[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES
CHANGES FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-053 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON RULES
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas, Chair
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
Vice Chair Ranking Member
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
CHIP ROY, Texas
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
Jennifer Belair, Staff Director
Donald C. Sisson, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania, Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana, Vice Chair Ranking Member
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota, Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina, Mexico,
Vice Chair Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
September 19, 2024
Page
Opening Statements:
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas and Chair of the Committee on Rules..... 1
Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee
on Rules................................................... 2
Witness Testimony:
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia...................................... 3
Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Prepared Statement....................................... 7
Hon. Harriet Hageman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 9
Prepared Statement....................................... 11
Hon. Brittany Pettersen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado...................................... 14
Prepared Statement....................................... 16
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri.......................................... 18
Prepared Statement....................................... 20
Hon. Bill Foster, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois................................................ 22
Prepared Statement....................................... 24
Hon. Joaquin Castro, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 30
Hon. Rudy Yakym, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana................................................. 32
Prepared Statement....................................... 35
Hon. Andrew Ogles, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee......................................... 67
Prepared Statement....................................... 70
Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 75
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Statement from the Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida....... 39
Statement from the Hon. Kevin Mullin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 41
Statement from the Hon. Mike Levin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 42
Statement from the Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 44
Letter from the Hon. Joaquin Castro, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas........................... 49
Letter from the Hon. Darrell Issa, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 57
Letter from the Hon. Darrell Issa, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 59
Letter from the Hon. Chuck Edwards, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina.................. 61
Statement from the Hon. Anthony D'Esposito, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New York..................... 64
Statement from the Hon. William Timmons, a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Carolina.................. 77
Statement from the Hon. James Moylan, a Delegate in Congress
from the Territory of Guam................................. 79
MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES
CHANGES FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Michael C. Burgess [chairman of the
committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Burgess, Fischbach, Norman,
Langworthy, and McGovern.
The Chairman. I call the Committee on Rules to order.
Good morning, everyone. I do want to welcome everyone to
the House Committee on Rules Member Day for the 118th Congress.
Pursuant to Section 3(h) of H. Res. 5, the committee is
convening this Member Day to hear from the broader body about
issues under this committee's jurisdiction.
I am grateful to see the interest and participation of the
membership off our committee and look forward to hearing their
ideas.
Before we get to that, I do just want to touch on the work
we have done so far in this Congress. For the first time in
years, this body has considered legislation under an open rule.
This committee has also considered nearly double the amount of
bills so far this year as the previous two Congresses at the
same point in time.
We have considered nearly double the amount of bills under
a structured rule as the previous Congress. We have eliminated
the use of en bloc authority for amendments, ensuring that each
amendment that was made in order under the rule is given its
appropriate consideration and vote.
We have created the Select Committee on the Strategic
Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist
Party, which has done incredible work investigating the extent
of the CCP's global ambitions and providing legislative
recommendations on how to combat this aggression.
We have also established the Select Committee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government to fully investigate
the Biden-Harris administration's assault on the constitutional
rights of American citizens.
And finally, we have adjusted various rules to make this
body more accountable to the people who elect us, more
efficient, and more conscious of the taxpayer dollars with
which our constituents entrust us.
The Congress has not been without its challenges. And I
look forward to the discussion today on ideas to make things
work better here, but I wanted to make a quick note of the
accomplishments of this committee.
And I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr.
McGovern, for his observations and any other remarks that he
wishes to make.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, you know, when Democrats came into power during the
116th Congress, we spent months engaging with Members and
vetting their ideas to make this body better. The result, the
Rules package we came up with actually reflected bipartisan
ideas.
We worked hard to create an inclusive process. It
demonstrated our commitment to the fundamental principle that
no party has a monopoly on good ideas. Good ideas can come from
anywhere. And today, I hope we can carry that same spirit into
our conversations.
You see, a willingness to work together is a necessary part
of ensuring that we have a well-functioning House, one that
doesn't just work for one political party or the other, but
works for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what is going to happen in
November. What I can tell you is that if Democrats have the
honor of returning to the majority, we will see to it that the
House of Representatives is a place where we can debate ideas
professionally, a place that gives Members the opportunity to
have their voices heard, and a place that can get real things
done for this country.
We should all want to strive for a more collaborative
process, rules that further improve transparency and
accountability, measures that will bring this institution into
the 21st century and reforms that will advance the efficiency
and the efficacy of Congress.
I also hope, no matter who wins, after the election, that
we can move away from the practice of so many closed rules. The
last time my friends were in the majority, they set the record
for the most closed rules. They beat that record in this
Congress.
This has to be a place where a variety of ideas get to be
brought to the floor and debated, and I hope we can strive to
do better on that. I am eager to hear the ideas and the
proposals that our colleagues have prepared for today's
discussion.
And, with that, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair thanks the gentleman.
Without objection, any prepared statements that our
witnesses have will be included in the record.
The first panel is called to the table, and Mr. Griffith of
Virginia; Mr. Kilmer of Washington, Ms. Pettersen of Colorado,
and Mr. Cleaver----
Did I say Ms. Hageman of Wyoming?
Ms. Hageman. Not yet.
The Chairman. And Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, if you would
join us at the table for our first panel.
And the order I have here, Mr. Griffith, you are first.
And I would just a housekeeping detail. The Rules Committee
is famous for not having a clock. However, each Member will
have 5 minutes to testify, so if you have got multiple issues,
I do recommend summarizing each submission and proposal if you
have multiple.
So, Representative Griffith, I welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think it was
appropriate you mentioned that before I got started, because I
do have multiples, as you know.
So I have got the text, and you all should have that. If
you don't, I will leave it with you. But one, I do think we
need to go back in and work on the germaneness rule. I proposed
the same language 2 years ago. We then went into negotiations
with leadership. I think it was fair that we tried to, you
know, work out concerns.
The problem is the rule has never been used. The rule is
not effective as it was written, notwithstanding all of our
good intentions, both on my part and the part of leadership to
work out a compromise. It hasn't worked.
I believe that if we have a strict germaneness rule, no
matter who the Speaker is, it makes that Speaker more powerful
vis-a-vis the Senate, because it would deny the Senate the
ability to tack all kinds of garbage. Like I said before, you
can take a coin bill and turn it into an omnibus, according to
the Senate.
That clearly is not germane. It shouldn't be germane, and
we need to have the ability to make that stricter. And so there
is the language that I have proposed. I am happy to discuss
that at any time with anybody.
Then I have a limitation on that waiver, and that is
basically you can't by rule without a super majority. Now, I
know that is not going to work, but it still makes me feel
better. If we put it in there, it would put a limitation on
waiving our single-purpose rule, which has worked somewhat, and
our germaneness rule. And if we enhance the germaneness rule, I
think it is important that we don't waive that with every rule
on every bill as we move forward.
I then have a whole set of complicated proposals open to
discussion related to the timing of actions and reports. I
believe if a committee reports a bill out, one, I think there
ought to be a timeline once it gets to Rule, that you have a
certain number of days--21 is what I proposed--legislative days
to get the bill out of the Rules Committee.
Now, that can be a lot of different things. It can be a re-
referral back to your--to a new committee or a referral to a
different committee. I have also set up a process where if the
committee has--if the bill has been sent to more than one
committee, once a major committee, one of the primary
committees sends it to the Rules Committee, the other committee
would only have 7 legislative days to send in their copy. If
there are differences, as there often are, rules would conform
those differences before the bill went to the floor.
I think it is one of these deals where if--I think it would
make the committees more responsive as well in making sure that
they had good measures that they sent to the Rules Committee as
opposed to saying, We will fix it as we are moving.
But I also think that when a bill comes out--and we have
seen it before. We have all seen it, where a bill comes out of
a committee with either a unanimous vote or maybe there are two
or three dissenters, but it is a strong vote, and then for
various reasons, we can all come up with scenarios, that bill
never moves forward.
I think people need to know if you get a bill out of
committee that there is going to be a time when you actually
get to hear that bill. So I have got that action. Again, that
language you should have. If you don't, I have got it here with
me today.
One that I love that I know most Members of this body don't
love, but I got this adopted in Virginia in 1998 and, believe
it or not, it is still there. And that is proportional seating
on the committees. This is fair to everybody.
The committee ought to reflect the floor. The American
people in a democratic republic send us here, 435 of us, and
one party or the other will have a majority and they should
have the majority. And the rule sets up that it is proportional
seating, fractional people going to the majority party.
So, obviously, you can't have, you know, 20\1/2\ people on
a committee on one side and 19\1/2\ on the other side. So the
fractional person goes to the majority party.
That covers the big ones. I would say this, though, and I
wanted to take a minute to talk about the Holman Rule. I hope
that it will be kept. I still think it is effective. We have
not successfully passed a Holman Rule. That is okay. It is not
designed to be used every single day or every single bill. It
is supposed to be extraordinary.
People have been doing this business, though, and it drives
me crazy. As the chairman knows, I get all worked up about this
stuff. And down to striking the last word he knows is one of my
pet peeves, because you can always talk to the measure if it is
the first time you have spoken on it.
But in regard to the Holman Rule, people want to say you
only get a dollar. Well, I think that is probably not legal.
And so I haven't voted in favor of any of those, because you
still have your minimum wage laws.
Now, you can reduce them to minimum wage if you want to,
but the purpose of Holman is not to reduce an individual. It is
to rearrange the agency. Sometimes that affects one individual,
but it is to have a retrenchment of expenditures while
rearranging an agency or a subagency or a department.
That is the real beauty of it. And it can work, and it can
work for people on the left and the right. It is amazing how
folks on the left don't understand that this can be helpful to
them too. If you have got an agency that is not doing right,
you can stick in a Holman amendment and rearrange the agency to
make it more efficient, to make it do more of what you intended
it to do in the first place when we passed legislation. So I
hope that you all would keep that.
I think I am still within my 5 minutes, but I am happy to
answer questions. And in all fairness, you know, every day I
think of something new and these were the ones I had ready to
go. But if you had another hearing in November, I would
probably have two or three more.
And I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair thanks the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for
not striking the last word before he spoke.
Mr. Kilmer, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member
McGovern, for the opportunity to testify today.
You might be surprised to see a retiring Member before you,
but in the time I have left, I am hoping to leave my campsite
better than I found it.
The Fix Congress Caucus, which I started with Congressman
Timmons, my former co-chair of the Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress, and our Members of the Caucus have
put a lot of thought into how to improve Congress'
effectiveness.
Several proposed rules changes in your committee's purview
have come up, and I just wanted to share five with you today.
First, I propose we institute a biennial bipartisan retreat
for Members of Congress at the start of a new Congress. This
retreat would provide a rare opportunity to engage with one
another outside of the pressures of Washington, D.C., and to
build relationships across party lines.
Too often, we fail to collaborate simply because we don't
know each other well enough. A retreat focused on mutual
understanding and shared goals would help us form the
coalitions we need to tackle some of the Nation's biggest
challenges.
Second, I propose we amend the House rules to require every
committee to hold a bipartisan agenda-setting retreat at the
beginning of each session of Congress. While we won't always
agree and often don't on every policy issue, these retreats
will allow us to identify areas of mutual concern and agreement
so we can know what we can work together on as a committee.
Most functional organizations start by saying, So what do we
want to get done? And we don't really do that here enough.
Next, I recommend allowing two Members from opposing
parties to jointly sponsor bills. A model for this--and I am
sure he will speak to it--is Representative Cleaver's
bipartisan H. Res. 668, the BUDS Resolution. This simple change
would incentivize bipartisanship. It would ensure that
legislation reflects true collaboration and shared effort,
while giving credit where it is due. We all know we have worked
on bills together where we have to, in essence, you know, flip
the coin on whose name is going to be on top of it. And that
doesn't seem right, and it doesn't foster bipartisanship.
Additionally, I suggest we establish a new joint committee
on legislative processes, tasked with expediting the
consideration of legislation that has passed one Chamber with
broad bipartisan support. This is outlined in Congresswoman
Williams and Congressman Timmons' bipartisan H. Con. Res. 8.
Too often, good legislation supported by Members on both sides
languishes in the other Chamber. This joint committee would
examine ways to streamline the process to better prevent that
from happening and to improve our ability to pass sound
legislation for our constituents.
And finally, I urge the creation of a select committee on
refreshing our democracy, with equal party representation. This
committee would be charged with making recommendations on how
to reduce political violence, toxic polarization, and the
spread of misinformation.
It would also explore ways to incentivize collaboration and
evidence-based policymaking to improve public confidence in
Congress and to address critical issues that we haven't really
engaged on adequately, like our existing candidate selection
processes and the role of money in politics.
As we reach America's 250th birthday, we can't allow our
democracy to be undermined by forces of division. These aren't
partisan proposals. These are practical solutions. By
instituting bipartisan retreats, bipartisan committee agenda-
setting meetings, allowing joint sponsorship of bills,
streamlining legislative processes between the House and the
Senate and formally exploring reforms to strengthen our
democracy, we can improve Congress and our output for the
people we were sent here to represent.
I know your committee and House rules significantly impact
House operations and our legislative work. I hope you seriously
consider these proposals no matter who holds the gavel next
year. And while I won't be here anymore, I will be rooting for
you and this institution always.
I thank you again for your time and for your leadership on
these issues. Thank you for the final chance to testify.
And finally, I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member, to you and to your staff. I know how hard this
committee works, and the fact that you are available to us day
and night. And I particularly want to thank Don Sisson for
going above and beyond for me this past week. You are all good
partners in this effort to modernize Congress, and I thank you
for that.
[The statement of Mr. Kilmer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member McGovern, and
members of the Rules Committee, thank you for allowing me to
testify on proposed rule changes for the 119th Congress.
Today, I would like to speak on my proposed rule change,
which would amend House Rule XXI, restrictions on certain
bills, to add a new clause 13 preventing the House from
considering legislation unless the measure has a sunset
provision.
Sunset provisions automatically terminate the legislation,
discretionary appropriation, or program unless Congress renews
or reauthorizes to continue beyond a fixed period of time.
As a freshman Member of Congress, I have learned, largely
to my horror, how many unauthorized government agencies,
offices, and programs exist and watched as controversial
authorities extend in perpetuity, limiting reform
opportunities.
I believe this proposed rule change will make Congress a
more professional body, and make the executive branch more
accountable to the legislature, as intended, as it will require
ongoing oversight and review of authorities, programs, and
spending in order to determine whether they should continue as
is, be modified, or be terminated in their entirety.
Under our current system, programs and authorities have
avoided congressional scrutiny simply because they exist,
again, essentially into perpetuity. Even when concern about a
particular program, agency, or spending priority is raised by
our Members, the status quo of doing business, calendar
constraints, political will and outside influences often
prevent Congress from doing its job.
If we, as the lawmakers, are subjected to a routine and
ongoing scrutiny in what essentially amounts to performance
review through elections, then so should the authorities,
programs, and agencies we create. Our discretionary spending
should surely be subject to such ongoing review.
House Rule X, clause 21, lays out the general oversight
responsibilities of the standing committee to analyze, quote,
``the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness
of Federal laws,'' end quote, and quote, ``conditions and
circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability
of enacting new or additional legislation,'' end quote.
Clearly, it is Congress that is intended to conduct this
routine oversight. In light of our historical failure to do so,
however, using sunset provisions as I am proposing could
resolve the issue. Congress should have ongoing and routine
oversight of the authorities, programs, executive offices and
spending that we approve, even when there is broad
congressional support for such programs, et cetera.
Oversight is an integral part of the legislative process,
and routine reform is how we prevent or control issues long
before they develop into a significant problem.
During the 118th Congress, the House Energy and Commerce
Committee provided a great example of how this could work when
it unveiled a discussion draft of a bill to sunset Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 is well-known to our Members these days. And
while we all have different ideas for how it should be
reformed, I would argue that there is a general consensus among
our Members and their constituents that some action is needed.
I seriously doubt that the social media companies would
have so readily censored conservative speech had Section 230
been subject to periodic congressional review.
A sunset would require Congress, as part of the process of
extending the authority, to work the policy through its
committees of jurisdiction, where oversight and reform ideas
could be proposed. This would then tee up the entire House to
vote on whether to reform and/or extend an authority which has
not been subject to substantive reform since its creation in
1996.
An example of a sunset clause working relates to Section
702 of FISA, of the FISA Act. Because it had a sunset
provision, Congress was able to implement several substantive
reforms this year in order to prevent the FBI and other Federal
agencies from abusing the FISA court and process, such as what
was discovered as part of the Russia collusion hoax.
Sunset clauses would require Congress to do its job.
Routine consideration of extending authorities, appropriations,
and programs would ensure Congress takes ongoing responsibility
for addressing the important issues of the day, while also
providing Members with more opportunities to shape policy and
govern other than through a handful of must-pass bills that are
not subject to proper process or consideration.
Adding a sunset requirement for bills Congress considers
will only strengthen this body and contribute to efforts to
make Congress a more professional and accountable body to the
people.
Thank you again, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member
McGovern, and I yield back.
[The statement of Ms. Hageman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms.
Pettersen.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRITTANY PETTERSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. Pettersen. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member. It is great to be with you all today. I really
appreciate the opportunity to testify.
I am proposing rule changes for the next Congress to ensure
that our rules are addressing some of the systemic barriers
that make this body more representative of the American people.
Since the establishment of Congress in 1789, there have
been more than 12,500 Members that serve on this body. Just 12
of those Members are women who have given birth during their
term, and there is a reason for that.
In today's Congress, of the 541 current Members across both
Chambers, only 37 of them are women with children under the age
of 18. Moms of kids are underrepresented in this body, and we
have the opportunity to remove some of those barriers to make
sure that we change things to make it more accessible.
The current prohibition on proxy voting forces pregnant
Members and Members who have recently welcomed a new child, to
choose between taking care of their newborn or representing
their constituents.
I am proposing that within the House rules, a narrow
exception to the prohibition on proxy voting be added to allow
Members to vote by proxy while taking parental leave, right in
line with what we have for Federal employees for up to 12 weeks
for parental leave. And that includes if you have a medical
condition that makes it so you can't be here in person before
giving birth, which would take from the total of 12 weeks.
To address the concerns around quorum, Members voting by
proxy under this exception would not count towards quorum. So
this would just be for voting on the floor and voting in
committee.
I am personally--I was invested in this before. As I served
in the legislature, I was the first person to be on leave when
I gave birth to my newborn, Davis. Unfortunately, our laws were
incredibly restrictive as well.
This was a priority for me, coming to Congress, to make
sure that it was more accessible. And now I have a current
vested interest. I am 20 weeks pregnant and due at the end of
January or beginning of February.
And so, when I think about what it looks like to navigate
being a Member of Congress and deciding am I going to be home
taking care of my newborn, or am I going to be here to be a
voice for my constituents. Do I have to bring my family and
pull my child out of preschool to live in a studio apartment
while we try to be here so that I am able to vote.
It is comparable to--what you go through physically is
comparable to a very difficult surgery. The recovery time. You
know, childcare isn't available for 3 months. So this is a
necessary move to make sure that we are modernizing Congress, a
very narrow focus. Like I said, only 12 people have given birth
while serving, but this should also apply to spouses who have
newborns at home as well.
So thank you for your time and consideration, and I hope to
be able to work with you to address these barriers in the
future.
[The statement of Ms. Pettersen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
Just prior to recognizing Mr. Cleaver, I would invite Mr.
Foster if he wanted to join us at the witness table. And we
will go to you after Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member, Mr. McGovern, for giving us the opportunity to make
these suggestions.
Before I get into my specific recommendation, I would like
to just say to this committee as I would like to say to the
entire country, I think we had something with this committee
that I think the people around the country of goodwill would
love to see each day coming out of Washington.
Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Graves, Mr. Timmons worked fabulously, with
a high level of civility and dignity, on the Committee on
Modernization. It was rewarding to those of us who were on the
committee to just come to a meeting and see that there was no
name-calling, no screams across the aisle.
And I wanted to make sure I had a chance to say that on the
record. Mr. Kilmer is here. I wish I had the opportunity to say
that to Mr. Graves, although I did run into him a few months
back and shared with him my delight in working with him.
I want to now thank you particularly for allowing us to
come before you today. And I think it is important for us to
voice our own experiences and ideas on how we can make this
beautiful chaotic institution into something that would work
just a little bit better.
During the 116th and 117th Congresses, I had the honor of
serving on the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress,
otherwise known as the Modernization Committee.
As you know, this select committee was slightly different
from the others in our illustrious Chamber. It had an equal
number of Democrats and Republicans working together to find
bipartisan reforms that would, if implemented, make Congress a
little more effective, efficient, and reflective of the will of
the people.
Over those 4 years, I am happy to say that we were able to
conjure up more than 200 recommendations that will help all of
us better serve our constituents.
While I was proud of all the recommendations that we
formally passed under the leadership of Chairman Kilmer and Mr.
Timmons and Mr. Graves, there is one that I found particularly
powerful, one that ultimately became my BUDS Resolution or
Building Unity through Dual Sponsorship Resolution.
This important legislation would pull one small but very
powerful lever that I believe would facilitate greater
collaboration in the Halls of the House. This resolution would
allow for any bill in the House to have two lead sponsors,
provided they are from Members of different political parties.
I was proud to introduce the BUDS Resolution along with
Representative Young Kim, who, in an ideal world, would be
listed as a lead sponsor as well, and Representatives Derek
Kilmer, William Timmons, Dean Phillips and Mike Carey.
There are two key advantages to this resolution that I hope
to emphasize. First, it can help us promote bipartisanship and
civility, which I believe is desperately needed in our
polarized politics.
Second, it can help give better recognition to Members who
are working hard and seeking common ground here in D.C.
Allow me to take the second point first. Recognition for
the hard and important work that lawmakers do is something that
we can often feel uncomfortable for the most humble of
lawmakers, because the last thing any of us wants to admit to
our districts is that Members deserve praise.
But we all know that there are some Members, particularly
when their party is in the minority, who are working hard every
single day to craft meaningful bipartisan bills with the
majority party to meet the needs and deal with the issues that
our constituents are concerned about. We also all know that
there are some Members who don't.
Even if the BUDS Resolution did not change behavior in any
way, it would immediately become much easier for our
constituents and the media alike to see when the Member of
Congress is actively writing and introducing legislation when
concurrently they would get listed top line.
I do believe, as do many others, that we won't just see
better recognition for those Members who are working to
introduce bipartisan bills, we will see a clear incentive
change where Members know that it is now further in their
advantage to work in a bipartisan manner more frequently.
I strongly believe that this is a key ideal we should be
striving for in how we craft rules packages. This idea has
gotten a lot of traction with the Fix Congress cohort of
organizations we have worked with.
And we work with organizations like the Bipartisan Policy
Center, Demand Progress, The Foundation for American
Innovation, Issue One and many more.
But I believe that anyone who believes in smart
organizational incentives and good system design can get behind
this change, which I think would be of great aid to this
organization.
Let me end by just saying that Mr. Kilmer opened up about
having a retreat when we first come together at the beginning
of a Congress. I spent a lot of time meeting with Ray LaHood
and talking with him about it, because he actually organized
one of those retreats for Members of both parties. And I just
got ideas from him on what he did and how much time it took.
I think we make a terrible mistake--and I am through--when
Members get elected and there is a Democratic bus and there is
a Republican bus right at beginning. And that is a declaration,
it is a scream, we are not together. And I think that that can
be fixed if we come together at the beginning of each Congress.
Thank you very kindly.
[The statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Foster of Illinois for his
observations.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member.
It is not well-known by most Members of Congress, but prior
to 1993, signing onto a discharge petition was an anonymous
act. This made the discharge petition much more effective at
its intended purpose, which is sort of to operate as a safety
valve against, you know, the Speaker's rather dictatorial
power, or absolute power, to control what gets voted on.
And then often this power, in a situation where the Speaker
is holding onto power by a bare majority, that transfers the
power to veto what gets voted on to, frankly, the most extreme
wing of either party.
And so prior to 1993, this wasn't the case. And in a
typical session of Congress, you had a handful of significant
pieces of legislation that advanced because they were supported
by a majority of usually centrists in the U.S. Congress.
And that has been missing since the rules change happened
in 1993, which ironically came about as a result of a discharge
petition. And the rules change made it public.
And at that point, any Member who signs onto a discharge
petition from the opposing party immediately finds himself
under threats from the Speaker, and under attack from the
extreme wing of their own party. If you made it anonymous, you
would allow Members to sort of probe support for centrist
legislation.
You know, I am a scientist, but I am also a machine
builder. And when I see a broken machine, I spend a while
trying to study it and trying to understand how it ever worked
and what could be done to fix it. And in this case--you know, I
have been amused for a long time at how can it be that there is
legislation supported by 70 or 80 percent of the public, a
clear majority of Members of Congress, and yet we are not
allowed to even vote on it, because it would clearly pass.
And it has to do with this absolute power of the Speaker
and the threat, you know, that happens in both parties. You
know, one of my first caucus meetings consisted of the then-
Speaker of the House threatening Heath Shuler, a nice centrist
Blue Dog Democrat, threatening him, or reaming him out for
signing onto an enemy discharge petition.
And so then you say, all right, why was this rules change
made? It was done in the name of transparency, because
apparently some Members were claiming they signed onto a
discharge petition when, in fact, they had not. Okay.
The rules change, which is in the form of legislation if we
want it that way, provides a fix to that, that when you sign a
discharge petition you simply check the box to say, I want this
public. So that if you wish, it will be public. If you wish to
make it private.
But what this would do, it would allow coalitions of
centrists to probe the support for a centrist resolution
without exposing themselves to the wrath of either the party
leadership or the extreme wing of their party.
And maybe we would get rid of this logjam of centrist
legislation that we don't get to vote on. And I think, you
know, there are many examples of this.
One that I often refer to is just imagine a version of the
Dream Act that would provide immediate legality but no path to
citizenship. You know, you would get a big majority of both
parties.
But right now, if any Democratic or Republican Speaker
brought that up, they would catch hell from, you know, the
extreme wing of their party on this. And providing anonymity
during the period when we were probing the support, optimizing
the language, would really go--you know, that is my best fix
for trying to make this broken machine work better.
And so, we have legislation on this that I would like
everyone to have a look at. If you want to sort of educate
yourself about the history of the discharge petition, there is
an excellent Wikipedia article. So everyone can go and just
study that and the references in it.
And so, I think this would do a lot because, as the article
points out, a lot of the legislation that advanced came about
because the Speaker saw that the number of signatures was going
up. And they then panicked and would go back and say, Look, we
are going to get legislation drafted by the opposing party
unless we come together as a party and make some moderate
thing.
So it really gives the Speaker a lot of leverage against
the extreme wing of their party. And so in a way, this would be
liberating to a Speaker, even though someone might think that
it is, you know, something no Speaker will ever agree to.
Anyway, I think we should consider adopting this in the
coming session of Congress, at least on a temporary basis, and
see if this actually oils the machine a little bit better. It
is a good time to discuss this right now.
And why I bring it up is no one knows who is going to be in
control of Congress. And when there is that uncertainty, it is
a good time to understand if this is the sort of proposal that
will make it work better whether or not you will end up being
the winner or loser on this.
Anyway, that is I think a very important, very simple rules
change that could go a long ways toward making this institution
work again.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Foster follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for their very
thoughtful presentations and their thoroughness. You have done
such a great job, the chairman has no questions, and I will
yield to the ranking member for questions.
Mr. McGovern. I appreciate everybody's testimony here
today, and there is certainly a lot to think about.
And, Mr. Kilmer, I am sorry you are leaving. And I want to
thank you for your work on the Select Committee on
Modernization and on the Fix Congress Caucus. I think your work
has already made this place better, and so, I want to publicly
thank you for that.
I like the idea of two lead sponsors of a bill. I think it
would encourage more bipartisanship. I also think there is a
case to be made for two lead cosponsors, period. I mean, if you
have two Members from the same State who are interested in a
bill on behalf of a committee that both of them represent, you
know, that is not a bad thing. They may be two Republicans or
two Democrats. They might want to do that as well.
But I do think it is helpful to be able to have two leads,
especially if you are trying to show some bipartisanship. So I
think that is a good idea.
Ms. Pettersen, congratulations. And look, it is frustrating
to me that this institution refuses to acknowledge that it is
2024. Technology is a reality. And, we learned during COVID
that we could operate. And, you know, the challenge is to be
able to allow flexibility for people, in your case, who are
about to have a baby, but there are other cases as well.
We ought to be able to--we ought to allow for exceptions.
We don't want to go so far that this place becomes a body that
operates remotely, but there are cases. There are cases that I
think we ought to allow for proxy voting, and so I am very much
open to that.
And, Ms. Hageman, including sunsets in legislation, I
personally believe should be up to Members as part of the
legislative process on a case-by-case basis, because I am
concerned, quite frankly, with the backlog of reauthorizations
that this could potentially cause, totally clogging up the
legislative process. But I am open to learning more about that.
Mr. Griffith, I appreciate all your recommendations. I
didn't look deep enough on the committee ratios. Did you
include the Rules Committee on that? Because----
Mr. Griffith. The Rules Committee is the one exception.
Mr. McGovern. Yeah, well, you know----
Mr. Griffith. Historically, that is----
Mr. McGovern. But if you did, this would have been a seven-
to-six kind of committee, and we could have had some fun this
year. And----
Mr. Griffith. I think the Rules Committee is always fun. I
love watching and--but that being said, no, I did not include
the Rules Committee. It includes all committees other than
Rules.
And if it works so well, and I think it will, as it has in
Virginia, both--we have had numerous party changes since that
rule was adopted in 1998, and both parties see value to it.
So I think it is something that we should look at. It is
fair to the people of the United States. It may not be fair to
the majority party on a given day, but what it has done in
Virginia is not only has it made the situation fair, but both
parties realize that they need to get out and work for their
colleagues, not just because of the majority, but because an
additional seat that they might win means that they might stay
on a committee where otherwise they might be bounced off a
committee. So it really makes both parties work harder.
Mr. McGovern. Right. But this committee I would argue, is
about whether there should be fairness or not. And so it kind
of trumps all the other committees, if you will, in terms of
how legislation is presented. But, again, it is something----
Mr. Griffith. I recognize that concern and, should you be
in the majority, would not oppose that as a rule.
Mr. McGovern. What about if you are in the majority?
Mr. Griffith. I will have to defer then to the leaders of
my party.
Mr. McGovern. I got to tell you I don't agree with you on
the Holman Rule. I don't. You know, I support our hardworking
Federal employees, and I don't agree with you on that.
Mr. Griffith. I do think that it is extraordinary. It is
hard to pass. And I do believe that it could be used in a
bipartisan fashion, or in a partisan fashion by both parties.
It is not set up to protect or to help one party or the
other, and it is not set up just as a cudgel on Federal
agencies per se, but it does give Congress more authority.
And I am having to explain this regularly to folks, that
this is a wonderful tool. It was created in the 19th century.
And it allows us to, as long as we are doing retrenchments, we
can actually rearrange agencies on the floor. And I think it is
a valuable tool, but I understand your objections.
Mr. McGovern. And just one final thing. I can't remember
the Rules Committee on either side making in order a nongermane
amendment under the majority.
So, I agree that nongermane amendments should not be made
in order, but I think the Rules Committee has pretty
consistently blocked all nongermane amendments. And so, I think
we are doing that.
But in any event, I appreciate everyone--we have a lot here
to think about, and I appreciate your recommendation as well.
This is all very, very helpful.
So, with that, I thank you and I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The gentlelady from Minnesota.
Mrs. Fischbach. No questions.
The Chairman. The gentlelady has no questions.
The gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Norman. No questions.
The Chairman. The gentleman has no questions.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Langworthy. No questions.
The Chairman. Has no questions.
So seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of
this panel, I do want to thank you for your thoughtful
presentations. Congratulations in advance of January.
And this panel is excused.
As the first panel makes their way out, I call up our
second panel and invite Mr. Castro to the witness table.
And, Mr. Castro, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOAQUIN CASTRO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, members
of the committee. Great to be with you all.
I want to take up two rules in particular and first want to
say thank you for allowing me to testify today, for giving all
of us Members a chance to offer our suggestions on the rules.
I come to address an issue that is critical to our ability
as Members of Congress to fulfill our legislative and oversight
responsibilities effectively: Ensuring Members of Congress who
have national security duties are provided staff who can
support them in their work.
As someone who is a senior member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, I have served since I came in in January of
2013, and also the Intelligence Committee, I have been there
between 8 and 8\1/2\ years--I know that staff's access to
classified material is not just a convenience. It is essential.
It enables our staff to support us as we review
legislation, meet our oversight responsibilities, receive
detailed briefings from executive branch officials, and visit
various facilities, like military bases in our district.
Currently, Members may designate up to two personal office
staff as eligible for top secret security clearances, following
a background investigation. While a top secret clearance is
helpful, it is insufficient for the needs of modern-day
oversight over national security agencies.
These staff members remain ineligible for access to
Sensitive Compartmented Information, or what is known as SCI,
which limits their effectiveness in assisting us with our
national security responsibilities.
The limitation on SCI access is increasingly challenging.
As you know, information designated as SCI typically means that
it relates to sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or
analytical processes.
Over the past several decades, the executive branch has
overseen an unprecedented expansion in the volume of SCI
content and classified information. We also see the phenomenon
of, quote/unquote, ``overclassification,'' where agencies
assign higher classification levels than required.
In the words of the Director of National Intelligence, or
DNI, quote, ``Overclassification undermines critical democratic
objectives, such as increasing transparency to promote an
informed citizenry and greater accountability.''
This, combined with the fact that thousands of executive
branch employees hold TS/SCI clearances means that a standard
top secret clearance no longer lives up to its name.
Three years ago, the United States Senate recognized the
same problem and made a change. Today, Senators can designate a
member of their personal office, a member of their staff, to
hold a Top Secret/SCI clearance. In the House, access to such
information is restricted to a handful of leadership and
committee staff.
So just to give the concrete example of what is going on,
the members that sit on the committee are not allowed to have
any staff member from their staff, their personal office, join
them at any of the meetings in the SCIF, which undermines our
ability to do our work.
When a Senator visits a sensitive facility on a military
base in their State or attends a classified briefing here in
Washington, they can bring a member of their staff to assist in
their duties. When a Member of the House of Representatives
does the same, we cannot.
To emphasize, the House of Representatives is at a
disadvantage in comparison to the Senate when it comes to
conducting oversight over U.S. national security.
To address these challenges, the House of Representatives
should request that the House direct the Sergeant at Arms to
update the House Security Manual to better reflect the
realities of today's national security environment and allow at
least one personal office staff member as eligible for a top
secret/SCI clearance, contingent on a favorable background
check investigation, just as the Senate has already done. So,
again, the United States Senate made this change 2 years ago.
I want to emphasize that this would be a narrow change,
consistent with current practice. Staff would still not gain
access to classified information unless they demonstrate a need
to know. In fact, even within the committee staff, there are
times when compartmented information is being discussed that
some committee staff will be in the room and others will not.
It would not, on its own, grant classified network access
or permit the storage or transmission of classified information
except where explicitly authorized by the House or relevant
committees.
In addition, the adjudication process is the same for a top
secret and top secret/SCI clearance, so the overall volume of
requests would not increase and there wouldn't be any
additional costs.
If a cleared individual divulges classified information
without authorization, because I know that leaks are a concern,
they would be subject to criminal prosecution, as currently law
and House policy provides.
In closing, Members of Congress have a solemn duty to
provide for the common defense and to conduct effective
oversight of the executive branch. But to do so, we need
appropriately cleared staff to support our efforts. If not, the
way it currently exists, I believe that there is a handicap for
House Members that the Senate no longer has.
The current policies encumber our ability to fulfill these
responsibilities, and in some cases, they render it nearly
impossible.
The second issue I would like to take up is one that we all
deal with and all face in our own districts and our own work,
and that would be to allow volunteers to support congressional
events. The second issue I raise today concerns a policy
regarding volunteers and the application of the House Gift
Rule.
As Members of Congress, one of our core responsibilities is
to support the needs of the communities that we represent,
including through town halls, where we solicit input from
constituents, and events, where we advertise Federal resources
to our constituents.
These events take time and money and the hard work of staff
to organize successfully, and they are necessary to ensure that
Members of Congress continue to serve our communities.
One constraint that Members face in organizing such events
is in our ability to work with volunteers that may want to help
and support these efforts. And this, again, runs afoul of the
House Gift Rule. So that work, that volunteerism can't be
accepted.
I request that this committee consider a change in the Gift
Rule or revise the application and guidelines of that rule to
allow for limited support from volunteers for congressional
offices, particularly in the district. The kind of support I am
envisioning includes helping check in guests or helping an
event be set up or pulled down.
To prevent abuse, any such change would need to have
limits, of course. That could include prohibiting any such
support from lobbyists and corporations or requiring a process
to notify the Committee on Ethics of any instances where
volunteers may be used at a particular event.
This change, while minor, I think could significantly
improve the ability of Members of Congress and our offices to
serve our constituents and to do our work.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration on these
rules, and I look forward to your questions if you have any.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Thanks to the
gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUDY YAKYM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member
McGovern, for holding today's hearing on proposed Rules changes
for the 119th Congress.
On behalf of Chairman Jodey Arrington and the Budget
Committee, I am here to present several ideas for the Rules
package for the 119th Congress that will ensure greater fiscal
accountability and responsibility.
We recommend three changes to the Rules package for the
next Congress. Our first recommendation relates to caps on
budgetary outlays. It is no secret that our Nation's fiscal
health continues to decline more and more each year.
Currently, there is no enforcement mechanism in the House
of Representatives when an appropriations bill or an amendment
exceeds the acceptable 302(b) suballocation of outlays.
To fix this problem, the House should implement a rule that
caps outlays in appropriations measures. This would enhance the
transparency and integrity of the appropriations process and
ensure sustainable fiscal controls.
Under current law, the Senate has an enforcement mechanism
for an appropriations bill or amendment that exceeds the
acceptable 302(b) suballocation of outlays.
Our next suggestion has to do with the emergency spending
designations. As you know, emergency designations are exempt
from fiscal constraints, including requirements to offset
spending. Circumventing spending caps distorts our true fiscal
condition and reduces the much-needed transparency and
accountability that we owe taxpayers.
Since 1991, Congress has enacted more than $4 trillion in
emergency designated discretionary spending. This constant
practice of designating non-emergencies as emergency spending
has undermined the original intent of the designation and led
to reckless spending.
For example, nearly 4 years ago, Congress passed and
President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act. All $415 billion of its outlays were designated
as an emergency, including $66 billion for Amtrak. This influx
of funding came a year after Amtrak received $1 billion for
true emergencies--pandemic-related problems such as, quote,
``to avert further job losses and cuts to essential services.''
The $66 billion Amtrak requested a year later received an
emergency designation but was allocated for entirely
foreseeable and longstanding items on Amtrak's wish list,
including $13 billion in funds that will not even be spent
until fiscal years 2030 and 2031.
Some examples include replacing Amtrak's fleet of railcars
and locomotives with, quote, ``comfortable state-of-the-art
equipment'' and various other backlogged projects. However
worthy, none of these meet the statutory definition of
``emergency.''
IIJA was not responding to an emergency, so its funding
should not have been treated as such.
We recommend that the House should consider a reform that
would require Members who want to attach the, quote,
``emergency'' designation, to proposed spending to submit a
written justification explaining how: number one, the funding
meets the narrow criteria in the law to prevent, mitigate, or
respond to, quote, ``loss of life or property or threat to
national security. . .''; and, number two, the situation is,
quote, ``unanticipated'' by describing how it is, quote,
``sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.''
We believe requiring an emergency spending justification
would better inform members and limit using funds for non-
emergency purposes.
Lastly, we should consider ways that eliminate the use of
illusory savings in appropriations measures. Specifically, a
``CHIMP,'' or ``Change in Mandatory Spending Program'' occurs
when an appropriations bill reduces mandatory budget authority
for a program, then uses those, quote/unquote, ``savings'' to
offset new discretionary spending.
Shifting taxpayer dollars to the discretionary side of the
budget allows Congress to increase discretionary spending
without technically breaking any applicable cap on spending.
However, not all CHIMPs are created equal. Some legitimately
reduce long-term spending while others do not.
A, quote, ``bad CHIMP'' may reduce spending but only
temporarily, and eventually lead to higher spending.
As a result, these provisions mislead lawmakers and
taxpayers by creating the appearance of budgetary savings even
as debt grows. Such provisions undermine the integrity of the
budget process, encourage lawmakers to use illusory savings to
justify increases in spending, and distort the full extent of
our nation's fiscal condition.
According to the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC),
President Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request included
$41.5 billion in total CHIMPs, which included provisions
related to the Crimes Victims Fund and the Children's Health
Insurance Program among others.
So-called ``bad CHIMPs'' cut funding that would not have
been spent anyway, so not only--and do so only on a temporary
basis. Quote, ``The offsets only appeared to exist on paper'',
EPIC notes, ``but the spending continues.''
The House should consider implementing a rule that would no
longer reward bad behavior and ensure that new spending adheres
to applicable spending caps and results in genuine--not
illusory--savings.
Thank you again for holding today's hearing to solicit
input on proposed Rules changes for the 119th Congress. The
ideas from the Budget Committee outlined in this testimony will
help ensure that we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars and
promote greater transparency and accountability in the budget
and appropriations process.
Thank you again. And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Yakym follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
I thank both of you for your thoughtful and thought-
provoking testimony.
Mr. Yakym, I'm mindful of the fact that I am also missing a
budget hearing currently to chair this meeting. But let me ask
you, as far as the Budget Committee is concerned, doesn't the
Budget Committee already have jurisdiction over defining
emergency situations?
Mr. Yakym. We do. But we also believe that having this
fully baked into the Rules would be an additional layer of
accountability and enforceability.
The Chairman. Is there additional legislation that needs to
come through the Budget Committee, though, in this regard?
Mr. Yakym. We may be introducing additional legislation on
this matter, but we think having a hard and fast rule baked
into the House Rules going into next year would certainly be in
the best interest of not only our House but also the broader
country as well.
The Chairman. Well, it certainly begs credibility that you
would pass something as an emergency that is not going to be
spent for another 8 years, so I understand your anxiety there.
Again, I want to thank you for your testimony.
I will go to the ranking member for his questions.
Mr. McGovern. I want to thank you both for your
suggestions. They certainly deserve consideration.
And Mr. Castro, on the issue that you brought up initially,
you know, as someone who has worked on issues over the years
that require access to the SCI information, I certainly
understand the importance of ensuring Congress has the capacity
to analyze this information.
If I recall, when we took over a while ago, this issue was
brought up. I think we kind of looked into it. I think there
are some complications, but we ought to stay in touch and
figure out----
Mr. Castro. Yeah. I hope you all will take a fresh look,
Ranking Member.
Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
Mr. Castro. Obviously, it makes it harder to do our work as
Members. Remember, the only time we can view these materials is
by going to the SCIF.
Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
Mr. Castro. So you have got all of these people with busy
schedules who are supposed to be performing oversight, no
personal staff help, so we are with all relying on committee
staff. And the committee staff does an incredible job. They
work very hard. But, I mean, as you know, these are--the
material that we are dealing with, it is some of the highest
stakes in this building.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Castro. And I just think it is a liability at this
point not to have somebody there to be helpful.
Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent
to insert into the record the following statements from
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz writing in support of
remote voting for new parents; Representative Mullin writing in
support of codifying House digital services as the Office of
Digital Services; adjusting staff pay for inflation, and
piloting floor schedule improvements to reduce the number of
travel days and improve productivity; Representative Mike Levin
writing in support of placing the Transition Assistance Program
under the primary jurisdiction of the Veterans Affairs
Committee; and Ranking Member Takano writing to urge us to
establish a House office for science and technology.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered. All of those
will be entered into the record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McGovern. I yield back.
The Chairman. And recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota
for questions.
Mrs. Fischbach. I have none.
The Chairman. The gentlelady has no questions.
The gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Norman. No.
The Chairman. No questions.
Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions of this
panel, I----
Mr. Castro. Chairman, can I enter just a letter into the
record on the first issue I presented on?
The Chairman. On----
Mr. Castro. Just enter this letter into the record?
The Chairman. And the letter?
Mr. Castro. Yeah, it is a letter that was signed by many
Members of Congress in support of the first issue that I
described allowing for personal staff from members of certain
committees who sit on the Intelligence Committee.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Castro. Thanks.
The Chairman. And, again, I want to thank the panel for
their thoughtful presentation and the thoughtful responses to
questions, and this panel is excused.
Prior to going to our next panel, I also want to--without
objection, the written testimony of the following members will
be included in the record: Mr. Issa, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
D'Esposito.
Without objection, all of those members' statements will be
inserted into the record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. We will call up our next panel, Mr. Ogles.
Let me again remind you any materials that you wish to be
made as part of the record will be done so. And you are now
recognized to give us your summary of your prepared remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDREW OGLES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Dr. Burgess, Ranking Member.
Each of us has an obligation to the American people to make
this historic institution work for them, and I know that we all
share common commitment. When Republicans took the majority, we
had a chance to fix how Washington works to make it work for
everyone, and after the longest Speaker fight since before the
Civil War, we developed a House rules package befitting the
greatness of the people of our Nation. From sea to shining sea,
to my home in Maury County, Tennessee, this rules package gave
all Americans a greater voice into our legislative process.
Through the efforts of my colleagues and I, Republicans
passed with near unanimous support the current rules package
governing how the House does business, and the results speak
for themselves. When I say 2026, I am not talking about the
calendar year. I am talking about the number of Republican
amendments that have been made in order since last January. And
my colleagues and I have indicated from the very beginning
having all viewpoints from across the Republican Conference
represented in this legislative process provides greater input
and diversity as we move forward for our respective districts.
The number of Republican amendments made in order since
this last January is more than a total combined number of those
amendments made in order from the 115th to the 117th Congress.
With members having the ability to amend legislation, every
House Republican has the opportunity to deliver on district-
specific priorities, including those Republicans in
congressional districts Joe Biden carried in 2020. For my own
part, I have been able to get 59 amendments through the House.
That matters enormously to my constituents back home. This
outcome across the conference is unprecedented in terms of its
level of success. It has yielded great results and has
benefited Republicans from New York, to Middle Tennessee, to
California.
Despite the numerous positive outcomes for Republicans and
our constituents this Congress, I know there are plenty of
well-meaning folks on our side who want to change House rules
and move back to the previous status quo. However, I would
argue that changes to the reforms adopted in this Congress'
rules package would make it even harder to develop a consensus
among Republicans in the new Congress.
For instance, aside from the second appropriations minibus
this past March, House leadership has done a great job of
adhering to the so-called 72-hour rule, giving members and
their staff 72 hours, a real 72 hours, to review consequential
legislation.
Legislation should continue to be focused on a single
subject along with the comparative print. This ought to be the
rule for the 119th Congress, and I would be surprised to hear
any opposition to this that isn't led by the Democrats. But if
we changed it, we would start losing our own colleagues.
Another flash point this Congress has centered around the
use of the Holman Rule. I recognize the concerns that some on
this panel may have, including the potential
unconstitutionality of reducing salaries to $1. I would support
a modified Holman rule which would address the minimum wage
concern raised by folks in the conference. But otherwise, any
amendment to either reduce the salary or expenses of an
underperforming individual or office must be made in order to
any appropriations bill.
Again, every single person in our conference, with the
exception of one, voted in support of the Holman Rule in
allowing individual members acting on behalf of their
constituents to hold rogue and underperforming bureaucrats to
account.
This Congress' rule package also includes permitting rank-
and-file members to raise a question of the privileges of the
House under clause 2(a) of rule IX. Insofar as most
Republicans' applications of rule IX are concerned, from
censures to voting on terminating national emergencies, if you
are opposed to the underlying policy, members can simply vote
against the things they don't support. Quite frankly, that is
how this place is supposed to work. There is no good argument
to deny rank-and-file members who would like the option of
influencing the legislative debate.
The most significant implication of keeping clause 2(a) of
rule IX the same is the motion to vacate. I personally want to
make this point clear: I never have, I don't plan to, or have
any desire to utilize the motion to vacate. And I am sure many
of my colleagues would agree with that same sentiment.
However, if we attempt to change the parameters and
circumstances under which a motion to vacate may be brought up,
it would undoubtedly fracture the Republican Conference. We all
agreed on the changes to clause 2(a) of rule IX as well as the
one-person motion to vacate. Everybody who is a Republican
serving today, aside from one person, agreed to that on the
record. Again, attempts to change the threshold would invite
more chaos.
Aside from keeping the rules package as it is currently
constituted, I would like to propose a few ideas of my own, if
I may. The first is incorporating a modified version of GOP
Conference rule 29 into the rules of the House. Rule 29 says we
can't consider any legislation under suspension of the rules if
it fails to include a cost estimate or to which the cost
estimate exceeds $100 million. However, this rule has often
been waived. Indeed it's been waived far too many times.
As a result, I would recommend the 119th Congress nullify
the waiver completely when incorporating Conference rule 29
into House rules.
We should simultaneously also put an end to the bills that
authorize appropriations in excess of $100 million. If we want
to get serious about spending--that should be a common
objective among Republicans, by the way--we cannot just let
bills authorizing hundreds of millions in spending pass on
suspension by voice, and also argue that it won't affect direct
spending. It is more than a little disingenuous, it misleads
the American people, and if Congress wants to consider massive
spending legislation we ought to do so under a rule, not under
suspension.
On the topic of suspensions, we also need to return back to
the pre-Pelosi era norm of only considering suspension votes
Monday through Wednesday. This was the norm of the House
codified in clause 1 of rule XV. The ability to airdrop
suspension votes at any time creates additional confusion,
disruption, and incentivizes both parties to plan less
effectively.
Another proposed change to the 118th rule package
implicates amendments to appropriations legislation. It is
nearly impossible to cut from one program to fund another. In
other words, rank-and-file members are still unable to
prioritize spending within an appropriations bill.
My recommendation directs the Congressional Budget Office
to provide congressional offices with the outlay rate of any
program requested within an appropriations bill. And if the
ensuing amendment balances; in other words, if it doesn't
affect the debt, the amendment must be made in order; that or
commonsense increase/decrease amendments ought to be made in
order. I am perfectly amenable to both.
In sum, I recommend the following: Keeping the 72-hour rule
for reviewing legislation; securing the Holman Rule while
addressing concerns with decreasing someone's salary, the
minimum wage concern; preserving the right of any member to
offer a question of the privileges of the House, and retaining
the motion to vacate threshold as it is; abandoning closed
rules; incorporating a modified Conference rule 29 into the
House rules and eliminating existing waiver authority;
reimposing the pre-Pelosi era rule that suspensions may be only
considered Monday through Wednesday; directing the CBO to work
with member offices to obtain outlay rates and making
subsequent appropriation amendments in order; and otherwise
maintaining the 118th rules package.
This rules package must be the floor not the ceiling for
subsequent negotiation and debate. Again, 220 Republicans voted
for it.
I thank you for this opportunity and the time that you have
allowed me and your graciousness, sir. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Ogles follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Chairman Foxx, Dr. Foxx.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.
Thanks for hosting this member day and giving members the
opportunity to speak before the committee.
As we all remember, the start of the 118th Congress was a
turbulent time for this institution. While we worked diligently
to elect a Speaker of the House, there was confusion about when
Members-elect officially become Members of Congress bestowed
with the powers of the office to perform their duties, such as
receiving intelligence briefings and conducting oversight.
Legal scholars agree that Members-elect must take the oath
of office to begin exercising the authorities of office. While
the Speaker of the House is traditionally the one who
administers the oath of office, the 20th Amendment to the
Constitution states that the terms of Representatives shall
begin on January 3 at noon. Therefore, it is the opinion of
many that it is not a requirement for the Speaker to administer
the oath of office, but rather the usual practice of the House.
Therefore, to prevent confusion in the event that future
Congresses also have difficulty electing a Speaker, I believe
it is wise to ensure that Members-elect become full-fledged
Members of Congress on January 3 at noon. The best way to do
that is to require Members-elect to submit signed oath of
office cards to the House Clerk before noon on January 3. This
ensures that at noon all Members-elect will be able to exercise
the powers of office immediately. Members-elect already sign
oath of office cards that are filed with the House Clerk, and
counting these signed cards as the legal oath of office would
reduce confusion and help this institution function better.
The Speaker of the House could still ask members to affirm
their oaths of office in the Chamber publicly after his or her
election as Speaker, but the removal of uncertainty about when
the powers of office begin would strengthen this institution
for future generations.
We owe it to our posterity to fix the problems of our time
and leave these institutions stronger than when we arrived.
So that is my--I have introduced the bill to do that, and I
think it would help us a great deal if we did it.
The Chairman. Again, I thank you both for bringing these to
the committee.
Let me just ask you, Ms. Foxx, Dr. Foxx, the term of a
departing Member of Congress, that would not extend beyond noon
of January 3 even if the Speaker was not elected and the new
Congress was not supporting it. I just want to make sure that I
can make plans for after noon on January 3.
Ms. Foxx. Yeah, I think you would be released, Dr. Burgess,
if that is what you wish.
The Chairman. I'm telling any day now I shall be released.
I will recognize the ranking member for his questions.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
And, Dr. Foxx, thank you for bringing this to our
attention. I need to think about it a little bit. This is the
first time I think anyone has brought this kind of amendment
before us.
And, Mr. Ogles, I was listening to you, and I am looking at
the summary that you submitted, and one of the things in the
summary that you guys submitted was dialing back closed rules,
prioritizing open or structured rules by keeping Mr. Massie,
Mr. Roy, and Mr. Norman on the Rules Committee. And I love them
all, but I may feel bad for Ms. Fischbach.
But the deal is, I guess what I find somewhat amusing is
that you guys just broke the record of the most closed rules in
history. We had 106 closed rules come out of this committee.
And I am just doing a quick search. Mr. Massie voted for 93 of
them; Mr. Norman voted for 94 of them; Mr. Roy voted for 91 of
them. And you, Mr. Ogles, voted for 97 closed rules on the
House floor. And by the way, of the amendments that were
denied, more than half of them were Republican amendments that
were brought before this committee that were blocked in this
Congress.
So, I don't know whether rules changes or assigning who
goes on the Rules Committee is going to do the job. I mean,
there just has to be a mindset change that ideas--by the way,
not just Republican ideas, because you talked about how great
the committee was to Republicans, although, I, again, point out
half of the Republican amendments were denied. But this is a
place where there has to be more space for people of all
opinions to be able to offer their ideas and have a debate.
And so, I just wanted to point that out because I thought
it was kind of strange that was the point of your testimony
given the fact that, again, Republicans just broke their
previous record of the most closed rules of any Congress in
history. And I get it, when you are in charge, you want to
control the process. You know, you don't want to have people--
your members take tough votes. But this is the Congress of the
United States, and I think people expect us to have a freer
exchange of ideas on the House floor than we currently do.
And so, again, I thank you for being here.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The gentlelady from Minnesota.
Mrs. Fischbach. I have no question.
The Chairman. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. No questions.
The Chairman. Seeing no other members wishing to ask
questions, this panel is excused. And thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I would just ask is there anyone else who is
seeking to testify before the Rules Committee?
Seeing none, without objection, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]