Transcripts For CSPAN House Hearing On Possible Rule Changes For New Congress 20240711

That is correct, mr. Chairman. We got to find something we can join here. There may be good reasons, im just trying to i want a global fund to be created like we have done for aids and malaria and other things to deal with plastics that we can control. I want us to look at the World Bank Program and see if we can make some contributions there. We are going to leave the hearing open to friday at 2 00 p. M. For additional questions. I just want to thank you both. I look forward to working with you on this. We are going to provide you more resources. Tell us what you think it is best utilized. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank you for the attention. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you so much. Today, the conclusion of a q a interview about the relationship between the media and u. S. President s. Todays program talks about president s from Franklin Roosevelt to donald trump. With joe biden as president elect, go to cspan for live coverage of the election process and transition of power. Tonight, a Senate Rules Committee hearing on proposals for two new smithsonian museums. The american Womens History Museum and the museum of the american latino. Senators spoke in favor of the proposals. Watch that tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. The u. S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in trump v new york. Will hear whether the president has the authority to exclude undocumented individuals living in the u. S. To a census apportionment. Watch it live on cspan. Next, the House Rules Committee holds a hearing on possible rule changes for the Upcoming Congress which begins in january. Members discussed modernization efforts, Committee Jurisdictions, and the use of proxy voting. This is 3. 5 hours. The rules committee will come to order. Us ins an opportunity for the committee to do something radical. To listen more than we talk. [laughter] this is a chance for us to hear from our colleagues over both sides of the aisle. Regardless of who is in Congress Next year, i believe we believe this means listening to all members and thats what what we will do here today. We took a collaborative approach for the rules committee. I am proud to say it led to the first bipartisan package in decades. It took time and a willingness to acknowledge that no party has a monopoly on good ideas. M proud of what we are what we created together. Although we were already holding these hearings in our committee, we require that others hold them also so that all members have a chance to be heard in front of congress. Hopefully, more good ideas have the chance to see a light of day. I couldnt ask for a better partner than our Ranking Member, tom cole. We come from different parties, but we share the same dedication to this institution. What this is really all about, a wellfunctioning house allows us to tackle the issues that can make a positive difference in peoples lives and that is why we already for prep congress and the first place. Before i turn to our ranking on the job to for the house of new parliament parliamentian. Mr. Jason smith. Mr. Cole and i have said a lot about him to his predecessor. And he and his predecessor tom wickham on the floor. Im not going to repeat all of the stuff, but sufficed to say that our members spent a lot of time consulting with the parliament tarian parliamentarians office. I think its fitting that hes starting as parliamentarian on a rules committee day. All of that is good news. So, now, i want to turn to our Ranking Member, mr. Cole, for any comments he would like to make. Can you hear me . So, i think we have a little bit of a Technical Glitch here. Were going to just wait a minute while mr. Cole gets check, check, one two. I can hear you. Its working. So, mr. Cole, i said a whole bunch of nice things about you. Im not sure if you were plugged when i said that . Just now . Yeah, i just said a whole bunch of nice things about you. Oh, mr. Chairman. This is the prehearing, so its not recorded in any way, youre in the clear. Ohno, were in the hearing. Oh . Thank you for thank you nice things about me. Ill reciprocate and take your word that you said nice things, i feel obliged to say nice things back but theyre pretty easy to say. First of all, mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for holding the hearing, and i dont think theres anyone more dedicated to the institution than you and frankly making it member friendly and having a forum where we try to make this as responsive to each individual member as an substitution as it can be while we discharge our functions. Weve been a good partner in defending the powers and prerogatives of the institution and, again, trying to position members where they can be successful as they fight to achieve whats in the best interest of the people who sent them here. And the interests of the country as a whole. So, i look forward very much to the ideas well hear today. I have no preconceptions. I would be shocked if i agreed with every one of them. But i appreciate every one being offered. And i know the members who want to present ideas are doing it, again in the best interest of the institution. So, i thank you very much for making this forum available to our colleagues. I look forward to working with you to see if there are suggestions that we can in a bipartisan manner work on together to try and improve the functionality, the flexibility and the effectiveness of the house of representatives. And i know that we all want to do that. I applaud you for your leadership. With that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. I thank you very much, Ranking Member cole is back. And im grateful for his opening. We will be calling up witnesses in panels as they logon to the virtual platform. Id like to welcome our first panel to propose rule changes to congress. Were delighted to you have. Without objection, any written materials that you submit to rules documents house. Gov before the conclusion will be entered into the record. The first panel is majority leader hoyer, clyburn, thompson, mr. Landerman and miss esche. Well yield. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, im glad to be with you today, and i thank mr. Cole as well. I think the house is advantaged by the new relationship that you and tom cole as the Ranking Member have. And the fact that both of you care about the institution. And i might start with my remarks with no matter what we do in the rules. No matter what our rules say, if we dont have comedy and respect from one another, the rules will not make us work better. They can set great guidelines for us, they can be the rules of conduct. They can be the rules of how we consider bills, but one of the things that we all need to work together, in the next congress is to raise the respect for one another, raise the consideration for one another. And i think, mr. Chairman, you and the Ranking Member reflect that kind of attitude and working relationship. So, i appreciate the opportunity to participate in the days member listed day on the rules package for the house for the 117th congress. As we look ahead, many are anticipating a busy start to next year. I certainly do. Rulings ought to facilitate the houses moves for the most pressing challenges facing our country. Others have spoken or will speak, im sure, at length, about several of the proposals for next years rules package including the importance of our pay as you go rule. But i want to focus on the restoration of congressionally directed spending. Now, thats a great phrase. And you i both know the press and the public will call them earmarks. But congressionally directed spending with the safe guards that democrats put in place in 2007 and 2009, very, very important. The safe guards are discussed at the same time we discussed the focus on congressionally directed spending. Let me add, before i go further, on the pay as you go, that we created the pay as you go waiver for emergencies and the covid19 crisis. And we have to meet a serious threat by investing in immediate priorities and needs. We now have substantial fiscal challenges however about that. And they will confront us in the years and years ahead. And we must work responsibly together to address them in the coming years. With regard to congressionally directed spending, after abuses in the system were brought to light, we implemented significant reforms, as i referenced, that made it transparent and held members accountable. A couple of those reforms are included in the rules. And i number of those reforms included in the committee rules. As you know, weve restricted to governmental or nonprofit recipients and required every request to be published online for the American People to see and judge. One of those rules is in the rules of the house. We made the system work and kept it honest. Unfortunately, however, when our republican colleagues took control of the house in 2011, they used congressionally directed spending as a partisan talking point, unfortunately. And eliminated this valuable tool for congress and surrendered part of our power to the executive branch. Tom cole just said, and i agree with him very much, that the powers and prerogatives of the institution need to be protected. Ill speak just a minute about that. Restoring this power in congress, i believe, is essential to restoring the balance of our constitutional systems of checks and balance. A major focus, mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, if i am fortunate enough to be the majority leader in the next congress will be finding ways to restore that balance. That is the balance between the executive and the congress. And looking now, congress can better assert the powers that our founders intended us to have as a coequal branch of government. And as the Sole Authority on spending taxpayer funds. Not the executive, that is why i think the restoration of the congressionally directed spending for projects, that is so important. And my belief is that members of congress elected from 435 districts around the country know, frankly, better than those who may be in washington what their districts need. What their states need. And we ought to return to a time when members can make that decision. But obviously, have that judgment reviewed by the other 434 members of the congress. The founders neither intended nor envisioned the expansion of executive power the kind weve seen in recent years. Through many administrations, democrat and republican, however, we have seen that concern heightened by the actions of the Trump Administration. This president in my view sees congress not as a coequal partner in governing, but as an impediment to his authoritarian tendencies. We much approach the issue of congressly directed spending within this context. Since the elimination of congressionally directed spending in 2011, decisions about funding requests for projects in communities across the country have been made by the executive branch, not by the members of congress, who under the constitution are solely responsible for the spending of money. Members know the needs of their district as i said and are in contact on a daily basis with local leaders and civic organization. Thats why i strongly support restoring safe, transparent and accountable congressionally directed spending of the 117thcongress. And i will work towards that end with whomever is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Several of the reforms we adapted during our previous majority are still part of the current house rules. But others were adopted as committee practices, and we ought to consider whether codifying them within the house rules between the 117thcongress. I want to thank the chairman and his fellow commit members, mr. Chairman, for working hard on a number of recommendations for the next congress which include restoring congressionally directed spending. And i thank him for that. I believe strongly that this spending ought not to be, however, conditioned on any way on the involvement of entities outside of congress. When i say involvement, let me explain that i mean without the necessity to have a checkoff or an approval of a local official or state official. This is the congress judgment. However, obviously, we would involve all of those in communications for their advice and counsel on what spending may be helpful for local jurisdictions. I, therefore, would say that we ought not to have any requirement for outside approval, other than the voting members of the congress. I hope you will consider this proposal seriously. That you can help us better serve the people and communities that we represent. Again, i want to thank you again for holding the listing day and the hearing and the many important and positive ideas members are bringing to the table for next year. I would close as i began, however, i think all of us, agency leaders, as members of the congress of the United States, when we get through this toxic partisan battle that were now participating in, hopefully, well be able to restore the kind of comidy, mr. Chairman that i experienced working in the congress, the kind of comedy, not only on the rules committee but with the congress of the United States. One of the finest members with whom ive served in the congress over the last 40 years was bob michael who was the minority leader. He was a partisan republican from peoria, illinois. The middle of our country. He cared for his party and his partys leader. But he cared for his country, and he cared for the institution. And he respected and worked with in a positive way his fellow members. I appreciated that. I think other members appreciated that. And as a member for over 20 years on the Appropriations Committee, when i came there, it was a very partisan committee. And mr. Conte was an extraordinary member, a passionate member, but also a before bipartisan member. And thats what we need. Not bipartisan in the sense that im going to change my philosophy, or my republican counterpart is going to change his or her philosophy, but that we both have a philosophy that your ideas are worth listening to, as are mine. And we may disagree, but we can do so in a positive way. And that furthers the work of the congress of the United States. And our country. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be with you. Thank you very much. I appreciated your testimony. Were now going to majority w. H. I. P. Clyburn. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And mr. Ranking member, Ranking Member cole and members of the committee, thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this members hearing today. To discuss what may be ways to take back the Spending Authority that we have in article 1, of the constitution, which in recent years have been seated through the executive branch. I joined this office proudly back in 1993. By the time the appropriations process allowed members to direct funds to activities and communities they deemed worthy. This process directed a small percentage of the appropriations levels to be congressly directed, thereby, not adding thing to the cost of the spending bills. And as a result of this process resulted in federal employees with no knowledge of the needs decided on the merit of our requests. Even with the process fair, such as the competitive process is inherently unfair because they were on skills, rather than needs. I represented many committees, each with its own challenges and needs. These committees have limited resources and are unable to hire writers and lobbyists. What they do is their congressmen who lives among them, interacts with them regularly, understands their needs. And has been elected by them to represent their needs. When i was first elected to congress, i was told by my states secretary of commerce that until all the problems in my district was solved, theres little chance that retracting the levels of investments needed to improve the health, education and welfare of the citizens who had overwhelmingly elected me to serve them. I needed his advice. I needed to hear my process to secure funding. Through the United States army corps of engineers, to create and expand the late marin regional water. And might i add, i was criticized severely, by many of the people in this district, because that to them was wasting federal dollars. Well, we moved not just to establish it but to expand is it. And they closed a six county rural area. Today, i am pleased to say that South Carolina won the first plant in this country because of their water system. And now, theyre creating what is the 4,000 jobs in this rural area. Were it not for this water system, these jobs would surely have gone elsewhere. 25 years ago, South Carolinas economy was driven by textiles and tobacco. And many of these communities relied on them. Today, South Carolinas economy is driven by tourism. 25 years ago, South Carolina had no today it has two. South carolina had no what would be called national farmers. Today, South Carolina has three. The initial funding for the nationally acclaim eded Program Designed to recruit, educate and train africanamerican natives to become School Teachers in elementary schools. That program was funded with an earmark and is now a national program. Many of the communities in my district have been chronically neglected over the years. I also was elected to address this and help these communities that can been in poverty for generations to help them get their fair share. While ive spoken to a few successes, many other communities in our district are are still struggling. They need clean water. They need sewage systems. They need targeted federal investments. Mr. Chairman and members, we can fit into our rules the safe guards needed to protect the process. We should prohibit a member from sponsoring a project that their own family members have financial interests in. We should require transparency, so that the public can see what the members have requested. I have always been proud of the spending i requested for my district. And i welcome the public knowing about every one of them. As our districts elected representatives, our rules empower us to request spending we deem to be in the best interest of the people we represent. We do our constituents a disservice by accedeing to the democracy, the power that the constitution has given us to improve the lives of our constituents. And help them pursue their dreams and aspirations. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. And i yield back. Thank you very much. Now to chairman thompson. Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member cole. Listen, chairman, 16 years ago the Bipartisan Commission recommended that congress should create a single principle point of oversight and review of Homeland Security. That should be one permanent standing community for Homeland Security in each chamber. At the time, the commission acknowledged that their recommendation to reform congressional oversight was the most difficult to realize, but was among the most important of these recommendations. When the 109th congress convened on january 4th, 2005, the committee on Homeland Security became the 20th standingcommittee of the house. And the first new one since 1974. At that time, the Committee Jurisdiction statement reflected the reluctance of other committees to relinquish jurisdiction to this new committee. The structure of committees on Homeland Securitys jurisdictional statement is unlike any other authorizing committee. It does not include broad subject Matter Authority like, for instance, the Armed Services company as common defense generally. Instead it utilizing a novel structure where it mostly limited committee Homeland Security black letter jurisdiction to six narrow drawn activities within dhs. Over the years, with adequate service jurisdictional statement has been criticized in independent reports by a host of groups including the bipartisan politics center, the heritage foundation, the Brookings Institution. George washington Homeland Security policy institute. And the center for strategic and international studies. A 2013 Task Force Report by the astin institute and annanberg foundation concluded that fragmented jurisdiction impedes dhs ability to deal with three major vulnerabilities. The threat posed by small aircraft and boats, Cyber Security, and biological weapons. Yet, over the past 15 years, on under both republican and democratic leadership, that statement has remained unchanged. It concluded that dhs should have an oversight structure that resembles the one governing other critical departments such as defense of justice and the committees claim of jurisdiction over dhs should have overlapping membership. And just this past august, mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Council in its future dhs project recommended reform explaining that more than 90 committees and subcommittees have jurisdiction over all or part of dhs. And that the best window of opportunity for this will be during the 90day window between the november 3rd election and the start of the 117th congress on january 4th, 2021. Chairman mcgovern, i could not agree more. There is no question that the moment is right for reforming dhs jurisdictional statement in the 117th congress. Next year marks the 20thanniversary of the 9 11 attacks, a catastrophic event that drove the creation of the department of Homeland Security. And in, turn, my committee. For those 15 years have passed in which theres been more than justify enough evidence to support the conclusion that the jurisdictional statement is inadequate and undermines the crucial rule as dhs authorizer. Finally, were at a moment when public trust in the department is at an alltime low. Given its role in the president s cool immigration agenda, and on the streets most recently, where protests and calls for reform have grown more and more urgent. Dhs does not need dismantling, it needs reforming, but for that to happen, the committee of Homeland Security must have adequate legislative authority to produce and bring to the floor a dhs reform package. Ive been on the committee since its earliest days. And im proud of the work weve been able to accomplish, despite our jurisdictional limitation. However, the committees woefully inadequate jurisdiction causes many functions of dhs, a wide reaching agency, with Collaborative Missions in many fields, to fall under the jurisdiction of far too many competing congressional committees. The result is where the referrals have bogged down important legislation to shape the future of the department. And to rein in bad policy decisions and the leadership of various administrations without effective leadership from congress, including consistent, reauthorization of the department, secretaries have been able to carry out wrong, ineffective and dangerous policies. I am proposing, as chairs on both sides of the aisle have in the past, that congress reorganize the committees jurisdiction to bring it in line, with the goals of the 9 11 commissions recommendation. And give the department a true authorizing committee, with authority to advance, reform legislation, and put it on a positive path. I recognize the challenge that presents, and remember the difficulty in simply creating the committee in the first place. However, its the right thing to do. And believe that the time has come to do it. With that, mr. Chair, i yield back. And thank the committee for the opportunity to present my position. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You can hear me okay . Yes. Very good. Good afternoon, chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole and members of the committee, let me begin by thanking you all for your commitment for letting me give you feedback as you consider rules changes for the 117th congress. As im sure my colleagues on this distinguished panel may be well aware, Cyber Security has been an issue of great importance to me for more than a dozen years. And for more than a decade, ive made protecting our nations Critical Infrastructure, from our health care system, to our power grid to election a top priority. I served as the chairman of the intelligence emerging capability subcommittee on the house Armed Services committee and served as a Senior Member of the committee on Homeland Security subcommittee on Cyber Security, Infrastructure Protection and innovation. Congressman mike coyle and i co cochaired the congressional caucus. I come to you today to share position in improving the position. I had the privilege of this pig by House Speaker pelosi. Congress comprised the commission, with members of the executive branch and six private sector experts that resulted in a strategic approach of better protecting the United States from cyber attack from significant consequence. We met for a year before releasing my report on march 11th that called for it. In addition to this strategic vision, we had 82 recommendations how the government can implement it. More than 50 of those recommendations are directed to congress. Thanks in no small part to your leadership, chairman mcgovern,the house has included more than 20 of these bipartisan recommendations in this years mdaa, including within the executive office of the president. Id like to reiterate my thanks to you and your staff to make sure that these particular proposals were presented to the full house for today. However, one of the commissions most critical legislative recommendations is directed not at the administration, but congress itself. The recommendation 1. 2 of the Commission Report states, and i quote, congress should create house permanent select and senate collect committees, cybercommittees, on Cyber Security. Consolidate budgetary and legislative jurisdiction over Cyber Security issues as well and traditional oversight. And this is what i submit for your recommendation today. The challenges of Cyber Security jurisdiction were on full display earlier this week when we considered three suspensions redding to grid Cyber Security. Jim thompson was absolutely correct in the concerns he expressed on the floor during debate. But it did not reflect the views of the intraagency and would increase in conducting this Critical Infrastructure sector. Chairman pallone was correct that in his jurisdiction the bills were squarely in the remit of the energy committee. Had commerce included language to avoid that they warned against, the bill included a referral to any number of additional committees. So, i can think of no clearer example on how the Committee Structure is broken than it incentivizes the kind of silos that are empathetical to all of the approaches we need to combat cyberthreat. So, our proposal directly today, directly counters, the stove piping by centralizing jurisdiction among its many benefits it will increase substream making capacity by increasing staff and expertise. It will streamline oversight from the dozens of committees and subcommittees that currently claim some jurisdiction over cyber. And it will help congress with the speed and agility needed to have any hope of keeping up with the pace of technological innovation. Mr. Chairman, i understand that matters of Committee Jurisdiction are extremely important. I realize it represents a sea change. I believe its inevitable. We have seen Cyber Attacks that have failed the national economy. We have seen our adversaries invest in their offensive cybercapabilities. And we remain a country that because we best take advantage of the internet were made the most vulnerable in signercyberspace. I believe this congress will recognize we could have done more and because the current Committee Structure is actively undermining our ability to do so. Mr. Chairman, what im hoping you and your esteemed colleagues will do with the next rules package is take a page out of the cybercommissions playbook. From the outset, we time have the impact of the 9 11 commission without the reciprocating event of the National Tragedy on scale of that 9 11 event. No small task. But as it was said, i devote,quote, the warning lights are blinking red again, end quote. This organization will change not by itself prevent disaster. But it will Position Congress to ensure the internet is free, open, interoperable and secure in the decades to come. Finally, mr. Chairman, let me Say Something about chairman thompsons remarks we heard a few minutes ago. First off, i want to fully associate myself with Jim Thompsons remarks. Dhs is hurting. And around jurisdiction, its quite frankly, part of the problem. Secondly, while i believe a cybercommittee is inevitable, i appreciate that its a big step. If the rules committee feels more comfortable consolidates jurisdiction within the existing committee, i believe that will significantly improve the situation. And i believe the committee on Homeland Security is the only sensible home. So, again, i thank chairman thompson for his leadership on many issues. Again, i appreciate myself with him. With that, mr. Chairman, i want to thank you. I yield back and look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. And the final person on the panel is miss esche. Thank you chairman mcgovern and Ranking Member cole. The two of you, i think, are a source of pride to all of the members in the house, by the way you work together. And all of the members of the committee. I appreciate being able to offer my suggestions for updating the house rules for the 117thcongress. Specifically, i urge to you consider four changes. The first is to expand multi factor authentication requirements. The second is to establish a working group to combat recommendations. And the third is to make sure all house documents are machine readable and the fourth is to make permanent Electronic Commission of legislative materials. I certainly respect the hard work of the house staff to protect Cyber Security, but i think we have more work to do. You might notice that the i. D. Cards of our staff have a chip. Except its not an actual chip. Its an image of a chip. And this measure is called security theater. So, i urge the Committee First of all to acquire multifactor authentication for all access to the house network. Executive branch employees have i. D. S with real chips which they insert into their laptops for multifactor authentication. We currently require multifactor authentication for remote access. But our requirements are actually incomplete. Id be happy to share vulnerabilities with the committee privately, so as to not to publicize them. Secondly, i urge the committee to establish a working group, to study and combat potential surveillance of congressional communications. On august 28th, wrote to the director of national intelligence, the dni, and i expressed my concerns regarding recent allegations that Edward Snowden unveiled communications with congress when he was an nsa contractor. I asked whether it surveilled congress or whether it has protective safe guards for it. Most frankly, the responses to my letter really ignored answering the questions. Weve all received letters like that so i think you know exactly what im talking about. But, sadly, this isnt the first time that the i. C. Has surveilled congress. In the 70s, the cia maintains files on 75 members of congress. So, we know that our constitution established three coequal branches of government, with separation of power, one branch being able to spy on another is totally unacceptable. Now, press reports also indicate that washington is littered with stingrays. These are devices used to intercept cellular communications. And while dhs confirmed the problem, its not clear whos operating the devices. Third, i urge the committee to require all legislative material to be posted in a machine readable format. Today, the bills are posted to congress. Gov, and a machine readable format. But the materials for markups are posted online, as pdfs and sometimes, they arent even searchable pdfs. And why does this matter . If we receive amendments in the nature of a substitute 24 hours before marking up lengthy bills we cant compare the amendments to original bills without manually reading the documents line by line. Its the 21st century, so, we need to do something about this. With machine readable formats, members, their staff and the public can easily analyze amendments. And finally, i ask that the committee make permanent procedures for submitting legislative materials to the clerk electronically. On april 16th,excuse me, on april 16th, the clerk announced procedures for secure process to introduce legislation. Add cosponsors to bills. And insert statements to the congressional record electronically. This decision remains essential for the safety of members and staff. And my observation is that this process is working quite well. So, making this change permanent makes our operations more efficient. And electronic time stamp also means we have a paper trail as to when items were filed. So, again, i want to thank the committee for considering my recommendations. I welcome any questions that the committee might have for me, moving forward. And i yield back. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for your testimony. And you know, i think everybody has important ideas here. And i associate myself with suggestions of the majority leader. I do think congressional directed spending is something get back to. Not just because we know our districts better, i think, than the executive branch, but also because i think if the past is any indication, the people have skin in the game when people know passing certain bills will make a difference in their district. We tend to get more bipartisan support. I look forward to this discussion continuing and i, again, jim he was very direct and. Ersuasive about the value i appreciate your recommendations. The issue when you talk about Committee Jurisdiction is always a little bit delicate. When you want to expand your jurisdiction, someone elses diminishing theirs. Its not always easy to get everybody on the same sheet of music. In the coming weeks, we will see if we can get a consensus among the committees that may be impacted by a consolidation and maybe we can come by some accommodation. Changes. Hese are rules you to make with sure it is possible. We appreciate very much. Cannot thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to join you in backing all of the members of the panel. Substantive and significant i would disagree that this is a different loss of power with this president as opposed to any other president. President request to the most earmarks of anybody in congress as a senator but it as soon as he became president decided that they were an appropriate and was happy to be rid of them. Myself, i dont speak for my conference or my leadership. I think that the majority leader is exactly right. We lost an important tool to help our constituents. Many are not in a position to get paid lobbyists. They rely on the member to look after their interests. I agree with the majority leader and the majority whip, who made that safeguards have to be appropriate. We have members who went to prison for abusing the system. The idea of making then accountable, not being able to airdrop spending projects into bills all of those make sense to me, and the idea of moving away from profitmaking institutions makes a lot of sense. Clyburnajority whip a program that encourages africanamerican males to go into teaching began with a single spending project but that is true of one of our most important Weapons Systems which the pentagon resisted and congress had a much better idea than the bureaucracy. Jerry lewis had a lot to do with making sure that to kill her weapons platform is available for our use. It has been controversial but unquestionably valuable. I think this idea of shipping power to the executive branch is a failed experiment. My friend was famous in opposing earmarks. I made the point in one of our discussions. When we had earmarks we actually balanced the budget. Look how close we have come since then. Im not suggesting that earmarks or congressionally selected spending results in a balanced budget, im just saying that there isnt a balance between the two. Very much interested in chairman Thompsons Point about Homeland Security. Al rogers is one of my great friends and he has wrestled with the appropriations side of this. They have important suggestions. Thingsee the same sort of mr. Chairman and should probably submit an idea to the rules committee, i will give you a perfect idea of what is happening. We have the Indian Health care service funded in interior subcommittee. And really should be in the labor health and Human Services. The only part of that agency that is not controlled. The first is that Indian Health is always underfunded. It is the largest item in the interior budget, if you move it to an agency that has 190 billion or a committee within its purview, they have a much better chance of getting that to be. Problem underrate republicans and democrats, its the only agency we dont use mandatory Third Party Funding in. It is limited to the appropriations process. That needs to be looked at. Because it is an appropriated when we had sequester, Indian Health care was cut and it is already the most underfunded part. There are real merit to these suggestions in terms of. Edistributing authority because they have live consequences. This isnt a power game on capitol hill. Where you happen to be placed in the appropriations budget since each one of those subcommittees has a different top line really determines what your prospects are. As ive told my friends in Indian Country on many occasions you will never get ihs funded appropriately as long as its stuck in interior because theres too many responsibilities within that agency and too little money. And thats actually an area where the two parties have worked very, very well together for over a decade now trying to do the best they could under that limited session. I thought i would take the occasion to put my particular favorite in front of people who might be able to help me down the line as we work through this. I want to thank every member for their testimony. I thought this was exceptionally thoughtful, good sessions, a lot of areas here, mr. Majority leader, where you and i agree and where i hope we could work in a bipartisan manner. As the chairman pointed out, this is about institutional appropriate power. This isnt about trying to score political points against anybody and i very much appreciate the spirit in which the suggestions were offered. They all have considerable merit and i look forward to working with my colleagues. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments . Yes, just a couple. Thank you. And i im 100 with mr. Cole on this, both on the directed spending. Also, i think, mr. Cole, you want to present some kind of a rule change as to that Indian Health because it has come up on a number of occasions. I think you brought it up here. We ought to formalize it a little more. I remember we had two colleagues, one of them became my senator, mark udall, who was opposed to earmarks and jeff flake was very much. He would go down to the mic and make his statements and they were wrong then, and i told him so, and i think it really has hurt our institution. A lot of us took pride i know almost everybody took pride in the ability to provide an irrigation, help channel some kind of a difficult ravine or help with a laboratory at a local college and actually you can take ownership of that. As a personal matter as well as a community matter, its very beneficial. So mr. Clyburn, youre absolutely right. I felt personally like i was more effective and more connected to my district with the ability to do some of those things for our boys and girls clubs or Something Like that. Im with mr. Thompson. I served on Homeland Security security many moons ago. I dont know if they remember that. But we had similar problems back then as to not being able to really do all of the things that are required of that committee because we kept bumping into jurisdictional issues. I would be supportive of you two gentlemen and your requests. And that would affect Financial Services because we have a cybersecurity component to that when it comes to the Financial Sector and the hacking potentially and the disruption of the Financial Sector. We should all get together and do that. I appreciate the testimony. But particularly on the directed funding. I think we did ourselves a disservice by doing away with that, and i yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Woodall . Thank you, mr. Chairman. We always are able to make time to do those things that are in our wheelhouse. I liked ms. Eshoos concerned. Whether its showing your i. D. When you pass the entry points when you pass the entry points instead of expecting people to recognize or two factor identification when youre logged into your computer. By the time we come together on ms. Eschoos concerns, its going to be too late because something awful will have happened. We have to exert in the name of protecting the institution some discipline to inconvenience ourselves in ways that ms. Eshoo has taken the time and made a career of understanding for those who do not understand them and will not until its too late. I want to thank her for that and its not in our wheelhouse. We are uncomfortable going down this road sometimes and its easy to put on the back burner until its too late and i hope we will take her advice and her pointed solutions to heart and make sure that we benefit from those. With that, i yield back. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you ill echo the remarks of my colleagues in thanking such a distinguished panel. I want to note, i find it hard to imagine anyone who stood on a Standing Committee with Ed Perlmutter wont remember that. I wont ask for a show of hands, but i find that hard to believe. I was thinking back as mr. As mr. Leader and mr. Whip were having making their comments. I think about the Clinical Sciences building at the university of rochester or the eastman theater or the center for integrated manufacturing studies or the Sustainability Institute at rit. It was for students in the nationally ranked gaming, film animation schools. Those are all things that i was able to actually get funded when i was a member of the new York State Legislature and what we called member items which is effectively the same different term, same thing, that relates to directed spending. I dont think theres any question that you could meet both objectives of insuring transparency and accountability and yet allow members who know their districts, know their communities, the very best to make decisions on priority projects in their regions. I thought mr. Clyburns discussion of what he had been able to do in South Carolina was so right on the money because each of us, each community has challenges, but each are different than every other community. And so i would be a strong supporter of doing that and as i said, i dont think its mutually exclusive that we have transparency and accountability as well as congressionally directed spending. Frankly, i think its so inherent in article 1 responsibilities of the congress and the power of the purse. I would agree with my colleagues who have spoken before and thank the panelists. If its okay, ill admit to not having very much of a Knowledge Base on jurisdictions and i suspect that i i appreciate very much the chairmans acknowledgement of the sensitivity of jurisdictions. Can you just give me sort of an example of how you and your colleagues on the committee feel constrained in ways that would help give me some clarity around what it is exactly that youre asking to do without divulging too much . Perhaps you could give me a sense of an example. Thank you very much. Ill give you a good example is one of the challenges we have is natural disasters. Fema is one of those 22 agencies thats in homeland. Well, before fema can move in the resources pertaining to a hurricane, flood, wildfire, tornado or anything like that, the stafford act has been to be engaged that gives fema the authority to go out and perform its mission. And may i interrupt you . Do you mean the staff in fema staff itself or our staff . The stafford act im sorry. Im sorry. Right. Which is the trigger that provides the resources. Well, stafford act is on another committee. Its not in homeland. So fema is sitting here with all the resources to address the natural disaster, but theyre in neutral because they dont have the authority to go and help american citizens. And sometimes our experience has been those authorities are sometime days, if not weeks, before they engage. But if that authority was within homeland, fema could do its job day one. And so its those kinds of things. The other thing give you a good example, is with i. C. E. , immigration customs enforcement. Well, if you have a problem in your district with i. C. E. , that jurisdiction is in another committee because its considered interior enforcement. But guess what . I. C. E. Is in homeland because part of their mission is border security. So i get the call from many of my colleagues saying, we have this issue with i. C. E. In our district. And then when i try to explain jurisdiction, the first thing they said, arent they in homeland . Youre correct. What im trying to do, we need to get the authorities and jurisdictions to match. And im done after this. Armed services. Anything pertaining to the military goes to Armed Services. Thats it. Agriculture. Anything that goes related to agriculture. Im just trying to connect the mission with the authority and responsibility. Those are very good examples and i appreciate that. My background is in the state legislature and we have discreet jurisdictions for the various committees. At one point i chaired the insurance committee, and Health Insurance ended up being depending on which section of law could be in the insurance committee, could be in the health committee. I guess theres no perfect way to divide that up. I note here in the house, health care could be, could come under ed and labor, energy or commerce, ways and means. Is the situation you face more acute than some of the jurisdictional challenges that would face us on some of the issues like health care, et cetera . You think its unique and more of a bright line. Absolutely. And its a matter of function. You want the agencies to work. So much of what we do is predicated on being able to respond in a timely manner. And so that response is limited simply because the agency that youre located in does not have the authority to execute on that issue. And so i give you another example im done after this. Family separation that we had big issues separating families from others. Well, that authority is not a homeland authority, per se. Its vested in another committee. But the agency that created the problem is in homeland. And so were just trying to to the best that we can tie the authorities and the functions with the agencies. I see. And nothing more than that. And, you know, if the committee would like, i could provide you with several other examples of what were talking about. Just so we can serve the American People in a timely manner. Well, i will say i apologize for the extended questioning. This has been helpful and i apologize, mr. Chair. I would i assume that some of this came out of the fact that as you mentioned 9 11 gave rise to the department of Homeland Security security. So i assume some of this is the developing of an agency and a committee that follows it youre getting shoe horned into existing law and existing wires that preexisted 9 11 and the committee. I think you make a compelling case. I cant imagine the frustration of having to have agencies that are under the jurisdiction of my committee or you have oversight for but you cant really effect or connect with on the issues that colleagues are and the American Public is talking about. I really appreciate very much your leadership and your comments here. The last thing i would say, i agree with my other colleagues. I think you make compelling arguments on Electronic Submission and cybersecurity. Just to go back for a second. The notion of creating a select committee if we were able to address the Homeland Security Committee Issues in the way that you, mr. Chairman, chairman thompson, have suggested, would you then simply create potentially a subcommittee on cybersecurity . Is there no conflict between what youre recommending and others were recommending . No. Absolutely. We created cisa which is a cyber entity that has responsibility across the federal agency platform. And so what were saying is, keep the mission of federal Agency Cybersecurity within that agency. The minute you pull it out, we start creating the same problem we had before we created homeland which is the siloing of information that ended up with 9 11. And so were trying to avoid that by creating a system where everyone is here talking to each other and not everybody trying to come with a turf issue. The other thing i can say is, all of the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission Report spoke to that issue and the only one we have not completely fulfilled is this notion of jurisdiction for the Homeland Security commission. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I apologize for the length in my questioning. But i appreciate all of the panelists and the opportunity to speak. I yield back. Ms. Lesko. Thank you, mr. Chairman. No questions. Ms. Shalala . Did i miss anybody no, im fine. Ive got ive got a couple of things. I agree with directed spending and i agree with representative eshoos recommendation. And mr. Cole, i would love to see the Indian Health service. I struggle trying to get resources for the Indian Health service as well as the food and Drug Administration which was stuck in agriculture because they just were not High Priorities for those committees. Even when i went and personally testified, it was just very difficult to get proper resources. So i would even think about the bureau of the Indian Education being moved to education just to get some attention to these really important agency. Frankly, the only reason the Indian Health service during my years at hhs and the food and Drug Administration, the fda, ever got significant resources was because i was ted stevens doubles partner. And he helped me get resources for those two for those two agencies because it was hard to get the attention of those of those committees. So i just think that thinking through the right alignment is just the right thing to do. Will the gentle lady yield for a question and comment . Yes. Thank you for your focus on this and your time in the and your continued focus on it. But to your point, this is actually an area i will tell you where i would compliment both democrats and republicans on Indian Health for over a decade. Theyve exceeded consistently what republican and democratic administrations have suggested. Theres just not enough money there. Its just a matter of what their total pot is. Exactly. And the second area that i should have mentioned earlier, your opinion on would be really valued, a number of years ago we made the decision i think it was a smart decision, to forward fund veterans health. Its never at risk if were in some sort of political spat up here. We havent done that with Indian Health care. And we ought to do the same thing, particularly if were going to keep it within the discretionary budget. That, again, is something we just simply ought to do so that if theres a squabble up here, all of a sudden theres not a dramatic decline in the availability of health care on some remote indian reservation through, you know where people there have done absolutely nothing wrong. We just havent gotten our job done up here. Thanks for your work and commitment. You have such distinguished record and its much appreciated. Thank you. Does the gentle lady yield back . Are there no other questions of this panel . I want to thank this panel and you are all now dismissed. Thank you. Calling up our next panel, mr. Davis, ms. Wassermanschultz, mr. Cline, mr. Castro and mr. Crist. Any written materials that you have, you can submit to rules documents before the conclusion of this hearing. Without objection it will be entered into the record. I recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Davis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wanted to make sure i was unmuted. I appreciate being here, chairman, good afternoon. And to the rest of the committee, thanks again for allowing me to testify today. The 116th congress has been full of surprises. The Silver Lining is our ability to learn from challenges and adapt and make our institution work member for the American Work better for the American People. Im going to highlight three buckets of changes to pave the path for continued improvement. The first set of changes is a clarification of mr. Davis, could you put your video on . I thought i had it on, sir. I apologize. Youre on now, yeah. Youre in stereo and in technicolor. The first set of changes that im asking for is a clarification of current house rules regarding the use of proxy voting. I warned that proxy voting would likely be abused by members if authorized. I was assured that controls would be in place and being implemented in order to ensure member in order to ensure member, family and staff safety. However, mr. Chairman and mr. Ranking member, today, the trends are emerging that family and that signal abuse of this option. As infection rates stabilize and in many states fall, proxy voting is being used in increased numbers by up to 20 of all members and often inconsistently with members picking and choosing when they want to be in d. C. Were also seeing increased use of proxy voting on fridays, a sign that members are using it to take a long weekend back home. These practices show us that the use of proxy voting is no longer being utilized in the which it was implemented, safety. Rather the spirit of convenience. I would encourage the next congresss rules package include additional guardrails if the proxy voting remains at all. The second bucket is an acknowledgement of the work of the select committee on modernization of congress in which i and my peers passed our final report of nearly 100 recommendations last week, unanimously. These recommendations emphasize the need for the house to increase transparency, streamline operations so all of our constituents can engage in the work that we do. Rules changes to require our legislative documents be publicly shared in a machine readable format and for all Committee Votes to be recorded and compiled into a database are realistic improvements. Similarly, they can permit some of the advancements weve made such as continuing the clerks use of the hopper and allows the cosponsorship of bills. It saves our staff time and the taxpayers money. We expand electronic signatures or discharge petitions. Modernizing our institution to be accessible by those with disabilities is a duty and priority in which we are behind. We have dedicated considerable resources to making our campus physically accessible but need to put the same emphasis on to who interact from afar. Two are ensuring that all congressional websites are accessible to the disabled and that all video products of the house have closed captioning. I encourage you and your team to read the finalist recommendations for more details on each of these proposed rules changes and dozens more. The final bucket i encourage this committee to consider when crafting the rules for the 117th congress, as a previous staffer and member who has had the honor to serve on the committee of House Administration and the select committee on modernization, i see opportunities before us to better this institution and to do it in a bipartisan manner. The efforts of the select committee need to continue. I know there are different ideas on what form that should take and im open to the various options including authorizing another select committee, creating a subcommittee of House Administration, or a less formal structure. We continue the momentum that is been created. Again, thank you, chairman and Ranking Member for holding this hearing. It can push us all to be better. I applaud this committee for submitting input and look forward to working together. At this time, i yield back. Let me assure you we do take the recommendations of the committee of modernization seriously. We created the committee. And we extended the life of the committee because we thought that the work was important. We will look at those. Some of the recommendations that are would require rules changes, some of them we dont need rules changes to do. We need to get various other committees to act on them. But i assure you, we take it seriously. Im happy to yield to ms. Wassermanschultz. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member cole. I appreciate the opportunity to present my proposals before the House Rules Committee to my colleagues. This really is a fantastic opportunity at the beginning and onset of the 117th congress for us to really continue to make the entire process that we go through each and every day more transparent, more and more inclusive. In 2011, congress chose to surrender a great deal of its power of the purse to the executive branch. And i associate myself with the remarks of leader clyburn, mr. Leader hoyer, mr. Cole and many others who have testified this afternoon that it is past time that we take back the power that we surrendered. Any congressionally directed spending and giving that power to the executive branch has made the appropriations process less accountable and more arduous. Its contributed to a lack of comity, and too many members feel too little direct impact in their district and are not able to be as involved in the process. I believe that the ban on spending is one of the factors that contribute to breakdowns in the process and delays that end with frantic yearend negotiations and government shutdowns and leaders on both sides of the aisle have realized this. They recognize that the institution granted congress the power to make important decisions about spending. The Brookings Institution recognized that, quote, the removal of congressional earmarking does not make earmarking go away. Its simply transfers that power and practice from the legislative branch to the executive branch. It does not make sense for congress to surrender control over federal funding. Members of congress are in the best position to know the needs of our districts and the needs of our constituents. The band does not exist in law or in house rules as you know, but only in practice. And it can be easily changed next congress if theres only the political will to do so. We need to do this as many of my colleagues have testified the right way. We need to add additional requirements that will ensure transparency and Good Governance while prohibiting wasteful spending. I offer the following proposals to start us off on the responsible pathway. One, prohibit spending for for profit entities. Post congressionallydirected spending on the committees website, in bill reports and on members personal websites. Establish a spending database that is publicly accessible and media friendly. Four, direct the Government Accountability office to submit an audit that examines the benefits of spending and the efficacy of the proposed transparency and accountability methods. Direct inspectors general to review a sample of spending for waste, fraud and abuse. Seven, require that all restrictions on congressionally directed spending be enshrined in house rules and any new Disclosure Requirements will apply to all legislation at all times as was discussed by other members this afternoon. Currently, many vehicles are left out of the requirements including floor and selfexecuting amendments and amendments considered under the rules. Congress could reassert its authority in a transparent manner while members to better represent targets for our districts. It wont fix everything wrong with the appropriations process but it can go a long way in negotiations over funding the government. Second, mr. Chairman, i also want to mention my support for restoring the collect Intelligence Oversight Panel. The 9 11 report included several recommendations for the intelligence community. That responsibility is really only handled by the defense appropriations subcommittee right now, and thats why the house established the select Intelligence Oversight Panel in the 110th congress. I was proud to be a member of that panel. The panel was abolished in the 112th congress. We should consider bringing it back. Revisions to the structure of the committee could update the approach and ensure its able to have oversight. Now more than ever, we need additional accountability over the budget. With an administration that continues to abuse its authorities and defy the intent of Appropriations Bills, making sure that we have this important layer of accountability and oversight in the portion of the budget of appropriations is essential. And this panel would be useful no matter which administration is in power. Its important that congress assert our authority over the intelligence budget and ensure that responsibility funding decisions are made and made thoroughly with a lot of eyeballs and its just so important for us to make sure that in terms of protecting our national security, the members coming before the committee today have raised as being an everincreasing threat, having an Oversight Committee once that would be specifically focused on the oversight of our of the administrations budget request and the intelligence spending that we do for our entire nation would be a critical oversight component that would allow us to make sure that we can continue to improve our national security. Thank you for the opportunity to present my suggestions and i yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Cline . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And Ranking Member cole. I really appreciate you holding todays hearing to listen to concerns from your colleagues regarding rules of the house. Hearings like this are critical to the effective function of congress, and i appreciate this opportunity to testify on practices that is can improve the operations of this body. Many of the house rule that is are in place, provide the necessary transparency in the legislative process but unfortunately these rules are worked around or waived when it matters most. Im here today to highlight practices already established that i believe we should be exercising to increase transparency and accountability by following these well thoughtout rules, we can rein in the dysfunction that has plagued the process. The 72hour rule was established so members of congress have time to read and review legislation before having members vote on it. Unfortunately this rule can be waived and can be worked around by amending an existing bill by an amendment. Sadly, these occurrences are frequently used on appropriations in larger authorization measures. For example, last week, the text of the continuing resolution introduced less than an hour before members had an opportunity to vote on it. This flies in the face of responsible governance. Measures should not be passed under suspension of the rules. Managing it in that manner takes away any transparency to the voters. It was happening well before this congress. Both sides of the aisle have utilized this tactic while in the majority. Thats why i introduced a resolution to tighten the rule in instances where a bill is stripped of its text. Its not a matter of transparency that members should have time to be voting on, its a matter of respect, respect that all members have a right to read the legislation, not just those who are in leadership drafting it. In addition to the ability to read bills before voting on them, members should be given the opportunity to offer amendments on bills they were not able to help draft. Way, way back in the day, i was a staffer on the hill and we considered more appropriations and larger authorization bills under open rules and this allowed members who did not have have an opportunity to amendment bills when they were in committee an opportunity to do so on the floor before having a vote on it. There have been no open rules on the house floor during this congress and the last time an open rule or revised open rule was reported out of rules committee was in the 114th congress. Many members do want to participate in the legislative process. We believe we have serious amendments to improve legislation. I have 16 years in the state legislature working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve legislation throughout the process, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should have the chance to improve legislation here in the congress. The last area for improvement that i would like to recommend today is the importance of individual bill of consideration when it comes to appropriations measures. While its not specific to this committee, this committee has great sway and influence and i would urge you to help encourage regular order when it comes to Appropriations Bills. Each of the appropriation subcommittees work hard to produce a bill. And members should be afforded the opportunity to vote on and offer amendments to individual Appropriations Bills. As was said earlier by my colleagues, article 1 of the u. S. Constitution establishes that revenue bills should start in the house. When these bills are passed as massive packages or funding, pushed through as a continuing resolution that impacts member ability to thoughtfully consider legislation. The American People should expect more fiscal responsibility and focus from Congress Instead of relegating those duties by passing appropriations packages. Congressional leaders need to return to a regular order and the rules committee should encourage leaders to produce appropriations measures that are report today the floors as their individual bills instead of as packages. It can be fixed by using the existing processes and respecting the rules that are established. It would establish a baseline of respect that all members deserve in this chamber. It extends the same respect to the voters who elected each of us to represent them here in the house of representatives. Thank you for the work that you do and i look forward to working with the rules committee to bring about more transparency and accountability in the legislature. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Castro. Thank you to chairman mcgovern for holding thishearing. Im here to discuss a proposed change for the next congress that would institutionize the witness diversity witness. Witness Diversity Initiative. Its composed of the congressional asiapacific american caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the congressional black caucus. This year, the caucus launched this initiative to track the diversity of the expert witnesses who testify before house committees. Our announcement included support from speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, the womens caucus, the congresswoman davids, cochair of the lgbtq plus caucus and cochair of the native american caucus. While a witness Diversity Initiative has never existed as part of the Core Functions of the house, two bodies in the United Kingdom are already leading this work in westminster and in scotland. Our initiative has in large part been modeled after their work to track the gender diversity of their witnesses. And while this is the first initiate of its kind here, research on this topic as it pertains to gender does exist. For example, an American University report published earlier this year shows that during the 2017 hearings on tax reforms, less than 19 of the witnesses who testified were women. As you know, the 116th congress is the most Diverse Congress in our nations history. Yet too often our witnesses do not reflect the nations diversity. Unfortunately for many years, many communities have often been underrepresented including latinos, africanamericans, asia asian, women, and lgbtq folks. At this moment and as a Global Pandemic disproportionately harms communities of color, now is a time for change and for our rules to reflect our values. As Congress Continues to draft legislation to support our countrys fight against covid19, its critical that members of Congress Hear from diverse witnesses in that process. The institutionization of this initiative will make clear to the American People make clear its diversity in congress. We should aim to improve on the ways we serve our American People. I believe this proposal is an important step toward a more just, a fair, and a more inclusive congress. And with that, i yield back my time. Thank you very much. Mr. Crist. Can you hear me all right . Yes. Great. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and Ranking Member cole along with all the members of the rules committee. You all work hard in the entire house, and we are grateful to you. Earlier this summer, americans from big cities and small towns across our country took to the streets to peacefully protest Racial Injustice in the largest demonstrations in american history. Between income inequality, wealth inequality, Educational Achievement gaps, criminal justice inequality, discrimination in lending and appraisals, voter suppression, Maternal Health disparities and armed White Supremacists marching through american streets, American People said enough. Americans of all shapes, sizes and colors said, quote, black lives matter and committed to fight racism. We committed to dismantle systems of racism that hold black americans back instead of just going about business as usual. Going on autopilot is no longer going to cut it. Its on all of us to do whatever we can to truly deliver equal opportunity and equal justice under the law. We as legislators should be aware of the impact of the policies we make. Thats why im proposing a small but potentially significant change to the rule of the house for the 117th congress. Just as Committee Reports are required by house rules to include items like a Congressional Budget Office score or budgetary impact, we should ask for a score on racial impact of legislation the house is considering. Awareness will be important tool for fighting racism. It will be a good start. I yelled back. I want to associate myself with my friend Stephanie Murphy for her amendment to raise the threshold. Thank you again so much. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you very much for your testimony. I have no questions. I want to point it for the record that you mentioned infection rates have been stabilized. We have not had a National Strategy to manage it appropriately. I was referring to the last four months. There are many areas that are i have no questions. I want to point it for the record that you mentioned infection rates have been stabilized. We have not had a National Strategy to manage it appropriately. I agree there are pockets of increases. I was referring to the last four months. There are many areas that are going down. I would urge this committee. We have not prepared the house. We need a comprehensive plan to be able to get the house back to work and be able to implement measures of helped stabilize other parts of the country. We should do it. We can to better protect this chamber. I dont believe the answer is to make it more challenging for members to participate. I think its really sad that the minority has decided to enforce against its own members a demand that they not participate in proxy voting, which disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters. You have members, depending on the week, a considerable amount that dont show up and they cant vote. I hope this is not an issue in a few months. I yield to mr. Cole. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. On that last point, i do want to say that i agree very much with what mr. Davis said. There are legitimate cases where people cant be here. I respect that. The methods we adopted were done by a straight majority vote. I am concerned a lot of members are abusing, can you yield to me . Certainly i yield to my friend. Let me just say that if members are abusing this, if they are using this based on convenience, that is not what i had intended. I think that is wrong. Every chance i get, i reinforce that message. This is about necessity. Mr. Chairman that is unfortunate. Please dont think that i question you at all. I know you take it seriously. I think its worth thinking about what we can do on that score. It seems like a legitimate problem to me. I want to thank the panel. A lot of great suggestions. A couple i dont agree with but broadly, i do. I have a couple of comments for specific members. I want to go first to my friend ms. Wasserman schultz. I was on her subcommittee that she chaired and later i have her as my Ranking Member and i was chairing that committee. There is nobody more thoughtful from an institutional standpoint. I want to associate myself with the very thoughtful comment she had about congressionallydirected spending and the safeguards and the ability to evaluate the effectiveness. Those type of tools are indispensable in providing the public with some confidence that these things are being used 95 of the time in an appropriate way. I do want to ask my friend, she talked about bringing back the select committee on intelligence. I have sat on defense appropriations and we do a lot of great work. I take my friends suggestion very seriously. Can you tell me why we did away with that . What was the rationale for not continuing that committee . When it was done away with, it was done away with by the new republican majority. Im not sure what their motivation was. I cant speak for mr. Boehner at the time. It was in place. It was working effectively. As you recall, the select committee was a special select subcommittee that combined intel and appropriators from across the Appropriations Committee. It was a combined pair of eyes. We held hearings and reviews. We dove more deeply in to the budget than the Defense Appropriation Committee is able to do. The defense appropriations subcommittee has such a huge responsibility. My understanding why it wasnt brought back was it had some cumbersome elements. Perhaps it wasnt functioning in the most specific way. My proposal isnt specific to replicate and ring back exactly the way it was. There does need to be a select subcommittee panel recreated, new and improved so we can make sure there are authorized ors and appropriators eyeballs together or maybe just or maybe just appropriators, so that we can really have more attention paid. I think there is merit to what you were talking about. Speaking as a defense appropriator, you are right. Its a vast budget. Most of the intel hearings we have are classified. The reality is what were doing is consuming intelligence. Were being given intelligence, but we are not overseeing the intelligence we are being given and asked the tough questions. Nobody admires Speaker Boehner banner more than me. He wasnt the committees biggest fan. It doesnt surprise me that we are talking about congressionallydirected spending now that hes gone. I say that with great affection and respect for my friend the former speaker. Its a good idea. I would like to think about this. Speaking as a defense appropriators, you are exactly right. We are not able to get into the details of this vast budget when youre dealing with interior and 30 billion. Its a function of the dollars. I dont think you could have too many eyes on this particular area. I say that with no disrespect to the administration. The buracracy needs to be watched. Let me move down to my friend mr. Cline. As an appropriator, i couldnt agree more. Every appropriator would want the bill to come individually. Thats the way we treat them. We have unlimited amendments. If anybody has a good idea, they can offer those amendments. I long for the day when we did that in the full house. There are two problems. They are bipartisan in nature. The first is the explosion of the number of people to decide they want to add amendments to the appropriations bill. From a management question, how much time do you want to spend on appropriations . We are happy to take the time. I dont know. 200, 300, 400100, amendments, thats a problem. How do you discipline that . Its an enormous problem. Just from the management. The second thing i will tell you in both sides were equally guilty, the number of got you amendments have grown extraordinarily in my time here. Frankly, the fear of voting on those amendments by members, when the republican majority came back, one of the things it did do is restore open rules on Appropriations Bills. But we got to a point on a Confederate Flag issue over national monuments. Apart a bill. Members were then afraid. You would here literally, if you were a republican, you would vote of the amendments however he wanted. He would always vote for the final republican bill. It was assumed. If youve got any thoughts about how to control the number of amendments, and number two, again, we have lots of honestcans, i will be with you, who wont vote for a republican Appropriations Bills. If you have that, you cant move the bill. Because you cant expect democrats to do the work it the republican majority is supposed to do. It is a real problem inside the party. Again, i have no problem with people voting against bills that exceed what the budget cap is done. I have never seen republicans do that. We write the bills within our budget. Theres got to be some way with dealing with the number of amendments. I like individual bills. I like open rules. So i agree with you. Do you have any suggestions for how we avoid got you amendments . Had a crack at your amendment, we do have govern the country. Two that means the Defense Department needs to be funded. That means health and Human Services needs to be funded. You can only vote for the things you like. You have a responsibility to govern. You can expect the other party theo it when you are in majority. Thats a lot of rambling thought. You are one of our brightest members. I am very interested in what you have to say. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The Appropriations Committee does a great job. I think the answer is to get skin in the game on the part of the various members regarding the bills, get broader support. Getting to him to vote for them to vote for amendments gets their skin in the game. In 16 years, when we had amendments that went on and on on the floor, we had to sit through the mall. If you just asked for people to submit amendments by a date circled and then offer them the order received, you have to sit through all the amendments before you get to offer yours, a then you will have a lot of people giving up on their amendments. Thats actually a very clever idea. Im not sure i want to subject myself to it. I am a responsible member. A lot of members offer frivolous amendments. They are not confined to either side. But an interesting thought. , again i appreciate all the testimony. I yield, mr. Chairman. Again, i appreciate all the testimony. I yield back on mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, can i respond to that. They tried that and it didnt work. We couldnt even move labor age out of subcommittee because we had members that wouldnt vote to move a bill out of subcommittee that cut the top line by 14 . So please, just send us real appropriators, not people that think want to learn there, but people who you think want to be there. Im sure you would be a great appropriators. Thank you. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Just on that last subject, i remember on the rules committee, we were doing appropriations by open rule, and there was one guy who had been going for 24 hours straight because so many amendments have been offered. I dont know if you remember this. He had five pencils in his pocket. All. Ad broken them he was so mad. He came to us and said i quit unless you go back up and limit this appropriations. He said i will do 100 amendments. Thats it. We had to leave the floor and go back and change the rule. Like a filibuster, make them sleep there. He felt like he was being punished and he did not deserve to be punished. Right. He said it, and we agreed. There has been some real abuse. To changeould like it. I want you to know that. Thats why there has been limitation. Cole has recognized it. We have recognized it. You may have some points as to eliminating factors. Youve got have your amendments and some days in advance, youve got to sit through them. That may be a better approach and more people are more involved in that process. I appreciate that. I talked about two issues in my testimony. It applies to other bills as well. Open process with put more skin in the game and get them supporting the bills on final passage. We have jefferson rules in virginia. If you contribute to the product, you are bound to vote for the product. That is another issue here, theuse you can still get amendment and vote against the bill. That is Something Else that we watch closely. And i recognize what you are suggesting. I did want to respond to the ,hairman, mr. Davis, mr. Cole and my friend, mr. Marelli, because i a little bit in am disagreement with all of you on the proxy voting piece of this thing. The way the rule was written, have it in front of me, proxies are only available during a covered period. That is defined specifically as a period where a pandemic has been declared and the sergeant at arms and the house physician have to advise the speaker who , andred period this is now lasting for 45 days. Its in a very restrictive time to be able to use the proxy. This is a proxy we would have when it is sunny and warm and everybody is healthy. You may want to offer proxies for voting. Thats not the system that we created. It is restrictive. There isnt, mr. Davis, there isnt a call for a doctors note. To be able to say i get to do proxy voting. That is not what is required. What is required is a declaration of a pandemic. Which in my opinion is far more restrictive, so i just wanted to say that, but i do believe we really do have to look closely. Did as anhat we emergency measure, with respect to proxies, with respect to that rule 25, which is the rule on the continuity of government. In the event of a catastrophe, and how we continue the legislature in place, so i will leave it at that. Obviously, i am for the congressionally directed spending, but i do think our committee has to take a good 20, when we have a quorum, but its really a catastrophe of an attack or pandemic. With that, i yield back. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In true fashion, we have outlasted many of our witnesses. Testimony, which is incredibly important, now that im in the minority, rather than the majority, but as we talk about the basic trust in institutions, the majority has the privilege of setting the agenda, but when we have these panels that includes five majority witnesses and one minority witness, it does appear we are preparing for press release more than we are preparing for shedding light on difficult and partnered subjects. So i would not only like to see the metrics that weve been focused on, but that diversity of ideas as we enter areas where i hope we will have fewer republican ideas versus democratic ideas and just more good ideas versus bad ideas. I think there is an opportunity for that. I wanted to find out from mr. Klein, the first open rule i got to be part of was 2011. We took up the entire appropriations package at once. The entire omnibus appropriations bill went from. It went from tuesday to saturday morning. Day, we considered every amendment that any member had to offer on anything in the bille bill, appropriations package, and it ultimately won the day. We will now have more amendments offered under the structured rule from the rules committee than the open rules in the 1980s. There is a habit that has been formed, as has been suggested, that members are offering frivolous amendments that are designed to take down the bills. And leads to a reluctance to vote on tough amendments because we dont have any experience voting on tough amendments. Sorts those outf tim ahead of time. We have lost those relationships with our committees. As a freshman member, i dont need to always remind them. I need to take it to the chairman. Two weeks before the bill gets but marked up, so i can get it. Ncluded as you have struggled with these issues, have you seen any steps to get members back in a good habit . Because i fear, if we flip the switch tomorrow and things would be like we want them to be, we would encounter the exact same comfortable situation and have brought leaders on both sides of the aisle shut the process down. I appreciate the question. And you all, with respect, have been here a lot longer than i have. From my experience there at the state level, for example, there is a lot more contact between the chairman and the Ranking Member as the bills are constructed, so maybe the Ranking Member does go to the committee and say the chairman asked for input. Here is your opportunity for input. [indiscernible] ultimately refused to acknowledge that, but if earlier input is solicited from both sides, the less likely you get these efforts to be part of the process just for the sake of the process. There may be a legitimate issue as the bill goes to the floor. As a freshman, my opportunity to weigh in on issues of jurisdiction which i serve on yet, not for a bill where i did not see it come through committee and i should have weighed in at the Committee Level to make that point. Rulesas a big fan of open when i arrived here, having watch that process continued, i see the wisdom of providing some structure, even if it is giving, as we have done many times, giving the Ranking Member on the floor the ability to consider of extraneous measures of their choice, providing some parameters. We dont have enough floor time. As you and i both know, we start endetimes fairly late and an we canes early, i think the chairman and Ranking Member are the brunt of that workload. I think we would be derelict not to try to move back in that direction. I dont think theres any member of this chamber and that leads belief that shutting colleagues down leads to a better work product. I appreciate the suggestion. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i would say if you had one open rule, it doesnt have to be an appropriation bill. Each year you learn the lessons again of why you dont have open rules on every bill and why structured rules have benefit. I appreciate that. The problem we have is deeper than just open rule versus not open rules. We do have a problem and i think its fair to say there are members on both sides who look at their role very differently. Problem withther Appropriations Bills, we dont want these big omnibus bills, back to whereare we want to be and theres no way to move forward. So i dont know how we resolve that problem in the short term. I share that frustration. Marelli. Yield to mr. Just a couple of questions or maybe just thoughts. First of all, i dont feel i know enough about the approach process orons frankly, lawmaking yet. I am trying to unlearn everything i learned in new york. I do think the problems in any legislature have been well articulated, which is a balance between trying to allow as much dissipation and good ideas from members. But also to your point, mr. Chair, you have to pass bills. Youve only got so much time here and we have some big issues. So i would be delighted to work with all of my colleagues in trying to figure out how to balance better those interests and end up with better products. I wasnt going to mention, but i since my name was uttered, i would say this. I think two conditions ought to be met. He rightly points out that we created the rule around this pandemic, one condition had to be met and that was you had a National Emergency which we recognized would make it difficult for members to be here physically in washington. We did not want to disenfranchise them or their constituents. But i actually think if we were to pursue a temporary or the 117the in congress, that two conditions ought to be met. The first is the National Emergency has a cover period that has to be met. That would be the same individuals who need to declare a National Emergency that we did in the 116th rules. Even if it is not covid19, but a future disaster of some kind. The second condition, the failure to appear to vote in person and be used by proxy ought to be by virtue of your inability to be here because the National Emergency. My concern, which i expressed when we were First Talking about this and when we implement the rule i voted for, but some concern that we could be down a slippery slope. And i dont think the first test is enough. I think i could have said for instance i dont want to fly. It is a onehour flight from rochester, but the drive is 6. 5 hours each way, but since march, i have driven virtually every week with one exception. In the car13 hours to come down and back. That in my mind is an inconvenience. I could say it is covered and i dont want to spend 13 hours in the car to go down and vote and there is not a reason because of the covered emergency that would prevent me from being here. Should be the second condition. You want to, if vote by proxy, you have to sign the letter that says you cannot physically be here due to the pandemic. Now, i mean, thats the requirement. We have that requirement. I dont think its in the rule. And frankly, im not sure well, i would always defer to the chair. I think chair mcgovern the deal is, were trusting members to abide by the regulations that we have put out there. And so, i iowa would the point is well taken, that if there are people who are doing this simply out of convenience, thats not that is not appropriate. Right. Chair mcgovern and, again, you know, i think thats something we need to think about. I would simply just say tightening it up or perhaps putting it in the actual rule. And by the way, i think by and large, this has used very best effectively and people have been very good about observing not only the letter but the spirit of the rule. , hope that will continue and hopefully some small adjustment to ensure that would make our friends on the other side of the aisle more comfortable. And with that, mr. Chair, i yield back. Thank you, sir. Chair mcgovern ms. Shalala . Rep. Shalala no thank you. I enjoyed the discussion. Chair mcgovern did i miss anybody . Mr. Chair, i had a question for mr. Crist. Could i ask that question . Chair mcgovern you may. Am trying to find the racial and ethnic impact score, what is it that youre actually is there Something Like that that exists today, not so much in the congress, but maybe florida or Something Like that, someplace . I dont know. Im trying to figure out what it looks like. Youre muted, charlie. Youre still muted. We cant hear you. There you go. Rep. Perlmutter i understand that it does exist in the congress presently if requested. And this would make it more of a mandatory thing so that any legislation that we would put forward, it would give us an idea about whether or not the legislation is going to be disadvantageous, if you will, to a minority or not. Ok. Thank you. I yield back. Thanks for the question. Thank you very much. No other questions. This panel is dismissed. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chair mcgovern we go to our next panel, which is mr. Kilmer, miss murphy, miss davids, mr. Taylor, and mr. Woodall. We will begin with mr. Kilmer, and let me just say before i yield to mr. Kilmer, i want to thank chairman kilmer and vice chair graves, in particular. I want to take a moment to congratulate both of you on an incredibly successful congress. I mean, under your leadership, the select committee on modernization did important work on analyzing how congress could work more effectively and efficiently on behalf of the American People and identifying specific recommendations, somewhere i think near 100, i believe to do just that. A feat unto itself. Your staff must be exhausted. But mr. Chairman, you and vice chair graves went even further and took the committees recommendations into results. As all our colleagues will recall, this select committee ushered in two critical resolutions the help of the House Administration committee. While we may not have known at the time, the select committees recommendations to improve Host Technology systems, enhance unified telework practice and generally push the house into the 21st century helped pave the keye r Technology Changes that were critical to ensuring the house could work and do it safely in the wake of this terrible pandemic, and you did it all while having to endure nickelback, whatever that is, and woodall who we all know , so so well. But we will have more time for this in the coming weeks. To mr. Woodall and mr. Graves, thank you both for your service to your nation. I know chairman kilmer and ms. Scanlan, our rules colleague, and the rest of the Modernization Committee, i hope youre all proud of the work that youve done. I thing its had a lasting impact, and we thank the hardworking staff of the Modernization Committee. I think you have improved this institution and i am grateful for your leadership. And anyway, i just wanted to say because i think a lot of people may not appreciate the extent of your work and how hard you work. And the fact that, you know, this is the way this place should work, when democrats and republicans come together and try to do things for the good of the institution. So let me thank you and i will now yield to mr. Kilmer. Mr. Kilmer thank you. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you, Ranking Member cole. I appreciate you hosting the hearing and appreciate the hearing to share you ideas for improving house rules for the 117th congress. Two years ago in testimony before this committee, i proposed as part of the house rules for the 116th congress a committee to consider measures to improve the operation of congress as an independent and coequal branch of government. And under your leadership, the select committee on the modernization of congress was created as part of the rules package for the 116th. As chair of the selectcommittee, im hear to say thank you for your guidance and support of the past two years. I am very grateful to you and to your staff. And with that help, the select committee unanimously passed 97 bipartisan recommendations to make Congress Work better for the American People. And i am proud of what we achieved in him grateful for the opportunity to leave the effort along with vice chair graves and in partnership with mr. Woodall and ms. Scanlan from your committee serve very ably. I am here to share bipartisan recommendations the committee recently passed that would improve their river house functions. The select committee spent a lot of time focusing on ways to reclaim Congress Article 1 pows powers and made strong recommendations in that space. The first one i would like to highlight would help restore congresss article power of the one purse. We recommended on a bipartisan basis a communityfocused Grant Program to reduce dysfunction in the annual budgeting process. And to restore congress unique Constitutional Authority to appropriate federal dollars to support projects that have the broad support of local communities across the United States. This competitive Grant Program calls for transparency and accountability and supports meaningful and transformative investments in the communities we represent. Taxpayer dollars will be spent more efficiently and transparent transparently on local projects, with guard rails against abuse. The select committee believes this program could help end the era of government shutdowns and i urge the committee to include it as part of the 117th congress rules package. In addition to the communityfocused Grant Program, id like to share a couple of ideas designed to strengthen Congress Article 1 powers. The first has to do with encouraging the article 1 principle of debate and deliberation. The select Committee Recommended establishing a pilot for weekly oxfordstyle policy debates on the house floor. Debate exposes us to perspectives that are different from our own and requires us to really think through our positions in order to build the best arguments we can. It requires the ability too listen as well as speak, and that is incredibly important. My select committee colleague Emanuel Cleaver constantly reminded us that how we treat each other matters, and these oxfordstyle debates could have showcase passionate exchanges about the issues of the day, and we should encourage more of that. Along the same lines, the committee encouraged alternative withmended experiencing alternative hearing formats to experimenting with alternative hearing formats to encourage more bipartisan discussion. Committees should try questioning witnesses in ways of discourse rather than grandstanding. We also recommended more committees follow the select committees lead and experiment with mixed seating arrangements. Where democrats and republicans sit sidebyside rather than opposite sides of the dais. These encourage dialogue, civility, and often strengthen congress. Including these ideas in the next house rules package would help Congress Restore article 1 capacity. Another way to build capacity is to build efficiency into the congressional schedule. Between Committee Work, floor work, work in the district, the demand for time is constant, so the Committee Try to find ways to reduce frustrating conflicts. We recommend that the house establish specific committeeonly meeting times web when congress is in session. We also recommended that the house establish specific days or weeks where Committee Work takes priority. Creating a Common Committee calendar portal to help with scheduling could also reduce conflicts. These ideas will make Congress Work more efficiently and productively on behalf of the American People. Finally, id like to thank you for your continued attention to a number of operational issues the select committee has recommended. Prior to the covid19 pandemic, we recommended that the house update its procedures to allow members to electronically add or remove their names as bill cosponsors. Were happy to see this now in effect and think it should be permanently authorized. Same goes for our recommendations to expand the use of digital signatures and make permanent the option to electronically submit Committee Reports. We should adopt procedures that make congress more efficient rather than reserve them for emergencies. The covid19 pandemic has forced us to take a hard look at continuity issues and think about how we can better prepare for the unexpected. The select Committee Recommends that committees established bipartisan telework policies and update systems to encourage inperson electronic voting, and other modern technologies. Cyber security, telework, and Emergency Preparedness training should also be given to all members of congress. By taking these steps we can ensure that congress is fully prepared in the event of another crisis. Continuity of government plans should be built into our procedures and happen as a matter of course. From day one, the select committees guiding principle has been to make Congress Work better so that we can better serve the American People. That simple but profound goal has guided all of our work, some of which i have shared with you today. Vice chair graves and i believe the bipartisan ideas we proposed to improve the house rules can help build capacity and ultimately strengthen congress, and we hope they will be implemented. The committee generally agreed that the work to modernize the house should be an ongoing effort and not once every 20 or 30 years or so. And so i would encourage this committee to consider how the work continues going forward. On behalf of the select committee, i appreciate your consideration. I am happy to provide Additional Information to support your work and thank you, again, for your leadership, partnership and for the opportunity to speak before the committee today. Chair mcgovern thank you very much. Miss murphy . Miss murphy chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole, members of committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to testify about my views on the rules that will govern the operation of the chamber in the next congress. So, my first set of recommendations involve fiscal discipline and transparency. First, i respectfully request that we retain the rule 21, clause 10, of the current house rules. This rule was also in effect for the 110th and 111th congresses, when democrats were in majority. In general, it prohibits the consideration of the spending or revenue legislation that is projected to increase the deficit over two to three times. Second, i would recommend that we strengthen the transparency around this rule. If the rules Committee Reports a special rule providing for a consideration of a bill, the company Committee Reports should be required to include a specific statement indicating whether the special rule waives the pago rule in particular. As opposed to a vague statement waiving all points of order against the bill. This can be accomplished by amending rule 13. My team is preparing draft language and will share it with your staff. Third, id like to work with the committee on crafting a carefully calibrated amendment to the house rules that would accept in exigent circumstances prohibit the house from considering a bill, unless cbo and jct have prepared and published a cost estimate of that bill. I seek these three changes for a simple reason. You know, contrary to Wishful Thinking in some quarters, deficits and debt do matter. They matter to our economy, they matter to our security, and to our children and grandchildrens future. And i recognize that deficit spending to combat the health and economic consequences of covid19 is necessary. And i support that spending, but congress will need to bring spending and revenues into better balance once the pandemic is behind us. We shouldnt keep digging ourselves into a deeper fiscal hole, and if we do come at we , we better be upfront with the American People about it. My second set of recommendations involves a motion to recommit, provided for rule 19. Unlike some of my colleagues, i do not believe we should eliminate the mtr, which i view as an important tool for the Minority Party in an otherwise majoritarian institution. At the same time, i recognize that the mtr is frequently used by the Minority Party to engage in cynical politics, campaigning on the house floor, rather than as a part of a genuine effort to improve a bill. The text of the mtr does not undergo Committee Review or otherwise get vetted through regular order. And so its often poorly written and confusing, and members rarely have the sufficient time to review the language and to determine what it actually does , as opposed to what the Minority Party claims it does. And i think this is a recipe for bad legislating. So, for those reasons, i believe we should retain the mtr that , but require twothirds support for the mtr to pass rather than a requirement of majority support. This would put the mtr on the same plane as a suspension bill. Finally, i recommend that we continue to find new ways to foster bipartisanship in the house by considering floor bills that have a Critical Mass of cosponsors. At the urging of myself and other members, the house established the consensus calendar in rule 15, clause 7, of the current rule, and named you deeply grateful to to and your staff for helping make that happen. My office will propose different ways to strengthen the calendar and otherwise promote bipartisan cooperation during these otherwise highly partisan times. I think the American People want their representatives to work across party lines, and house rules should reward lawmakers who conduct themselves in that spirit. With that, thank you, and i yield back. Chair mcgovern thank you very much. I should just point out for the record, though, in the current rules Committee Reports, we dont just say, waive all points of order. We actually, in the section on explanation of waivers, if we waive pago, it specifically says that we waived clause 10 or rule 21 which is the pago provision, so rules Committee Report is pretty explicit about waiving pago. Or not waiving pago for that matter. It is there. In any event, thank you. I now turn to miss davids. Rep. Davids thank you. Thank you, chairman mcgovern and Ranking Member cole for holding this hearing and allowing us the opportunity to comment on proposed house changes for the rule changes for the 117th congress. So my recommendation for rule change is pretty straightforward. I propose the director of the Congressional Budget Office be invented to provide an address or report to congress on the fiscal state of the nation each year. And, while right now we are in a which necessitates spending to keep our economy going, our federal budget is on an unsustainable trajectory. I believe this is the sort of report that can provide a common baseline for my colleagues and i to work from, using the same data and operating under the same budgetary assumptions yeartoyear. As this body formulates budgets and votes on appropriations packages each year, it would be helpful to have a general input that general input and objective position so that we can set goals based on facts. And i also think this sort of annual report could help remind our colleagues the the very real effects of congressional spending and perhaps facilitate a conversation on how we could direct federal resources in a responsible way. Of course, we should be adhering to the existing house rules that , the pay as you go, which we were just talking about or hearing about, rule, which requires congress to pay for legislation, while proposing and voting on you know, budgeting is about priorities and deciding whats important and what price were willing to pay for it and that principle is at the fundamental core of pago, which is why i support its inclusion and continued inclusion in the house rules for this congress and the next congress. Weve seen the disastrous consequences of fiscal irresponsibility with deficitfinanced tax cuts for the wealthy and outofcontrol budgets, and it is worth noting, and we have already heard this, but i will reiterate that we are going through pandemic right now. And the spending that we are doing and the relief that people need is very real and necessary, and this is the kind of crisis where page rules might need to be waived. This is a good example of that. When were in a crisis, we need to make sure the people of this country are being cared for and its also times like these that we see a real demonstration of a necessity for greater fiscal responsibility in normal times, in times that are good. And so, we are setting ourselves up to go through times like this. So i would encourage the adoption of this rule change and any other changes that would help promote the adherence to fiscal responsibility as we aim to use our taxpayer resources in the most effective way possible. And with that, i will yield back. Thank you for having me. Chair mcgovern thank you. Mr. Taylor . Rep. Taylor its great to be with you and the Ranking Member and all the members of the rules committee. I just want to say that i am a big believer in rules and process, and the process we have is really important. One statistic that kind of strikes me in the 100th congress, this is when i was in 80 school, in 1987, 1988, of all bills that were filed, actually became law. And now in this congress, were at about 1 . And thats because were filing about 50 more bills. But we are passing many fewer bills. So the percentage of success has dropped as well as the number of bills that are being filed has gone up. And so i am concerned that the ability for members to play small ball, to do small common sense legislation and get it through the desk has been impaired. So i will offer three solutions. I have talked to some of the rules Committee Staff about this and this has been a discussion within the Problem Solver caucus. The first one is to build on the 290 rule that was successfully implemented in the last congress , and that is to have 290 summit apply that same rule to senate bills. So most legislative chambers in this country, in state legislatures, have a provision that allows house members to support senate bills, senate bills to support house bills. In so that, so you would have to that, you would have to create that mechanism in order to do 290 for senate bills. It allows members to not only advocate for bill or take credit for it, but also members have been be able to get behind a senate bill and then actually compel it to get on the floor, to get on the consensus calendar, and really expand what i think has been a big success. And your staff has been very complimentary of the Problem Solvers success, getting the 290 rule into effect and seeing it work. The second thing i wanted to talk about is what i call fourfifths twothirds. That is, again, allowing bills that are modest and intent and singular in focus to be a were to come to the floor of the u. S. House. If a bill gets 4 5 of the Committee Members to sign on to the bill 80 of the Committee Members, services committee, there are 60 members. So, getting 50 members, you would then in turn be able to bring that bill to the floor of the u. S. House and then basically you would have to get a twothirds vote. I put it on the consensus calendar. We could have discussions about some of the details about it. But again, he would have to get 4 5 of the committee of jurisdiction, and there are some bills that are big and complicated that are referred to many committees and jurisdiction. I think we probably have to have some mechanism to allow Committee Chairs if they wanted to to waive it, and if not, say i want fourfifths of my committee then theyd have that power. Finally, the third idea is trying to make sure that bills that are common sense where they could pass the house on the senate, actually go to the president s desk. Do you believe that in most congresses, there actually half bills that passed the house and pass the senate but actually dont get to the president s desk . What have a dozen of the state legislatures have done is they have a rule process called this a very difficult one to explain. Its very simple in pack it is very simple in practice. You have a senate bill that comes over. Its in the house. Its now on the floor. The house author of the house bill can say, you know what, im going to take my bill, put it on the table. I am going to pull the senate is downich is here, it at the chamber, i am going to pull that up to vote on the senate bill. Some state legislatures actually have it automatic. So when the senate bill comes over to the house, its automatically moved to whatever point in the process it was in. So again, nobody loses any power, per se. One of the ideas i have is to protect the house members, the author of the bill. Again, there are a small number of bills every congress. I would encourage members to do more to work on companion legislation, and in turn improve the probability. I have actually talked to a member of the senate about having a similar bill over on the senate side, and say, we are doing this to help expedite your bills. You should do this to accident our bills, and i got a favorable response from democrats and republicans i have spoken to about all of these rules as i have discussed it with my colleagues in the Problem Solver caucus. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Chair mcgovern thank you. Mr. Woodall. Rep. Woodall thank you, mr. Chairman. I know ours is not supposed to be based solely on competition, our business. But i just think it is worth pointing out that while serving under your leadership here on the rules committee, i have voted 100 of the time against ms. Scanlan and her against me. While serving under chairman kilmers leadership on the miss scanlanttee, ms and i voted 100 of the time together. So i dont know if theres anything that mr. Kilmer has to add that he was uncomfortable sharing in open session, about how you might bring people together here on the rules committee as hes been bringing people together on the joint select committee. But i did want to put that out there and tell them how much i him how much i appreciated his leadership. I will tell you, mr. Chairman, i think we were disadvantaged by not having ms. Davids and ms. Murphy on our committee. I support both of their ideas. And they sounded very similar to some of the ideas that you and i on the committee have worked on throughout the year. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to solve the good work you did at the very beginning of this congress by requiring that bills be reported out of committee before they are considered here in the rules committee. And i would go one step further, three toraph section 103i that was passed in h. R. Six, that said it shall not be in order to consider the rule or order that waives the application of par paragraph one after the bill has been referred to committee for 15 legislative days. The point of this change, mr. Chairman is to say that we have found reasons, and there are always reasons, to waive the rules, including brand new rules that were done with the best of intentions as this one that you promulgated. If a bill has been sitting in committee for 15 days, clearly , there is not an emergency that requires it move forward without a hearing, if it is just been sitting in committee and no one has been acting on it, surely it doesnt need to be rushed to the floor with no input from the committee whatsoever. I recognize that no matter who is in the majority, we have emergency measures, and in fact the rules that exist today make an exception for emergencydesignated legislation, but this would further the building of trust in the Committee Process that you began by saying we are not going to use this process to shortcircuit a Committee Process, we are only going to use it to expedite things that are simply coming so quickly they havent had an opportunity to be dropped in committee, and the chairman hasnt had an opportunity to have the hearing or the markup. Making the point that the reason we dont follow your rule isnt because we dont want to, it is because we havent had an opportunity to. If the opportunity is presented, then we need to be able to say yes to that opportunity as your rule was designed to achieve. It requires that the point of order under this paragraph, the question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes and the member initiating the point of order and an opponent to have that time, but shall otherwise be decided without and intervening motion except the one that the house adjourns. Again, this is not intended to disadvantage the majority which is in charge of running this institution, and it is only intended to complement the effort that the rules Committee Chairman made at the beginning of this congress. With that, i yield back. Chair mcgovern i think youre are the last person on this panel, mr. Woodall. Let me just say this. I appreciate your words mr. Woodall, with regard to the mcgovern rule. Let me just say, before that, there was no such rule, there was nothing in place. And i said when we were doing this that we would try to do as well as we can, but it wouldnt be perfect because there would be times when it would be difficult to do that. I think we were much better at it last year than this year. But this year, to be fair, we are in the middle of a pandemic and theres a lot of things that are normal. Right . So we will continue to try to do better. I really do believe in principle that it is a mistake to shortcircuit the Committee Process, but i think we have been making a concerted effort and a really effective effort in trying to comply with that. And, again, in my perfect world, that is the way things should this place should run. There should be hearings and a Markup Committee before it comes to the rules committee before we and then we can bring the bill to the floor. I will try to do better. Having said that, i think there were some really good ideas that have been presented here today and we will obviously be working with the members who are here today and the staff to try to figure out how we can move forward on some of these. Maybe we might do some tweaks here and there, but i really appreciate your time. Let me yield to mr. Cole. [indiscernible] oh. I sorry, to mr. Woodall, for any am questions. Maybe you might want to question yourself . [laughter] rep. Woodall the only thing i wanted to mention, mr. Chairman, is whether or not there is a process related to attaching unrelated legislation to a message between the chambers without bipartisan concurrence. That is something you and i have talked about in the rules committee on many occasions, and i have tried to work out some language, but it does have to be incredible the nuanced to protect the ability of the majority leader to continue to operate the floor while still protecting minority rights. I appreciated miss davids s i believe it was miss davids, mentioning the motion to recommit was it you, miss murphy . The nature of the motion to recommit as being one that the minority has. As you recall from the articles on the leader decided he was going to start attaching unrelated legislation, messages between the chambers. Folks celebrated that as being this wonderful new procedural tool thats been crafted to prevent the minority from getting in the way of their messaging motions to recommit. Again, i recognize the need to attach legislation, and i recognize the desire for the expedited process between the chambers. I certainly wouldnt want to craft something that was so restrictive the majority could not assert its agenda, but i do think because there has been so much consternation about that process throughout the year, whether it is celebrating on one side or bemoaning on the other, that its worth looking at these habits that we get into, not passing Appropriations Bills individually, not having open rules, not sending things through committee. Again, you took major steps at the beginning of this congress to try to get a set of some of those bad habits that we spent a couple of decades getting into, and i put messages between the chambers in that category. And i appreciate you recognizing me. I yield back. Chair mcgovern miss torres, any questions . Rep. Torres no questions, mr. Chairman. Chair mcgovern mr. Perlmutter. Rep. Perlmutter i have a couple. To the Modernization Committee had, andthe question i we have seen it in a number of different proposals that we have, is how to streamline and modernize the calendar and be more efficient in our travel and more efficient in our workdays, if you will. I am curious what you all included in the summary of what you proposed. It is pretty general. Weve got some more specific proposals, but generally, what did your committee come up with . Maybe i will take first crack at that and then if either your rules Committee Colleagues or who served on the select Committee Want to weigh in as well, i welcome that. We focused from early on principles rather than proposing a specific calendar. In one of the principles that we proposed was that there should be more days in session than travel days. I think last calendar year, we had 65 full days and 65 travel days in session. Again, if the notion is, how do we, Congress Work best for the American People, i would argue that we need to increase time legislating, so reducing the amount of time in transit is important. The other thing we looked at, though, was the productivity of the time that we have. And the Bipartisan Policy Center did, i think, a very strong report looking at the conflicts that exist between committees,. They looked at one day and found on just one morning, 131 members of the house had a conflict between two or more committees. So, the concern, of course, is, and iow, if, you know, dont raise that as an individual member who feels like i need a clone to attend all of my committee meetings, but rather as someone who thinks that important learning and work is intended to happen in committees. You know, that work is challenged when folks arent there. And that can negatively impact the ability of congress to deliver. And so, we made recommendations in that space as well to create , to encourage block scheduling when committees meet, to create a Common Committee calendar portal so that committees can have visibility into other Committee Activities and potential conflicts for their members. You know, over covid, you have actually seen the house do committeeonly weeks, and i think that has been positively received by members. We have received by members, where you have days of that are committee activityonly, without floor activity. So we recommended continuing that as well. Just to try to drive as much productivity as possible. The other thing, ill just mention quickly, it may not seem like a big deal, but related to the calendar, we also said that the congressional calendar should accommodate a bipartisan member retreat, because actually having democrats and republicans engage one another to try to advance an agenda and to try to enhance enhance civility was the something all 12 members of our committee all felt were important efforts. Chair mcgovern thank you. Miss murphy, a question. [indiscernible] is it the twothirds proposal on m. T. R. S, your logic behind that, please . Rep. Murphy sure. M. T. R. S are always presented at the very last minute on the floor with very little Time Available for members to consider what the m. T. R. Is actually saying. Had toave to say, having do that, these m. T. R. S are so poorly written sometimes it is hard to figure out exactly what the m. T. R. Is trying to do, bumping it up against the legislation, the law that its trying to change. So, one, mtrs are written a bit haphazardly. They are introduced with very little time for members to view and understand the impacts. And then finally, if you are going to make a change to a bill that has already gone through the entire process and has had consideration, debate, and youre going to throw something at the last minute, it really should be successfully passed as a part of that big, successfully be a part of that big, unless it meets a higher threshold. We just picked the threshold that suspension bills of course, with a suspension bill, thats the level that would say, okay, this is harmless enough, enough people would agree with this that we should make this change. And i just think when you allow a bill to be added with just simple majority when it has gone through very short and sloppy process, it ends up making for bad legislation. We have a process for a reason. I dont want to take away minority rights. I dont want to eliminate the m. T. R. But i think that if the m. T. R. Is going to have the impact of law, then it should pass a higher threshold than the simple majority. Chair mcgovern thank you. Chair mcgovern thank you. Last question to you, mr. Taylor. So there is a desire, and i think we all share the same desire, to see legislation moves through both chambers and get to the executive and signed. I dont care whether it is a democratic or Republican Senate i remember my first four years here, we had a democratic senate, but since then, things have and it would get all boxed up over there. How do you think, in a close you are suggesting i dont want it to be just a oneway street that we pass everything the senate sends to us but everything we send to them gets bottled up. How do you think this helps that . I think we are in a position to start going to the senators and saying, look, we are doing a 290 rule for your bills. You should do Something Like that for our bills. We are doing a rule for your bills to expedite your brailles to improve the probability of , your legislation passing. Ive already had that conversation saying, im going to offer this in the house. This is a commonsense thing. Nobody is cut out, everybody gets their say. The speaker gets their say, the author gets their say. One of the divides, as i describe it to my constituents, everybody sees the partisan divide, but they dont see the bicameral divide. There is a lack of interaction between the chambers. Before i got here, i read the house rules and the senate rules because i wanted to see who had floor privileges. Could i go on the senate floor, could senators come on the house floor . And i got in an argument with two members who insisted to me that senators couldnt be on the house floor unless they were former house members. And then i said can house members go on the senate floor, and they said, no, you are wrong , senate rule 127, we could go on their floor. But just, even if thats technically true, culturally its not true. We have a lack of interaction between the chambers. But to 90 encourages senators to come and work for their bills. To come to the house floor and say, i want your signature because i am at 270 signatures. If you sign on, i can get this thing on the president s desk. Also, it encourages companion legislation. One of the advantages of companion legislation, i was a state legislator in texas, one of the advantages is that if you did your chamber cannot figure out what the problem is that the computing legislature figures out what the problem is and they send you the fix, i put these amendments on and now its good. Youre ready to go. I think you have to begin with a step of faith and just start working on their stuff. I will say this, for every 10 bills that are sent from the house to the senate, the senate sends one back. They are a far more effective legislative body from a volume point of view than they are. There can be no debate about that. I believe that thats because our consent calendar is basically a 95 calendar. Their consent calendar is unanimous, and having an incredibly high bar makes it very difficult for them to play small ball, to do smaller things. Until they drop that from unanimous to 90 or 80 or some other more reasonable number, well continue to have bills get blocked, and thats happened. That you very much. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to thank each of the members. While i may not also agree with each of them, i think theyre very thoughtful and appreciate their participation. I also want to introduce the singling out of mr. Kilmer and the members of the Modernization Committee, there is a lot to take in the list i have in front of me. Obviously, some of the changes that would allow us to have an electronic system, that have to be done in the physical world, i would embrace. I think they make a lot of sense. The other thing i would just say just as a general observation of what mr. Kilmer talked about, that he talked about was the ability for members in committee to take advantage of witnesses who are in front of the committees and engage in a more thoughtful dialogue, instead of what at times to me appears to be making speeches. One of the things that i particularly appreciate about this committee is the ability to have more back and forth and to really ask questions and thats why i value these opportunities and whenever a rule is before the house, before the committee, so i appreciate his thoughtfulness on that. I will yield back, mr. Chair. Chair mcgovern miss scanlan . Rep. Scanlon im going to pass, thank you. Chair mcgovern ms. Shalala . Rep. Shalala ill pass. Very thoughtful. Chair mcgovern did i miss anybody . Okay. I think were all set. I want to thank the panelists for being here. Youre now dismissed. We are going to be calling our next panel will be mr. Schneider and mr. Lieu and as theyre getting ready to testify, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record testimony from steve porter, Emanuel Cleaver, and i also ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the regulations to accompany hr965. I will now turn this over to mr. Schneider. Rep. Schneider thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member and members of the committee for hosting todays hearing for members of the 117th congress. I would like to discuss my views on the motion to recommit as outlined in rule 19. As a majoritarian institution, the m. T. R. Represents one of the last opportunities in the house for those in the minority to influence legislation being considered on the floor. In principle, i support the m. T. R. As a procedure that keeps debate alive and retains minority rights in the house. In practice, however, the Minority Party, both democrats and republicans, use the m. T. R. As a partisan to wedge along partisan faultlines is the prerogative of the Minority Party and both democrats and republicans have used the mtr over the decades but what has been different then congress and what is not just reprehensible thedangerous is republicans use of antisemitism to divide us. The great seal of the United States bears the motto e pluribus unum, out of many, one. It should be a principle that unites us. Its concerning when any group of americans is used as a prop to sow division. Using American Jews who have long faced bigotry and violence is something altogether different. The altright unite the right rally in charlottesville in 2017 and subsequent attacks in pittsburgh, pennsylvania and california are examples that dominate the news, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. According to the antidefamation league, incidents increased by 12 in 2019 and marked the highest number in the adls four decades of record keeping. I have no doubt that all of my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle oppose bigotry and hatred including antisemitism. So no party should ever assert that there is anything but unanimous opposition against antisemitism. To do otherwise raises the risk of empowering those who traffic in hate and would like nothing more than to believe that they have allies in the u. S. Congress who support their antisemitic views. I want to repeat myself, the m. T. R. Provides a venue of debate for issues and opinions. But when action on the floor of the u. S. House of representatives dehumanizes any group, in this case American Jews facing antisemitism, it diminishes the institution and does a disservice to our nation. Weaponizing antisemitism for political gain is as offensive as it is dangerous. Again, m. T. R. S should be a tool to insult healthy debate within the legislative process, and parties may choose to use it to push their agenda or put the Majority Party on the record. Minority parties should not, however, cynically use any of our citizens or group of citizens as a wedge or a pawn. We dont know who will be the majority in the next congress. I believe we can take this opportunity to prohibit the use of m. T. R. S in the next congress until there is a bipartisan agreement that while we can and often shouldnt vote controversial issues on policy disagreements, we must never use the mtr to condemn antisemitism. I support the m. T. R. As a way to retain the minoritys voice in the legislative process, but i refuse to condone how it has been used by republicans in this congress to infer that democrats or any other group in this body are not sufficiently opposed to antisemitism. I support proposals to require a high bar for a passage of an mtr requiring votes for passage similar to suspension bills. When were legislating on the fly, as is the case with mtrs, its important that we get the details right. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak on how m. T. R. S have been used in this congress, and with that i yield back. Chair mcgovern thank you. Mr. Lieu . Rep. Lieu thank you, chair mcgovern. Im going to talk on two subjects. The first is my proposal is on inherent contempt and the second is about the mtr. Inherent contempt is a power that the house of representatives already has. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this power. Congress has repeatedly used it in the past. My proposal simply puts in procedures in the house rules to let us execute this power. Specifically, inherent content give us gives us the ability to enforce congressional subpoenas, and in my proposal, it does that through imposition of a fine for witnesses who dont comply with congressional subpoenas. This is not a partisan issue, we have seen congress over time cede way too much power to the administrative and executive agencies and executive branch. Both democratic and republican administrations have thumbed their noses at congressional oversight, although i have to say the Trump Administration has done it more than others. What to this rule change what this rule change does is it provokes witnesses in this process. For example, it creates a process for a dialogue between the witness and the committee. It puts in procedures for the witness to lodge objections, it puts in procedures for the administration to lodge privilege objections. The witness can negotiate. At some point, it allows the committee to forward a resolution to the house floor where the chair of the committee will present and then can ask questions, and at some point, it allows the house to vote on the imposition of a fine, and then when that passes a majority vote, the witness will in fact be fined up to 25,000. Before that, another 20 day delay. There are numerous due process protections for witnesses. At the end of the day, if the administration or a private witness will simply not comply with a congressional subpoena, then the full house can impose a fine of up to 25,000. If it continues, we can impose a fine of up to 100,000 at the end of the day. That is my proposal. Again, it is not partisan in the sense that, i fully believe joe biden is going to win in november, and i think many of you do as well. This would apply to the biden administration. I would seek favorable consideration of this proposal, and then i would like to talk about the motion to recommit. First of all, it is a stupid way to govern. What does this process do . It literally hides language from members of congress and gives us 15 minutes to cast a vote. That is not really governing, that is called a game. That is what makes the American People hate us, that we play these games. It was wrong when we did it to you, it was wrong when the democrats were the minority, we did this to republicans, it is wrong when you do it to us. This is not to influence legislation, this is simply to play games on the taxpayers dime. That is what makes this so offensive. I have to reject the notion the sometime this is the majority or the Minority Party is weak. It is not. The Minority Party has numerous ways to influence legislation. You get to participate in committees, introduce amendments in committees, and when the bill leaves a committee, you introduce amendments in the rules committee. If theres a problem with a bill thats about to be voted on the floor, what happens is the whole purpose of your committee that youre on is to allow amendments to that bill. And then the Minority Party gets to speak about the bill on the house floor. The Minority Party can go to the press. There are so many ways to influence legislation. The m. T. R. Is not designed to do that and it doesnt even do that. None of the m. T. R. Proposals are real or something to substantive changes. Theyre just designed to be gotcha moments for the members of congress. Again, this is a procedure where literally, the language is hidden from the vast majority of the members of congress and we are asked to vote on it. We just have to get rid of the motion to recommit, stop playing these games on taxpayers dime. It doesnt make any sense to continue any form of motion to recommit. We should not be playing these games. We should be trying to make legislation and not do an endaround around the rules committee. With that, i yield back. Chair mcgovern thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate your words. Just on the contempt issue, i have been frustrated as well at the lack of cooperation with subpoenas that have been issued by committees here in the house. But if we impose a fine, i dont know what that fine would be, but to compel some of the people who dont want to comply with subpoenas, it would be very high, because all these people are multibillionaires and millionaires, and you just wonder whether they would just rather pay the fine. On the other hand, if it is if you had a Different Congress and they were trying to compel a government worker to come and testify but that government worker may be told by his or her advisor not to come, and here is somebody on the government workers salary, they would be bankrupted if it were abused. I am just trying to figure out i think we need to do something, because what has been going on with lack of compliance and lack of respect for congress is unacceptable. I just want to make sure that weve thought this out and that we are doing this in the way that is most compelling. I dont know if you have any response to that. You have to unmute. Unmute. Rep. Lieu thank you. Youre absolutely right. If someone is super wealthy than this is not going to work, but that is also a function of our capitalist system. People who are super wealthy get tax breaks that none of us on this committee get, so, yes, that is a problem. I am not sure we can fix that. However, the vast majority of people subjected to congressional subpoenas are not like wilbur ross. They are not in fact super wealthy. But there is room in this proposal to allow the head of the agency to be fined. We can do it so that we go after the head of agencies, in effect they are the ones ordering a subordinate to not come, so that is a modification that can definitely be made. Chair mcgovern thank you. Mr. Woodall. Rep. Woodall thank you, mr. Chairman. Ill start where you left off with mr. Lieu. I think its absolutely critical that we are able to compel the executive branch to comply with congressional subpoenas. I think our challenge has been the partisanship here in the in our chamber. It was obvious to you that the Trump Administration was practicing this obstruction more than any other. I came to town in 2011, so my first vote along these lines was our criminal contempt resolution against attorney general holder, which passed the house, was referred to the justice department, and then the attorney general decided he was not going to pursue the criminal contempt resolution against himself. It passed in a largely partisan way. I think we had 17 democrats vote with us. But the problem was not that we were not able to issue the subpoena or pass the contempt resolution, its that the enforcement, which ought to be zeroing out somebodys budget, making sure the head of the agency doesnt get their pet project funded, all of these things that we ought to be doing together, we end up being divided on, and i fear collecting those finds it would be yet another one of those things. Given that youve spent some time thinking about this and constructive ways to solve it, did you come across something that would lead to us passing more of these subpoenas and contempt resolutions in a partnership fashion than in the fairly partisan fashion that we are seeing . Rep. Lieu thank you, representative woodall for your question. Youre absolutely right. Both democratic and republican administrations have thumbed their nose at congress. To me, this is not a partisan issue. Its simply taking back its not even taking back our power. We already have this power, the Supreme Court has in fact upheld it and congress has used it in the past. Im putting in procedures to allow us to execute it if we want to. We still dont have to execute this power next term. But at least theres an option to do that. And right now, it just seems silly for us to have no ability to execute that option, even though we have the power to do so. It is my hope that we could get more subpoenas issued on a bipartisan basis. I think that would be better for the institution. Rep. Woodall you may recall republicans grappled with this when we were in control and went down the line of creating procedures to zero out individual Government Employee salary if we didnt like the way they were treating congress and creates an incredibly punishing tool to just your average government worker who had no idea they were getting ready to get dragged into a congressional fight. But i do hope we can solve that because i believe that we are both, irrespective of who leads the congress and who leads the white house, we are all disadvantaged as americans when Congress Becomes feckless in its attempt to do oversight over the executive branch. Let me go now to the motion to recommit. They taught me in freshman orientation ten years ago that that was just a procedural motion. It had no policy aspect to it whatsoever, and so just vote no. And so i recognize that that is not the sign of something that is valuable legislation, thats the sign of something that you would think could go by the wayside. But in our very new era of having almost all closed rules all the time, right, not a single open rule in paul ryans administration, not a single open rule now in speaker pelosis operation, there is no opportunity sometimes for the minority to have input on the house floor. If we had open rules, the challenges would be very much the same as the ones you pointed to, mr. Lieu, those amendments are offered, dropped right there on the floor, can be written on the back of a cocktail napkin, no opportunity for legislative drafting and perfection. Folks dont have time to consult with their staff and under the fiveminute rule, ten minutes later, you could be asked to vote on a very consequential amendment that had not been seen before. So lastminute legislative language used to be a hallmark of this institution, wasnt used to disrupt the institution. It was just common as a function of the legislative process. I remember once on our Prescription Drug bill last year , the majority saw in its wisdom the ability to offer the minority an amendment in the nature of a substitute and in exchange, the minority said, were not going to press for our motion to recommit. We traded away what you and i would both agree was not an effective legislative tool and in exchange, we got a very substantive conversation about how we wanted to reform Prescription Drugs in the country. I support that. Im particularly concerned about mr. Schneiders concerns because raised the very same issues in the rules Committee Last night, mr. Schneider. We were talking about a bill that was a resolution that was intended to speak out against horrific treatment that has been alleged of noncitizens in the country after they have been detained by federal forces. And the resolution, i believed, was designed to divide us on something that we should have been speaking in one voice to condemn. There is no benefit in america of having it appear that someone condones inhuman treatment by federal authorities against noncitizens. So is it clear to you that there is a difference, the occasional majority bills that are brought to the floor for a vote that are designed, apparently, to divide us as opposed to unite us, versus the motion to recommit, which i would absolutely concede is often designed as something that makes it appear that we are divided when in fact we may not be so . Rep. Lieu thank you. I appreciate the question. The distinction i would draw here is its never good to divide us. But thats part of the politics and part of the process here. Its using a group as a pawn, as the wedge to create that division. To try to create a false impression of antagonism to a group or an individual that doesnt actually exist, that i think becomes so dangerous. And my concern specifically with respect to the use of American Jews and the issue of antisemitism in our country, which is on the rise in the country as it is around the world, were empowering groups that are trafficking antisemitism and were diminishing groups that are being used as the wedge. Rep. Woodall i think back on some of those im sure you are referring to. I would say we were talking about protecting this group or that from some groups that rightfully need production and the motion to recommit said, yes, those things are important, but someone needs to speak out against antisemitism and theyre not. Someone needs to speak out against antiisrael sentiment and theyre not. So were going to do these things, we cant move legislation to the floor on our own and so were going to put it in in this context. In our last panel, we heard members on both sides of the aisle talk about the need to protect the motion to recommit. I do hope that we can find a way to make it more valuable as a legislative tool. But i could not agree with you more that the politics of division that we play have dangerous consequences in many ways. Again, i believe not being able to speak with one voice on behalf of noncitizens in u. S. Custody is dangerous because it suggests that something is acceptable when it in fact is not. And that is certainly true as it relates to antisemitism and so i would be happy to work with you in a republican majority as were sure to see in january, i want you to know ill be just as willing to partner with you as i am in a democratic majority today. Rep. Schneider i appreciate that and all of our intersections, weve had good comity and i think it is that comity that allows us to put forward to advance the interests of the nation. There will be arguments and division of opinions, but we should never use individuals as a pawn in advancing that cause. Rep. Woodall i will share with you, i dont believe our conversations in the Modernization Committee are privileged any longer. We tried not to out one another while those conversations were going on. But we grappled with the motion to recommit because folks did have such strong feelings about it and i while reforming it was in our final recommendations, i thought one of the more fruitful places was how can we encourage the minority to surrender that motion in favor of getting a more substantive legislative alternative path . Lets not use lets not eliminate the motion to recommit to silence the minority. Lets change the motion to commit to empower legislative discussion and just give the minority one opportunity to take it where they would like to take it. And so your counsel is well taken. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. Ms. Torres . No questions or comments, thank you. Mr. . I have a couple of comments. And i would like to start where rob and brad just left off. And i had not opposed m. T. R. S before as a general principle, but the m. T. R. From a week ago on antisemitism really bothered me in a whole range of ways. Obviously, as a member of the rules committee, we say its procedural, you know, and i sort of went down that path and i voted against it. And then it passed and then we vote on the bill, as amended by the m. T. R. , and every single republican voted against the bill with that amendment. And we had mr. Cline on just a few minutes ago and we talked about the virginia rule where if you amend something, you vote for the bill. That doesnt seem to be commonplace around this place. But i was making some fundraising some calls and a guy answers and he says, why are you antisemitic . He didnt say it quite like that. Why did you vote against the antisemitism amendment . I just i dont understand. I said, it was procedural. I said, but then i voted for the bill, so it was part of the bill. And i said, all of those guys who presented the amendment, it was just a phony baloney stunt because they all voted against the bill. And it did create precisely what brad is concerned about, that i could say all the republicans were antisemitic and he could say, he was worried that any democrat who voted against the amendment was antisemitic and it just really went right here for me. Thats a core value thing for me. And so i i have to admit, im attracted to mr. Lieus proposition here on m. T. R. S, that what is the value of them . You know is this really something important that its the last word for the minority . Is that really something or is it a gotcha thing . And we certainly did it. We would do our m. T. R. S, so i have some reservation about these things that i didnt have until about last week. And so, i just i want to raise that. And i guess my other comment to mr. Lieu on the inherent contempt is the enforcement component that mr. Woodall raised, that what are we going to do . Add to the Capital Police . Are we going to get fines . Are we going to sell somebodys house on the courthouse steps . I mean, i dont understand how we have the i dont understand what you would put into place to actually enforce something in some substantial way. So, i guess im presenting that to you, mr. Lieu, because i have some skepticism about this. Mr. Lieu could i answer that . Sure. Rep. Perlmutter so right now, in fact, our congressional subpoenas can be enforced, as mr. Woodall pointed out when they went after attorney general holder. Towards the end, that wasnt enforced. It just took many years. We have to litigate it through the courts, meaning that the district court, Appellate Court and the u. S. Supreme court. It takes years to enforce a subpoena. The difference with this proposal is, lets say you assess a 100,000 fine ultimately on a witness and, yes, it will be litigated through the courts. But at the end of the day, if the witness is wrong on the issue and the courts find, yes, we have the ability to enforce this subpoena, it was lawfully ordered, that witness will be on the hook for 100,000. So it flips the burden where the witness now knows, if they ignore the subpoena, they could in effect be on the hook for a lot of money at the end of the day. Well take the don mcgahn case. Weve been litigating that issue through the district court, the Appellate Court. It hasnt gone through the Supreme Court yet. At some point, there will be a decision, and lets say we in congress win. What happens . Don mcgahn comes in and testifies. But if there was also a threat that he might think, oh, i might also be on the hook for 100,000, i dont know if he actually would ignore the congressional subpoena. So thats the difference. It puts this burden on the administration that if they lose, they could be on the hook. So i guess i follow up and yield back. Lets say we get 100,000, so you in your scenario, the court said, yes, its a 100,000 fine and we have to collect through the courts, thats what i was saying, auction it on the courthouse steps. Do you think were going to do that . Rep. Lieu same way that the courts right now impose fines on people who ignore court orders. And, yes, there would be at some point a collection would occur. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. I just have a little im not sure that we have the staying power to do that. But i hear you and i yield back to the chair. Ms. Scanlon . Thank you. Mr. Morelli . I just want to add my thanks to mr. Schneider and mr. Lieu for their thoughtful comments and for the opportunity to have them in front of us. I yield back. Ms. Shalala . No questions, mr. Chairman. Thank you. And i think mr. Raskin may have some see if mr. Raskin [indiscernible] mr. Chairman . Yes. Mr. Raskin . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just i wanted to say a word about mr. Lieus proposal, which i think is and put your video on, please. Sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now, mr. Chairman . I can hear you, but we cant see you. We need your video. I thought it was on. Okay. There you go. Rep. Raskin i just wanted to say a word on behalf of mr. Lieus proposal. You know, at a certain point earlier in this congress, i looked at the Supreme Court precedent governing contempt of congress, going back to anderson versus dunn, and this goes back to the beginning of the congress and the Supreme Court has been very clear from the beginning that congress has the same Institutional Authority to impose sanctions for disobedience of its orders that a court has and, you know, as a body equal in stature and powers to the Supreme Court, we have the authority to enforce our orders. And if we dont have that, then the lawmaking function is fatally compromised because its inherent in lawmaking that we have the power to obtain the information that we need. And, you know, James Madison was very clear about this when he said that those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. And so what does it mean for us to have the power to legislate over all of these subjects, over war and Foreign Policy and commerce and bankruptcy and piracy and banking, you name it, if we cant get the information that we need . The lawmaking power implies the power to go out and collect information, the power of subpoena, the power to have people come and testify before us. If we get an executive branch, if we get a president of whatever Political Party or persuasion who decides to thumb his nose at congress or give the finger to congress, thats a crisis in our form of government. And so we need to have the full panoply of powers to enforce our orders, and obviously, that is something that goes beyond any particular party or any particular president. But we are the preeminent branch of government. The reason were in article 1, we come first, like the First Amendment and all of its rights comes first. And the reason why the congress has the power to impeach the president and the president does not have the power to impeach us is because we are the lawmaking power and the representatives of the people. So with all of that, i just want to say i am in very strong support of what mr. Lieu is doing and we have to move a process forward that allows us to make the inherent contempt power not just latent within our arsenal, but something that is explicit and right there, so people understand it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Chair mcgovern thank you very much. Does any other member of the committee wish to ask a question . Seeing none, i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. You are now excused. Are there any other members who wish to testify on proposed rules changes for the 117th congress . Last chance. Seeing none, this closes our member day hearing. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you, everybody. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] later, the conclusion of an interview with Harold Holzer on the relationship between the media and u. S. President s. Todays program talks about president s from Franklin Roosevelt to donald trump. Watch q1 day today at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspan, yourtching unfiltered view of government, created by americas Cable Companies as a Public Service and brought to you by your television provider. Tonight, a Senate Rules Committee hearing on proposals for two new smithsonian museums, the american Womens History Museum and National Museum of the american latino. Senators spoke in favor of the proposals, highlighting the need for the experiences of american women and latinos to be included in american history. Watch that tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Tuesday, Steven Mnuchin and Jerome Powell testified before the Senate Banking committee. They provide an update on emergency measures to provide relief from the economic downturn. Plus, live coverage of the hearing tuesday on cspan3, on demand on cspan. Org, or listen wherever you are on the cspan radio app. Next, bill clinton speaks about Affordable Housing and the racial wealth gap. Hosted by the Clinton Foundation, this portion runs about 45 minutes. Pres. Clinton thank yall for joining us for the second edition of building an inclusive recovery. The Clinton Foundation series to address racial and economic disparities in the wake of covid19. I hope wherever you are tuning in from, you are staying healthy and safe. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to our th