowed Members to do, notwithstanding their risk
    aversion or the realities of our health environment.
        H. Res. 965, the 116th Congress, adopted measures like
    virtual committee hearings and meetings, as well as proxy
    voting and longer voting times on the floor. I think reasonable
    steps to take, from a health perspective. Those were big
    changes, which were accompanied by smaller changes, such as the
    Clerk's Office creating an eHopper. I haven't heard anything
    about that, where you can file a bill and you didn't have to
    go. By the way, probably a few of you know, and particularly
    Mrs. Fischbach. I didn't know what a hopper was, and I was
    president in the Maryland Senate for 12 years.
        A hopper is piece of furniture, and it has various levels,
    and you see it in the old Senate Chamber, but I thought a
    hopper was just a box. Why does somebody have to personally
    hand that--they can do it now electronically.
        The electronic filing of bills, the statements for the
    record, and the Chief Administrative Officer implementing the
    Quill system for electronically collecting Members' signatures,
    so you don't have to go from each office to office to get the
    actual signature.
        As a result of these adaptations, the House and its
    committees were able to meet safely and produce major
    legislation that helped Americans meet the challenge of the
    pandemic and address critical national needs over the past 2
    years. And I would say as an aside to my friends, the
    polarization has nothing to do with proxy voting. Nothing.
    Unfortunately, this is the most polarized Congress in which I
    have served.
        I came here in 1981. And I tell people I served on the
    Appropriations Committee. There were 13 of us on the Labor
    Health Committee. Eight Democrats, we were in charge, five
    Republicans. And what I tell people is you could put us
    together, throw us up in the air, and come down in random
    chairs and do a markup, and you would have been hard-pressed in
    1983 to say which was the Democrat and which was the Republican
    on the Labor Health Committee. Sil Conte from Massachusetts was
    the ranking member of that committee.
        Other acts we have taken include the enactment of the
    Families First Act and CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan, a
    central legislation to fund the government, prevent default of
    our obligations.
        I suggest to you that this comment about proxy voting only
    presumes the outcome would be different if, in fact, we
    precluded somebody from voting if they were sick if, per
    chance, they were absent. As was the case we just saw in our
    sister body, the United States Senate, when our former
    colleague, Ben Ray Lujan, had a stroke, and he couldn't come.
    Yes, the outcome would have been different, because it would
    have been then 50-49 on the other side. Should that be the
    case? Should those people in New Mexico not have been
    represented because he was fully cognizant, mentally able? He
    was not physically able for a period of time to come. Should we
    have said to them, Coloradans (sic), by act of happenstance,
    you will not be represented. I think not.
        We also, as the chairman pointed out, we passed the
    infrastructure bill, an extraordinary bill that I, frankly,
    think, with all due respect to my friend--and Tom Cole, I don't
    know off the top of my head, Tom, how you voted, but we only
    got 13 Republicans, 19 in the Senate. The percentage is
    radically different. Why? Because your leadership said don't
    vote for it. And then when voted for it, we talked about
    partisan. The 13 that did vote for it got criticized, and some
    even suggested removing them from their committees because they
    differed.
        During the time of these changes were put in place, the
    House passed--I won't mention the bills, but I will go into
    that at some point in time--as infection, hospitalization, and
    fatality rates have dropped, and as vaccination rates have
    risen, we have adapted by ending the practice of voting by
    group and reducing voting times on the floor. So we are moving
    towards what I think we all want, a shorter period of time.
        Now, let me just say as an aside that the defense bill had
    over 200 amendments on it. It is not unusual to have en bloc
    voting. We have always had en bloc voting, since I got here.
    Now, you do the math. Five minutes at 209 amendments. That is
    over a thousand minutes. A lot of time. As a practical matter,
    a body of 435 tries to accelerate. Doesn't do it perfectly. And
    as Mr. Cole pointed out, sometimes there is a bloc and you are
    not looking forward to them. And you get put in a position of--
    and doing them all. Seriatim would be better, but it also would
    be very, very timely.
        Other measures such as the greater adoption of remote
    working tools ought to remain in place, in my opinion, Mr.
    Chairman, because we have seen how they help make the House
    more accountable, transparent, and efficient.
        While nothing can truly replace in-person work--and I want
    to emphasize that--the Speaker, myself, at the time we adopted
    the proxy voting, and Mr. McCarthy, all indicated in-person is
    better. I agree with that premise for the reasons Mr. Cole
    pointed out and also Mr. Perlmutter, I think, mentioned it. But
    given the technology that we have available to us in this
    extraordinary age in which we live, we can accommodate not
    being in person, even though that is the preferable, and we
    ought to promote that happening, including as the appropriation
    does and as you have done, Mr. Chairman, meetings in person.
        Virtual committee hearings have made it possible, however,
    to hear from a more diverse group of witnesses and experts,
    including those with disabilities, who find it difficult to
    travel to Washington in person. As a sponsor of the Americans
    with Disabilities Act, that is called a reasonable
    accommodation. As well as those who can't make it here because
    of work obligations or because they cannot afford to travel.
    Which means you can get experts from Europe, from Asia, from
    Australia, from other places to testify.
        Tools like the eHop and Quill, which I mentioned earlier,
    certainly ought to continue in use, Mr. Chairman, in my
    opinion. They are just a use of technology to do what we
    otherwise had to do by walking from office to office. They have
    been proven valuable to Members and staff.
        With regard to proxy voting, I see a number of cases in
    which it may be appropriate to continue having it as an
    option--not as a preference, not as a practice, but as an
    option, such as when Members may be ill, have to care for a
    sick loved one, or welcome a new child.
        There may also be future cases with national emergencies.
    We talked about Ukraine. I don't know that they don't vote by
    proxy, maybe you do, or by electronic device. But if your
    parliament is being bombed, it is probably a good thing to do,
    if you want to create a consensus, not to make sure that people
    have to go to some place that is being bombed and make them
    very vulnerable to being killed by a criminal thug called
    Putin.
        So I hope the committee will explore how proxy voting, now
    shown to be effective and constitutional, can be incorporated
    into the House's work so that no districts' constituents are
    left out of the full representation they deserve.
        I would reiterate, no constituent of mine in 41 years has
    ever asked me, where did you vote from? Did you vote from this
    machine, that machine, the other machine? Now, you will say,
    well, you are all in the same room. They don't care. What they
    care is Steny Hoyer stands up and expresses their views. That
    is what democracy is about. It is not about a place where you
    vote. It is about voting. It is about expressing their opinion,
    about representation.
        We ought to be prepared for any eventuality, such as if a
    new variant or virus has emerged that is deadlier than for
    which we do not now have a cure. The business of the House must
    be able to continue uninterrupted. Technology allows that to
    happen in ways that our Founders had no concept of.
        I want to thank this committee. I want to thank its
    chairman. I want to thank its ranking member, who I think is
    one of our best members and who works very hard at
    collegiality. And I don't have any doubt, Tom, you walked over
    there and talked to Ms. Pingree and said, look--but, very
    frankly, we can do that on the phone. We can do it as Mr.
    Perlmutter said. I find Zoom an extraordinary technology that
    is not in-person but is like in-person, because you can
    interrupt, you can see the smile, you can see the frown, you
    can see the physical gestures.
        And I want to thank this committee, again, and the chairman
    and all the members, for the work that you do. We have
    contended with this pandemic and had to adapt the workings of
    this institution to meet its challenge. We have done that.
    There has been no interruption. And as I say, at a later date,
    I will make the case that this is one of the most productive,
    not--to say it is unproductive is to ignore what we have done
    for the American people.
        In particularly want to thank Chairman McGovern for his
    leadership, as well as Staff Director Don Sisson, with whom I
    have had the pleasure to work. It has been an honor working
    closely with you in this effort, and I hope we can continue to
    find ways to ensure that the people's House, the people's House
    represents the people, whatever the circumstances may be, and
    that their voice can be heard. And it has been heard on every
    vote.
        Whether Republicans voted proxy, yes, they may not have
    been there, but the voice of the people they represented was
    heard. When somebody said, by proxy, I vote aye or nay, the
    voices of that district were heard. How much better that is
    than, by happenstance, the people of New Mexico's voice not
    being heard on an important issue because their Member had a
    stroke. Not disabled, his mental acuity never lost. That was
    good for our democracy, it was good for our country, and it was
    good for the Senate and the House.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Mr. Hoyer follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I know that you need
    to meet with the Taoiseach.
        Mr. Hoyer. I do.
        The Chairman. And I hope that we----
        Mr. Hoyer. I understood that the Taoiseach had been
    positive.
        The Chairman. Oh, so we won't be meeting with the Taoiseach
    then.
        Mr. Hoyer. No, but our President may be here.
        Mr. Cole. I know the gentleman has to leave, but I just
    wanted to make one----
        Mr. Hoyer. And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to
    leave because I know that is not your practice.
        Mr. Cole. Absolutely. Of course. I just know it was an
    omission that you didn't mention Kelly Dixon with Don Sisson at
    the same time.
        Mr. Hoyer. Well, I love Kelly. I don't know whether that
    embarrassed her----
        Mr. Cole. She is watching on her television in a room.
        Mr. Hoyer [continuing]. Or gets her in trouble, but as a--
    --
        Mr. Perlmutter. She is Zooming in.
        Mr. Cole. Yeah. I just wanted to give you the opportunity
    to go on record.
        Mr. Hoyer. I am so thankful you gave me that because, let
    me tell you, Kelly and I, when we--when she was working, she
    was--Kelly, did that really mess it up that I said I loved you?
    I am sorry if that was, you know, damning you with faint play.
        But in any event, thank you Tom for giving me--Mr. Cole for
    giving me that opportunity.
        This committee--and I will tell you, I am so glad you
    brought it up, because we get pretty contentious on the floor,
    but there was never a time when I could not--when Kelly was on
    the floor and helping to manage the floor when I couldn't go
    over to Kelly and talk to her and say, hey, this is the deal.
    And, of course, Mr. Cole and I are good friends, and so we have
    had that opportunity to do that as well.
        The partisanship that we confront and the polarization is a
    far bigger issue than whether we vote by proxy or vote in
    person. This polarization is hurting our country. This
    polarization where we are not thinking about the substance but
    the politics is hurting America. And the fact at a time of war,
    we are war. We are not physically on the field with the
    Ukrainians, but we ought to do everything we possibly can to
    make sure that they can meet this enemy and defeat this enemy.
    And we need to be united in that effort. And we ought to all
    remind ourselves that we are Americans. We may be Democrats, we
    may be Republicans, we may be something else, but we are
    Americans. And Zelenskyy was right; we are the leaders. We are
    the leaders of the free world. And if we sound by our division
    an uncertain trumpet, the world will be a lesser place.
        Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gallagher.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Mr. Gallagher. I would like to make a slightly different
    argument than some of my colleagues. I don't think this is
    primarily about spending time together, I don't think it is
    about partisanship. I don't think it is about technology, as
    the majority leader argued. I think it is just about the truth.
    Because when you proxy vote--I have never proxied--buy my
    understanding is you have to sign a piece of paper that says, I
    am unable to physically attend proceedings in the House Chamber
    due to the ongoing public health emergency, i.e., coronavirus.
    That is what you are signing your name too, right? There is no
    dispute about that. It is clear in the language.
        So we know, notwithstanding Mr. Neguse, who I think is the
    exception that proves the rule today, the over, overwhelming
    majority of Members proxy voting are lying when they sign this
    piece of paper. We have all heard the anecdotes of people going
    to fundraisers--Democrats and Republicans, by the way. I am not
    saying only the other side has abused this. Let me prove this
    to you mathematically why this is a massive lie.
        The average number of proxy votes on a normal day in
    Congress, a full day like today, is about 68, if you crunch the
    numbers. Magically, on fly-in and fly-out days, those numbers
    skyrocket to around a hundred. So what happened? Are people
    getting COVID on Mondays, Tuesdays, or Thursday, Fridays, but
    not Wednesdays? No. They are abusing proxy voting so they can
    have a longer weekend, right? Because it is an inconvenience to
    come to D.C., and in the process, signing their name to a lie
    on this piece of paper.
        Now, if you want to make a different argument, right--I
    actually think Mr. Perlmutter has made a high-integrity
    argument. He openly says he wants a more libertarian system
    where everyone can proxy vote. I disagree, but that is an
    entirely different thing. Then you need to advance a proposal
    whereby people can sign their name saying, I need to proxy vote
    because of X, Y, Z, not because of COVID. Because it is not
    about COVID.
        Indeed, we just had at least four Members of Congress on
    this panel admit, against interest, that it is not about COVID;
    it is about birthdays, graduation parties, it is about the
    birth of children, it is about climate change, it is about
    strokes. That is a different thing. So I actually concede the
    point to the chairman that--I am not suggesting proxy voting is
    causing this unprecedented polarization, if that is even true
    that we are unprecedented in our polarization. I think it is
    exacerbating a lack of trust in the institution because so many
    Members are lying.
        I mean, put differently, right, how--one argument was made
    that we are disenfranchising voters if their Members can't
    proxy. Are you not disenfranchising voters if you are lying to
    them? Or someone made an appeal to the integrity of the
    institution, and if you proxy vote, that we are going to be
    able to have more options and will retain the integrity of the
    institution in the modern age. How can you maintain the
    integrity of the institution if you are institutionalizing
    lies? It makes no sense.
        So I am happy to have the different argument about proxy
    voting for other reasons. I will still oppose it. And if you
    put forward that proposal, I suspect you would lose that vote.
    But there is no question it is obvious and inarguable, to the
    point of being self-evident now, that people are abusing proxy
    voting. And every single day we are countenancing scores of
    lies by our colleagues. If nothing else, we have to change what
    is on this piece of paper and stop lying.
        And, with that, I yield.
        [The statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHIP ROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And let me associate myself with the remarks of Mr.
    Gallagher wholeheartedly as one of the most frustrating things
    about this entire experience is watching my colleagues
    blatantly lie when signing a piece of paper. And we all know it
    is true. We all know it. And we see it every day, but we just
    kind of countenance it and say, oh, go, yeah, go to a
    fundraiser. Good for you. Or one story was voting from a--
    somebody was out on an interview in a car in the parking lot
    while there is somebody proxy voting for him in here. And,
    again, both sides of the aisle. Let me make it perfectly clear,
    both sides of the aisle.
        You know, look, we are talking about a number of things.
    And my name was invoked earlier. I will only respond to it
    briefly about the institution being broken. And the majority
    leader has referenced this; otherwise, I wouldn't go down this
    road too much because this is about proxy. But the institution
    is broken. And a lot is made of so-called procedural votes and
    that it is somehow delaying the institution or causing harm. I
    mean, well, keep in mind that there are limited tools that you
    have when you are in the minority, but in particularly when you
    are not a chairman, when you are particularly not on the Rules
    Committee, or particularly you are not on--you are not the
    majority leader, right? So there are limited rules you have.
        And so, last week, for example, when I am sitting with my
    staff watching a vote being called for a voice vote for
    basically $16 billion worth of continuing resolution that I
    didn't bless, and which most people knew in my party and,
    generally speaking, it is not like I am shy about it, that that
    is not something I would agree to by voice vote. Yeah, I was
    frustrated that our rights weren't protected and that we didn't
    have a roll call vote on that. So what did I do? I did force
    two more procedural votes. Why? Because that is about all I got
    in my arsenal.
        I went down and talked to Keith on the floor. Said, Keith,
    you know, I am sorry, I was trying to get to Philadelphia. I
    ended up withdrawing the last one out of some sort of
    deference. But we have limited tools in our arsenal to say,
    protect our rights, Representative. We are talking about the
    institution. We are talking about disenfranchising our voters.
        What is the ultimate disenfranchisement of voters? The lack
    of any power of any one Member of Congress, because it has all
    been handed over to a handful, a handful of people in the
    majority and minority and the leadership offices, and/or in the
    Rules Committee, to make decisions about what we vote on.
        We get a 2,700-page bill at 2 o'clock in the morning and to
    vote on the rule the next morning? 2,700 pages with 5,000
    earmarks and $10 billion. $100 billion of increased spending.
    Massive complex pieces of language and 2,700 bills my staff is
    pouring over in the middle of the night, just trying to figure
    out what we are even looking at, right? That is no way to do
    business. So if we are going to talk about the institution
    being broken, let's start there.
        You know, I heard--the majority leader said, we are at war.
    Now, he kind of tweaked that a little bit after he said we are
    at war, about standing with the people in Ukraine and so forth.
    We haven't declared war. That is a constitutional requirement.
    We have not declared war.
        One of the best conversations I have had in this building
    was a building downstairs, two floors down, 2 years ago, with
    three Democrats, three Republicans, and--well, I might as well
    say Justin, because I was going to say an Independent, because
    he was the only Independent--talking about the authorizations
    of the use of military force. Twenty years in to authorization
    of the use of military force. And that conversation, over a
    beer, in person, resulted in a joint op-ed among the seven of
    us, raising questions about 20-year authorizations of the use
    of military force.
        But I think that is a really important thing we just saw
    here talking about this body. We are at war. That is a very big
    statement. That is a debatable statement, one we ought to be
    debating.
        We talk about, you know, being productive, and there is
    some debate about the productivity. I would argue productivity
    for leadership in the Rules Committee--and I do want to
    appreciate the chairman having this ability for us to come
    speak. It is important, and I genuinely thank you for it. But
    productivity by whom? Productivity by a handful is not the
    people's House. And here we sit, and we talk about, you know,
    whether this proxy policy is further breaking the institution.
        I heard the word extremely polarized. Well, I mean, when
    the Secretary of Treasury and the Vice President duel, maybe we
    will be as polarized as sometimes in our past. Yes, we are
    polarized. We have had a lot of differences over in our
    history.
        But in this point here with Mr. Gallagher at the fraudulent
    certification, I do agree that that is disenfranchising and
    that it is causing distrust in the institution. But, you know,
    one of the best things that I have been able to do in here is
    work with my friend Dean Phillips on the PPP Flexibility Act.
    Again, backbencher, Freedom Caucus Conservative, Dean Phillips,
    we are able to get something done on a bipartisan basis in the
    middle of COVID. But we did that because we are able to get to
    know each other and sit down and have that beer and sit down
    and know each other.
        We break down the human interactions when we blow up the
    whole point of us coming together as Congress. As somebody
    talked about earlier, the definition of Congress is us coming
    together and representing the people.
        The Constitution. And sorry, I have had to look at notes
    because we have been here for so long. But the fact is we all
    take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
    We do. And I believe that we all, therefore, have an obligation
    to carefully examine the merits of the constitutional question
    raised by proxy voting. It is a legitimate, constitutional
    question. We haven't had any long significant hearings on it. I
    am sure my friend from Maryland would love to have in-depth
    conversations about this. I suspect we disagree on this point.
    But at least we ought to have that in-depth debate about the
    core constitutional question.
        And maybe the Speech and Debate Clause protects what I
    believe is unconstitutional proxy voting. Obviously, the
    Supreme Court denied cert, deferring to essentially us, right?
    To kind of--they punt, essentially. So here we are, and there
    is a question. I think we have an obligation to defend the
    Constitution.
        It is my perspective that it is, in fact, unconstitutional
    for us to engage in proxy voting. I think that the Constitution
    is pretty clear on it. I think if you read the text of the
    Constitution, words like ``meeting,'' ``assemble,''
    ``attendance,'' ``present,'' ``absent,'' ``recess,''
    ``sitting,'' ``seat,'' it clearly requires a Member of Congress
    to be actually present in the House or the Senate Chamber.
        I understand technology has changed. Well, then let's amend
    the Constitution. Let's have a debate about it. But I believe
    the Constitution clearly believed that we should be--or
    articulated we should be present.
        Quorum requirements. The same thing. The majority of each
    shall constitute a quorum, and blah, blah, blah, may be
    authorized to compel the attendance of absent Members.
        If you go look at the text and the history and
    understanding of what a quorum is, presence matters. The yeas
    and nays requirement. Right? When you get down to the desire of
    one-fifth of those present be entered in the journal, it was
    contemplating presence. And I understand there could be some
    debates about what presence means and whether you can establish
    presence in a different form. I don't believe that is what we
    agreed to in the Constitution when we were establishing these
    things.
        Nondelegation principle. We the People, right? We are
    formed on ``We the People.'' All the legislative powers herein
    granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
    which shall consist of a Senate and the House of
    Representatives.
        I understand we can set our rules. I understand that we can
    come up with ways to represent We the People differently. But
    the contemplation is that we are not delegating our vote to
    another Member.
        When we talk about remote voting, we can have that debate,
    but this changes the entire point. We have last-minute changes
    on the floor. And we have got these rules in place that says,
    well, your staffer has to tell you the specific vote on that
    vote. I don't know how it works because I have never proxy
    voted. But I know there is some rules in place to try to
    protect, but you are changing the nature of the institution
    when you hand your voting card off to somebody else. And that
    is, effectively, what we are doing.
        I could go a little bit more into that. And I will only
    address the question on the constitutional issues raised about
    certain Members being pulled off of the litigation. And people
    have talked about that. And so, ultimately, it was the minority
    leader and myself on the litigation in the end, after having
    more Members on it at the beginning. And in part, that was just
    to clarify and simplify who was on the case. And we all know
    the facts, we have seen the stuff, that there were some Members
    that had been on the original litigation that ultimately proxy
    voted.
        Now, I would say, well, why is that? I wouldn't have, with
    all due respect to my Republican colleagues who are on the
    litigation and pulled off. I think that was wrong.
        But the flip side is, is the pressure. Okay. What is done
    when we change the institution? Let me give you an example of a
    vote.
        I was sitting in Fredericksburg, Virginia, waiting while we
    were going through all of the transportation votes last fall,
    and we were debating. Remember, every Friday, we would have
    these ridiculous sit-and-wait sessions, wondering when the heck
    we were going to vote? And it was Friday afternoon. I had
    committed months prior to speaking at the University of
    Virginia, my alma mater, and I was supposed to be there. And
    they had put out all the advertising, and there is a big thing,
    and I had committed to do it.
        So I am sitting in Fredericksburg, Virginia, at a
    Starbucks, because I was just having to figure out, am I going
    to Charlottesville or am I going back to D.C., waiting for the
    powers that be to tell me when we were going to vote on a bill
    I knew I would vote no on, but the vote might be close. But I
    am not going to hand over my vote to someone else, and Keith
    knew this on the floor. And I said, Keith, well, can you let me
    know as soon as possible. Leadership team knew it, and they
    were trying to--hey, well, we might need you here for the vote.
        And my point is just, I had a whole lot of proxy voting
    Members who didn't give a crap about where they were that day
    because they would hand off their vote to someone else. There
    was immense pressure on a lot of Members to say, well, you
    know, we are doing this tug of war about how we are going to
    run the place. And it makes it a lot easier to force votes
    Friday night at whatever, without having any advanced notice,
    if half the damn body is voting by proxy.
        So I am sitting at a Starbucks and, finally, Keith gave me
    the green light, we are voting on some random bill that wasn't
    the actual transportation bill. And I was like, fine, I will
    skip it. My constituents will forgive me for knowing that I
    would have voted no on whatever that ridiculous vote was that
    we voted on that night. So that is the question.
        And I would just say--I know I want to move on to other
    colleagues, but I just want to offer one more thought here is
    that what we do here is important. But I think sometimes we
    have a heightened sense of our own importance. There is 435 of
    us. There is 535, if we count the Senate. At the end of the
    day, this country is going to plod along, and we are all going
    to come and go, and we are all going to be pushing up daisies
    soon enough. We are just Members of Congress. And there is 330
    million Americans. And we act like, oh, my gosh, this is the
    most important thing, and we got to be here all day long.
        Put your vote in the record how you would have voted. And
    if it was that important of a vote, then give up whatever that
    thing is, sacrifice for the good of the country, and get your
    butt to Washington and vote. I mean, Ron Wright traveled across
    the country in the last weeks of his life, ravages of cancer,
    because he knew he couldn't get on the airplane, and it was
    brutal for him. But he got in a car and drove across the
    country. And I just think, when we think about what we are
    doing here--my son is back here and, clearly, you know, for all
    of everything we are talking about. But my son is back here. Do
    you know how many things I miss? I miss them all the time. I
    mean, I heard the testimony earlier about giving birth and
    having family members--how many things have you sacrificed,
    right? But I do it for him. So when I miss the baseball game,
    when I miss school, when I miss the event, I am doing it for
    him, I am doing it for my daughter, I am doing it for my wife.
    When my wife is sitting at home dealing with the stuff she is
    dealing with. When the freezer is freezing, and the freeze
    comes in Texas, and the hot water heater is not working, and I
    am here. Right? Those things are all hard. But it is our job.
    It is our obligation. And if you can't do it, think about not
    running again. Think about resigning. Thinking about giving it
    to someone else.
        There are 750,000 people in Texas 21. I ain't that
    important. I am just not. I mean, at the end of the day, our
    job is what is important. And I believe that the Constitution
    is strengthened, our Republic is stronger if we are here in
    person, and we are following the constitutional order. And if
    we want to change that, we should debate on an amendment, and
    we should vote on it.
        And, with that, I will yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Roy follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I know Ms. Castor has to go. Let me just thank you for
    your testimony. And also, thank you for reminding us that--
    again, these are not either/or situations. Allowing for remote
    committee hearings doesn't mean every committee hearing has to
    be remote. You can meet like this but have somebody testify
    from across the world and be able to provide information. And I
    think most people have thought that--I have heard from
    Republicans and Democrats--have thought that was a useful
    thing. But thank you so much for your testimony.
        I am now going to go to Representative Biggs.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY BIGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for holding this
    hearing. I appreciate it. I think it is an important topic.
        I noticed that the Ranking Member Cole mentioned more than
    once the culture of this body and the impact of proxy voting on
    the culture of this body. I agree with him. The culture has
    been impacted. And, you know, before I speak further, I just
    got to say this, I am reminded of Mo Udall, who was a longtime
    Congressman from the town I grew up in. And he used to say,
    Everything that needs to be said has been said, just not by
    everyone yet.
        So I feel like I have got--I am going to be batting cleanup
    for when the bases have been cleared. So I am going to--I have
    got to make my----
        Mr. Perlmutter. [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Biggs. Oh, Bost, didn't even see you there, pal.
        Anyway, I just want to cover a number of these items
    quickly. They may be repetitive to you, but they are important
    to get out. I mean, I think what Mr. Roy just mentioned
    actually gets to a point I was going to make that there is a
    distinction, quite frankly, between the quorum and the proxy
    vote. And the deal is we have decided we are going to count
    whoever proxies as part of our quorum. And the constitutional
    requirement seems to be very, very clear that physicality is
    necessary to constitute a quorum in order to conduct business.
        And I am reminded of the very first--the very first
    Congress when it came together. They waited 30 days, 30 days
    before they could get an actual physical group of a majority
    into Congress to actually conduct business. And I was also
    reminded when the ranking--not the ranking, the majority leader
    was talking about he is kind of making a snarko about, you
    know, Zoom. You know, Franklin talking to Madison about Zooming
    in. That was kind of interesting, kind of funny. But the
    reality is it actually painted the picture exactly the opposite
    of the point he was trying to make, and that is this: If there
    was a time that proxy voting should have been authorized, it
    would have been when people literally had to travel for 2 and 3
    weeks to get there and stay there and miss item after item of
    their home lives for months.
        Why didn't they allow proxy voting then? Because it was so
    important to get together as a Congress, as someone defined
    Congress earlier today, where you actually meet, you actually
    have dialogue, you have conversation, you move together. I will
    give you an example. Just give you a couple of anecdotes here.
        When I was first in, I won't get into the fact that the
    leadership took my bill away from me, it was my bill that
    passed. But what happened is, I negotiated it--I negotiated it
    with the Democrats. And so when that bill passed, it was--it
    was the substance of my bill, under somebody else's name, that
    I worked my tail off, and it was a bipartisan bill. That never
    would have happened if I couldn't have gone to talk to people.
    I talked to Mr. Perlmutter about that bill.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I voted for your bill.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes, you did doggone it. And I appreciate it to
    this day, and so do Americans.
        The point is we were able to get together and negotiate
    these things out, which is missing. I know contrary, you have
    created a warm relationship with Representative Timmons over
    Zoom. Imagine how warm it would be if you guys were sitting
    side by side and in person. I mean, that is a huge distinction.
    It deals with the culture of the body again.
        And so--and then we move into this notion of the votes. I
    don't mind fifteen, five, two, two, two votes. Those are
    fantastic. We are still on the floor, we can still talk.
        But you know what? I will give you an example of what
    happened just yesterday. I voted on the first bill, and I said,
    oh, I got this errand, I have to run off campus. I had time
    after I voted to go down, pick up my car, bring it up, park in
    front of this building, get out, go back up and have 10 more
    minutes to wait for the next bill. Then I voted, walked out to
    my car, drove across town, did my business, came back, had 15
    minutes to wait. That is--I am not--Congress is not designed to
    be efficient, but that kind of takes it to the outer limits of
    inefficiency. And it also negates some of what we do in
    Congress.
        And I have talked--I mean, everybody's talked about this. I
    will reiterate what Mr. Roy was talking about and what Mr.
    Gallagher was talking about. This document that people have
    signed, even though I have never voted proxy, I never voted
    proxy, even though my name was omitted from the lawsuit, also
    over my objection. That happens from time to time. But the
    reality is, when I--when I read the rules again in preparation
    for this--and I think the chair was right. I think you guys did
    try to put some safeguards there. But this document is pretty
    clear. You are going to be talking about of--of you are not
    there because of the COVID. And that hasn't happened. And I
    will give you an idea to understand it.
        A study was done and released just a couple of weeks ago.
    You have individuals that have voted more than 400 times by
    proxy. More than 400 times. I will tell you, I was very
    surprised about this, because there is a friend of mine on the
    other side of the aisle and rarely here, rarely here. In fact,
    I think he has been here six times in his Congress, six times.
    And I thought, that person has voted by proxy more than anybody
    else. Had to. Three hundred times plus. Top five but not number
    one, because number one is over 400.
        And I just--I am trying to understand how we sanction this.
    And I know that the chair is looking for ways, and he has
    mentioned Representative Escobar's--maybe you can find a
    medium--a middle ground. I don't know how you get to the middle
    ground because you have a quorum issue that I think we have
    violated the Constitution on. I think the Supreme Court punted
    on that, and they sent it back to us.
        But I will just--I don't want to take too much more time,
    because I feel like I am saying so much, but I will just ask
    this last question. We are engaged in public service. Every one
    of us, every one of us gave up something to be here. We
    continue to give up something. And my question for you is, why
    are you trying to take the sacrifice out of public service? And
    this--and when the majority leader talks about it, his
    rationale was it is easier, technology is easier, and so we
    should implement it now. I would just suggest to you that does
    not, that does not, that is not the sound rationale necessary
    to eradicate 230 years of practice.
        And so, with that, I will yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Biggs follows:]
        The Chairman. Mr. Bost.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I am--there are a few things that I may repeat, but I
    am going to go at a different angle because, you know, as the
    ranking member for the VA Committee, I am going to talk about
    some things that have happened in the VA Committee while doing
    this virtual thing.
        And, you know, I am proud of being on the VA Committee. I
    am proud of the fact that I am an old jarhead marine, father
    and grandfather of a marine, and I take serious the work that
    we are doing. But we don't do our jobs well on the Veterans'
    Affairs Committee when we are doing it virtually. And let me
    give you an example of that.
        You know, we have done our jobs but not well, in part, due
    to the limited virtual work. And let me tell you that the VA
    Committee has been stricter than many other committees. Where
    they went to a hybrid, we refused not to in our rules, by the
    majority. And we--it lasted for quite some time. And even at
    the point when we were voting on some very, very, very serious
    issues, vaccines were wide--were available, cases were down,
    but we still wouldn't return in the VA Committee. So, you know,
    that is the rules that each individual committee person or
    chairman can set.
        But during one markup, we were spending tens of billions of
    additional taxpayer dollars, and some of our members, one,
    could not be heard, therefore, their vote didn't count or it
    interrupted the vote. Or some of them couldn't be seen on
    camera, but they could be heard, which interrupted the vote, by
    the rules. But yet we continued to--down this path for a very,
    very long time.
        And I know that Chairman Takano had to leave. And these are
    all things he and I have discussed over and over and over
    again, and the complaints and concerns that we had.
        Now, someone said in one of the additional talking points
    earlier of the carbon footprint that we are saving. Well, I
    don't know, have any of you noticed that a lot of the people
    are actually putting a pretty solid carbon footprint because
    they are doing it while driving around in their vehicles? Even
    so much so that, at one time, we had someone driving on a lake
    with their boat, to the point that the chairman--that that
    chairman at that time of the Transportation Committee actually
    said on record, Is he on a boat? Is he driving his boat? I
    don't think that actually helps the carbon footprint that much.
    I am sorry. I think that--you know, the concerns that I see
    there.
        And let me also say this. It is really wild because there
    are three of us at this table that have never voted proxy, that
    until we were removed, stayed on the lawsuit. I have never
    voted proxy. I believe my constituents sent me here to vote for
    them, and I believe that. Now, you may disagree, but I believe
    that. I believe it is our job to be here.
        I spent 20 years in the State legislature, 20 years. After
    I got here, I actually had a staffer from the State legislature
    that called me, and he goes, Hey, Mike, we were looking
    something over. Do you realize how many votes you missed in 20
    years? Now, understand, I had children born, I had
    grandchildren born, I had--I said, no, how many? He said none.
    I said that is amazing, because I sure didn't know it.
        But I have missed votes while I am here, since I have been
    here. Matter of fact, I had one opponent that actually brought
    up the fact that I had missed several votes, and I couldn't
    figure out why. The opponent felt pretty bad because I looked
    back, and it was actually the week that we buried my mother.
    So, you know, there are those times that you can't be here.
        But I do agree with the fact that I don't think it is
    constitutional for us to cast these votes. We can have that
    debate, and we should have that debate, if we want to change
    it. But this being present--and then when we do the--when we
    did the vote first off to just be present, how is it that we
    can vote present by proxy? Isn't that kind of go wrong on the
    definition in the Webster Dictionary? I think it kind of
    clashes. And there are some--there is some real problems with
    that.
        And I know we have all talked about it here, and I don't
    want to belabor it, but it is time that we are to a point that
    we should go back to operating this House. I know there is new
    technology. That is fine. I have lived through the fact that,
    you know, when the State legislature--good heavens, I can
    remember we went supposedly paperless, and that is when we got
    laptops. And, of course, we still burn through just as much
    paper.
        But there is a time that the Constitution and, truly, the
    history of this institution should be held up in the fact that
    this is what we have done. I know that it is a pandemic. I
    understand. And I know that technology wasn't around during the
    last pandemic, and they actually missed several months of not
    being able to get quorum. I understand that. But we do have a
    tradition of being here, even when our Capitol is under attack.
    It was done--when the Capitol was burning, they met down the
    street.
        I think it is vitally important that we get back to really
    operating this House in a way that is traditional. And I
    believe that there has been a lot of problems that have been
    caused by doing this. And I appreciate the people who have had
    it. Remember, I was out 2 weeks ago, and I did what I could do,
    but I didn't vote.
        Again, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to witness
    before you today, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Bost follows:]
        The Chairman. I appreciate you being here.
        Let me again say for the record, I have never voted by
    proxy either. I wrote the rule--but I have been lucky, right? I
    didn't get COVID. If I had COVID, I would have voted by proxy
    because that is what it was there for. I think if one of my
    kids had COVID, I think that--and I don't know--and, again, I
    am going to the issue that Mr. Gallagher raised.
        Look, I don't police every Member of Congress to find out
    are they really telling the truth or are they not? Those who
    have not been, we know about them, in large part because the
    press have recorded it. They have to deal with their
    constituents as to whether or not it was an appropriate use of
    that. But for me, I have followed the letter, every word of
    that. I have missed votes because I had to go to an event at
    the White House or I had to go to some other event, and I
    missed the vote because I thought that I had a special
    obligation--because this thing came out of this committee--to
    say that we are interpreting this the way it was intended.
        So, the issue, obviously, is do we--for those who want to
    keep some form of it--do you find better ways of making sure
    that people cannot misuse it? Are there more checks and
    balances in place? Do you limit it to only certain things? I
    mean, that is a question that ought to be talked about.
        In terms of the constitutionality, I am not a
    constitutional scholar, you are, so you can talk about that.
    But, a court case was filed, it went to the Supreme Court, and
    the Supreme Court did not come out on the side of those who
    said it was unconstitutional. But if you believe it is
    unconstitutional, if you believe it is unconstitutional----
        Yeah.
        Mr. Roy. They didn't grant cert.
        The Chairman. Right, okay.
        Mr. Roy. Different.
        The Chairman. Well, I will let him--but if you believe it
    is unconstitutional, again, it is mind-boggling to me that you
    would utilize it. But in any event, that is obviously the case
    here.
        And going back to what Ms. Castor talked about, about
    hybrid hearings or you being able to utilize technology in the
    hearing room, I think there is value to that. I know the
    majority leader mentioned President Zelenskyy, but you could
    have--I mean, you can conceivably have President Zelenskyy
    testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Defense
    Committee from Ukraine remotely. I mean, that is a good thing--
    I think that is something we ought to think as something we
    want to preserve.
        Obviously, as the public health emergency is moving in a
    direction that we all hope it continues to go in where we no
    longer have one, my hope is that more and more chairs will say
    we need--you got to meet in person. But I will say, I continue
    to believe that what we did at a very challenging time saved
    lives here, and it enabled us to operate and be able to move
    things that needed to be moved.
        And as I said before, in 1918, they had to get everything
    done by unanimous consent. And let me say this, let me preface
    this by saying, I love everybody here, right? But getting
    unanimous consent is almost impossible. Getting unanimous
    consent to have a glass of water is almost impossible here.
    That is just the reality. I am not passing judgment, I am just
    saying it is the reality.
        And so for us to be able to have responded to this pandemic
    the way we did, I think this was necessary. And so I continue
    to feel that this was the right thing to do. And I think the
    point of this hearing is to hear from people. And we have heard
    from everybody, from Mr. Perlmutter to those who want this
    totally done away with and everything in between. And what we
    need to do is figure out how do we proceed forward?
        Yes, Mr. Roy.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Chairman, may I address the 1918 point real
    quick on----
        The Chairman. Yeah.
        Mr. Roy [continuing]. The unanimous consent? The other
    point to remember--and I feel the need to speak on behalf of my
    friend from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, who stood on the floor of
    the House, not pleased that we were going to proceed by using
    voice vote to move a $2 trillion bill. And we can debate that.
    And understand the timing of it. But the Constitution requires
    one-fifth, right, in order to be able to have the numbers there
    to force the roll call vote.
        So there is a mechanism by which the overwhelming majority
    can say, you know what, we will do this by voice. There is a
    mechanism to do that without consent. So you don't have to do
    it by consent. You can do it by voice. And you can say, look,
    unless you got a fifth of the body saying no, no, no, no, no,
    we dang well better be present; there is a mechanism for doing
    that. I just wanted to make sure the record reflected that.
        Mr. Perlmutter. You had to be there, and everybody had to
    stand up at that point----
        Mr. Roy. A fifth would have had to be present in order to
    do that.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Right.
        Mr. Roy. My point is just you can do that with a body.
    Otherwise, you can do it with voice if you don't have the
    fifth. I mean, you can do it by voice.
        The Chairman. Yeah. I think it is not unreasonable, based
    on where we are and what we have seen, to believe that it would
    be very difficult for us to proceed without what we put in
    place. And I think that is just the reality. And I am glad we
    were able to proceed. I am glad we were able to get some stuff
    done.
        But let me yield to my friend, Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I am going to have to leave.
    I am already late. But I want to make a few quick remarks.
        The Chairman. You are not going to the St. Patrick's thing,
    are you?
        Mr. Cole. No. I am going to one later tonight, though.
        The Chairman. You can have my meal.
        Mr. Cole. Anything in the middle of the--it would be a St.
    Patrick event in the evening. I promise you.
        Mr. Roy. You can leave your proxy with me.
        Mr. Cole. But, first, I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by
    thanking you for the hearing. I think it is very important for
    the institution to have the hearing. I want to thank all our
    witnesses for I know you waited a long time in many cases to
    have an opportunity.
        I want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Roy, on his son,
    because that is a pretty well-behaved young man to sit there
    that much time and listen to adults drone away. So good job,
    dad.
        I do want to respond--I want to do this very respectfully
    to the majority leader. He did not have a chance to be here. So
    this is--you know, I don't usually like talking--or replying to
    somebody when they are not here, but there are a couple of
    things--several things he said that I wanted to just take, have
    a different perspective on, perhaps he doesn't, just make sure
    it gets in the record.
        Mr. Cole. One, he talked about en blocs, and they are
    common around here, and they are. But pre-COVID, the way it was
    done was always by consent; in other words, we all agreed
    pretty much: We know these are going to pass so we are going to
    group them all together. And if the individual Member wanted to
    pull one out and have a vote on that, that Member could do
    that. That is not what we are doing now.
        So the en bloc is not how it has been. We can debate the
    wisdom of it, but come on, we all know they are packed: This
    group is going to lose; this group is going to win. And if you
    like one in the group that is going to lose, you are not going
    to have a chance to maybe pull that across the line. So I think
    that is a big loss and something we ought to think about moving
    forward.
        Second, he brought up, not particularly relevant to our
    deal, the infrastructure bill and made the point that all of us
    that voted against it did so because our party leaders voted--
    told us to. That is just not true. You know, number one, and
    this is really important for everybody in America to
    understand, that bill that the Senate wrote never came through
    committee over here. I mean, the own committee chairman of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure bill never had a chance to
    offer an amendment or shape the most important bill probably of
    his career. That was true for every single Member of the body,
    majority or minority had zero chance to impact that bill. So
    that is one reason to be against it.
        And, number two, I will tell you, even in the Senate it did
    not go through the Public Works Committee, and so the people on
    that committee had nothing to do with it. It was all done by
    people honestly all of whom were not on the Public Works
    Committee.
        So, you know, I seldom vote against bills because of what
    happens in the Senate. But, you know, process alone, I will
    tell you, the, quote/unquote, bipartisan infrastructure bill
    was the biggest surrender of institutional authority by this
    body that I have ever seen in 20 years. We just said: We don't
    have anything to do with it. We are taking whatever the Senate
    wants to do, won't go through our committee. Our Members,
    Democrat or Republican, majority or minority, they are not
    going to have anything to say about it. That is a pretty damn
    good reason to be against any bill no matter what.
        Second, my friends chose the President of the United States
    to link it with Build Back Better. Nobody on my side was for
    Build Back Better, and when you put them together and said,
    ``We are not moving this one until you move this one''--and
    with all due respect to my friends, a considerable number of
    your members were in that position too saying ``I won't vote
    for this unless you vote for this even if you are against
    it''--that is what muddied the water and partisanized the bill
    even more.
        And in terms of holding it up, let's be real, your Members
    held it up. We didn't hold it up. I mean, we don't have the
    ability to hold it up. Your Members squabbled for months on end
    over this process, and that is why we ended up without having
    what is normally a very bipartisan process. You know, normally
    infrastructure bills are bipartisan. But you guys made it
    partisan, and you got the kind of vote honestly that I think
    the bill deserved.
        I mean, even some of your own Members--you know, you had to
    have the Republican votes to pass it because your own Members,
    there wasn't enough of your own Members, you wouldn't have been
    able to pass otherwise. And I have no quarrel with Members that
    voted for it, my side or your side. Zero quarrel. If that is
    what you thought you needed to do, fine by me, you got a vote.
        And I would separate myself from anybody that called to
    remove any Member from a committee. That very many people did,
    quite frankly, and those Members, for the record, were all
    still on the same committees that they were on. So this mock
    outrage, my gosh, we are so afraid of what was going to happen
    to these 13 people, they are all there. Don't worry about it.
    And that was never going to happen on our side.
        Finally, or two more quick points, I want to associate
    myself with something you said, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you,
    there is a big difference between witnesses testifying by Zoom
    and Members participating by Zoom, as my friend, Mr. Bost, and
    I have zero problem. I think that has opened up a new area for
    us, offers us the ability to bring people in to testify. I
    think that is something that is really worth thinking about,
    and it probably has enriched the body, and that is one where,
    you know, maybe technology does make a good difference.
        Last point I want to make is just about proxies. And I
    agree with you, I am not interested in policing other Members.
    I am really not. But I also agree with Mr. Gallagher. I mean,
    come on, when it is twice as likely on Monday and Friday as it
    is on the days in between, that tells you everything you need
    to know. No question this process has been abused in a
    bipartisan way. I don't single out either side for that.
        And I think it hints at the challenges of maintaining it.
    None of us want to police our colleagues, you know. We don't
    like to do it. We don't like to sit in judgment and with good
    cause. But when you look at something and on the face of it, it
    is being abused every day by Members of both sides, it is just
    an easy habit to fall into.
        So sometimes maybe we should just remove the temptation. I
    don't particularly like proxy voting. I am all for getting away
    with it. The Senate managed to function on its own without it.
    I think the majority leader made some good points about, you
    know, the challenges of somebody just not being there for a
    very good reason, like our friend Mr. Lujan. That is worth
    considering. I don't agree with it. I think that just happens.
        I am sort of where my colleagues that remain on the panel
    are. I just don't like the practice. I think it is bad, and I
    think it ultimately destroys--and you just deal with these
    problems when they occur. And Mr. Roy made a good point, you
    know, honestly, you know, none of us are usually that
    important. That is a pretty rare deal. And I noticed the Senate
    managed to get through it without ever proxy voting and managed
    to get through this whole process.
        So, if we are one of the most productive Congresses in
    history, something I would probably not accept, but, you know,
    for the purpose here, they had to do their part too, because
    nothing happens around here without both bodies agreeing. And
    if they were that productive and they could do without proxies,
    then we should be productive and we should have been able to do
    it without proxies or certainly not going forward, certainly
    not in the current climate that we are in.
        But last point, and I want to finish on a very positive
    note, again, we have this discussion today where we have got a
    robust exchange in where we have had views that are very
    different across the spectrum because you gave us the forum.
        And my colleagues here, and I hate to say this as I am
    getting ready to walk out, thank you guys for being here all
    day. And those of you that are following us remotely, I
    appreciate that participation too, because, again, our members
    of our committee, Mr. Chairman, have continued to participate
    in a variety of ways, and they spend a lot of hours up here.
        We have made you guys spend a lot of time here, and we
    apologize for that, but, you know, this is pretty routine in
    our committee. This is a very robust committee. It is a very
    well-run committee by the chairman, and I would like it if we
    are nine to four in the other direction. As a matter of fact,
    it is may too well run in that sense. There is never a
    defection on the other side, and there is never one on ours
    either.
        But, again, thank you for hosting the debate, because we
    are going to be wrestling with these problems for a while. We
    have had very unusual circumstances that led us into this
    particular place that are worth talking about. They are worth
    thinking about. They are worth, you know, us wrestling with as
    a body as to what we should do going forward, because, again, I
    do see some limited cases where I would agree this technology
    can be useful.
        I don't think I probably would ever come to the point that
    I think proxy voting is useful, but if those are the rules, I
    guarantee you I will play by the rules. And, if you make them
    the rules, I don't have any problem with somebody that says:
    Okay, I don't agree with the rules. There is a lot of things
    about campaign finance I don't agree with, but I play by the
    rules.
        There is a lot of things, you know, procedurally in my
    committees I may or may not agree with, but if that is the
    procedure and these are the rules of the House, they have been
    voted by a majority of the House, I accept that, and I play by
    those rules. And then, if the majority changes, I hope the
    rules will change that reflect maybe something a little closer.
    But that is not abuse of the system, and I don't think that is
    doing anything wrong.
        But, with that, again, thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you for allowing me to go on a little bit
    as a rant, particularly as I am getting up and leaving, which
    is not courteous, so I apologize to my colleagues on the panel.
    I particularly apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody
    else up here.
        The Chairman. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I am going to pass to Mr. Raskin because I
    have to go vote remotely in that room in Financial Services.
        The Chairman. Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I wanted to first start by saying hello to Mr. Roy's son,
    who has demonstrated that the use of technology is perfectly
    consistent with the legislative process today, and we are
    delighted you are here.
        I have got to agree with one point my friend, Mr. Roy,
    made, and then disagree with one point. The point I agree on is
    that the Supreme Court's denial of cert letting stand the lower
    court ruling, which is that this is a political question,
    doesn't decide it for us because all of us swear an oath to
    uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign
    and domestic and to interpret it the best we can.
        So it is not just within the province of the judicial
    authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. I think
    all of us are called upon to do that, and that is why this is
    an important and fundamental conversation that we are having
    today.
        However, I think that my friend from Texas kind of
    flippantly said, well, you know, if we didn't have telephones
    or computers when the Constitution was written then we update
    the Constitution to adjust to the technology. The Supreme
    Court, for one, has been very emphatic actually that the values
    and the principles of the Constitution must be applied by us
    through the prism of new and existing technology.
        And one Supreme Court decision that leaps to mind on that
    front is Katz vs. United States in 1967 on the interpretation
    of the Fourth Amendment. I see I got the attention of one of my
    former law students here, who is a distinguished staff member
    on the Republican side of the aisle.
        But you will remember that Katz vs. United States was about
    whether the placement of telephone bugging devices by the
    government on a phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment
    reasonable--violated the Fourth Amendment. And the argument
    made by the government was, well, it couldn't violate the
    Fourth Amendment because telephones didn't exist when the
    Constitution was written and neither did telephone bugs, and
    therefore, how could it violate the Fourth Amendment.
        And the Supreme Court said, it is the principle embodied in
    the Fourth Amendment that we must translate to the application
    of new technologies. And the principle there the court said in
    a 7-to-1 decision, I think it was Justice Stewart who wrote it,
    was that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy embodied
    in the Fourth Amendment, and we can determine what the
    reasonable expectation of privacy means in the context of the
    development of new technology.
        So how does that apply to the question of legislative
    voting in Congress? Well, when the development of computerized
    voting took place in Congress, all kinds of cries were heard by
    people saying this violates the Constitution because it didn't
    exist when the first Congress met. James Madison used his
    voice. The ayes and the nays, it was said, requires a voice
    vote and not pushing a green button or a red button.
        And one can see kind of the simplistic appeal of that
    argument. That is the way it was always done. But what really
    was the underlying constitutional value? It was the vindication
    of the voice of the Members representing the will of the
    people. And so even though it is true the first Congress didn't
    look up at the board to see green and red and even though it
    did alter the political dynamics, because in those days you had
    to hear, well, how does Mr. Roy vote or, before that, how does
    Mr. Biggs vote in alphabetical order.
        But you know what, there is nothing in the Constitution
    compelling the use of alphabetical order, and the real issue
    was the vindication of the will of the people as transmitted
    through the effectuation of the vote of the Member. And so the
    computerized voting took place, and the proxy voting took place
    during COVID.
        Now, I would argue that proxy voting actually effectuated
    the meaning of the Constitution all built into the first three
    words of the Constitution: We the people. Because the people's
    voice was enabled to be heard by virtue of the proxy voting
    that we developed.
        Because, otherwise, we know that there would have been
    legitimately here--and I will get to the question of the
    illegitimate uses of it, which I think is the real question--
    but legitimately we would have lost hundreds or thousands of
    votes representing the will of the people. And so we actually
    vindicated the constitutional design and the will of the people
    by implementing proxy voting.
        Now, so let me turn to that. And let me first say, I am
    pleased to hear a lot of consensus, I think, with the possible
    exception of Mr. Bost, that, on hearings, the use of Zoom
    technology and other such technologies was a very positive
    thing that we were able to actually incorporate the voices of a
    lot more Americans from all over the country, including the
    nonmainland, Hawaii and Alaska, and we were able to do that in
    a way that saved people money, that didn't require people to
    spend $1,000 or $2,000 to come to Washington. And it also had
    some positive environmental implications at least for, you
    know, those who believe that climate change is a problem.
        All right. So, on the hearing side, I think that there is a
    very strong consensus that we have done the right thing, and
    this is something that we should enable in the future. So the
    real question comes down to proxy voting on the floor. Now, let
    me start with this, if anybody has got standing to complain
    about proxy voting, I think it is me, okay. I live closer to
    the Capitol than any other Member of Congress with the
    exception, I think, of the nonvoting Delegate from the District
    of Columbia, okay.
        I have been the proxy voter, I have been the courier for
    hundreds and hundreds of proxies, and I will say this does
    qualitatively change the experience of the Member who has got
    to do it because it is like a second job. You are working all
    the time to make sure you are getting the proxy votes in, that
    you are scrupulously observing exactly what they have told you
    to do, and then you have to stand up, record all those votes,
    then you have got to go down and turn in the reds cards and the
    green cards and so on.
        But you know what, I was proud to do it. I have been proud
    to do it, because those people would otherwise not have been
    able to vote. And their constituents, millions of constituents,
    would not have had their will embodied and representative in
    the votes that took place.
        And you know what? I ended up using it just about 3 or 4
    weeks ago because I came down with COVID. Now, I was in the
    shocking position suddenly of asking somebody else to carry a
    proxy for me. I think I missed only 2 days; maybe it was 3
    days' worth of votes. I had a positive test. I didn't want to
    go in and infect anybody else, but I wanted my constituents to
    be heard, and I wanted to be heard on the things that were
    being done. So I think there the system worked.
        I think that Mr. Gallagher has put his finger on the
    question we need to deal with, which is, have there been abuses
    of this system? And we are not an investigative committee. We
    don't need to go into all of this, but I think it is some
    people's sense that there has been some slipperiness at the
    beginning of the week, at the end of the week. Although I will
    say, 4 out of the 7 days of the week are the weekend or Mondays
    or Fridays, so you would expect that there would be more use of
    it during that majority of the week when, you know, more of the
    time would be lost.
        But, setting that aside, let's say, I think we need to
    define very carefully what the principle is that we need to
    embody in our role. And, for me, and I appreciate the honest
    discussion about this, what I would say is that Members should
    be able to avail themselves of proxy voting if they have a
    compelling medical reason to do so or, I would say, a
    compelling family reason to do so.
        And, on that point, I will just say, as you guys know, my
    family experienced a catastrophe with the loss of my son. And I
    would say, at the very least, for dealing with a death or very
    serious illness in the family, Members should be able to meet
    their constitutional duties of representing their constituents
    and also meet their family needs.
        I think that that is a reasonable, legitimate, and
    compelling exercise of our power under Article I, section 5, to
    set the rules of our own proceedings. That is why the Supreme
    Court turned it over to us. That is why the courts stand back,
    because they say, under Article I, we have the power to define
    these rules.
        So we are going through right now, this moment, precisely
    the exercise I think that the Constitution contemplates for us:
    Where do we draw these lines? And for me, I would want to say
    that people should have to attest that they are using the proxy
    procedure for a compelling personal, medical, or family reason.
        And then, at that point, it is between that member and
    their constituents, and if they are lying about it, if they are
    out doing a fundraiser, if they are at a golf tournament or,
    you know, even if they are at a meeting at the White House, I
    am sorry, if you have to miss your legislative duties because
    of a meeting at the White House, you should be able to explain
    to your constituents why you were advancing the legislative
    agenda you were elected to come and serve, or you can explain
    it to the President, you have got to go vote. I think the
    President will understand.
        So, to my mind, it is just a question, Mr. Chairman, of how
    do we develop a system that implements a principle which is
    that Members should be able to avail themselves of a proxy if
    they have a compelling medical reason or a compelling family
    reason. And I think that not only will all the Members of
    Congress understand that because of our common humanity and our
    common citizenship, but I think all of our constituents will be
    able to understand that, and let's develop a system that would
    make that work. And that is my basic sense of it.
        Mr. Roy, I have invoked your name a couple times. I don't
    know if you have any response to my thoughts on it.
        Mr. Roy. I have a couple of observations, and I appreciate
    you giving me the opportunity. Number one, with respect to the
    search-and-seizure comparison, I would argue that that is the
    point. I mean, we can disagree on what ``presence'' means, and
    we could have a long discussion about that, but search and
    seizure is search and seizure. I mean, the fact that--and I
    understand there was a debate there and there was, again, that
    opinion. But search----
        Mr. Raskin. They said it was physical. That is what was so
    interesting. They said it has got to be physical.
        Mr. Roy. Fair, but at the end of the day, it is a question,
    but the principle was search and seizure. The principle was
    your ability to not have your conversations or your privacy
    invaded, et cetera. But, in this case, the principle is
    presence. And for me, if you go look--you know, the quorum,
    right, where they are saying attendance is compelled, right.
    Now, that is quorum. It is not specifically to the vote.
        But the Constitution is littered with ``presence,'' with
    ``seat,'' with being here. And so we can debate whether it is a
    good thing or a bad thing. We debate the use of technology. We
    can debate whether we should be able to vote from Austin,
    Texas, and I go push a button there in a secure mechanism,
    whatever--let's put aside the security question, which raises a
    whole other issue.
        But let's say you could do that by Zoom or otherwise, I
    think it would be a terrible idea. But I still think that
    violates presence, and that would be a debatable proposition,
    right. But I think when you make that kind of a change, that is
    a trajectory shift, in my opinion, when you are changing that
    in that kind of a direction.
        The second thing I would point out, and I do want to--I
    want to say this very carefully and with extraordinary
    admiration, you were here last January, and I admired you
    immensely for it, even though there were heightened
    disagreements on the political realities of the impeachment
    debate, and we had numerous conversations about all of that. I
    admired you enormously for your fortitude of being present in
    this building in January of last year. And I think that was a
    testament to the strength of what this body is supposed to mean
    by our doing our jobs and being physically present, and I say
    that carefully and with enormous respect.
        Mr. Raskin. Sure, Mr. Biggs, did you want to add something?
        And thank you, Mr. Roy, for that. I--well, it is a personal
    conversation. I am not----
        Mr. Roy. I understand.
        Mr. Raskin. Yeah. I am not sure about the implications for
    that in all cases, but I appreciate your saying that.
        Mr. Roy. Appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Mr. Biggs.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Raskin, for giving me just a
    moment. I think for me part of the problem is you focused on
    proxy voting. And I think where I am, and I think Mr. Roy
    probably is there too, that is very different than--you never
    get to the proxy voting question because you haven't resolved
    the quorum question. And until you resolve the quorum question,
    I don't think you can address the proxy voting question.
        And I don't think allowing people and just throwing it in a
    House resolution that, okay, we are going to deem you if you
    vote by proxy that you are physically present, I don't think
    that gets to the question of the constitutionality of how we
    are now defining quorum. I think that is where the shift really
    is taking place in how you are defining quorum.
        And once you have defined quorum and said, if were we to
    get there, and I think it is unconstitutional to say that a
    quorum consists of somebody who is not on site, not present,
    not meeting the myriad references to it or Article I, section
    5, which says a minority of the body can send someone to compel
    you to attend--have I been off the whole time?
        Mr. Roy. My staff said you weren't on anyhow.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. Let me start back over. I am just saying--
    --
        Mr. Perlmutter. That is why I came in here.
        Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Ed.
        So you see what my point is you have moved into the
    secondary question before you have resolved the Article 1,
    section 5, presence and quorum question. And I don't think that
    you can satisfy that by saying if you are not here and somebody
    else deems you to be here; I don't think that is
    constitutional.
        And that is--I think that is a different question, but I
    think--I don't think you ever can get to the proxy voting
    question until you have resolved that question, and I don't
    think you can resolve that question in favor of a proxy
    presence for quorum.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I think you are right. We have treated
    them as really the same question. You could bifurcate it and
    say--you could make the argument, perhaps you are making it,
    that, once you have established a physical quorum as
    traditionally understood, then you could have proxy voting at
    that point, or you could say you can't have proxy voting at
    that point.
        But, you know, there is a history to this that predates
    COVID-19, which relates to, what if there's a violent attack on
    the Capitol? We have seen one as recently as perhaps right now,
    I don't know, or January 6, you know, last year. You know, are
    there alternative quorum rules, and there have been some that,
    you know, have been adopted, you know.
        Yeah.
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah, thanks. I want to respond to that. A
    professor of law, David Forte, he has taken where you are
    going. I thought you might end up there. But his position would
    be you still have a major problem because of the parameters of
    the Constitution as it is set forth. If you want to change it,
    you would need to something akin to the 25th Amendment or
    something like that where you lay out a succession, emergency
    succession.
        Mr. Raskin. I gotcha. And, for me, it all comes back to
    Article I, section 5, that the Framers did endow Congress, each
    House of Congress itself with the power to write the rules
    unless it violates some extrinsic constitutional boundary. And
    that is like Powell vs. McCormack in 1969, where the Court said
    we are not going to admit a particular Member, and the Court
    said: Well, you can't do that because the constitutional
    qualifications are set forth specifically.
        But I don't think we have got some kind of explicit
    constitutional boundary that, you know, that restrains us in
    that way. But I under--that is an honest disagreement.
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah, we can continue this debate. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin. Yeah. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was
    actually enjoying that debate. So I know we were talking about
    constitutional issues. I am going to talk about more practical
    implications.
        But, before I do that, I want to, Mr. Chairman, ask for
    unanimous consent to enter in the record an article written by
    my good friend Matt Gaetz.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Or unanimous consent to enter that in
    the record. Thanks. I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Yeah, whatever you want.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. And I will reference that.
        Mr. Roy. Can I object to that? Because I think Matt
    disagrees with me on this point, but anyway, okay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, Mr. Roy, we are going to talk
    about this, so I will get to that.
        But, before I do that, I would also, Mr. Chairman, ask
    unanimous consent to enter the testimony of my other good
    friend Mr. William Timmons. He wasn't able to be here, but
    interesting take on how in-person meeting could actually
    increase civility, so, without objection, I would like to enter
    that.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks.
        So, getting back to the article by Mr. Gaetz, basically to
    over summarize this, to basically distill it down, he basically
    says it is not good for legislators to be here in Washington,
    D.C., lots of reason for that. The practical implications of
    proxy voting would lead to what Mr. Gaetz is advocating for,
    and that is for us never to come to Washington, D.C.
        And I remember a few years ago, you know, I am a big fan,
    Ben Shapiro said: Why do we even send Representatives to D.C.?
    Why don't we just vote from the district? And there is an
    inclination by people to jump to that default position. There
    are serious implications to us not being here. And I tell my
    constituents all the time, I say: Look, if I am not in
    Washington, D.C., you are not represented in Washington, D.C.,
    like your voice is not heard here.
        And it is just more than voting, because it is the face-to-
    face interactions. It is the advocacy in committee, in our
    conferences, et cetera. We have got to be here to effectively
    push legislation. And if we are not here, I have a big fear
    that all the power that the rank and file has will just
    gravitate to the leadership because leadership is here.
        Mr. Roy, do you have any thoughts on that practical
    implication?
        Mr. Roy. Yeah, I do. And, in fact, Matt or Mr. Gaetz and I
    have, you know, debated this quite a bit on the House floor and
    just in general. And I appreciate where he is coming from,
    right. I mean, I am fairly well known as a limited government
    conservative. I would just as soon we meet, you know, once a
    year for like 2 days and, you know, pass a balanced budget and
    get out of town and stop messing up America, right. That is my
    general world view about these things. And I don't say it
    flippantly, but I mean it is my general philosophical
    persuasion on it.
        But I also think--take very seriously the importance of our
    being here when we are conducting business. And we conduct more
    business than I would prefer we do, and we are engaged in a
    whole lot of things I wish we weren't, but we are. And I would
    think we need to be here and debate them, and I think we need
    to look at each other face to face. And I think that it is kind
    of flippant to say: Well, let's just stay back in our districts
    and vote.
        And I think it would totally shift power even further to a
    very small handful.
        I mean, again, since I think May of 2016--and I have said
    this on the floor; I think it is correct--we haven't been able
    to offer an amendment on the floor in open debate, and that is
    both leadership and control. And that is, I think, bad. I think
    that is bad for the institution. I think this is breaking down
    the ability for 435 Representatives to come here and have
    engagement and debate.
        And one last point on that, I would rather that we come in
    the beginning of a Congress and not leave for a while, much
    like a State legislative session, and sit here and do the core
    business of passing the budget and appropriations I prefer to a
    smaller amount and balanced amount, and then get--and then do
    whatever you are going to do and then space some time out. Go
    back home for a while. Then come back and do some oversight and
    offer some bills.
        But I would rather just come here for 3 or 4 months and
    let's do our job. We come in Monday. We have a fly-in vote. We
    have a couple of random rule votes for a couple of days. I
    don't even know what they are going to be half the time. And
    then we fly out Thursday night, and then we rinse and repeat.
    That is not, in my opinion, a very effective way for us to
    conduct business. Again, that is a bipartisan critique.
        The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I think I speak for all of us on this side.
    None of us associate ourselves with Mr. Gaetz'----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I find that totally shocking, Mr.
    Chairman, but noted.
        Mr. Biggs, you wanted to comment?
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah. Just, I will say that a lot of what you
    have heard from people who want to be here in person, it is
    lets--it allows us to cross the aisle and have bipartisan
    discussion. And that is true, but it also allows you to have
    intraparty discussions that are missing, quite frankly. And so,
    once we got back into person, you know, Judiciary Republicans,
    we can get together, same with OGR, whatever committee you are
    on you can get together, you could--and that makes just as much
    difference as me sitting 5 feet from you intraparty as
    anything.
        So I just think that if we are going to just basically get
    to Matt's point of view, Gaetz' point of view--which by the
    way, I actually had a constituent tell me when I was first
    running, he said: I will vote for you if you ever get a chance
    to never go back to D.C. and just vote out here and never go
    back to D.C.
        I said: Well, I will consider that.
        But the reality is I think we need to be here because this
    is a collaborative process.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Right, I couldn't agree more. And that,
    frankly--and, again, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Gaetz. We
    are friends. But that is the problem with proxy voting is that
    it leads to the extreme argument that we should just stay home
    and vote via proxy. And, again, all the power would gravitate
    toward leadership into and to an even larger extent the
    unelected bureaucracy and in the executive branch, because we
    are not doing oversight at that point if we are not here. But I
    am belaboring point.
        The other issue that it brings is that, within the
    conference, I know we were talking about bipartisanship, but
    within the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus, you
    would have a gravity shift to the larger delegations. What I
    mean by that: If you can't build relationships with people from
    various States, then what you would have is you would have all
    the leadership elections determined by, in our case, it would
    be Texas or Florida, and/or Florida, and on the Democratic
    side, it would be basically California and New York, because
    you would just vote as a delegation.
        So someone from a small--I am from the fifth largest State
    in population, but somebody from a small State would have zero
    shot of working his way--his or her way through leadership, and
    certainly they would not be well represented----
        Mr. Raskin. Like Steny Hoyer, for example.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. What is that, Mr. Raskin?
        Mr. Raskin. Like Steny Hoyer, for example.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes, exactly. Exactly. Thanks, Mr.
    Raskin.
        Do you have any thoughts on that and just the shift toward
    the larger States?
        Mr. Biggs. I think--oh, now I am on. I think you are
    exactly right. And I think it would--not only would you see the
    power go to those States, which are already there--I mean, we
    have got California in the top two spots anyway, but you would
    see it filter on down, I think.
        I don't know how the Democrats choose their chairmen and
    chairwomen, but I think you would see it filter down. And I
    think that you are right on the first point you made in your
    first question is that it would also arrogate power to the
    center or the leadership, so that would be a concern.
        Mr. Roy. Yeah, I agree. I don't have too much more to add.
    I mean, I don't think I have a whole lot of, you know,
    likelihood of moving up the leadership ranks regardless of
    whether it is through the Texas delegation channel or whether
    it is through the model you just described.
        Mr. Biggs. You never know.
        Mr. Roy. But what I would say is, I do think it changes the
    power balance. Like, I mean, again, getting back to the core
    question here, physical presence matters. We all get that. I
    mean, I appreciate--and I haven't opined much on the hearings,
    but there is a distinction between Members being present for
    hearings and markups versus witnesses being able to avail
    themselves of technology. I think that is a distinction.
        I think physical presence matters, not just because I see
    it through a constitutional lens, but because human interaction
    matters, being able to, you know--it is why texting is
    terrible. It is why social media is largely garbage. It is just
    that you break down that human interaction that I think is
    necessary for us to try to truly strengthen the Republic. And I
    think this is one of those consequences.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks.
        Mr. Ranking Member Bost, I have not ignored you. I have a
    whole line of questions for you, and I will be brief with it.
        Mr. Bost. I am not offended.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, I am glad you are not offended.
        Ranking Member Bost, would you like to talk about how
    remote proceedings have impacted your committee?
        Mr. Bost. Yeah. And you know what? Some of the speakers
    that spoke about the importance of actually giving someone the
    opportunity to give witness, and to your example, the President
    of Ukraine, great.
        But when we are going into a voting situation and
    technology is what it is, you have breakdown in the
    communication, you have a breakdown in the vote, you have rules
    that have been set forth but I have to, as my side of the
    aisle, remind them that the person is not present, there is not
    a good connection, trying--and then you are interrupting votes
    and you are doing all of this.
        And, quite often, it is even worse than the proxy, in the
    fact that you don't have to sign a paper to say, ``I am staying
    home and doing this because --.'' You are just doing it
    because. And that breaks down that ability.
        And also--and we don't want to take away the power of the
    chair of each committee to make the decisions on their own, but
    there needs to be a standard set that decides when it is that
    we need to meet in person, when we need to have a hybrid, when
    we need--as things start to slide away from the initial reason
    why we did it, and that was this pandemic.
        By moving in the way that we have, we have some committees
    that do this and some committees that do that, and it is the
    call of the chair. And because of that, Members become
    frustrated, on both sides of the aisle. And I just see a lot of
    problems and particularly with our committee with what we have
    tried to get back.
        Mr. Roy. Can I just add one point to that?
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. Which is, how many of us have had the situation
    where you have competing hearings, and, you know, especially in
    the height of all of this when it was happening? We are not
    forced to make the tough choices of deciding where I am
    physically going to be present.
        And so then you have people that have--you have two iPads
    up, and you are listening to one and you are only kind of half-
    listening, so you can go over and get a vote in on the other,
    because now it is sort of assumed that you are present for the
    hearing----
        Mr. Bost. Even though the rules say you can't do that.
        Mr. Roy. Right. But that is what--but people would do that.
        Mr. Bost. They would do that. I know.
        Mr. Roy. And you would see--and then the expectation--it
    goes back to that example of me sitting in Fredericksburg,
    where I am trying to figure out what to do.
        But yet there are Members that are going to vote; they are
    sitting at home doing whatever, or they are--and I don't mean
    to impugn any Members. But I am just saying----
        Mr. Bost. Writing a book.
        Mr. Roy [continuing]. It is a lot easier if you are just
    saying, ``Okay, I am out, I am going to do my thing, but I will
    just chime in and vote,'' as opposed to, ``I am going to
    physically be there and give up X in order to be there and
    vote.''
        And we are all here by choice, right? You guys didn't call
    me in as a witness. I am here because I think this is an
    important topic. And I have blown three meetings already. I
    have just blown through--and I am missing good brisket right
    now with the Texas lunch. But--anyway.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I hate to stand in the way between you
    and brisket, so, just briefly, I want to hit on en bloc,
    because Ranking Member Cole had mentioned it.
        Ranking Member Bost, I saw that you lit up at that point.
    Would you like to talk about how it has affected bills coming
    out of your committee in particular?
        Mr. Bost. Other than the fact that I would just agree with
    the previous speaker that en bloc--en bloc is something that we
    have done. It is done in other ways. But now, with this, it
    even confuses that more. You don't have, really, the chance to
    remove things from en bloc like we did whenever I first got
    here. We should have that.
        And whoever is in the majority and they have the power, it
    is going to move. But at least have the ability to remove
    things that might be detrimental to those--no matter what side
    you are on.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Chairman Biggs.
        Mr. Biggs. So I offer this solely because I am a contrarian
    in this sense. I don't think we should ever do an en bloc. I
    think we should have a recorded vote on every bill, every
    amendment. And the reason is because I think it is our
    responsibility to let the American people know what you are
    voting for and who is voting for it.
        I mean, the first rule change that I got to vote on in our
    conference, before I had even been sworn in, was whether we
    were going to go to a recorded vote on everything, no
    suspensions, a recorded vote. And when they came up and said,
    how are you going to vote on that? I said, you mean we don't
    have a recorded vote on everything? I was stunned. And I remain
    stunned by that.
        And, quite frankly, I think my constituency is--every time
    I mention that, they are baffled by it. And they want to know
    what we are doing, and they want to know what every bill is,
    and they want to see how I am voting on every bill. And I think
    that is really what this place is missing sorely, if you want
    to get trust back from the public.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks.
        And thank you for the generosity in time, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Before I yield to Mr. Perlmutter, let me just say, I think
    we all agree that presence is important, whether in committee
    hearings or on the floor. The question is, are there
    exceptions? You know, are there cases that should be considered
    in a way that, you know, where somebody could vote remotely?
    And I think that is kind of what we are trying to figure out
    here.
        But, no, I think in-person meetings and hearings and
    activity on the floor is very, very constructive and very, very
    productive and enables us to get things done. So I don't think
    that that is the question.
        The only thing that has been bothering me, Mr. Roy, is
    something you said. You were in Fredericksburg at a Starbucks,
    not Dunkin' Donuts? Because Dunkin' Donuts is the coffee of
    Massachusetts.
        And Mr. Reschenthaler, you know, only drinks Polar Seltzer,
    which is a Massachusetts product.
        But, anyway, I always bristle when I hear that.
        Anyway, Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks. Just a couple points.
        First, I think we should--and we have started sort of
    distilling this thing. I think we can break this down. You
    know, what do we do on the floor? Is proxy available? Could we
    actually do remote voting on the floor, or do you always have
    to be there? Okay. Second, what do we do in committee? Can you
    have remote voting? Do you have to be present? Can witnesses be
    remote? So, one, you have the floor; second, you have
    committee.
        Then, I think Mr. Hoyer did a great job in his testimony
    talking about, sort of, the electronic upgrades of--do we have
    to actually hand--you know, even traditionally--and we have
    always done it--you put the thing in the hopper. Can't you do
    that electronically?
        You know, in the courtroom, you always had to go deliver it
    by hand to the clerk of the court, but you don't have to do
    that anymore. But that was tradition. So do we allow technology
    to really take its place, or does that damage what we do here?
    And I don't think it does damage, but that is where this debate
    comes in.
        And then lastly would be, kind of, the witnesses. What do
    we do with witnesses, primarily, obviously, in committee?
        But I think we can kind of segment this. Me, I am going to
    be very laissez-faire about the whole thing, I mean, obviously.
    I don't think that Mr. McGovern needs to police me as to
    whether I should have stayed home or not and voted from my
    house or voted from wherever. You know, that is the people;
    they are the ones that police me. And I don't want to
    disenfranchise them.
        So that is where I am coming from. And, you know, quite
    frankly--and I appreciate, sort of, the comments about
    sacrifice and all that jazz. You know, I was here a year ago
    November. I caught COVID over Thanksgiving you know, I was
    here. Got it on Veterans Day. Had to stay here by myself. I was
    told, ``Get off the campus.''
        My stepson had caught it. They found it when he was going
    back to work in New York. My wife calls me and says, ``You
    better go get checked.'' I said, ``I am fine.'' ``No, go get
    checked.''
        I get checked, you know, downstairs. They call a few hours
    later--I am in Longworth--and they say, ``You have COVID.'' I
    said, ``That is''--unrepeatable here. I said, ``I don't have
    COVID.'' They said, ``Get off the campus.'' They said, ``Get
    off the campus now. You cannot remain here.''
        And I said, ``Okay, I will go to my apartment. Can I go
    home?'' ``No. You will quarantine in your apartment here for 10
    days,'' when I used proxy to be able to vote on a couple
    matters that we had come up before Thanksgiving.
        So it was that--it wasn't that I hadn't sacrificed, Mr.
    Roy. I was here. But I couldn't be here. But the fact that we
    had a mechanism in place that took into consideration both
    proxy and technology, I could represent my people. They didn't
    lose their vote. They didn't lose their voice.
        So I think this is--I guess I would--one thing you had
    suggested, Mr. Roy--and I appreciate this--is, you know--
    because we are trying in the Modernization Committee to figure
    out a better way to schedule things. You know, I have three
    committees going right now, you know.
        And how do young families operate? It is not, you know,
    that we are masochists here. ``Let's make it as hard for us as
    possible.'' That is silliness to me. You know, voting on every
    single amendment that may be agreed to, I think that is, you
    know--and I think you overstated your case a little bit there.
    I mean, I could understand the rest, but that, sort of, I don't
    get.
        But I remember one of the things that changed the dynamics
    in this place was back in 1994, not that I was here, but just
    reading the history. And, at that time, Representative Gingrich
    said about Democrats, ``They have gone Washington. They are in
    Washington too much.'' And, you know, to the point that Mr.
    Gaetz is trying to make, nobody should go to Washington,
    because potentially you change.
        And I think that that--because we are not here on weekends;
    we are not here to socialize--I think it did have an effect on
    how this place operates, just from my view of history.
        So, as much as I might agree with you on ``let's come in
    here and stay a block a time and just get stuff done,'' we are
    all going to be subject to this ``going Washington.'' I would,
    in the campaign, say it about you; you would say it about me.
        I do think it probably hurt the ability to collaborate, you
    know? Because where the friendships really develop are in
    passing, at dinner, you know, doing sports together, family
    outings together. Then you can't demonize the other person. And
    that is what you all are talking about, and I agree. The
    presence, it is harder to demonize somebody.
        The last thing I want to say is, I have just started
    thinking about Paul Bunyan, okay, and the steam engine. You
    know, Paul and Babe, you know, they are out there, they are
    chopping everything down, they can do it, and then this steam
    engine comes along. ``Well, I can beat that steam engine, and I
    will show you how strong and how tough I am'' and all that
    stuff. Well, the steam engine seemed to work, and it beat poor
    Paul Bunyan. And for us to deny the technology----
        Mrs. Fischbach. No, it didn't.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Well, in the Disney movie it did, by a
    quarter of an inch, 240 feet.
        Mrs. Fischbach. From my district, no.
        Mr. Perlmutter. But I just want to say, we can't deny
    technology that--and it may be that we aren't able to conduct
    business the way--by using technology, we can't conduct
    business. But I don't think we should deny the technology just
    because it makes our lives a little bit easier, that working--
    you know, that mom. You know, Linda Sanchez's testimony was
    just, I think, spot-on, you know?
        So, for me, I would open this up wide, and I wouldn't have
    any limitations. And the chairman and I have disagreed on this;
    Mr. Raskin and I; Mr. Reschenthaler and I. I am, like, just
    totally laissez-faire on this. Either we don't do any of it or
    we just open it up and let the people police whether I have
    been a good Representative or not, whether I have been their
    voice or not.
        With that, I will yield back to the chair.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Fischbach.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And Disney might have had it wrong. I don't know, but--you
    know. There is a big statue in my district that says that----
        Mr. Perlmutter. Of Paul Bunyan?
        Mrs. Fischbach. Of Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I guess I am sorry I brought him up.
        Mrs. Fischbach. I am just teasing you. And, you know, I
    have seen the Disney movie too. So I didn't mean to digress on
    that.
        But, Mr. Chair, before I start, I wanted to ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record a letter from Rick Allen and
    an additional letter from Mr. McCaul.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        You know, I will have to say that I was very disappointed
    that Mr. Hoyer couldn't stay--he gave his testimony--and so we
    are unable to have to discussion and ask him questions. And,
    you know, we have had many, many of our witnesses today stay a
    very long time and answer a lot of questions, and so it is
    disappointing that Mr. Hoyer did not.
        The Chairman. You could have objected.
        Mrs. Fischbach. You know what? I should have, now that I
    think about it.
        Mr. Perlmutter. In Mr. Hoyer's defense, he sat here for an
    hour before he was allowed to testify, so----
        Mrs. Fischbach. And, Mr. Chair, I understand that, and many
    of our other witnesses did too, so--and I do appreciate all the
    effort.
        But he did say a couple of things--Mr. Hoyer said a couple
    of things, and he had said that, you know, the proxy voting and
    some of the remote things had nothing to do with the
    partisanship. And you know what? Maybe, but it certainly didn't
    help. It does not help, when we don't have that person-to-
    person kind of interaction.
        And, you know, we are talking about Zooms, we are talking
    about those--but you know what? You miss that ``I can see your
    eyes,'' you know, ``I can see the look on your face.'' There is
    a lot missing when you don't have that interaction.
        And this is a collaborative business. This is something--
    you know, I think Mr. Cole told the story about how, you know,
    after he had withdrawn an amendment, he walked over and talked
    to another Member about it and explained it a little better.
    That kind of thing doesn't happen on Zoom.
        And, you know, I have talked a little bit, earlier on,
    about being a freshman. And you know what? As a freshman, you
    really miss that, because you don't have those established
    relationships. I don't have everybody's cell phone. I don't
    have someone, you know, I can pick up the phone, even if you
    are on a Zoom, and call them about something.
        And so I don't think it helps. I think--and I can't
    remember who--was it Mr. Perlmutter who said it is easier to
    demonize--or Mr. Raskin, I can't remember--it is easier to
    demonize them when you are not there. And I think that is very
    obvious. And I think that is much--that, I think, really,
    really adds to the partisanship. You are not there. You are
    not, you know, there with them, and so it is easier, much
    easier.
        I do think that Mr. Perlmutter was absolutely right when he
    talked about being in segments. Are we going to be allowing it
    in committee? Are we going--you know, because proxy voting, I
    believe, is probably the most egregious. And then how are you
    going to deal with, can you accept testimony? So I appreciate
    that you mentioned that.
        You know, someone used the example of the Zelenskyy
    presentation Zoom meeting that we had the other day. And I
    think that really had nothing to do with--that is just one of
    the wonderful things about technology. Yes, we can accept his
    speech by technology. It doesn't have anything to do with proxy
    voting or how we run a committee. We were able to hear from him
    remotely, and I think that is just simply an advantage we had
    from technology.
        But, you know, I have to just kind of reiterate the fact
    that, you know, the relationships that I have seen, you know,
    around the table--I believe it was Mr. Cole and Mr. Hoyer
    talked about what good friends they were--those were
    established because they were here, not because they saw each
    other on Zoom. They were established because they were able to
    meet with one another, talk to one another, shake hands in the
    morning, whatever the case may be. And I think that is what we
    are getting away from.
        And, you know, technology is a wonderful excuse, but we
    need to be here. We need to be here to talk to one another, to
    collaborate, to do the best we can for our constituents and for
    the country.
        And so I just have real strong concerns about moving to
    that direction. You know, as someone talks about just voting
    from our district--well, that is just--how do you offer an
    amendment if we are just voting--then we might as well just say
    everybody--you know, we will just put it all on the internet
    and everybody--and I know that there are some that might
    advocate for that, but just, you know, eliminate representation
    and just have everybody vote up or down on every bill. You
    know, the whole country, everybody gets a vote.
        And, like I said, some will advocate for that, but I think
    it becomes more and more difficult to be more bipartisan, to
    get things done, when we are not here, we are not here casting
    our vote for the people that we represent.
        And I would just like to ask either Mr. Biggs or Mr. Roy if
    they have anything they would like to add.
        Mr. Roy. I will just add, number one, because I haven't
    stated affirmatively how much I appreciate the Republican
    leader leading litigation to make this point. I think it was
    important. It didn't come out the way I wanted it to, in terms
    of the Supreme Court granting cert, but it was important for
    the leader to lead that lawsuit, and I want to thank him for
    that.
        And to the point just raised, I mean, at the end of the
    day, for me, this is--we have all said here, we agree, you
    know, human interaction matters, it is better, and so forth. I
    just think that, fundamentally, this breaks down the
    institution, if we go down this road. I have already
    established what I think in terms of the constitutional
    question. And we have talked ad nauseam about, I think, all of
    these points.
        But we want to bring to summation: We are going to
    undermine the whole idea of a republican form of government and
    sending Representatives to represent people and engage in the
    kind of discourse, debate that we are supposed to do, in my
    opinion, if you start breaking that down.
        I respect immensely, I think, the intellectual consistency
    of saying, well, kind of, either A or B and not trying to split
    the baby on this. But I think that there is a danger in opening
    that up wide, as the gentleman would do, in which, you know,
    kind of, let your constituents decide. Yeah, they will decide,
    but, in the process, you have empowered a handful to make
    decisions.
        And I would actually disagree about getting things done. I
    think lots would get done. I just think it will get done a very
    few number--a very few, powerful group of people with very
    little engagement by the whole body. And that, I think, would
    be ultimately the worst outcome, if you go down that road.
        Mr. Biggs. I just want to just address what Mr. Perlmutter
    was talking about, segmentation.
        I think we get back to the point that I am trying to make,
    maybe rather inarticulately, but that you have to deal with the
    quorum question as a constitutional question first. And then,
    once you have done that, then you can take it in segments if
    you will.
        But I just don't see how you can get to proxy voting and
    have that count as being in absentia and also being present for
    a quorum. And that is what we are doing when we are conflating
    proxy voting with a quorum. And, thus, I think that that is why
    proxy voting--that is one reason that proxy voting just seems
    incongruous with the constitutional Republic that we are today.
        Thank you. Thanks.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record
    statements from Representatives Plaskett, Velazquez, Waters,
    Johnson, Grijalva, Porter, and Ross.
        Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        The Chairman. Before I see if anyone else has any questions
    here, I just want to make the point, we--first of all, let's
    not pretend that COVID never happened. I mean, what brought
    this about was COVID, this terrible pandemic where people died.
    We didn't know how to handle it at the beginning, and we
    reacted in a way basically to protect Members and staff and
    everybody who works up here, the Capitol Police.
        And like a lot of things that were put into place in a
    whole variety of areas as a result of the pandemic, I think it
    is appropriate to kind of go back and say, okay, is any of this
    worth continuing? And if so, what? And if not, why not? I mean,
    that is what this discussion is about.
        And I just have to say--and, again, present company
    excluded--and I could exclude myself, because I have never
    voted by proxy. But when people start talking about how this
    has been an egregious, you know, breach, I just want to state
    for the record that 60 percent of Republicans have voted by
    proxy, including members of this committee.
        So this idea that somehow this is a terrible constitutional
    breach, that it is egregious, and then, you know, ``but don't
    pay attention to what I have done.''
        And I appreciate your consistency. I mean, I have missed
    votes----
        Mr. Biggs. Same here.
        The Chairman [continuing]. As a result. I went to the White
    House when the President announced his relaunch of the Moonshot
    to combat cancer in this country, and I wanted to go. And
    people were saying, ``Oh, you have to vote? You should vote by
    proxy.'' No, because it is not COVID-related. I mean, if I had
    COVID or if my kids had COVID or whatever, then there is a
    justification, in my view.
        But every Member has to make their own decision, right?
    Every Member has to decide whether or not this is the
    appropriate thing to do. I know you haven't. I haven't.
        But I just want to put this in context, because I don't
    want this to be viewed as the only people who utilized proxy
    voting were Democrats. That is just not the case.
        Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Roy. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I just say one thing on
    that?
        The Chairman. I will go to him and then to you.
        Mr. Roy. And I know we want to wrap up, and I don't want to
    belabor it.
        I appreciate your consistency on that, and I appreciate you
    having this hearing. And I would not defend any of my
    colleagues, either side of the aisle, who have questioned
    constitutionality or raised issues with this and then decided
    to go ahead and do it, particularly for reasons that are not
    COVID-related or might be for, I think, some dubious reasons,
    both sides of the aisle.
        The Chairman. No, I----
        The Chairman. Yeah, I----
        Mr. Roy. The only point I want to reiterate is the point--
    the example I made with my Fredericksburg example going to UVA,
    but that is true for everybody. Once you go down--this is
    important for this discussion. Once you go down the road, then
    it becomes easier to play games with the legislative schedule.
    It becomes easier to, say, force a late night vote, that if
    everyone who is voting by proxy, they are not worried about it
    because they are hanging out at home or they are wherever they
    are. And then there are people going, well, I am hosed. And
    then they have to decide, well, what am I going to do?
        And so some kind of flipped their position because this is
    now the rules of the game. Once you have changed the rules of
    the game--now, I would argue it is unconstitutional, so I am
    not going to change the rules. But there is some that were just
    like, well, God, I am beaten down, I am going to miss this
    vote, so I am going to go ahead vote that way. I just think
    there is----
        The Chairman. Yeah. And I guess the other point--and I will
    yield to Mr. Reschenthaler--is we are also--the vast majority
    of people are back. I have spent more time in this committee in
    the last couple of weeks with this wonderful family than I did
    with my own family. And when I go to the floor to vote, there
    is a ton of people, Democrats and Republicans, voting. Yeah,
    there are some people voting by proxy. But this notion that
    somehow we are not back, we are not coming back, and we now--I
    have seen the latest reports about how the whole complex is
    going to be more opened up.
        But it is not like there is nobody here. The overwhelming
    majority of people are back and are voting, are debating on the
    floor. And I can't speak for other committees. I can only speak
    for this committee, you know, but we are meeting in person. And
    I am grateful for that most of the time.
        But, anyway, Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, to
    preserve the record and also for intellectual honesty, look,
    again, I am one of the people that voted proxy----
        The Chairman. Oh, did you?
        Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. Which goes against it. Yes,
    I did it a few times. But I am still--I still preserve the
    right to oppose the rule on proxy voting, because once the
    rules are changed, we got to play by those rules. And if we
    don't, there is a huge advantage to the majority--well, in this
    case, the majority.
        But--so, for example, if we were not proxy voting, and we
    could not make it, we would likely give up a 10 percent
    advantage to the Democratic Party, because at any given time,
    roughly 10 percent of us are not here. With margins this thin,
    we should still be engaged in proxy voting, because if we
    don't, we negate any advantage we have.
        But I am going to belabor the point. I will yield back, but
    I just want to preserve that point.
        The Chairman. No. And I guess you made the point that
    winning is more important than constitutionality. I mean, if we
    could have followed that--I am just saying, what I said before
    about--you know, again, consistency is one thing. I mean, you
    have said it, you believe it is unconstitutional, and you have
    not utilized it. There are others who have said it is
    unconstitutional and have utilized it.
        I do think, for me, if I thought something was
    unconstitutional, I wouldn't do it. I--and everybody has their
    own comfort level here. But just for me, if I thought this was
    unconstitutional, I would never utilize it. I haven't utilized
    it because I haven't had COVID or I haven't had family members
    who have come down with COVID where it might make me a risk to
    all of you. But I am just talking about, you know, when we talk
    about this being egregious and people utilize it, I think, for
    me, it is a little bit of a disconnect.
        Yeah.
        Mr. Biggs. Well, I appreciate that you see it as a
    disconnect. And for me, I am very--I think I have been very
    consistent.
        The Chairman. I----
        Mr. Biggs. I missed maybe three votes because of not
    wanting to vote proxy. But never forget that the majority
    implemented that rule. And what happened is, as this developed
    on, there are people who have sincerely held views that this is
    unconstitutional.
        The Chairman. And I am not disputing that.
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah. But my point is, I don't think that we
    should disparage somebody's motivations.
        The Chairman. Yeah.
        Mr. Biggs. And that is exactly what I think is happening.
    And that is all I am saying.
        The Chairman. No. And I would just say one other thing too,
    just for the record, because I think it is important to get
    this on the record. When we debated this, I have a list of
    Republican Members a mile long who came to me and said you got
    to do this. We can't be with you, but you got to do this. And I
    will--I remain firm in the belief that what we did, I think,
    save lives here and allowed us to continue our work. That is
    where I come from on this. And so that is my principle on this.
        So, Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Just a couple of points. You know, I think
    to Mr. Reschenthaler, to Mr. Biggs, Roy, I think you are right,
    I think obviously the proxy benefits the majority. The majority
    is making the rules. And it benefits leadership. I don't think
    there is any disagreement there. Now, you know, how does that
    play out when we make a vote on the rules? You know, if you
    guys are in charge sometime, you may say, you know what, we
    want to do proxies. It depends.
        Now, on the constitutionality, just for the record, I got
    to say, having been part of, you know, drafting this rule and
    all that stuff, the fact that we do have to be here present at
    the beginning of the session, you know, which, you know, a year
    ago was chaotic and scary, but we had to be here, that is when
    you--that is when you set down the rules. And, ultimately, we
    had to be here again when we changed this rule.
        There is a quorum at that point. There is no issue about
    that. And we, in my opinion, and I think the Supreme Court
    would agree, I think that is why they didn't grant cert,
    because it is, in my opinion, it is pretty darn clear we have
    the right to write our own rules as we see fit.
        To your point, were there enough people? Yes, when we did
    the rule. And then it--the rules are such for the next 2 years,
    and then you have to vote again on the rules package at the
    beginning of the session.
        And, with that, I will yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I
    mean, the discussion has been great. I think we have all said
    it a million times.
        The Chairman. We will go to Mr. Roy first. Who was it?
        Mrs. Fischbach. Well, he was asking for----
        The Chairman. Okay. We will go to Mr. Roy, then Mrs.
    Fischbach.
        Mr. Roy. I was going to make two points. The first one I
    was going to make to the point that we are all back. I would
    note that 13 percent of the votes that have been cast since the
    State of the Union have been cast by proxy. And I don't believe
    13 percent of the body has been dealing with COVID, but I will
    let other people reserve judgment on that to say we are back.
    Okay.
        And then the second point is on this issue. To say that the
    quorum principle is transitive, that it translates from day one
    that you can then establish quorum essentially for the rest of
    the time----
        Mr. Perlmutter. But the rule is translated, and that is why
    you have the quorum.
        Mr. Roy. I don't believe--now, I would take issue with
    saying that the constitutional requirement for quorum to then
    conduct business is a one-time start of the Congress thing, and
    then you are done. I would take issue with that.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Perlmutter. [Inaudible.]
        The Chairman. Mrs. Fischbach.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. Chair, thank you.
        And I just wanted to point out that the--you know, the
    majority put this rule in place, good or bad. I mean, my
    understanding, and I wasn't here originally when it was put
    into place, but my understanding is no Republicans voted for
    it. And then when we voted on the rules again, that is the
    case.
        So the majority put this in place. And Mr. Perlmutter
    admitted it that this is an advantage to the majority. And I
    guess I am concerned about the rules being skewed one way or
    the other on purpose, but that is the case.
        And, Mr. McGovern, you say that, you know, it saves lives,
    it was good at the time----
        The Chairman. Yeah.
        Mrs. Fischbach [continuing]. It was everything, but now is
    the time to end it. And I think that is what we are getting at,
    is it needs to be stopped now.
        Potentially, there was a value in it during the pandemic,
    but we have the opportunity to end the proxy voting now, where
    whoever took advantage of it, didn't take advantage of it, but
    that is the question in front of us. And I do believe that we
    should be ending it and go back to the tradition of the
    institution, which is no proxy voting. And I mentioned it
    earlier, over 200 years, we have been--that has been the way it
    has been done.
        The Chairman. Before you go, just to make sure, is there
    anybody else on the Democratic side who wants to ask a
    question--I don't see anybody.
        Mr. Roy. My son Charlie hopes not.
        The Chairman. No, but wait a minute. Dr. Burgess does.
        Dr. Burgess. I am just worried that someone will invoke Mr.
    Udall again, so I won't say anything.
        The Chairman. All right. So you are free to go. Thank you.
        All right. So our next panel is Representative DeSaulnier,
    Representative Takano, Representative Rose, and Representative
    Westerman.
        So, Mr. DeSaulnier, you are on.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK DESAULNIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Chairman, so nice to see you. Seems
    like just yesterday we were in Worcester.
        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in
    front of this most esteemed committee of the House of
    Representatives.
        As someone who lives with a chronic form of cancer that is
    manageable but uncurable, I am immunocompromised. I am not
    alone. Throughout the United States, there are 7 million people
    who are considered immunocompromised.
        From the start of this pandemic, the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention made it clear that people like myself
    were at increased risk of contracting coronavirus and having
    worse health outcomes. In more places across the country,
    people with health conditions have been adjusting to make sure
    they can continue to work on maintaining their safety. That is
    exactly what Congress and our leadership did when it authorized
    proxy voting and remote committee participation.
        Because of my leukemia and a freak accident I had coming
    back from a run on National Mall years ago, that landed me in
    George Washington University ICU on a ventilator, my doctors
    told me early on in the pandemic that it was unsafe for me to
    travel on a plane, gather in the crowded House Chamber, and
    attend committee meetings, especially in a very small Rules
    Committee hearing room.
        Proxy voting and remote committee proceedings allowed me to
    safely represent the people of California's 11th District while
    not risking my own life. Proxy voting works. It is a low-tech
    option that is easy to use, and it has allowed my constituents
    to have a voice on the House floor when I was unable to
    physically be present.
        Remote committee proceedings ensured I could continue
    serving on Rules and three other House committees I sit on
    while safely teleworking. While I and my family are happy to
    report that I am healthy and the treatment I take for my
    leukemia is working, I will say thankfully much of that
    treatment, as the taxpayers' investment, that has been
    supported by Members in Congress in bipartisan fashion.
        The threat from this virus is not over. Members continue to
    test positive. There were at least four last week. Allowing for
    proxy voting demonstrates to the American people that we take
    the advice of public health experts seriously and can continue
    to work on behalf of the country without putting other people's
    lives at risk.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Cole.
    And I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. DeSaulnier follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Representative Takano.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern, Chairman
    McGovern, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
    the committee on the subject matter at hand.
        I will just try to cut short some of my introductory
    remarks and just get straight to what--what I have observed
    with the new House procedures. And there is four points I would
    like to make today.
        First, the House rules should allow committees to take
    remote testimony from witnesses as the standard part of our
    proceedings. Prior to hybrid and virtual hearings, too often
    committees often only heard from witnesses who had the ability
    and resources to travel to Washington, D.C. I have a small
    travel budget. I could pay for some witnesses to get here, but
    certainly not on the kind of basis that we began to do when we
    changed the rules.
        Allowing witnesses to appear virtually means that we can
    gather a much greater amount of diversity of opinions and
    experiences and, therefore, gain a more complete understanding
    of the issues. Virtual hearings allowed us--allowed my
    committee to hear from many more veteran organizations,
    representing minority, women, Native, LGBTQ+, and other veteran
    communities, some of whom would not have been able to join in
    person.
        As an example, one compelling witness we met at our
    roundtable on veterans and the digital divide. The witness is a
    double amputee, living in very rural Montana. He told us that
    to testify in Washington, that would require him--he would be
    required to catch a once-a-day Amtrak, travel 2 hours to the
    nearest airport thereafter, and then catch two flights to
    Washington, D.C.
        This is the type of American that we need to continue to
    hear from, and it is my hope that we can allow virtual
    testimony in the future in order to open the door to diverse
    voices here. The pandemic taught us that we can use technology
    to bring the government closer to the people.
        Second, the pandemic forced us to modernize some antiquated
    House practices that we should continue. For instance,
    introducing bills, adding cosponsors, filing committee reports,
    signing letters, and other official actions were rightly made
    an electronic exercise during the past 2 years. As Members, we
    may not have noticed the change, but these updated procedures
    have saved many hours of work for our staff and should be
    continued and improved upon.
        Third, Congress must strengthen its technological ability
    to handle virtual hearings. We must acknowledge the hard work
    and long hours performed by the House Information Technology
    and Recording Studio staff, as well as committee and personal
    office staff to support these events and determine the best
    systems to use under stressful times.
        However, even after 2 years, we have not worked out all of
    the kinks. Committee rooms still do not have the technology
    that we need to avoid issues as basic as sound quality and
    reliable connectivity. We still use workarounds to ensure that
    we can integrate in-person and remote participation to attempt
    to hold seamless proceedings. We need support staff and
    resources devoted to the virtual aspects of our work for the
    long-term. Technology contracts should be both robust and
    flexible and should account for necessary support for these--
    for remote hearings.
        I might just add that I am hopeful that the bipartisan
    infrastructure bill, which provides funding for rural areas and
    underserved urban areas in terms of broadband, is also partly
    the solution to make sure that there are connections from
    throughout the country that are going to be reliable and
    secure, allowing various parts of our country, diverse parts of
    our country, to be able to participate in what goes on here in
    Washington. So the House should continuously evaluate the
    technology options available so that we can test--that we may
    best meet our responsibilities to the American people.
        Fourth, we should ensure the House rules clearly address
    lessons for--that we have learned for holding virtual hearings.
    There is a need for more guidance and training for Members and
    staff on how to successfully hold virtual markups and hearings,
    as well as additional guidance on the enforcement of decorum.
    At the very least, we must be prepared for the next emergency
    that forces Congress to work virtually, and there will be
    another emergency. This is not a matter of if but when a major
    natural or human-made disaster strikes.
        I believe my committee's experience has shown that remote
    proceedings can be successful, and there is also additional
    work to be done. And I look forward to continuing to engage
    with this committee on that effort.
        I just might, on a final note, just--I was just looking on
    this issue of the quorum and proxy voting, and probably the
    hours of testimony that preceded me, you probably already
    covered the sort of experience in 1918 and the pandemic and the
    idea that we had a quorum of 50. And there was hope then that
    somebody would not object to the absence of a quorum. But the
    government actually ran on 50 votes. And so it seems to me an
    absolutist reading of some parts of our Constitution--the parts
    of our Constitution address the presence of a quorum.
        I mean, I don't know how much more democratic it is; if 50
    people were running the government, then all 435 of us being
    able to participate because of proxy voting. That is my final
    reflection, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Takano follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rose, Representative Rose, welcome back.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN W. ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mr. Rose. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman McGovern, and Ranking Member Cole, and
    members of the committee, for allowing me to provide testimony
    on proxy voting and remote committee proceedings as established
    by the House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress and renewed
    in the 117th Congress due to the public health emergency
    established in 2020.
        Since May of 2020 when the House Resolution 965 was passed,
    thousands of votes have been cast in committees and in the
    House Chamber without ever being--without Members being
    physically present. Unfortunately, Members were allowed no
    alternative to remote committee proceedings, but we were
    allowed to choose whether or not to participate in proxy voting
    in the House.
        To this day, I am proud to have been one of, by my count,
    56 Members of the House who have, in my opinion, not abdicated
    their constitutional duty to represent their constituents by
    participating in proxy voting.
        There are many reasons for this. First, and most
    importantly, failing to vote on important legislative matters
    in person would be failing my constituents that elected me and
    trusted me to serve their best interest in Congress. My
    constituents wake up every morning and go to work on the farm
    to feed our families, in the classroom to teach our children,
    into the police station to serve and protect our communities,
    or into the factory to make the things we use in our everyday
    lives.
        They should rightfully expect the same from me and all
    Members of Congress. When we don't meet those expectations,
    when we don't lead by example, we lose the moral authority to
    lead our country during one of the most perilous times in our
    history when such leadership is most direly needed.
        Second, oftentimes, there are important discussions,
    debates, and procedures that happen in the Chamber.
    Constituents whose Members vote by proxy and, thus, do not have
    their Representative present in the Chamber, lose out on those
    thoughtful discussions and debates that can sway opinions or
    change legislation.
        While the world is becoming more connected than ever with
    this constant streaming of ideas and information on the
    internet, its people are actually becoming more detached from
    reality as we spend more time on our phones than we do with
    real people. This has almost assuredly been at least a
    contributing factor to the rise of raw partisanship we see in
    the Congress today, where toxicity amongst political ideas or
    ideologies has become the norm.
        One simple way to combat this is by meeting face-to-face
    and actually listening to one another's ideas. Of course, we
    may choose to disagree on particular issues, but it is easier
    to understand and to respect from where the other side may be
    coming by simply having those face-to-face conversations.
        I have found that respect and affinity for one another is
    almost always enhanced from a positive face-to-face human
    interaction. Unfortunately, we seem to have fewer and fewer of
    these opportunities today, and proxy voting only exacerbates
    the situation.
        Last, the rule on establishing proxy voting and remote
    committee procedures was implemented during a time when our
    strategy was to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on
    healthcare providers. We put our trust in public health
    officials and locked ourselves inside our homes for 15 days to
    slow the spread, or flatten the curve as some said.
        Commercial flights ground to a halt, and lodging was nearly
    impossible to find as governments imposed restrictive measures
    to limit private businesses from offering services, in a
    countrywide effort to mitigate the health effects COVID would
    have in the short run of the pandemic.
        This, obviously, made it difficult for Members to travel to
    Washington, D.C., hold hearings, and conduct additional
    official business, as it would have flown in the face of our
    public health officials. But those days are long over. There
    are no more excuses or mandates. As the resolution makes clear,
    the only purpose of proxy voting should be due to the ongoing
    health emergency, which no longer exists, in my opinion.
        Members bring no honor to themselves or to this institution
    when a foregone public health emergency is used as the
    reasoning for them not casting their votes in person. At the
    end of the day, Members of Congress have a constitutional duty
    to represent their constituents. While we can differ in our
    opinions as exactly what is required of us to satisfy those
    constitutional responsibilities, we are all sworn to uphold--
    and surely, surely we can agree that there is merit and honor
    in striving to optimize, not merely meet those obligations.
        By continuing to proxy vote after any national health
    emergency has obviously dissipated, the quality of our
    representation of our constituents is to one degree or the
    other diminished. The pandemic has brought much heartache on
    our constituents and our country. The least we can do is make
    our best effort to represent them as effectively as possible.
    And to do that, the requirement for in-house voting and the
    face-to-face Member interaction that accomplishes such--
    accompanies such is an essential component.
        I hope the committee takes into account these reasons for
    why I have chosen not to participate in proxy voting, and will
    finally mark the end of this emergency procedure that may never
    have been appropriate but that has certainly outlived any
    legitimacy it may have ever had.
        Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the
    committee.
        [The statement of Mr. Rose follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Representative Westerman.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chair McGovern and members the
    committee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on
    the impacts of remote committee proceedings.
        You know, the word ``Congress'' means the act of coming
    together or meeting, and that is what I believe this body
    should reflect.
        Mr. Chairman, I have not voted by proxy or remotely from
    outside of D.C., even on committee markups. And although I have
    strong convictions about voting in person, I want to focus my
    remarks today on why I believe remote committee meetings are
    detrimental to our Congress and why virtual is not the best way
    to come together or to meet.
        In June of 2021, the House Committee on Natural Resources
    held its first hybrid full committee hearing, where we received
    testimony from Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland. At that
    time, I expressed my frustration that it had taken 6 months for
    our committee to hold an in-person hearing. Little did I know
    then that meeting would be our only in-person full committee
    meeting of the 117th Congress to date.
        Simply put, I believe the persistence of remote proceedings
    has made our committee and this institution less civil toward
    our colleagues and witnesses, less efficient and effective as a
    deliberative body and, ultimately, less able to serve the
    constituents we were all elected to represent.
        I never thought I would have to say this, but committee
    proceedings are not a time to shave your face or brush your
    teeth, and they are certainly not a time to change your pants,
    but I have seen it all on remote proceedings. Sometimes I wish
    I could unsee things, but I simply can't.
        While my Democratic colleagues may not always agree with
    the positions of our Republican Members, just as I don't always
    agree with our Democratic Members, our committee rules exist
    for an open, fair, and respectful debate of pressing issues.
    Unfortunately, in our committee, Members of the Democratic
    majority have found new ways to circumvent our rules and weigh
    in without saying a word, constructing tinfoil hats that they
    probably wear on the nonpublic back end while our Republican
    colleagues are speaking.
        The disrespect in our committee is not limited to
    interaction between Members either. We have had Members of our
    Democratic majority make fun of witnesses for their attire, lie
    in bed, and order and eat their lunch while witnesses are
    offering testimony. I can only imagine the disrespect the
    witnesses who have worked days and nights to prepare the
    testimony they are presenting before our committee, that
    disrespect that they must feel when they see these kinds of
    actions from Members of Congress.
        Conversely, we have also had Members deprived of their
    ability to engage and question witnesses. When witnesses choose
    to log off from committee proceedings before adjournment,
    Members lose the opportunity to benefit from the expertise of
    the witnesses. Unfortunately, in some instances, early witness
    departure has been due to technical difficulties. Other times,
    it was a calculated action to avoid questions that challenged
    their testimony or were contrary to their own world view.
    Regardless, it is an unfortunate outcome that could be easily
    remedied by a return to in-person proceedings.
        A virtual format also deprives Members of full
    participation in committee hearings. Looking at a computer
    screen of faces is not the same as being in a room together. In
    addition, the value of personal interaction with our
    colleagues. We have had Republican Members denied recognition
    to speak because the chair could not hear them over background
    noise or because of technical difficulties on the chair's end.
    Now, this is just in the Natural Resources Committee. I also
    serve on the Transportation Committee.
        Representative Bost talked about people voting in their
    swim trunks on the lake. We have seen all kinds of things in
    the Transportation Infrastructure Committee that I don't
    believe are becoming of what Congress should be about.
        Recently, in our committee, a subcommittee hearing was
    delayed because the Democratic subcommittee chair was precluded
    by Democrat staff from participating in person from the
    committee room. The hearing was noticed as remote and,
    therefore, the staff would not turn on the AV equipment in the
    room, and the chair was forced to run back to his office and
    log on to his computer alone. While he relocated, the entire
    subcommittee proceeding was held in limbo.
        While the Natural Resources Committee hearing room has been
    open upon request for the use during committee proceedings this
    Congress, I must bring my laptop and earbuds to participate as
    our proceedings have been remote, and the majority will not
    turn on the microphones or the AV equipment in the hearing
    room. Members who show up in person are forced to be on their
    computers, even though our hearing room is one of the most
    technologically advanced rooms within the House office
    buildings.
        This is the challenge the subcommittee chair encountered
    when he mistakenly thought he could conduct his hearing from
    the hearing room. He didn't have his laptop, and the committee
    refused to move to a hybrid format.
        American taxpayers did not equip Congress with offices and
    technology for it not to be available or to be used. At times,
    Members have even lost the ability to have their votes counted
    accurately, or counted at all, as the clerk tries to align
    videos with voices on the Brady Bunch screen in the room.
        With all these antics, I worry that some Members and
    witnesses have stopped taking congressional committee business
    seriously. We see this every meeting when Members are seen
    laughing on long phone calls, playing musical instruments, and
    making meals, unmuting only to vote and change their votes when
    they learn that the measure--that what the measure was that we
    were considering was not the one they were voting on.
        A colleague made it through a whole opening statement for
    the wrong hearing, one she had already given, before realizing
    a mistake. Our ability to legislate is at stake. It appears
    that remote proceedings have allowed Members to treat
    legislating like a device they can turn on and off instead of a
    job they have been elected to do with their constituents.
        Congress is not, nor has it ever been, a virtual body, and
    we cannot simply turn off our responsibilities to our
    constituents. During a time of global unrest, skyrocketing gas
    prices, energy and security dependence on rogue nations for our
    minerals, and historic wildfires and drought, the Natural
    Resources Committee has serious work to do.
        Virtual legislation, I believe, has gone on long enough.
    The American people cannot wait until gas hits $6 a gallon
    before we decide to come back and get to work. This country is
    open for business, and Congress should be as well.
        There has been a lot of discussion, as I have listened in,
    about technology, how we should embrace it and how we should
    use it. And I think there is a format for that. I think we can
    have roundtables that aren't formal committee hearings where we
    do that virtually, and people don't have to have the expenses
    of flying here to D.C., and we can embrace technology. But I
    believe when it is an official, formal meeting of Congress,
    that we should do that in person.
        And I really appreciate you taking time to consider this
    issue. It was not something that I expected to happen, and was
    pleased to have the opportunity to come and voice my concerns.
    With that, I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I thank you all for your testimony and your patience here
    today.
        Again, I just want to kind of put all this in perspective.
    I mean, these procedures were brought forward in the middle--in
    the beginning of this pandemic. And I continue to believe that
    what we did saved lives. I think it was a responsible thing to
    do. The point of this hearing is to look at all the things that
    we have done, not just here in Congress, but things that we
    have done to help programs become more efficient. You know,
    what should be kept and what shouldn't? And is it all, or is it
    nothing, or is it a piece of this? And that is what we are
    looking at.
        And so we still have a national health emergency, whether
    we all--hopefully, it is going in the right direction. We have
    an average of a thousand people a day dying of COVID. Yesterday
    was 2,000. I hope the trends continue to go down, but that is
    just the reality.
        We heard from Mr. DeSaulnier, his unique set of
    circumstances. And, you know, we value his ability to
    participate in this committee and to be able to represent his
    constituents back in California. And so I think there are--the
    question is, are there exceptions here?
        In terms of the decorum on hearings, I can't speak for
    every committee--I mean, I am only on this committee--but, you
    know, we don't deny the minority access to this room or we
    don't shut down the audiovisual equipment, although one time we
    had the air-conditioning on too high in the winter, and
    everybody was getting cold. But other than that, it wasn't
    intentional.
        But the point of the matter is there are rules, believe it
    or not, that accompanied the measures that we took here,
    including rules about decorum. And to be honest with you, all
    the chairs should insist that those rules be enforced. And I
    think if they are not, you have every right to complain.
        I think Members remotely, for example, must conform to the
    same standards for proper attire as required to participate in
    a committee proceeding in person. I mean, I just want to--I am
    not going to read all of them here, but there are standards
    here that are supposed to be followed. If they are not, it is
    perfectly appropriate to call it out. And we need to reflect on
    that, as we move forward, to say it. How do we make sure
    everybody follows the rules that were there?
        As far as somebody changing their pants in the middle of a
    hearing, that is a new one. We haven't seen that in this
    committee yet, and I hope we never do.
        But I just point that out to you because these rules were
    put in place for the safety of all those who work up here and
    making sure that we had the ability to get our work done. If
    the rules aren't being followed, if certain committees are not
    adhering to the basic rules of decorum, then we should have a
    discussion about that as well.
        So, again, I appreciate your testimony. And I am--and,
    again, we heard a lot of different ideas today, and we
    certainly value your contribution here.
        Did you want to----
        Mr. Rose. No.
        The Chairman. Oh, okay. You were just--okay. I am going to
    yield to Dr. Burgess.
        Dr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Takano, it is a little bit off topic, can I ask you,
    are the men and women who work at the Department of Veterans
    Affairs working remotely or are they back in the building?
        Mr. Takano. I don't know how to answer that. I mean, I have
    not been over there recently. And time--you know, things change
    very quickly. I mean, I have--so the answer is I don't know.
        Dr. Burgess. You know, it strikes me, and it has been a
    problem for sometime; it is not just during the pandemic and
    with remote working, but getting questions answered by veterans
    from the Department of Veterans Affairs takes a long time. And
    I don't know if you have done any oversight hearings as to has
    this problem increased with remote working at the Department?
        Mr. Takano. Just off the top of my head, I mean, I have to
    get back with you on that question. We have done some
    oversight. We have concerns about there has been a backlog of
    claims processing and because of the way exams get done and,
    yeah, the comp and pen exams. So there was a lot of issues
    there that I am not prepared to answer that question, but I
    will definitely get back to you about that, Dr. Burgess.
        Dr. Burgess. And I didn't mean to put you on the spot. It
    is--my office in the Rayburn Building is right across from the
    Hubert Humphrey Building. I don't think there has been a light
    on in that building for 2 years. I mean, it is working from
    home.
        I get the impression that the CDC is the same way. I feel
    like the FDA in a lot of instances is not onsite and working.
    Again, I know the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is
    not in. It seems like it has lengthened the time that our
    constituents are required to get an answer to their questions.
        And the only reason I bring that up is we can't very well
    ask the men and women of the Health and Human Services,
    Department of Energy to go back into their buildings and get to
    work if we are not willing to abide by that ourselves. So there
    is a real downstream consequence of not recognizing that
    whatever was necessary to get us through the pandemic is now in
    the rearview mirror. Mrs. Fischbach outlined it very eloquently
    in the last panel, but we need to recognize it is in the
    rearview mirror and get back to work.
        This morning, our Doctors Caucus had a briefing with the
    head of the--the Director of the CDC, and I was grateful that
    she came on. It was an important opportunity for us to exchange
    ideas. Unfortunately, because of technology, the first 15
    minutes were kind of lost. And that is the reason I was late to
    get to this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        But what came up in that briefing was concern about the
    loss of credibility that our Federal agencies have, in the
    CDC's case, because of conflicting information. And Mr. Hoyer
    tells us, well, everything was necessary over here, done with
    CDC guidance for mandatory masking, and yet at the same time,
    the Senate didn't. And so the public looks at that and says,
    this doesn't add up. This is not consistent. We don't know
    whether to believe what is coming out of our Federal agencies,
    our public health agencies. We don't know whether to believe
    that or not.
        And so then when they are confronted with losing their job
    because they don't do a vaccine, when the Federal Government
    says they have to, even though the Federal Government doesn't
    have the authority to do that, they get rightly frustrated, and
    oftentimes they take that frustration out on their Member of
    Congress. I am sure many of you have felt it as well.
        But, Mr. Rose, let me just ask you, is this your first trip
    up here?
        Mr. Rose, My first trip to Rules?
        Dr. Burgess. Yes.
        Mr. Rose. Yes.
        Dr. Burgess. Well, welcome. I thought it was. And, usually,
    we acknowledge a Member's first visit to this--to the Rules
    Committee. And welcome. We hope it is a first of many, now that
    you know where we are.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you.
        Dr. Burgess. Don't make yourself so scarce.
        The Chairman. Do you need to----
        Mr. Takano. May I be excused?
        The Chairman. Anybody need to question him?
        Mrs. Fischbach. Oh, I am so tempted, Mr. Chairman. I will
    not object. I will not object. He can go.
        Dr. Burgess. Yes, thank you for your participation. Thanks
    for answering my questions.
        Again, Mr. Rose, welcome to the Rules Committee. It is a--
    as you can see, we are an unheralded but extremely important
    part of the function of this Congress.
        And, Mr. Westerman, I appreciate your comments. We heard
    from Mr. Cole when he was here how markups in the
    Appropriations Committee were done as--as markups were done in
    person. And I think that is important.
        Man, we have had all these reconciliation bills, the
    infrastructure bill, all this stuff that came through
    committees where--that I serve on as well, jurisdiction Energy
    and Commerce, jurisdiction on the Budget Committee. But the
    first actual hearing was here in the Rules Committee. And
    oftentimes, it is a bill that spent $1.8 trillion or $1.9
    trillion.
        But what I have noticed in the virtual markups is, because
    of the sake of expediency, the staff gets a lot of control.
    Committee staff gets a lot of control over how those markups
    are conducted, what amendments are going to be heard, what
    amendments are going to be made in order, which ones are going
    to be allowed to come to a recorded vote. And the structure of
    the hearing is changed because it is a virtual--a markup,
    rather, is changed because it is a virtual markup. And I just
    wondered if you had any experience with that in your committee.
        Mr. Westerman. Yeah. And I know it varies highly across
    committees, which I don't think it should be that way. If we
    are going to have rules, they should apply across the
    committees on the decorum and the way the hearings are held.
        I mentioned I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee. Those, you can go to the meeting room, you can use
    the audiovisual equipment, the microphones are there. It is
    much better. Although, there is a large screen with a lot of
    squares on it with people who are coming remotely.
        The Natural Resources Committee, you literally have to take
    your laptop in, put earbuds in and--so that you are not
    disturbing other people with the sound coming across your
    computer.
        Dr. Burgess. Well, if I may, taking testimony in a hearing
    is one thing, but an actual markup where you are preparing the
    legislation then to come to us in a Rules Committee, an actual
    markup is different. And it is harder to do that remotely, at
    least that has been my observation.
        I was actually relieved to hear Chairman Cole--I am sorry,
    Ranking Member Cole--say that in the Appropriations Committee,
    they actually had in-person--not virtual but in-person markups.
    I found the virtual markups in Energy and Commerce to be
    cumbersome. In the Budget Committee, they were hopeless.
        And, again, you abdicate a lot of our input, our authority
    as Members of Congress, elected Members of Congress. And,
    obviously, it goes somewhere. Nature abhors a vacuum. So staff
    takes on that role and decides which amendments are going to be
    heard, which amendments are going to be allowed to have a vote,
    in the name of expediency, to get things to go, because these
    things are cumbersome sometimes and take a lot of time. The
    actual participation is sacrificed. I just wondered if you have
    experienced that in yours.
        Mr. Westerman. Absolutely. And I think--you know, I like
    coming to the Rules Committee because you all are in-person,
    because I can look around the room and see facial expressions,
    and it is a much better way to----
        Mr. Perlmutter. Gestures.
        Mr. Westerman. Gestures, yeah.
        Dr. Burgess. Strike that from the record.
        Mr. Westerman. But it allows that interaction. And one
    thing I have noticed having--you know, obviously been through a
    lot of committee hearings that were in person, is that the
    virtual hearings interrupt the dialogue. You know, a lot of
    times one member will be talking, and they may refer to another
    member, and somebody would say, would the gentleman yield, and
    you have a little bit of a dialogue. And it makes--I think it
    brings a lot more to the meeting. But if you are virtually and
    somebody interrupts to ask somebody else to yield, it just
    throws the whole meeting off.
        And then you get to all the connectivity issues. Especially
    on markups. You know, anytime, I believe, when we are voting, I
    would hope we would do that in person and not--I hope we move
    back to in-person meetings.
        Dr. Burgess. Yeah, I do too. And I appreciate your
    participation, Mr. Rose, your participation.
        I will yield back to the chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I just want to--Mr. Westerman, you had mentioned that
    the only in-person Natural Resources hearing was with Secretary
    Haaland. And, you know, people were actually watching this
    hearing, and apparently at that hearing, it turns out there was
    a member who was COVID positive, who refused to wear a mask,
    and Chairman Grijalva, who is in several high-risk categories,
    caught COVID. So I guess I can understand why they didn't
    continue meeting in person. But, anyway, I just wanted to point
    that out for the record.
        I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Just quickly, I want to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, I want to thank staff, both sides. I mean, we were in
    an emergency, and we needed to protect the Members, the staff,
    all of the witnesses, given COVID, and what we knew and what we
    didn't know about COVID. And the doctor--you know, we were
    learning on the go dealing with COVID.
        So I just want to thank everybody for allowing the
    government to continue, for us to be able to continue to
    operate, do it in a way that was safe, clearly not perfect, but
    it was an emergency.
        And at the end of the day, Mr. Rose can agree with me or
    disagree with me on that, but in Financial Services, it was
    really--we were stumbling for a while, but then we learned how
    to do it. And it is a big committee. And, you know, it would be
    Perlmutter votes whatever. And, you know, we learned that you
    got to call twice because somebody might fumble a little bit.
    And, you know, by the end, we can do this thing pretty quickly
    and pretty efficiently coming through an emergency.
        So I felt the rule, at the time, and I expressed this at
    the time, was too limited. I felt it should be more expansive,
    not limited to just COVID-related things. But, in the end, what
    we did was we allowed the government to continue and people to
    be safe with a virus that none of us understood, and it turned
    out to be pretty darn dangerous.
        Second thing I wanted to say was, for me--and there is
    other philosophies--but for me, the ability to allow my staff
    and others to work remotely, to testify remotely, whatever, if
    they do the job, I am okay. They don't have to be here. I don't
    have to see them. I don't--you know, and I like you when I pass
    in the hallway, and I like talking to you, but that doesn't
    mean it has to be here. If the job gets done, that suffices for
    me.
        The last thing, I believe, opposite of what some have
    testified, given the fact that we have done lots of conference
    calls when we first were kind of getting into this, whether it
    was within our caucuses or as committees, and then Zooms, the
    communication level on a pretty regular basis has increased
    among all--at least among--or on legislative issues, if you
    will, you know.
        And so I believe we should expand this rule. I think it
    should be ongoing. I think we are going to hold the House, and
    we should keep the rule in place. If Mr. Davis is correct, then
    he can change it. But I don't think it makes a lot of sense. I
    think we need to take technology and use it to our benefit.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I know Mr. DeSaulnier has another hearing to go to.
    Does anyone have any questions for him? We can let him go?
        You are free to go.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. I think I want to stay, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Fischbach.
        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will be brief
    because I mentioned it before. And, you know, if this was--if
    this was something that had to be done, and I wasn't here when
    it originally went into place, we need to stop now. We are over
    that. You know, we know what--we know what to expect.
        Most of the rest of the country is getting back to normal,
    and we need to get back to our business, get our business back
    to normal, and end the proxy voting. And if there is something
    that needs to be looked at with remote hearings, what--you
    know, with Mr. Perlmutter, then that needs to be examined.
        But, at this point, we are over the emergency, and we need
    to get back to normal and take the--you know, the advantage for
    the majority, take this--take the rule away now, the proxy
    voting rule away now because, admittedly, it gave that
    advantage to the majority. And I just--again, we are just
    missing so much without that personal interaction.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have taken some careful notes on these witnesses and the
    prior panels, and I am counting six different values that have
    been invoked as being implicated by the proxy rules or the new
    hearing rules. And let me just quickly state what they are.
        One is democracy, having the voice of the people
    represented. Second is Republican representation, meaning
    dialogue and discussion among Members. Third is friendships
    among Members. Fourth is civility among Members. Fifth is the
    efficiency of the legislative process. And sixth is etiquette
    and the appearances of things.
        And it seems to me that we sort of have had three different
    positions on the table. I do want to associate myself with Mr.
    Perlmutter's remarks about the past. I think what we did was an
    absolute necessity. And you are to be commended for your
    leadership, Mr. Chairman, which was historic in terms of rising
    to the occasion and getting us through the nightmare of COVID-
    19, which has cost us nearly a million of our people and caused
    so many problems in the country.
        But I want to talk about the future, because now what we
    have the advantage of being able to look at what took place
    with COVID, and we are able to make a decision not in the
    context of the emergency and the crisis quite so much as
    before. And I would say that there is sort of three types of
    solutions that have been advanced that we could subject to the
    test of these six different values.
        One is the Gaetz position, we can call it that, which is
    that it is better for us not to be here whenever we don't need
    to be here. And so I guess that militates towards being absent
    is much--being absent as much as possible. And a rule that
    would get to that is sort of the one, I am not sure if he is
    supporting it, but the one that Mr. Perlmutter articulated of
    you can use proxy whenever you want, essentially.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I am supporting that.
        Mr. Raskin. He is supporting that. Okay. So we will call it
    the Gaetz-Perlmutter position for the record.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Oh, come on.
        Mr. Raskin. So, all right, which is basically you can opt
    out whenever you want to opt out of being physically present,
    and you can vote by proxy. That is in one extreme.
        The other extreme is you never allow it, and we compel
    physical presence in all cases for voting.
        And there is the one that--which I have tried to articulate
    based on our recent experience, which is that presence is to be
    presumed and favored in all circumstances, except when a person
    has a compelling medical reason that makes it impossible for
    them to come or a compelling family reason that justifies their
    absence.
        Okay. And I think, you know, if you quickly run down all of
    the values, I do think that the position I am outlining is the
    one that best advances every value that has been invoked by the
    Members who have come here today.
        First of all, in terms of Democratic representation of our
    constituents, I think--I mean, it is a tie between here, my
    rule and the Perlmutter-Gaetz rule. I mean, everybody is going
    to be able to vote a hundred percent of the time, which means
    their people will be a hundred percent represented. If we go
    with never allowing it, then there are going to be millions of
    people who are not represented in almost every vote that takes
    place on the House floor. And if somebody gets really sick,
    then a constituency could go for weeks or months without being
    represented.
        Okay. Republican representation, dialogue. Well, I would
    again argue that--that the compelling reason for voting proxy
    and participating--and being able to participate that way in
    terms of hearings advances maximum dialogue, because we are not
    losing the voice of people who are sick, or they have just lost
    a family member, or for--you know, they are medically
    compromised and they can't leave. We are losing their voice. We
    are losing the ability to get their views. So we are reducing
    Republican dialogue by saying it is only going to be the 80
    percent or 90 percent of the people who can be physically
    present.
        Civility. Well, I think, again, my system advances civility
    the best, because the presumption is we are there, we are
    respecting each other, but we also respect each other enough to
    know that people experience medical infirmities and family
    emergencies. And that is a gesture and an expression of
    civility too, to say, everybody goes through these things and
    we can accept that.
        Friendship. I don't know to what extent, you know, the
    Constitution or the people necessarily favor friendship, but it
    is clearly something that the Members have talked about. I
    think it is the exact same thing. I think that it promotes
    friendship among the Members like it provokes civility. There
    seems to be this presumption that if we are all physically
    present, everybody is nice to each other. I have been sitting
    on the floor with a Republican colleague, and I have had other
    Republican colleagues come up to us and yell ``traitor'' at
    that person. Okay. Face-to-face, 3 feet away. We have seen
    school board meetings where people show up and scream in each
    other's faces and talk about going home and getting their guns
    and so on.
        So you can be rude in person, you can be sweet in person.
    You can be nice on Zoom, you can be mean on Zoom. So I just
    think that the technology and the physical presence are
    indeterminate factors in terms of the behavior of our
    colleagues.
        In terms of efficiency, I think it promotes efficiency here
    to have the maximum participation of people. Sometimes people
    get sick or otherwise waylaid whose presence is needed, right.
    And so----
        And, finally, I do think, in terms of etiquette, I think
    your point is probably right that physical presence and never
    allowing it might--might best advance etiquette. Although the
    chair is correct that you can have rules of etiquette that
    apply to Zoom, that apply to physical presence. You know, I
    have seen people wearing sneakers on the House floor and
    sneaking on, you know, doing this or that. You can also
    violate, you know, rules of etiquette in person like you can do
    it on Zoom. But it does seem easier. I think you win on that
    point. But I would say that the etiquette point might be the
    least value, the lowest value of democracy, Republican
    dialogue, efficiency, and so on.
        So, Mr. Chairman--and I don't know whether either of you
    want to comment on my rundown of those different values, but I
    tried to systematize it a little bit because I like to try to
    think in a systematic way as possible because people are
    throwing in all kinds of different values and principals and
    then making judgments about them. And I think we need to try to
    discipline it.
        Mr. Rose. Since you coined one as the Perlmutter-Gaetz
    position, I wonder if you want to ascribe a name to the other
    two positions?
        Mr. Raskin. Well, the one of never allowing it--well, I
    think several people have said go back to never allowing a
    proxy. I don't know if somebody wants to have it named after
    them. I don't know, is that the Rose----
        Mr. Rose. No.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay. But I am happy to--I am happy to embrace
    the Raskin rule of the compelling medical or family reason.
        Did you have anything, Mr. Westerman?
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, sir. I commend you. I think you are a
    good notetaker in categorizing and systemizing things well. And
    I don't necessarily agree with your six points there.
        Mr. Perlmutter talked about it works, but I think we should
    be striving to what works best. And I still believe it works
    best when we are in person.
        And I don't want to get into the chairman of my committee's
    health records, but I don't think he caught COVID from that
    meeting we had in person. And I am pretty sure our members were
    very cognizant of wearing masks while Secretary Haaland was
    there. I think he had gotten COVID a year before that, and I
    think he even got another case of it when he was back home. But
    I just wanted to set the record straight on that.
        And, also, I don't think--you know, we can talk about the
    past, where we were, how we got there, the benefits of it, but
    I was hoping this was about the future, where we are going. And
    is it time to end virtual hearings? Is it time to come back and
    vote in person?
        I mean, I know when we voted for the Speaker, that there
    were COVID-positive Members that were allowed in the Chamber.
    There was even a Plexiglass container built up in the gallery
    to house them in. So, you know, there is--seems like there is
    always some political motivation behind what happens here.
        But, hopefully, going forward, my wish will be that we
    could get back to in-person meetings and get back to voting in
    person as well. And, again, I appreciate the committee having
    the hearing and hearing us out.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Any other questions?
        If there are no other questions, you are free to go. Thank
    you very much.
        Yeah, let me just again reiterate, this is not an either/or
    type of thing. The deal is, you can allow for there to be
    hybrid hearings or virtual hearings, but you may never utilize
    them, or you may utilize them once; it may make sense once. But
    the ability to have that option is something we want to--as we
    look to the future, do you want to preserve that?
        And I should say that proxy voting didn't end the Republic.
    And I think we all agree that presence is important, and more
    and more people understand that. And more and more people are
    here in person, and more and more committee meetings are in
    person. And that is the trend that we all want to go in. And,
    you know, it is one of the reasons why I got us back into this
    committee room as soon as the doctors and scientists said it
    was okay to do so.
        As I said, the pandemic is not yet over. A thousand people
    a day dying, 2,000 people yesterday. I think there are
    situations in the future, post-pandemic, that we heard here
    today where there might be exceptions, you know, where proxy
    voting might be useful.
        Again, I go back to Mr. DeSaulnier's testimony. Yeah, I
    mean, he has a compelling case here. And I don't think he wants
    his voters disenfranchised, and I don't think his voters want
    him not to be able to participate.
        While proxy voting wasn't created for a number of the
    situations we talked about here today, it has actually helped
    increase voting participation in the House, believe it or not.
    Based on recent vote analysis by CQ Roll Call, House Members
    participated in a record 98 percent of roll call votes taken in
    2021. You know, that is the highest rate of voting
    participation in the House since 1953, when they began tracking
    these numbers. More Members voting means more Americans are
    being represented in each vote.
        And I would say, I don't think--this is not about political
    advantage. The deal is, to the extent Democrats have a
    political advantage, it is that more Democrats were elected to
    Congress than Republicans. And if for some reason Mr.
    Perlmutter and I couldn't be here or if it meant the difference
    in a vote, you know, on an important vote, they would probably
    postpone the vote until we can get here.
        So this is not about anything other than giving people the
    opportunity during these difficult times or during difficult
    times in their life to be able to participate. Three-hundred-
    and-eighty Members have used proxy voting, which means over 280
    million Americans have had their voices represented on the
    House floor through the proxy system.
        And, look, I want to suggest, after listening to our
    discussion, that there may be a case for a limited use of proxy
    voting in the future if there is a major natural disaster in
    your district, the death of somebody in your family, or a
    severe illness when you can't get on an airplane, where it is
    not safe. I mean, I think that is what we would be talking
    about.
        I am not yet with--I am not convinced that the Perlmutter-
    Gaetz way is the way to go. But I think that those are good
    uses that could benefit the entire institution.
        I also want to say that, again, the remote committee
    proceedings have helped Congress hear from a more diverse list
    of witnesses from across the country, because, quite frankly,
    sometimes it costs a lot of money or people can't afford to
    miss work to come here and to testify. I mean, we have been
    able to do that. We should find more ways to stay engaged with
    our constituents, and having folks testify virtually I think is
    a net positive for this institution.
        Again, I think all of us, I think, are of the mindset that,
    to the extent possible, we should be here in person as much as
    possible, because there is benefit to that. But the stuff that
    we have done hasn't resulted in the end of our Republic or an
    undermining of this institution.
        And I would just close with this. Yeah, this is a very
    polarized Congress. We have a very polarized political
    situation in this country. It had nothing to do with proxy
    voting. Now, as Mr. Raskin pointed out, I mean, there are some
    pretty non-civil moments up close and personal. We ought to
    have a discussion about what we can do to lower the temperature
    here on that.
        But, in any event, I think this was a necessary thing. We
    have a lot to think about. Thank you for taking the time.
        Thank you to everybody on this committee for sticking with
    it.
        Thank you to the staff on both sides of the aisle for all
    that you have done.
        And there is nobody else here, so, with that, the committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       [all]