Member Day Hearing on Proxy Voting and Remote Committee Proceedings as Established by H. Res. 965 of the 116th Congress [Original Jurisdicti, House hearing transcript (March 17, 2022), GovInfo CHRG-117hhrg49396, PDF
Summary
This is the GovInfo PDF of a House Committee on Rules member day hearing convened March 17, 2022, on proxy voting and remote committee proceedings established by H. Res. 965 of the 116th Congress, chaired by James P. McGovern. Members who testified included Rodney Davis of Illinois, C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Chip Roy of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mark DeSaulnier and Mark Takano of California. One statement says that under proxy voting individual votes are sometimes held open for long periods, frequently extending up to 45 minutes or longer. Another quotes McGovern's Dear e-Colleague from May 13 of 2020: 'this is an extraordinary time and we must adapt.'
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROXY VOTING AND
REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS AS ESTAB-
LISHED BY H. RES. 965 OF THE 116TH CON-
GRESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022
Available via http://govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49–396 WASHINGTON : 2022
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
E:\Seals\Congress.#13
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
COMMITTEE ON RULES
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, Chairman
NORMA J. TORRES, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado Ranking Republican
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARK DESAULNIER, California,
Vice Chair
DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
DON SISSON, Staff Director
KELLY DIXON CHAMBERS, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina Ranking Republican
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado TOM COLE, Oklahoma
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE
NORMA J. TORRES, California, Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania TOM COLE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chair
DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
Vice Chair Ranking Republican
NORMA J. TORRES, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARK DESAULNIER, California
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
(II)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
CONTENTS
March 17, 2022
Opening Statements:
Page
Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules ........................... 1
Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma
and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules ..................................... 1
Witness Testimony:
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois ............................................................................................................ 5
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 5
Hon. C. Scott Franklin, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida ....................................................................................................... 8
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 8
Hon. John H. Rutherford, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida ....................................................................................................... 9
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 9
Hon. Veronica Escobar, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas .......................................................................................................... 10
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 10
Hon. Jason Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mis-
souri ............................................................................................................... 12
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 12
Hon. Linda T. Sánchez, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California ................................................................................................... 13
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 13
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Flor-
ida ................................................................................................................... 36
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 36
Hon. Steny Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mary-
land ................................................................................................................ 38
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 38
Hon. Mike Gallagher, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 42
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 42
Hon. Chip Roy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ...... 44
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 44
Hon. Andy Biggs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ari-
zona ................................................................................................................ 48
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 48
Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ... 50
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 50
Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California ................................................................................................... 76
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 76
Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California ....................................................................................................... 77
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 77
Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee ...................................................................................................... 79
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 79
Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas .................................................................................................... 81
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 81
(III)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
IV
Page
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Hon. Deborah K. Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina .......................................................................................... 94
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas ................................................................................................ 97
Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 99
Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Cali-
fornia .............................................................................................................. 100
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California ....................................................................................................... 103
Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California ....................................................................................................... 107
Hon. Nydia Velázquez, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York ................................................................................................... 111
Hon. Paul McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 114
Hon. Raúl Grijalva, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arizona ........................................................................................................... 116
Hon. Rick Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia . 00
Hon. Stacey Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin Islands ...... 121
Hon. William Timmons, a Representative in Congress from the State
of South Carolina .......................................................................................... 124
Article by Punchbowl News, entitled ‘‘Will House Dems get it Together?’’
dated March 9, 2022 ..................................................................................... 126
Article by Rep. Matt Gaetz from the Washington Examiner, entitled
‘‘Republicans are getting it wrong on remote voting’’ dated November
18, 2020 .......................................................................................................... 139
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROXY VOTING
AND REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
AS ESTABLISHED BY H. RES. 965 OF THE
116TH CONGRESS [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
HEARING]
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in Room H–
313, The Capitol, Hon. James P. McGovern [chairman of the com-
mittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McGovern, Perlmutter, Raskin, Scan-
lon, Morelle, DeSaulnier, Ross, Neguse, Cole, Burgess,
Reschenthaler, and Fischbach.
The CHAIRMAN. The Rules Committee will come to order.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day everybody.
March 2020 was a month unlike any in our history. In just a few
days, the COVID–19 pandemic crystallized in our national con-
sciousness and brought the world to a wrenching halt. Within a
matter of weeks, hospitals were overwhelmed and thousands had
died. Millions more were laid off as markets crashed and global
supply chains were upended.
Life changed overnight. America was in crisis, and Congress took
action. Starting with an emergency supplemental appropriations
bill in March of 2020, the House and Senate then worked together
to quickly pass the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the Pay-
check Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act; vital
bills that helped to keep millions of Americans safe and healthy
and brought families, small businesses, and communities back from
the brink of economic collapse.
Yet despite the safety measures we put into place, Congress itself
was not exempt from the virus. By the end of March of 2020, over
50 Members of Congress had been diagnosed with COVID, jeopard-
izing our ability to pass important legislation during a national
emergency, not to mention putting into danger every single person
those Members came into contact with on their way to and from
Washington from every corner of the country.
Not wanting to turn every session of Congress into a super-
spreader event, I am proud that the Rules Committee got to work,
consulting with experts, constitutional scholars, and our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, to develop a system for proxy voting and
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
(1)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
2
remote committee proceedings that allowed us to continue con-
ducting the people’s business during an unprecedented time.
We weren’t alone. Around the world in Canada, Mexico, Spain,
Japan, and dozens of other countries, parliaments adopted various
forms of remote voting and hearings to keep their respective gov-
ernments functioning. I am especially proud that the House did it
in a way that it ensured the integrity of the institution and pro-
tected the health and safety of thousands of workers who make this
place function every day; from the cafeteria workers and congres-
sional staff, to the custodians and the Capitol Police.
Just over a century ago, the 1918 influenza pandemic brought
Congress to a standstill. Sickness sidelined so many Members of
Congress that the House lacked a quorum and was literally unable
to vote, proceeding only through unanimous consent agreements.
Contrast that with our response today, and the numbers speak for
themselves.
Proxy voting has enabled Members to safely vote on over 600 re-
corded votes since the start of the covered period. In fact, 76 per-
cent of the House, Democrats and Republicans, has voted by proxy
at least once during the covered period. And I am told that House
committees have held over 900 virtual hearings or markups, ena-
bling them to continue their work.
We passed lifesaving COVID rescue bills, including the historic
American Rescue Plan, while ensuring the continuity of govern-
ment during an unprecedented time, advancing appropriations
bills, the National Defense Authorization Act, conducting oversight
on the Executive Branch, and much more. And I believe that a cen-
tury from now, historians will look back at the work we did to keep
this place running, and they will say that, during a once-in-a-life-
time global crisis, we got the job done.
And let me just say for the record that I have not voted by proxy
because I have been lucky. I haven’t had COVID. I haven’t had to
care for a child with COVID. I haven’t even had to quarantine for
weeks at a time like so many others. As a person who wrote this
rule, I followed it to the letter. But at the end of the day, I am
proud that this option is available for both Democrats and Repub-
licans, and I am proud of the fact that even most Republicans have
voted by proxy.
Some people have used it because they had to take care of chil-
dren who had COVID. Some people have used it to protect vulner-
able family members. This rule, I believe, has saved lives.
That is why I look forward to today’s conversation. For example,
we have a member on this committee who currently has COVID
and will only be able to participate because of the rule we passed.
I think there is value to that.
We have been able to hear from witnesses from around the world
in our committees, broadening our perspective and improving our
work here. I think there is value to that too.
America has changed, and Congress met the moment. We didn’t
get everything perfect. There were certainly things I wish we would
have done differently in this role. But now, as this pandemic enters
a new phase, I believe that it is important for us to discuss how
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
proxy voting and remote committee proceedings have worked over
the past 22 months, how they helped Congress safely operate
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
3
through the public health emergency, and whether what we have
learned can instruct the work of this institution moving forward.
You know, I have always said that Congress works best when we
get to know each other in person, face-to-face. I felt strongly about
that when the pandemic started, and I still feel strongly about
that. I also feel strongly that the system of proxy voting that we
instituted is something that we should all be proud of and some-
thing that we can learn from. And that is what this hearing is
about.
So I hope we have a productive and positive conversation. It is
hard to do in this place—everything is political—but I do hope that
is the way the hearing proceeds.
And, with that, I am happy to turn to our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Cole, for any opening comments he may have.
Mr. COLE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I want to join you and wish everybody a Happy
St. Patrick’s Day. And I have to say, just looking around across the
room, I have never seen such a stunning display of green ties.
The CHAIRMAN. And if anybody wants coffee, it is Irish coffee. We
could begin the morning.
Mr. COLE. Well, in that case, I am throwing this out; I will join
you. But thank you very much.
And we are here today to hold a Member Day hearing on proxy
voting and remote committee procedures.
In May of 2020, in response to the COVID–19 pandemic, the
House took unprecedented action and created a system of proxy
voting on the floor and a system for remote committee procedures.
At the time, I noted that this was the most consequential change
to the rules since the establishment of the modern committee sys-
tem in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
I believe our experience over the last 2 years has borne that out.
This action was indeed consequential. Unfortunately, in my view,
the results have not been as positive as all of us I think would have
wanted.
Sadly, as I feared, the introduction of proxy voting on the floor
and remote committee procedures have changed the nature of the
institution and not for the better. Although some temporary form
of procedural change in response to the pandemic was likely nec-
essary, particularly for Members who physically could not get to
Washington, D.C., in the early days, I believe that both the proxy
voting and remote committee procedures have long since outlived
their usefulness. Continuing these in their present form will un-
doubtedly lead to significant long-term damage to the culture of
this body and to our ability to continue functioning as a Congress.
We must never forget that the word ‘‘Congress’’ literally means,
quote, ‘‘a physical meeting between delegates,’’ unquote. Over the
past 2 years, we have rarely met this definition. Instead, 2 years
on, Members often use proxy voting and remote committee proce-
dures to avoid traveling to Washington and, consequently, never
spend time in the same room as their colleagues. I just note that,
magically, proxy voting doubles on Fridays. I am sure that that is
something we ought to consider. Not every weekend is Super Bowl
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
weekend, and probably a few of those proxies that are much more
for scheduling convenience.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
4
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Why were you looking at me?
Mr. COLE. I actually—just because of that attractive green tie. It
is eye-catching. I certainly would never accuse my friend of any-
thing untoward.
But, 2 years on, again, as I said, Members often use proxy voting
and remote committee procedures to avoid traveling to Washington
and, consequently, never spend time in the same room.
The failure to congregate in person has had serious consequences
for the culture of this institution. Over the past 2 years, I person-
ally have observed the decline in civility. I think this can be di-
rectly linked to the inability of Members to get to know one an-
other face-to-face, which is in turn a direct consequence of these
emergency remote procedures.
The author Margaret Wheatley once noted that, quote, ‘‘You can’t
hate someone whose story you know.’’ In failing to routinely come
together in person, we are losing our ability to learn each other’s
stories. That has helped contribute to rising animosity on both
sides of the aisle. Relationships, both between Members and with
staff, are important. And it is important to have all Members phys-
ically present in Washington to ensure that these relationships are
both created and maintained.
In addition, continuing to utilize proxy voting and remote com-
mittee procedures has negative consequences for legislating. When
Members are not present in Washington, that lessens the ability of
the institution to achieve consensus. Without the ability to discuss
matters in person, face-to-face, Members aren’t able to fully con-
sider legislation and propose an alternative, often leading to a top-
down, take-it-or-leave-it approach. It is hardly the way to ensure
that all Members’ voices are heard or to ensure a productive legis-
lative process that leads to consensus.
The use of proxy voting has also resulted in the failure to main-
tain a productive and efficient legislative process on the floor. With
proxy voting, individual votes are sometimes held open for long pe-
riods of time, frequently extending up to 45 minutes or longer.
With such a long vote time, the majority has limited votes to no
more than a handful each day. This is meant that we instead are
avoiding votes altogether, which is especially apparent on legisla-
tion with a huge number of amendments.
Rather than doing individual votes on each amendment, the ma-
jority is instead liberally embracing large en bloc amendment pack-
ages, which makes it very difficult for individual Members to know
what they are voting on and, likewise, makes it more difficult for
an amendment to be adopted. This contributes to the same take-
it-or-leave-it legislative approach and contributes to a waiting of
voting procedures in such a way that frequently benefits the major-
ity at the expense of the minority.
I would also note that while technology has created the ability
for committees to hold remote hearings, such technology is not fool-
proof. We have seen a myriad of problems emerge from these tech-
nologies over the past 2 years, ranging from Members unable to
enter virtual hearing rooms due to technical glitches and low band-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
width preventing Members from speaking or appearing on camera.
None of these problems exist with in-person committee hearings.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
5
Mr. Chairman, I grant that it may have made sense to experi-
ment with some alternative procedures at the beginning of the pan-
demic but, today, we are moving steadily toward a broad reopening
of society. The CDC is no longer recommending broad mask man-
dates and, indeed, the House eliminated its own mask mandate 2
weeks ago. Vaccines and boosters are widely available to anyone
who wants them, testing is widespread and reliable, and the Na-
tion as a whole is ready to get back to work and, quite frankly,
back to normal. This should include the House of Representatives.
It is now time for Members to return to Washington to conduct
the business of the Nation. We can do this safely in person, and
we should do so at our earliest opportunity. Indeed, there is no rea-
son for us not to.
Before I conclude, I want to welcome all the Members of the
House who will be appearing before us today. Member Day hear-
ings are an important tradition in the House. And I commend you,
Mr. Chairman, for doing that today.
Member Day traditions are—excuse me, gives us all a chance to
hear perspectives from Members who do not sit on a particular
committee, and it allows us to hear and incorporate new ideas. I
have often found these hearings to be invaluable. And I am de-
lighted to be hearing from my friends and colleagues today, par-
ticularly on a topic that is so important to the future of the House
as an institution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome our witnesses to today’s
hearing, and I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I just want to point out for the record that we are here in person.
And the only way that Mr. Neguse, who unfortunately has COVID,
will be able to participate with us later today is because we do
have the ability to do remote hearings. And I think that is impor-
tant. That is important for his constituents. But we want every-
body to be able to participate.
In any event—and we are going to do these in panels of six, if
that is okay with my friends here, because there are a lot of people
who want to testify today. So Representatives Davis, Franklin,
Rutherford, Escobar, Smith, and Sanchez.
So why don’t we go in that order. Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman McGovern,
Ranking Member Cole. Thanks for hosting the hearing on this im-
portant topic or, should I say, here we are again.
Two years ago, I sat here when we first discussed this issue, and
I said then that there is not one Member serving today, nor will
be there a Member elected in the future, that today’s discussion
does not affect. And it is as true today as it was then, that Mem-
bers might vote by proxy or participate in the duties of our elected
office by video link from vacation homes, in fishing boats, and occa-
sionally in the wee hours of the morning, maybe from the comfort
of their own bed.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
These are fundamental changes to the fabric of our institution,
which has operated in person since before the American Revolu-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
6
tion, following a tradition that began with the Battle of Runnymede
in 1215. To paraphrase from the English philosopher and writer
G.K. Chesterton, sometimes processes exist for a reason. And it
makes sense to uncover that rationale before tearing them down.
And for Congress, meeting in person is vital for us to be able to
accomplish the people’s work. This is one reason why, from the
very beginning, many of our colleagues and I have been cautious,
if not outright opposed, to these departures from important and
valuable tradition. How dare we be the Members that decide not
to show up at the Capitol for the American people. Generations be-
fore us, through a Civil War, two world wars, horrific terrorist at-
tacks, pandemics and more, cut no corners in service to the Amer-
ican people. And yet over the last 2 years, the Speaker and the out-
going majority have quite literally allowed Representatives to
phone it in.
And, now, we are here today to discuss how proxy voting or re-
mote proceedings should be continued in perpetuity, not as an an-
swer to a national emergency, but as a convenience. Where is our
sense of duty and sacrifice?
Now as I sit here again, my worst fears about the effects of proxy
voting and remote proceedings have been proven true. We have 22
months of proof that proxy voting and remote committee hearings
do not serve the American people well.
And, Mr. Chairman, your own party is experiencing the impact.
I would like share an excerpt from an analysis from Punchbowl
News in advance of the Democratic Member retreat last week, for
which I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Punchbowl said: The multiyear
COVID–19 pandemic only exacerbated the physical and personal
distance between lawmakers. Proxy voting, remote party meetings,
and virtual hearings mean House Democrats have spent far less
time in the same room with each other for the last 2 years than
they normally would. A lot of Democrats, especially newer Mem-
bers, don’t even know each other that well. And across the entire
Caucus, there is a clear lack of trust, Progressives versus Mod-
erates, younger versus older, leaders versus rank and file. These
are just some of the fault lines inside the party. Legislative polit-
ical priorities and prerogatives do not line up, end quote.
Mr. Chairman, you personally predicted that this would be the
case. In a Dear e-Colleague from May 13 of 2020, you wrote, quote,
‘‘In normal times, we work best when we work together, face-to-
face, and side by side; however, this is an extraordinary time and
we must adapt,’’ end quote.
Majority Leader Hoyer had similar sentiment stating on May 20
of 2020, quote, ‘‘Let me be clear at the outset that there is no sub-
stitute for the personal interaction of members in a committee
room or on the House floor. But when that is not possible because
it poses a mortal danger to the health of Members, staff, press, and
the public, we must provide for alternative ways to do the people’s
business,’’ end quote.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And, in fact, in the same e-Dear Colleague I mentioned, Chair-
man McGovern made clear in his question and answer section the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
7
following: Will remote voting by proxy be a permanent change to
the House rules? Would we continue to use it post-pandemic?
And the chairman’s response, and I quote, ‘‘No. We would tempo-
rarily implement remote voting by proxy through a special order
resolution that would allow the Speaker to put the process in place
for 45 days during a public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus.’’ Two years later, proxy voting remote committee hear-
ings remain in effect.
Mr. Chairman, even if such extraordinary measures were re-
quired at the beginning of the pandemic when none of us knew how
to live with COVID, the pandemic is fading and is no longer a suffi-
cient rationale to prolong this deviation from standard practice.
It has become clear that the chairman’s words were, at best,
overly optimistic, and at worst, willfully short-sided. If we were to
rely on the promises and assurances given by this majority, then
proxy voting and remote proceedings would have ended long ago.
Yet, in typical fashion, the majority continues to cater to the loud-
est voices in their caucus, those who have become comfortable with
the conveniences of the current system. And to be frank, it is clear
that this has nothing more to do with the outgoing majority’s weak
margins in the House than anyone’s health or safety.
So President Biden declared earlier this month in his State of
the Union Address that thanks to the progress we have made this
year, COVID–19 need no longer control our lives. I say it is time
that COVID–19 stops controlling Congress as well.
The state of Congress is not better today than it was 2 years ago.
That is undeniable. Governing is built on trust and relationships.
Proxy voting and remote proceedings haven’t only broken down the
communication between Democrats and Republicans, they have
done so within the parties, within State delegations, and within
committees as well.
The halls of the House office buildings used to be corridors of
open doors, fostering the exchange of ideas and common ground.
Today, the doors are shut, the halls are empty, and the public is
locked outside.
We are no longer in extraordinary times. We have learned to live
with COVID, and threats to the continuity of Congress have sub-
sided. It is time to show up and get to work for the American peo-
ple, period. If that is not the direction this majority adopts, it can
only be assumed that permanent proxy voting and remote com-
mittee hearings were the plan from the beginning. If that is the
case, I hope you at least will pay the American people the courtesy
of telling them the truth, because I assure you, Republicans are
here to work.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to get back on the job in person. And
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Representative Franklin.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
8
STATEMENT OF THE HON. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. FRANKLIN. Good morning, Chair McGovern and Ranking
Member Cole. Thank you for allowing me to address the Rules
Committee on this important topic.
I would like to express my disappointment at the outset that we
would even consider making proxy voting permanent. The proxy
vote was only instituted in response to the global pandemic, but
that pandemic is now shifting to an endemic. The House is moving
back to normal operations, thankfully, so the requirement to vote
in person must be reinstated.
I am a freshman who has never voted by proxy. And, frankly, I
took a lot of flack for missing votes last year when I flew home to
Florida to make an official event appearance with my Governor at
his request. Other than those missed votes, I have been present for
every other vote. Missing votes will always happen, it always has.
Allowing Members to skip voting in person, a critical part of our
duties, is wrong.
Many of my colleagues have abused the proxy vote. We all know
it. We do. Some Members have missed 31 days of floor votes, the
equivalent of seven full weeks of voting.
The American people sent us to Congress to debate legislation,
advocate for our constituents, and be present to vote on their be-
half.
In the 117th Congress, the House has been in session for 124
days. That means some Members have been absent for a full quar-
ter of the days that we voted. I don’t know a single job in America,
outside of government perhaps, where you can skip work 25 per-
cent of the time and still be allowed to have a job and remain em-
ployed.
While much of America shifted to telework during the pandemic,
many of my colleagues have chosen to hand over their proxy vote
to another Member for a variety of non-COVID reasons. Colleagues
who vote by proxy sign a legal affidavit stating that they are phys-
ically unable to attend proceedings in the House Chamber due to
the ongoing public health emergency. I am not a lawyer, but it is
worth noting that an affidavit is, quote, a written statement con-
firmed by oath or affirmation for use as evidence in court.
I’ve seen colleagues attend virtual hearings in their cars while in
route to events in their districts, stand outside the Capitol holding
press conferences while others voted their proxy inside the build-
ing, or even post on social media about their exotic vacations taken
during vote days. But they submitted affidavits swearing they were
physically unable to attend proceedings in the House Chamber due
to the ongoing public health emergency. And we wonder why the
American public has such a low opinion of Congress.
The truth is many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
and it is truly both, like the convenience of proxy voting, but that
is not a good enough reason to shirk our duty to the American peo-
ple. It is disgraceful and it needs to stop.
The success of this institution relies on personal relationships
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
and our ability to make the case for priorities that our constituents
need. We need to build coalitions to get our bills across the finish
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
9
line. We cannot advocate, build coalitions, or effectively serve the
American public over Zoom or voting by proxy.
As you debate this important issue, I would ask you drill down
to the heart of the matter and ask yourselves this question: Would
permanent proxy voting make us a better functioning institution
and would it make it—or would it better serve the American pub-
lic? Based on the abuses I have witnessed, I am certain that an-
swer is no, and I think you know that answer too.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Franklin follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Mem-
ber, and committee members.
First, let me say that I have never proxy voted. I also refuse to
participate and assist other Members who wanted to proxy vote.
And that is because I believe it is a fundamental role of every
Member of Congress to be here in D.C., to be present, to cast a
vote, and to do their committee business. That is what taxpayers
pay us to do.
Unfortunately, proxy voting started out as a solution to pandemic
challenges, as the chairman eloquently said earlier, but it has now
devolved into a method of convenience for some Members to avoid
their responsibilities.
In our changing world, it is easy for folks to—and it is under-
standable that they would compare proxy voting to working from
home, but they are not the same. You see, here is the thing about
proxy voting that many folks don’t understand: Members don’t
need to be physically present at their computer to cast a vote, and
so they simply have another Member submit a vote on their behalf.
It is not the same as working from home.
When a proxy vote is placed, as we have mentioned earlier, a
Member of Congress must submit a signed document that explains
the absences due to the ongoing public health emergency. Now, this
made much more sense when COVID–19—at the beginning of the
COVID–19 pandemic, back before we had vaccines and thera-
peutics.
There is no excuse anymore, Mr. Chairman. It is being used for
convenience, not fear of illness. You don’t have to use hypotheticals
to see how this situation is ripe for abuse.
Instead of being present for a vote, my colleagues have gone to
political fundraisers, campaign events, space shuttle launches, and
many, many other nonwork-related get-togethers. In another in-
stance, one person even called in to a committee hearing from his
boat. In fact, there are a few Members who have only been up to
D.C. a handful of times since the proxy voting began. That is un-
conscionable.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Say that again. What did you say?
Mr. RUTHERFORD. They have only been to Washington, D.C., a
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
handful of times since proxy voting began. In fact, I know one
whose been here, I think, one time. And the only reason he came
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
10
then was because you couldn’t proxy vote for the Speaker. So it is
obviously being greatly abused.
It is no longer about the pandemic, and this committee must end
this practice. We cannot create a scenario where the main function
of a Representative which is voting on legislation can be done while
a Representative votes physically and virtually absent.
In the most recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans said they
did not approve of the way Congress is handling its job; 75 percent.
It seems that the perception is that nothing gets done around here,
and proxy voting sure isn’t helping to change that perception.
Finally, proxy voting creates hour-long voting cycles, where the
people who actually come to work are the ones who are punished
because it is our time that is being wasted on the floor because
Members don’t want to show up for work. Those who proxy vote
and those who help them are doing a disservice to those here in
D.C. trying to get things done.
The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the pandemic is over, so we
need to return—everyone is to return to D.C. and reconvene again
in person. It is what our constituents expect. And I am asking the
committee to finally put an end to this wasteful proxy policy.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Rutherford follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
So I am not skipping over you, Mr. Smith. I am just going in
order.
Ms. Escobar.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
be back in the coziness of the Rules Committee. And I want to
apologize to the members behind me for giving them my back.
This is a great conversation, and I think it is really important
that we all listen respectfully to one another to really truly try to
come up with a productive and good path forward.
I had the incredible privilege of serving as the El Paso County
judge for many years. And in Texas, the county judge is effectively
the head of county government. And when I came in, we had no
continuity of operations plan. And that was one of the first things
that I knew I had to do because, if we had a flood, or if we had
some kind of storm, or if we could not get into the building, we had
to have a plan. And as I began engaging with other organizations
about their approach, it really became very clear to me that every
major organization needs to have a continuity of operations plan.
And Congress did not have one when the pandemic hit, and I am
proud that we came up with a plan. Could it be more efficient? I
think we could be more efficient. Should we have boundless proxy
or remote voting or virtual meetings? I don’t think we should.
I think there—and I don’t think it needs to be an either/or propo-
sition at all. I think—and, Mr. Cole, I agree with you, I think the
human contact and interaction is so important when we are talking
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
about policy, when we are trying to come together, when we are
trying to find ways to solve some of our great challenges.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
11
And, yes, it is true, Congress is so divided. You know, I—person-
ally, I blame extreme gerrymandering for that, where, you know,
folks are able to pick their own districts and we are getting further
and further and further apart. That is something I hope we do
solve at some point, because we have got to do a better job of work-
ing together. And we have got to come together to do that.
But I think that we are in a moment where—and it is not just
Congress, but I think all of America should learn from the past 2
years. And every organization should learn from the past 2 years.
And that means looking at what works and what didn’t work. That
means looking at best practices, and it means looking at where we
might have failed. So that when the next pandemic hits or when
the next emergency hits, we are ready, we are prepared, and we
are approaching all of this thoughtfully.
But when it comes to bringing Congress into the 21st century,
as I mentioned, does not have to be an either/or proposition. And
I—you know, I—what I would like every member on this committee
to think about is every time you have had to make a decision be-
tween being with your loved one for the birth of a child or a grand-
child, or attending your child’s graduation—I remember when my
son graduated from college. I remember praying when I texted him
and asked him when is your graduation, I really, really hope that
that is an in-district workweek so that I don’t have to make that
decision. Thankfully, that momentous occasion landed during an
in-district workweek, and I was able to change my schedule around
and I could attend my son’s college graduation.
How many of us have had to make the decision between showing
up for work sick or missing votes? Again, it doesn’t have to be ei-
ther/or. I think we can be not just grownups about this and trust
one another, but I think we can approach this in a practical way.
So if we have—if we create rules around this prospect, let’s say
every Member gets 20 proxy day votes, and so that every Member
gets a certain number of days where they can proxy vote. If they
want to spend those 20 days attending, you know, in-district events
or attending—you know, saving it for sick days or saving it for spe-
cial occasions that they know are coming up that year, that should
be the Member’s prerogative. We should treat Members like adults.
And outside of a COVID pandemic, outside of an emergency
where we need this continuity of operations plan, then we should
allow Congress to operate in the same way that most other organi-
zations operate. And that way we preserve the integrity of the in-
stitution, we maintain the advantageous nature of being in close
proximity with one another that helps us chart out a path for a pol-
icy and for relationships, but we also allow Members the ability to
be there for a birth, to be there for a funeral, to be there for an
important event in their lives, or to stay home when they are sick,
and to not have to make the decision between casting a vote on be-
half of their constituents and these important life events or in-dis-
trict events.
So my hope is, is that we can be reasonable, and that we can
look at Congress in a way that where we acknowledge the fact that
we are all human, the fact that we all want to do the right thing
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
by our constituents. I hope this conversation does not devolve into
pettiness or finger-pointing. That doesn’t serve anybody well.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
12
And, again, as my Republican colleagues have noted, on both
sides of the aisle, we have seen abuses, but we have also seen peo-
ple recognize the challenge that we faced for 2 years as we tried
to keep one another safe and ourselves safe and our families safe.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
Rules Committee, thank you for this really important conversation.
Thank you for the opportunity that you have given me to share my
own views. I yield back.
[The statement of Ms. Escobar follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, Rank-
ing Member Cole, and members of the committee. It is always a
great opportunity to participate in a hearing in the Rules Com-
mittee.
The American people have a lot of reasons to be upset with the
direction of our country. Inflation just hit nearly a, well, 40-year
high last week at 7.9 percent. We have the highest gas prices in
13 years. And we have seen more than 2 million illegals cross the
southern border in the last year.
These are the kind of national problems the American people
want Congress to solve. They elected us to do a job, to have robust
debate, and to make tough choices to take real action in Congress.
But at the very least, they expect us to show up to work.
And yet for going on almost 2 years now, the idea of proxy voting
has made a mockery of the legislative process. Under the proxy vot-
ing rules that still remain in place in this House, a Member of Con-
gress could vote to authorize military action. They could spend tril-
lions of dollars or to fundamentally rewrite our Nation’s laws. All
of their—all while sitting on their couch at home, on a cruise ship,
or on a boat, or even a fundraiser that just a phone call—with just
using a phone call to a fellow colleague. Think about that. This has
all happened in the last 2 years in this body.
When it comes to committee work, we marked up two reconcili-
ation packages in the House Budget Committee. This Congress,
with a combined price tag of over $7 trillion, $7 trillion, that is
with a T. One of these bills, the so-called Build Back Better Act,
is the most expensive piece of legislation in the history of the
United States. Guess how many times we met in person in the
House Budget Committee. Zero, to spend over $7 trillion; the most
in the history of this Nation.
The American people have had their lives turned upside down for
the last 2 years. In some cases, their lives have been destroyed,
completely and entirely. The very least Congress can do is we can
show up for work.
Like many a bad policies in history, proxy voting starting out as
a limited measure. Back in May of 2020, it was authorized for 45
days. Seventy House Members proxy voted then. Fast forward to
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
now, and more than 300 Members have submitted letters to the
Clerk delegating their votes to other Members.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
13
Speaker Pelosi has extended proxy voting, not once, not twice,
but more than 10 consecutive times. In fact, over 17,000 votes, over
17,000 votes, almost 10 percent of all votes cast in the House last
year was by proxy.
A single Representative can cast the vote of 10 absentee Mem-
bers. Theoretically, that means it would take no more than 20
Members of Congress to conduct business on behalf of the entire
House of Representatives, on behalf of the Nation. This isn’t just
a wrong way to govern, it is completely backwards.
It runs counter to the design of democracy. Our Framers settled
this question over 200 years ago, back during the Articles of Con-
federation and the Constitutional Convention. They rejected pro-
posals to permit proxy voting.
Congress is meant to convey in person. For over 230 years, we
have operated with in-person quorum calls and voting during
pandemics and world wars. In 1814, when the British set fire to
this building, Congress convened in a hotel until the Capitol was
rebuilt the next year. During the Civil War, troops were trained on
Capitol Grounds, and they were even quartered in the House and
Senate Chambers for a brief time. Despite all that, Congress, guess
what? They still convened in person. In 1918, during the Spanish
Flu, considered one of the deadliest pandemics in world history,
Congress still voted in person.
The job is not meant to be easy. We all knew that when we
signed up to represent all of our constituents. Nor should we make
it easy by phoning it in. We are each responsible for representing
hundreds of thousands of hardworking good Americans that should
be able to depend on us to show up for work, just as so many of
them have done, especially during this time of crisis.
With that, I am thrilled to take any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Smith of Missouri follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. And just as a personal favor, we
want to have a productive conversation here. Some of us take of-
fense when you refer to people as illegals. I would hope that we can
stay away from that kind of rhetoric so we could actually have a
conversation about the topic here. But I find that, quite frankly, to
be offensive.
Ms. Sanchez.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with that
comment.
I want to thank you and Ranking Member Cole for the oppor-
tunity to testify about proxy voting and how we can adapt the rules
of the House of Representatives to the realities that face working
parents and, in particular, working moms.
It is ironic that one of the biggest leaps forward that this institu-
tion has taken to being more family-friendly was actually caused
by a global pandemic. When I gave birth to my son in 2009, I was
only the eighth Member of the U.S.—Member in U.S. history to
give birth while serving in office. Nearly 13 years later, I am still
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
one of only 11 Members of the House who have given birth while
in office.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
14
In an institution that has always been dominated by men, there
are all kinds of issues that disproportionately impact our small
club of moms in Congress. And we have to face many of those rules
that were created back when only men, quite frankly, served in
this institution.
Some are easily solvable. Like, hey, installing a women’s bath-
room near the House floor, which we didn’t even have until 2011.
That was 13 years after I was first elected.
But there is one obstacle to raising children as a Member of Con-
gress that has never been easy to solve, and that is the schedule.
We all understand the obligation to serve the constituents of our
district, which means day or night, rain or shine, and we show up
to do the people’s business. But too often that obligation means we
as parents have to choose between taking care of our children when
they are sick or hurt or making sure that our constituents’ voices
are heard.
I want to put a little context into some of the challenges that
working moms in Congress face. I come from the State of Cali-
fornia. I represent a district there. Washington, D.C., is approxi-
mately 3,000 miles away from my home. All of my family lives in
California. When I chose to give birth, I chose to do it in Wash-
ington, D.C., knowing that I would need to go back to work pretty
quickly after the birth of my son. I had intended to take 4 weeks
of maternity leave to heal from the cesarean section that I had to
undergo in order to give birth to him. I had to actually get up out
of bed 2 weeks after my cesarean section to come and vote in the
House of Representatives on an important vote.
I wonder how many of you, after a major surgery in which you
have stitches and are told by your doctor that bedrest for 2 to 3
weeks is recommended, would drag yourself out of bed to come to
work and cast an important vote. But I did it. And I understood
the sacrifice, and I am proud that I showed up for work to do that.
But that does not mean that we cannot build in flexibility for those
types of situations.
I will never forget when we were facing a government shutdown,
and my son was a toddler asleep in his bed at night, we got called
in to vote at 11:30 p.m. at night on a Saturday. What person here
knows the specific challenge of having to find childcare for your
child when all of your family is 3,000 miles away, and you are here
by yourself, and you have to go in to vote? It is a question of either
waking up your son and taking him to the floor with you, which
I have had to do, or knocking on a neighbor’s door and begging
them to stay in your home with your son asleep until you can re-
turn from votes. Those are the realities that moms in Congress
face.
We shouldn’t have to make that difficult choice to choose be-
tween our families and our obligations to our constituents. I have
been here in Congress when I have gotten a call that my son was
injured at school, and I had to take him to the emergency room.
And I had to miss votes. And then you get criticized for not doing
your job or being there when you are supposed to be there.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
It is a special kind of situation that women encounter. Some men
as well. I don’t mean to, you know, to overgeneralize. But more
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
15
particularly, the burden falls on women who are still the primary
caregivers for young children.
When you are forced to choose between your family and your re-
sponsibility to vote, it makes you feel like you are letting one or
the other side down. And that is a hard thing to live with. But if
proxy voting had existed back then, I wouldn’t have had to make
those choices.
Congress wasn’t built for working mothers, and it really shows.
And for those who are arguing the historical rules and our Found-
ing Fathers and the rules they made, remember that when those
rules were created, women were not at the table helping craft those
rules. Women were not even allowed to vote. In fact, in those times,
women were actually property.
Make no mistake, with healthcare and the salary that I earn, I
am more fortunate than many working moms. But if we want the
United States Congress to look like the people that we serve, we
have to be more flexible for parents. Preserving the option to proxy
vote will help us do so. And I agree with Veronica, that with proper
safeguards, we can reduce the abuses.
I can honestly say I have never proxy voted from a boat. I have
never proxy voted from my couch. I come into work, and I do my
work as best as I can, but there are emergencies that come up in
which proxy voting makes life just a little bit easier for me.
I want to thank the chairman for this opportunity to give a per-
spective that is not often heard here in the hallowed halls of Con-
gress, and I yield back.
[The statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Let me thank all of you for your testimony. Just a couple of
things. I just want to cover them for the record. It was men-
tioned—the 1918 epidemic was mentioned. Let me, again, remind
my colleagues that the House back then was unable to function
without unanimous consent agreements, because many Members
couldn’t attend in person because of the pandemic. They even need-
ed unanimous consent to pass an urgently needed bill to get doc-
tors to rural areas after days and days of negotiating.
So let’s be honest, does anyone here think we could get a UC for
something like that today? I mean, we can’t even get a UC to fix
a typo in a bill. So, let’s be realistic about what the reality is in
this Congress.
Proxy voting and remote committee procedures have allowed us
to continue our work as normal, unlike in 1918. So I don’t look at
1918 as, oh, boy, that is our model. If you think it is our model,
then I would again urge you to go back and read your history.
Secondly, the notion that people are not working if they are not
in this building. Maybe you know people in your conference who
that was the case for. But, I don’t know anybody—most of the peo-
ple I know who have been operating remotely during the pandemic
were working pretty hard. I mean, we did remote hearings. Some-
times they went really long.
I wasn’t sitting on my couch watching TV; we were engaged in
trying to move legislation forward. And we have this thing called
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
technology, which enables us to do things a little bit differently
than they did back in the 1800s or 1918. We have electronic voting,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
16
by the way, which many people opposed when it came into being
because they thought it was somehow unconstitutional or violated
the old traditions. I think most of us are grateful that we could
vote electronically because, otherwise, votes would take days to
cast here in the House.
The other thing is that for those Members who have utilized
proxy voting in a way that we all think they shouldn’t have, we
know about those cases because the news media reported them.
And those individual Members have to explain themselves to their
constituents.
As I said at the beginning, I think this saved a lot of lives here.
I really do.
I know Mr. Davis, you had COVID, but you had it during one
of the breaks. Maybe you think if you had it when we were in ses-
sion, that your constituents should be disenfranchised and not have
a voice. As much as I disagree with you on most things, I still
think that you should have the right, especially during this pan-
demic, to be able to represent your constituents.
Mr. Davis, Mr. Smith, Mr. Rutherford, you all feel very strongly
about this, as evidenced by your opening statements, but just out
of curiosity, why did you remove yourselves from the proxy voting
lawsuit?
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I did not. I mean——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. You did. I mean, we told you—your names
were——
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Someone else. I didn’t sign anything.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Nor did I.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. And I have never proxy voted.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. And that is fine. I haven’t either. And I
am lucky, right? But going to what Ms. Escobar and Ms. Sanchez
talked about, life is complicated, right? I mean—and I guess the
purpose of this is that—hopefully, we are moving beyond the pan-
demic. We all hope and pray that that is the case. But this is a
time to say, okay, some of the things that we put into place, what
makes sense and what doesn’t? And could things be changed?
Should we keep some of this stuff?
I mean, I have heard from many people, Democrats and Repub-
licans, who say they like the idea of being able to have remote or
hybrid committee hearings because somebody could testify who
lives in California and not have to fly all the way here to be there
in person. Or you can talk to somebody in Ukraine. Or you can talk
to somebody halfway around the world someplace else. They see
value in that. I do too. Personally, I think there is something to be
said for that.
And then when it comes to proxy voting—by the way, the reason
why we did it the way we did—you know, you have you sit at your
computer—is we wanted to be as transparent as possible. You have
to file a letter with the Clerk. Your name has to be announced on
the floor, so everybody knows that you are voting by proxy, how
you voted. Let me just repeat it again. When your vote is counted.
You know, computers can be hacked. And we thought a low-tech
approach, quite frankly, would be the best way and the most secure
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
way to be able to do it. And so that is the whole reason behind all
of that.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
17
If there is a natural disaster in your district and you can’t make
it here, should you not have the ability to vote? If your child has
COVID; if you give birth; if you have a major surgery; if there is
a death in the family. I—you know, those are the things that I
think are worth talking about.
And, again, we are in 2022. This is not 1918. And technology is
advanced. Other parliaments around the world are embracing tech-
nology more than we are. And the question is, is there any room
for that kind of discussion? And if we continue any part of this—
I am not saying that we will—but if we do, what do we keep, and
what do we not, and how do we make it better?
And, Ms. Escobar, I am told you have to leave. So does anyone
have any objection if Ms. Escobar leaves?
You can leave. You are free. All right. But thank you very much
for your testimony. I appreciate it.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you for the opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. I just think this deserves a more serious con-
versation than just the usual political, you know, everything is per-
fect or everything is bad. I mean, this requires a lot more thought
than that.
And, again, the idea that this is the cause of the polarization in
Congress, give me a break, all right? I have thoughts on why Con-
gress is so polarized, and a lot of it has to do with the aftermath
of January 6th, among other things, but we won’t go there.
But to say that this is why things are the way they are. We
spend an inordinate amount of time here together, you know, even
during the pandemic. So I don’t think that that is the reason.
But, anyway, I yield to Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. Well, first, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Frank-
lin probably needs to leave as well. So we would ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to leave.
The CHAIRMAN. You are free. You are liberated.
Mr. COLE. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. And Ms. Sanchez has to leave too.
Yeah. If I can say one thing, I just want to clarify for the record
here. The Supreme Court petition from September 2021 clearly
says the only remaining parties were Minority Leader McCarthy
and Representative Roy on the suit. So I don’t know. I am just say-
ing, you got cut.
So, anyway, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent to insert for the
record the statement of Republican Leader McCarthy.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Leader McCarthy was unable to be with us in person today, but
I hope—I took the time to actually read——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. He could be here remotely.
Mr. COLE. I think that would probably contradict his position.
But, you know, again, he’s got things to do. It is not unusual for
us to submit statements for the record. I think my friend has have
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
done that for his colleagues on many occasions.
The CHAIRMAN. We happily accept it.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
18
Mr. COLE. Thank you very much.
And I hope you have a chance to read it. It is actually—I read
it this morning. It is actually quite good.
And like you, Mr. Chairman, Leader McCarthy has never
proxied, and that he feels very strongly about that and what this
does long-term to the institution. That is why we are having the
discussion today.
Let me begin, Mr. Davis, with you, because I consider you, actu-
ally, one of the great institutionalists of the House. You worked as
a staff member for a lot of years. I think 17 years, if I recall right,
before you became a Member of Congress. So you know the institu-
tion very well. You have looked at it from a variety of perspectives.
And we have had a number of colleagues make the point that,
you know, the private sector has adapted to the pandemic through
expansive work from home, leading to, you know, good results for
them. In your view, how is Congress different? And what would
you say to those who say Congress should adapt to 21st century,
you know, set of conditions or rules and maintain—as opposed to
maintaining the procedures that have existed before, you know,
modern technology?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Look, there is modern technology.
And we have adapted, which is why we are having this discussion.
But in the end, I think our jobs are much different than many in
the private sector. Our job depends upon interaction. Our job de-
pends upon being able to work together.
And I can’t tell you, countless times, I have had conversations
with my colleagues over my—over my tenure in Congress, on the
floor, an idea that I say take to your leadership, and I will take
it to my leadership. And you know what? And sometimes those
ideas become law. But it takes being able to be on the floor and
be together. That, to me, is what the American people want us to
do.
We have been required to come vote in person until this proxy
voting was allowed, and it was—even, Mr. Chairman, you must
have changed your mind considerably over what you stated when
these proxy rules were put in place, that they would only be tem-
porary; that you agreed that we didn’t need to make this something
that was permanent. If that changes, that is okay, but I have not
changed my opinion on this. And I think it has torn the fabric of
this institution by tearing us away from being able to be with each
other.
Let alone, it has turned votes into days. At some point, we have
got to get back to the 15 minutes, 5 minutes, maybe even—you
know, I know it is probably folklore, but we used to actually have
2-minute votes around this institution that cannot happen under
this proxy system.
But if you look at many jobs in the private sector, Mr. Cole, have
been able to take advantage of technology. But a vast over-
whelming amount of jobs in this country are requiring people to get
back into the office. And let’s not forget those individuals who kept
coming to work every day during this pandemic. And we should
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
learn from—we should learn from them being able to operate in a
normal economy, in a normal—in a normal situation.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
19
I mean, we saw grocery store workers on the job every day. Now,
was there a higher prevalence of grocery store workers passing
away from coronavirus infections? No. We can work together. We
can be around each other. We can make this place work again. We
can harass each other like Ed and I do on a regular basis. But we
can’t do it when Ed is proxy voting because I won’t.
The CHAIRMAN. He hasn’t been on our remote hearings. Ed Perl-
mutter gets harassed all the time, so it’s okay.
Mr. COLE. He may well be the most harassed Member of Con-
gress, but he has earned that right, and he gives as good as he
gets, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you to elaborate on something. So you mentioned this
in passing, but, you know, and I will just add this as an observa-
tion myself. It is really unique even on our own staffs, you know,
what works face to face and what doesn’t. I have found my case
workers are able to do a pretty good job remotely. Obviously, my
field representatives not so much.
And so I do—I take my friend’s point that, you know, it might
be different for different occupations, even for different positions
within the same occupation. But I think we are different. And I do
think, you know, for the institution to work well—and, again, I am
not saying this to be critical of anything that was done during the
pandemic. We are not under the same conditions that we were 2
years ago, so I would hope we don’t maintain the same regimen
that we did 2 years ago. And we have learned some things in that
2 years as well.
And I want to commend the chairman for having this discussion.
I think it is a good discussion.
But back to my friend, Mr. Davis, again, you have got vast expe-
rience in this institution. Talk to us a little bit about the impor-
tance of face-to-face interaction for Members of Congress. It might
be a lot different for somebody else in a different profession, but,
again, you have seen this animal from about every direction. Why
is that, in your view, important for us to maintain and get back
to as much as we can?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have countless exam-
ples of me working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues who I
have gotten to know because we have been able to interact with
each other personally, and we have turned ideas into law that ben-
efit all of our constituents. But that wouldn’t have happened if I
didn’t have the chance to actually socialize, get to know them in
an in-person setting.
And when you look at—you look at where the institution is, I
think—I agree with probably everybody in this room. This place
has never been more polarized in my career. It is as high in polit-
ical temperature as I have ever seen it. And I think the only way
that we can bring that temperature back down again and begin to
see us all work together is to focus on getting together in person,
focus on that face-to-face, focus on in-person committee hearings.
I used to work in the district office. When my former boss would
come home, he was in the district doing district work, meetings,
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
one-on-ones, you know, open office hours. We have seen this major-
ity hijack the days that should and could be used for district work
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
20
period with remote hearings because it is convenient rather than
doing those hearings in person.
And those hearing rooms in person are a great way—and as you
know, it is a great way—look around this room. You guys spend
a lot of time together in Rules, but you get to know each other. And
you get to discuss, debate, and disagree, and then you go have a
beer together, then you go crack a joke together because you realize
it is more about personal relationships. That is what is not hap-
pening with remote proceedings. That is not what is happening
with proxy voting. We are getting away from what our forefathers
envisioned.
And I know there are plenty of times that many Members of
Congress throughout history had to make the tough decision to
miss some votes. I had to do it to go back for my wife to get a
colonoscopy checkup. It was during approps season. My percentage
of voting went down substantially. But you know what? If I am
criticized for that, I am very happy to remind whoever is criticizing
me of the reason I missed those votes. That should not be an ex-
cuse to give people an excuse not to come to work.
Mr. COLE. Well, I couldn’t agree more. I have to tell you, though,
as much wonderful time as we have spent together up here and as
good friends as we are, it is still nine to four pretty much every
vote, so—and I say that to make the point, each committee is really
different.
And I just want to add this before I get to my last question to
my friend: I want to single out a committee chairman that I think
has done this extraordinarily well and that is Chairwoman
DeLauro of the Approps Committee. You know, we certainly had
remote hearings and whatever, but every markup we did was in
person.
We would go to the Ways and Means meeting. We would socially
distance. We would put on our masks. We got all 12 bills done by
July of last year, by the end of the August break. And I actually
give the House a lot of credit here. We were ready to move on a
lot of them. We moved nine of them across the floor. I see my good
friend, the majority leader back there, who got that done.
And the reason why we had a good outcome, I think, last week
where we came together and in a bipartisan way passed an omni-
bus bill is a lot the relationships and the manner in which Chair-
woman DeLauro operated throughout the pandemic. She adjusted
to the reality. She played by the rules, but we certainly didn’t go
any lengthy period of time. I don’t think we ever marked—matter
of fact, I know we never marked up a bill and weren’t in person.
And that makes a huge difference in terms of the amendment proc-
ess and everything else.
So, again, I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned there,
and she did it the right way. And I think that made it possible for
a lot of Republicans who had not supported any of those bills last
year, but once the bargaining was done and, hey, this is my con-
cern, here or whatever, and we had a lot of Members, you know,
on both sides come together for both of those bills because of the
manner in which they had been crafted.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And I know she would get us back—I don’t presume to speak for
her, but everything she did would suggest to me that she—you
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
21
know, she likes the traditional give and take in committee hear-
ings. She conducts it very fairly and very openly. We don’t win a
lot of votes because we are not the majority, but we have our op-
portunities. And, again, it just builds a lot of good relationships
and helped us a lot last week when I think we really needed to
come together and get something done for the country.
Let me just ask you this last question, Mr. Davis, you have men-
tioned that 22 months, in your view, has provided a lot of proof
that proxy voting and remote proceedings do not serve the Amer-
ican people well. Can you expand a little bit on that point, the dif-
ferences that you have seen, and maybe why we should certainly
reconsider the current regime for sure? We may have some dif-
ferences on whether this is ever appropriate or not. I tend to fall
down in the more traditional category there.
But I think give and take, it is hard to see, even if we had to
do this why we would continue to do this, because I think, on bal-
ance, you made the point, this is not good for the institution; it
doesn’t get us where we need to be. So, if you are looking at the
whole 22 months in totality, how would you describe what hap-
pened and where we should go based on our experience in that
time?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, remember, this proxy voting was implemented
by the majority as a temporary emergency measure. We are not in
an emergency anymore. It should only have been temporary. But
this is—these are some of the concerns that I brought up to this
committee when Majority Leader Hoyer and I testified in front of
the Rules Committee in the Ways and Means room 2 years ago,
and it is exactly what I was afraid of then.
It has led to the hyperpolarization. I am glad Chairperson
DeLauro is doing in-person markups because, in three of my com-
mittees, that is not the case. We did multiple highway reauthoriza-
tion markups via video. And they were nothing—all of the markups
I have had in the committees that I serve on in this Congress have
been partisan. And I agree with you, Ranking Member Cole, that
a lot of it has to do with the lack of being able to have bipartisan
interaction in that committee room. That is where I have developed
some of my best bipartisan friendships.
So those are just—those are the end result of this so-called tem-
porary measure that we are debating to make somewhat perma-
nent now. But you don’t have to go too far. All you have to do is
look at some of the remote hearings that have been in place. We
lose our ability to exercise our oversight responsibility with execu-
tive branch officials and private sector officials.
When they are sitting on the other side of a computer, they—we
don’t know who’s standing behind them, telling them what to re-
spond to our questions. The ability for us to do our job has been
impacted by technology and not necessarily positively all the time.
But there is also a distinct difference because—one other thing
to answer your question though. At GovTrack, they recognize that
this Congress is on pace to actually be one of the least productive
Congresses. But if you look at how many remote hearings we had,
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
I mean, that has taken our productivity away back home, and I
think those are concrete examples, sir.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
22
But there is a distinct difference between the proxy voting proc-
ess and the remote technology being utilized. I hope the majority
and the minority take that into consideration. Proxy voting has
been a disaster that has torn this institution apart, and I will con-
tinue to believe that because I have witnessed it, and we have all
witnessed it. Now, we can put our heads in the ground. We can act
like the Broncos are going to win the AFC West because they got
Russell Wilson.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. We are. You guys don’t have a chance.
Mr. DAVIS. Not going to happen. Not going to happen. And I
will—go Raiders. Broncos suck. I yield back.
Mr. COLE. Let me—before we go on, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I
actually want to refer to an individual case just to make this point.
When we were holding a markup for the Interior Appropriations
bill, I offered an amendment to provide additional funding for
something called the McGirt case in Oklahoma. You know more
about it than most Members of Congress because you have had to
listen to me. But it is a Supreme Court ruling that basically, you
know, reestablished reservation status in vast parts of the State in
terms of criminal jurisprudence. And it put a lot of burdens on
Tribes that had to then stand up police forces and judicial systems
that had not had to do that as robustly.
So I offered the amendment, explained the problem. The majority
didn’t know a lot about it. There is no reason why they should. It
is peculiar to my State. And they had not allowed for it in the bill.
They had allowed in the—earlier in the justice bill for additional
Federal resources that the Biden administration had requested
with my support, but nobody had really thought about the Tribes.
So I offered the amendment. I knew that it would—and, you
know, it was going to fail and on a party line vote. So I withdrew
the amendment so that the committee would have more time. Then
I got up, walked over to my good friend, the chairwoman of Inte-
rior, Ms. Pingree from Maine, explained: Okay, here is the issue.
Here is the problem we are running into.
And she goes: Tom, we can’t fix this right now, right here, but
I want to learn more about this. I want to talk to you about this.
I want to negotiate, see what we can do to help.
mean, just exactly what you would want any chairman to do in
a situation like that.
It took a while, but lo and behold, we passed the omnibus bill.
There was $60-odd million to help these Tribes that were impacted
deal with this problem. But if that had been a remote hearing, I
couldn’t have gotten up, walked over to my friend, explained off the
record or, you know, out of the context of the hearing, here is the
deal. You know, we have worked together on a lot of things. She
is a terrific appropriator and very sympathetic on tribal issues,
very knowledgeable about them because there is certainly Tribes in
Maine.
But the point is, you know, the more of that kind of action we
have, the more a lot of problems can be taken care of. And it cer-
tainly made it much easier for me to vote for that bill when it hap-
pened and much easier for us to address the problem.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And I don’t think anybody deliberately, you know, wants to get
away from that, but I think it is something we ought to think a
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
23
lot about just as an institution as to how we work, because the re-
ality is a lot of problems around here get solved that way. They get
solved not even in a hearing but in—because we are all together
in the hearing, you can get up, walk over, here is the deal, here
is why I am offering this, last thing I want to do is put you in an
embarrassing spot. I am going to withdraw the amendment be-
cause I don’t want to get you down as a ‘‘no’’ right now until you
know more about it. If you are still ‘‘no,’’ that is fair enough. But,
you know, again, we lose that kind of thing.
So, again—and I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for hav-
ing, again, this hearing so we can have this kind of discussion
about where we want to go and how we want to operate in the fu-
ture, and so thank you very much.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. I would yield to my friend.
Mr. DAVIS. One last thing I hope the committee considers: If and
I think when the majority changes, I mean, many of these discus-
sions—many of these policies may change in the rules package. So
consider this now, we are talking about a matter of months that
you want to—that you may want to try to implement technology
and processes that could be changed by new leadership in this Con-
gress. So I want to make sure that the committee considers that
as you are moving forward.
Mr. COLE. Thank you. And, again, Chairman, thank you very
much. And I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, thank you. And let me, again, remind peo-
ple why we are doing this hearing. We don’t have a bill to do any-
thing right now. We thought this would be an appropriate time to
hear what people thought about what has been in place. Some
want to keep things as they are; some want to get rid of every-
thing. You heard Ms. Escobar come up with a kind of a creative
way to approach this. Others have different opinions.
So this notion that somehow, here we are, continuing this for-
ever, I think we are trying to get information from people about
what worked and what didn’t work.
I would just say, I really have to take issue with the fact that
somehow this is the least productive Congress. I mean, a historic
infrastructure package that many of you guys voted against but are
taking credit for in your districts. The American rescue package,
incredible legislation to combat the COVID pandemic. I could go on
and on and on. You may not like all the things that we produce,
but to somehow say that this has been the least productive Con-
gress I think just defies reality.
Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And I will save many of
my comments for the next panel, but just to you three, and, Mr.
Smith, you have been up here a lot. In fact, you were up here sev-
eral times on Build Back Better. So we actually had in-person
hearings where you testified, and I can remember them distinctly
because you have a very distinct way of making a presentation.
Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. So—but, I guess, I couldn’t be farther away
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
from all of your testimonies, because—and I would say to my
friend, Mr. Davis, and we actually had this debate 2 years ago
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
24
when we talked about this. And I am much more Libertarian than
anybody, Democrats or Republicans, because I think we ought to
just do everything by remote—I mean, not do it but offer that with-
out any kind of, well, you have got to come in here with your doc-
tor’s excuse. Because I don’t want Mr. Morelle saying: Well, you
don’t have cancer, you have got—only have a bad cold, you should
have been here.
And I don’t want Mr. Cole deciding: Well, you know what, it is
not a wedding, but it is a bat mitzvah.
You know, is that really what we should be doing? And I don’t
think we need to police each other.
And this is where I disagree with you, Mr. Rutherford, and I ap-
preciate your testimony, but it is the 820,000 people that I rep-
resent that are the ones that are going to make a determination
as to whether or not I have done right by them, not you, not Mr.
McGovern, not Mr. Morelle.
And I appreciate Mr. Cole’s comments about, you know, this
place works better when you are here. And I—look, I agree with
that, all right. I think this place serves somebody with a bubbly
personality like mine, okay. But, on the other hand, you know, if
my dad has passed away and I have got to be at home as part of
the funeral, which I did and I missed a defense authorization and
a whole bunch of votes on that, I don’t want to disfranchise all the
people that I represent. And I could have been able to at least par-
ticipate in that and not miss those particular votes.
So, you know, I personally think that this thing has worked out
well. One of my best friends now is—and he will probably deny it—
is William Timmons. And the reason he became—we became close
is we were on a Zoom where you are facing everybody actually, as
opposed to the way—and you and I are supposed to be in another
hearing right now as to how we set up the committee rooms in-
stead of, you know, either looking at the back of somebody’s head
or in opposition, which leads to conflict. It doesn’t lead to collabora-
tion. This one is a little more, we are closer, we can see each oth-
er’s face, but in most committees, you can’t. And we had some
down time, we started talking. I brought up something, he re-
sponded. Everybody kicked in. And all of a sudden, we had a con-
versation on Zoom like we rarely have in a committee room, and
he became, you know, one of my best buddies here.
So I—you know, this—it is what you take advantage of, how do
you use the technology, and we have the technology. We can’t—we
have got to be in this century. We can’t just deny where we have
come. Ms. Sanchez’ testimony is about as compelling as anything
I have ever heard. It really does—you know, a young family has—
you have got to give them a break so that they can represent the
people that sent them here.
So I will yield back. I was curious, Mr. Davis, who wrote that
Punchbowl News thing that you read? Did you?
Mr. DAVIS. It must have been one of their crack reporters, Ed.
You will have to ask them.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. No, I mean, this place, you have got to—
you know, you said, and I think you almost proved the opposite of
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
the case, you say, on the one hand, let’s really speed up votes on
the floor so we can get out of here and not waste people’s time, but
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
25
at the same time you said let’s all be together because then we
really, you know, get along and we come up with new ideas.
Mr. DAVIS. But you are not together when you have a cumulate
of proxy votes because every proxy, everyone who is catching that
proxy vote is not there.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. But I hear you on that. But, on the other hand,
what I am saying is, if we are—before or after, if we are here and
we take time, let’s say we make everything 15-minute votes wheth-
er we have proxy voting or not, you think that is going to make
the place better because now you and I can visit a little more?
Maybe it will. I mean, that is your testimony.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, there have been plenty of times that I probably
think we have had better conversations walking back from votes in
the hallway——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. True, or playing catch.
Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. So—or playing catch. But those are the
things that—the institution has not been positively impacted by
proxy voting.
Mr. COLE. Would the gentleman yield——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Certainly.
Mr. COLE [continuing]. Just for a quick question, a quick point
to my friend? And this isn’t meant in any sense other than just an
observation. I will tell you, one of the things that has bothered me
the most about what we have done is the extensive use of en bloc
bills, and the reason why is simply we are all confronted with these
deals whether it is maybe one you agree with in 10 votes. And you
put them in these things, and we know—we all know who the Re-
publican ones are, the Democrat ones, the bipartisan ones. And so
a lot of amendments that might otherwise have passed or gotten
serious consideration just simply don’t. That is nobody’s fault. I am
not being critical of anybody. But that is something I would like
to see us get away from and back to the 2-minute vote, because it
is an individual vote. Then I can vote for something that one of my
friends offers on the other side without voting for the nine things
I disagree with when I really want that. And it does push us into
partisan thing. Now, again, I don’t blame that on anybody, but that
to me is something I would really like us to get rid of and go back.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. COLE. I yield back.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I agree with you. I agree with you 100 percent.
I am just trying to say, if what we are looking for is that we all
be together all the time on the floor because then we will come up
with better ideas and more collaboration, okay, you know. But
then, on the other hand, you say, well, let’s speed it up and get out
of here. I mean, let’s—you have got to—you can’t have it both
ways. So——
Mr. DAVIS. My initial comments, I didn’t mean to say that just
spending time on the floor is only the opportunity. It is also that
interaction that you can have throughout your day.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. And, look, I agree with you. And if this were
a perfect world, yes, but people get sick, people have things that
go on in their lives.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And, Mr. Rutherford, you are absolutely right when you said, you
know, some folks have violated the affidavit that they signed, and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
26
you are right. Now, me, I am going to say, you don’t need to sign
an affidavit. You can come or go, vote remotely, vote not, and the
people will decide whether you ought to be returned or not, you
know, as opposed to you trying to be the doctor: Your excuse is
not—Perlmutter, your excuse is not good enough to have voted
proxy.
And with that, I will yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I too—I thought Representative
Sanchez’ testimony was very, very powerful, and it forces us to ac-
tually think about this place from a different perspective.
Dr. Burgess.
Dr. BURGESS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Being respectful to the major-
ity leader’s time, do we need to let him give his testimony or should
we continue? I mean——
Mr. RUTHERFORD. I need to go.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, Mr. Rutherford needs to leave.
Dr. BURGESS. Okay. Well, then part of what I have to say reflects
on your testimony.
So, Rodney, I do—Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Davis, I do
have to correct one of the things that you alluded to. I have never
had a beer with Chairman McGovern nor do I ever intend to, but—
because I——
Mr. COLE. That, my friend, it is worth the experience. I have.
Dr. BURGESS. It is because I don’t drink beer. I mean, it is really
as simple as that.
You are right on your observations having to remain home while
your wife was having a procedure done. One of the problems that
has been encountered with the length of time that we have been
in this proxy voting situation is that we have got a five vote dif-
ference between Republicans and Democrats.
There are times when I would have missed a vote in the past and
been able to justify it to constituents back home. But I also come
under some pressure from the whip to not be unrecorded on a vote
because it is going to be very narrow. Now, it is all very difficult
when the majority always comes to the floor with 223 votes so
you—there is no drama. There is no guessing about what is going
to happen. But if there were to be one or two votes that peeled off
or went differently than would be predicted, suddenly things be-
come a contest again, and the unilateral disarmament that was re-
quired of our side really was untenable with the fact that this has
gone on so long and doesn’t really seem to be any prospect of end-
ing.
So I just want to make that statement in defense of people who
felt it necessary to be at home for a very important and good rea-
son and at the same time didn’t want to disadvantage their con-
ference by not being there to have their vote recorded.
And, Mr. Rutherford, and I think Mr. Franklin also brought it
up, you are right. The disrespect of the amount of time, the dis-
respect to Members because of the amount of time that is required
to be on the floor for a vote, I long for the day we can get back
to 2-minute votes. I wish we could get Doug Collins back in the
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
chair because, man, those 2-minute votes they were 2-minute votes.
And, if you blinked, you might miss one.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
27
But that is—it just allows so much more input from us rank-and-
file members, particularly on things like appropriations, NDAA,
some of these—transportation bills, some of these big things we
consider to have our amendments considered individually and not
in an en bloc and then defeated en bloc, and it is like you never
existed. But it is also—I mean, it is an imposition for us to have
to sit on the floor for every vote being a 15-minute vote. And you
can never curtail that because of the length of time it takes to
proxy vote. So I hope we are on the precipice of being done with
this. I do think it is time. Mr. Davis, to your observation that the
polarization, yeah, it is a problem. It is not new. It has been there
for a while.
Columnist George Will back in the Clinton administration, I re-
member, said the country is evenly divided, but it is not sharply
divided. Well, guess what, we have been sharply divided. And that
is why Congress is sharply divided because we represent the people
that send us here. Our division is a reflection of the status of the
country, and what we can do to perhaps try to improve that is cer-
tainly something we should spend our time doing.
I am grateful we are having this. I think a Members Day is ex-
tremely important. We don’t do that nearly enough in any of our
committees, and having this in person to be able to see each other
eye to eye, I think, is important.
Mr. Smith, it is my first term on the Budget Committee. Yester-
day was the first time I have sat at the dais in the Budget Com-
mittee for an in-person hearing and discovered that you have the
longest dais in any of the committee rooms that I have ever been
in. You can barely see the people at the other end. They are in an-
other ZIP Code.
But it is important, and it is important that we—you are right.
We spent so much money on those reconciliation bills, and the
markups were perfunctory. We really couldn’t add or delete items.
We were just—it was really just almost a pro forma type session,
and that is not the way it should be. The least productive Con-
gress, I would agree with you. Most expensive Congress, without
question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. And I—just for the record, I
want to remind my friend that we are doing this hearing in person
because I miss being with you so much, so I——
Dr. BURGESS. And I understand why, and I respect that.
The CHAIRMAN. But also I should say that, during the height of
the pandemic, this room was always available——
Dr. BURGESS. Yes, it was.
The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. For the minority to meet and so we
tried to make every accommodation possible. But——
Dr. BURGESS. I appreciate that you did.
The CHAIRMAN. And we all have to deal with the inconvenience
of long votes. You know, maybe what might help is if we could cur-
tail the number of procedural votes, that might also—because that
is an inconvenience, not just to members but to staff as well.
But, in any event, Mr. Morelle.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Mr. MORELLE. Ms. Scanlon is here.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Scanlon.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
28
Ms. SCANLON. Thank you, Chairman McGovern. I appreciate it.
You know, proxy voting and remote hearings, I believe, have
been an invaluable resource the past 2 years. I fought to make this
rules change at the outset of the pandemic because I wanted to
protect my family, my community, and to protect the continuity of
government for this body. And I believe those measures have been
successful and should be continued in some form. During this time,
the House has been able to function smoothly and efficiently, allow-
ing us to quickly respond to the COVID pandemic and economic re-
cession.
You know, I have not used the proxy voting allowance, although
I fought hard for it to be included. But I am not with you this
morning because I had an inconclusive test yesterday, and I didn’t
think I should be there in that cozy Rules room until I got a nega-
tive test, which thankfully I have, but I didn’t think I should be
infecting other Members of Congress when there was an option
that allowed me not to.
So these tools have allowed floor action to continue unabated
when Members can’t congregate. They have allowed Members who
contracted COVID to participate in floor proceedings and hearings,
and they have greatly improved the quality and diversity of wit-
nesses for committee hearings. While the rules change were put
into place to respond to specific circumstances, they have also
shown that Congress can greatly benefit from moving into the 21st
century along with our business, education, research, and other
communities.
Yesterday was a great example of that. We were able to have
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy address Congress from
an active war zone halfway across the world. In our hunger
roundtables here in Rules and in hearings in my other committees,
we have been able to have witnesses testify from all over the
United States, bringing their invaluable, unique experiences to the
legislative process.
And we were—it is incredibly valuable to hear those people. And
I believe we have also saved tax dollars by saving the expense of
bringing folks to Washington or forcing them to bear that expense,
which has prevented many witnesses from being able to testify be-
fore us in the past.
Proxy voting, on the other hand, is a low-tech solution to our
pandemic problems which has proved useful well beyond its origi-
nal purpose. It has allowed the House to function through the
worst of the pandemic when the Nation was experiencing thou-
sands of new cases a day. And even today, as we see Members hav-
ing to deal with positive tests, it allows us to continue to function.
It has kept us safe, it has kept our families and loved ones safe,
and Congress has been able to work through the pandemic without
interruptions.
These two things, proxy voting and remote hearings, have also
allowed Members to do their jobs while attending to the emer-
gencies and necessities of everyday life. We have had Members use
these tools to undergo cancer treatment and maternity leave, to
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
handle personal and family emergencies, and to actively respond to
disasters and other emergencies in their districts.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
29
Moving forward, I believe we should keep proxy voting and re-
mote hearings, but I do agree we should make some changes to
promote transparency and accountability. I am glad the committee
is having this hearing today so we can look at what some of those
changes should be, but we need to acknowledge that we need to
maintain these rules for some time until we truly get past the pan-
demic because the pandemic is not through with us yet.
And, while we have made so much progress in beating back
COVID, cases obviously persist. We know a new variant is spread-
ing and will soon likely be in the U.S. as well. So I am looking for-
ward to hearing everyone’s perspective on this and having a serious
discussion about these rules.
So, with that, I would yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
having this hearing on this topic.
And there has been some charges about en bloc—I just want to
start by saying, there has been some charges about en bloc amend-
ments and certain people, yeah, in certain caucuses making proce-
dural votes. But I would say that to disfavor a certain caucus, for
example, or certain personalities deprives everybody the tools nec-
essary to use, especially when there are some Members that have
been just unilaterally taken off committees. They have absolutely
no other recourse other than to make procedural votes. But I want
to explore that topic with Chairman Biggs and Mr. Roy on the next
panel.
But with that—you might be one of those Members that people
don’t like, Mr. Roy. I am just—I am kidding, but I like you. I mean
that. You know that.
Mr. Davis, would you like to talk about the en bloc amendments
and the procedural implications?
Mr. DAVIS. I don’t know why you don’t like Mr. Roy. I do, so——
The CHAIRMAN. Could the gentleman yield just for one second?
Mr. Smith has to leave. Are you okay? We are okay? Yeah. Any ob-
jection?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I want you to stay. I object. He has to stay.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. I had questions for both of them. It is okay.
The CHAIRMAN. You can require them to stay if you want.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. No. If you guys have to go, go ahead.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Jason has to stay, but Rutherford has to
go.
Mr. DAVIS. So the en bloc issue, the vote time issue, you know,
it is a problem. And I think it goes beyond the discussion we are
having today, Mr. Reschenthaler. I think this is a majority process
to keep a very small majority they have of voting for the bills that
should be more bipartisan.
I mean, I know Dr. Burgess talked about how, you know, there
have been times Members of both parties had to make the decision
to proxy. They are getting a lot of pressure from our whip team or
their leadership or what have you. Let me just say, can you imag-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
ine what a discussion on an infrastructure package or a Build Back
Better might have been if the majority was even closer? Maybe the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
30
bills would have been more bipartisan. Maybe we would have got-
ten back to what vote margins that I used to see when I got here
when this place was somewhat less polarized.
The length of time with voting, I do believe en blocs are put in
place because of the long vote times that are required because of
proxy voting right now. I think that is a cause and an effect, and
I am glad you, Ranking Member Cole, brought that up.
And we do have a lot of Members of Congress that have been
sworn in over the last two Congresses that don’t know what it was
like to have 2-minute votes. They don’t know what it is like to have
this campus open and have meetings being brought to you in the
Rayburn room. And it is going to be a shock when that happens
unless we can gradually get them back to that by getting rid of
proxy voting, by making sure that we don’t rely upon remote tech-
nology.
And I appreciate the comments Ms. Scanlon had, but there is ab-
solutely no comparison of what President Zelenskyy had to do from
a war zone to us having a hearing in the United States Congress.
We can use technology to our advantage, but we can’t continue to
allow technology to take advantage of us.
And, Mr. Chair, if it helps, I will sit by you every 15-minute vote
if it gets us back to quicker votes.
The CHAIRMAN. It won’t help.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Ranking Member Davis, the juxtaposition
of people remoting into these hearings when you had President
Zelenskyy remote in from a war zone is an amazing juxtaposition.
It is also an amazing juxtaposition that the Ukrainians are literally
being bombed right now, and they are still meeting in person.
There is no proxy voting in Ukraine, so it is clearly astonishing.
There is some talk—I have heard some testimony about folks
that have proxy voted somehow forfeiting the right to object to
proxy voting. And I have proxy voted, but I am against proxy vot-
ing. But I think the argument needs to be made, and maybe you
can explore this, that we may disagree with this rule, but we are
not going to play by rules that have been changed to favor the ma-
jority. And I would be willing to bet that if we got—that if we
didn’t proxy vote, even though we disagree with that, you would ar-
tificially inflate the majority’s vote count. Would you like to talk
about that?
Mr. DAVIS. Yeah, we are not in the majority. We don’t set the
rules. Being a Raider fan, we have seen how rules have impacted
games at very inappropriate times in the playoffs, numerous exam-
ples of that. Then the rules change. We are no different than the
NFL when it comes to, once the rules are set, you have to operate
within that system.
And that is exactly why I don’t begrudge our Members who are
adamantly opposed to proxy and for utilizing a process that is now
in place. But that doesn’t mean that it justifies keeping it. It
doesn’t mean that it has helped the institution.
And I go back to my original comments that I said 2 years ago,
that this is a process that was about more control. And we think
back, we used to have proxy voting only in committees, and there
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
are some Members who served back then, some in Democratic lead-
ership. And when the Republicans took over in 1995, we got rid of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
31
that process. It was because it was—it became a power grab and
a source of power for the committee chairs.
You always knew you had enough votes to get what you want
passed, and it hurt the institution. We got rid of it because it was
bad. And I believe the proxy voting process on the floor has similar
negative consequences for the long-term viability and the ability for
us to govern in a bipartisan way.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Ranking Member Davis, to that point, you
made some comments about you worried about future Members
and how this is going to affect future Members. Could you elabo-
rate on that?
Mr. DAVIS. Yeah, we had a disastrous orientation during COVID.
I mean, it couldn’t be the same as what an orientation normally
was, and we have got to do better. We have seen that we have
got—I mean, we had some fresh—too many freshmen get caught up
by not understanding processes like the STOCK Act. Obviously,
that means the majority and I, on House Administration, we need
to do a better job of orientation.
But there is no better orientation than actually the floor proc-
esses here in the House for a new Member of Congress to under-
stand. But the processes that have been in place for these new
Members have been, you know, supposedly temporary, but they
have been much different than what we all experienced when we
got here.
And I am afraid when we have got not just one freshmen class,
the most recent one, but even the class before had—they at least
had a year. But as we go into this new remap class, which are tra-
ditionally larger, we are going to have to retrain when it comes to
floor procedures some of the existing colleagues that we have be-
cause they haven’t been used to it.
And, really, a lot of time that we have spent on the floor during
this pandemic has been Members not wanting to talk to other
Members because they have been afraid of getting COVID. So the
sooner we get out of these temporary measures like proxy voting,
the sooner you have Members of Congress who might have been
more fearful of the virus than others that may feel comfortable
enough to actually build that relationship.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Yeah. You have been talking a lot about
Congress as the whole, but obviously you are the ranking member
on House Admin. Could you testify as to how this has impacted
House Admin. the committee itself?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, I enjoyed Mr. Cole’s comments on the Approps
Committee being very bipartisan. I used to see that on House Ad-
ministration. That has not been the case over the last two Con-
gresses. It has been unfortunate. It has been much more partisan.
And, frankly, I believe the pandemic itself plus the overuse of re-
mote processes and proxy voting has really hurt my ability and
Chairperson Lofgren’s ability to work and interact together to
make the House operate. I mean, there are things that so shouldn’t
be partisan that we deal with on a regular basis.
And, frankly, at the beginning of last Congress, it started out
much more bipartisan, but as the pandemic wore on and our dis-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
agreements in response and some of the legislative activity that we
disagreed on, I think the partisanship was exacerbated by the re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
32
mote processes and especially by the proxy voting, if I could not go
talk to somebody in person during votes who might not be here.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks, Ranking Member Davis. I appre-
ciate it. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. And I just want to say for the record, at
least I hope I didn’t—I wasn’t critical of Republicans who voted by
proxy in my opening statement. Although, I have to say that I do
have a tough time getting my head around the fact that many who
have voted by proxy signed on to a lawsuit saying this was uncon-
stitutional. And so I get it that the rules of the game are the rules
of the game, but if you think something is unconstitutional, how do
you go ahead and then utilize it? But, anyway, I will grapple with
that.
Mr. MORELLE. Okay. You are going to defer, and you will be the
first person we go to for questions in the next panel.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, you know, I guess Mr. Reschenthaler started to touch a lit-
tle bit on the freshmen, and since I am the only freshman—and it
looks like even on our panel, there is only a couple of freshmen who
are going to testify.
And, you know, Mr. McGovern, I think you touched on it when
you said you met the moment. In your opening, you used that
phrase in your opening statement. And I think—but I think that
moment is in the past now, and I think we need to move forward.
This body functioned for over 200 years without proxy voting,
and I think we should go back to those traditions of having people
come here, do what they need to do. You know, it has been obvi-
ously much more challenging for the freshman class to create those
relationships, make those relationships. And, sad as it may be, the
Rules Committee is probably the closest relationships I have had
because we have been here in person and—no, and that was a joke,
so I am just——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, we are a family, the Addams family.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. The Addams family, there you go. I love it. But
it really,—you know, because we have probably met more in person
or at least, you know, than any of my other committees, you know,
I look—I sit on the Ag Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
Judiciary Committee met a little more. But my relationship with
people is that little box and getting—you know, and they get their
5 minutes, and that is about all I get to hear from them. And there
isn’t—you know, in many cases, Mr. Perlmutter, you mentioned
there is, you know, discussion over Zoom, but not during the com-
mittee hearing. You know, it is a little more formal. It is a little
more controlled.
And so it is unfortunate, because my experience in the Minnesota
legislature, I understand how important those relationships are. I
understand that there is a lot that happens in the hallway just
passing people by saying: Hey, you know, I have got a great bill.
You should look into it and have your staff look into it.
And we are missing that.
And I really feel like it is so frustrating for the freshmen in
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
many ways because they don’t have that; they are not able to do
that. And they will be at a huge disadvantage, and I think even
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
33
into the future, I think this institution will suffer from the lack of
relationships with that freshman class.
And, you know, obviously, when we talk about, oh, you know, we
have to miss votes, you have to miss votes, this is a full-time—it
is a full-time job, and we are here. And there are obviously very
valid reasons why you have to miss votes, whether it be giving
birth, whether it be, you know, caring for a sick child or going to
see your parents, your, you know, elderly parents, whatever the
case is.
But I think Mr. Perlmutter touched on it, it is the voters that
get to decide, and for over 200 years, the voters got to decide if a
vote—if a reason to miss a vote was a valid reason. And I think—
and I can’t remember which of the testifiers mentioned she had
had a child while she was in. I think the voters probably said, that
is a pretty valid reason for missing a vote because they sent her
back.
So—and that is the way the institution was set up. And you do
have to make those hard decisions when you have a family. I
served in the Minnesota Senate when my kids were little, and you
know what, I made some of those hard decisions. I missed votes.
But I had to make those because of the profession that I had cho-
sen, that I had been elected to the senate.
And so I think that we need to put more trust in our voters to
help us make those decisions, and we need to get back to the way
this institution is supposed to be. It is supposed to be based on re-
lationships. It is supposed to be based on those discussions we
have, you know, with people across the aisle.
And I, as a freshman, it saddens me that we have missed that,
that we have missed that. Yes, it was a disastrous orientation be-
cause we—I mean, we couldn’t even talk to the other freshmen. We
had to sit, you know, further apart. We had, you know, masks on.
And let me tell you, I introduced myself to the same people like
eight times because they had on masks, and they all had the same
hairdo. So it was just—it is very difficult, very difficult.
And so I am—and maybe—Mr. Reschenthaler mentioned a few
little things about the freshman class. But, Mr. Davis, maybe—you
know, you became kind of the, I don’t know, the den father to the
freshman class because you were the only——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. No wonder there is such a problem.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Okay. It says something. See, this is why we
can’t have proxy voting because if he becomes the guy in charge of
the freshman class, it is—but maybe you can—and I know that I
am not the only freshman who has some of those frustrations, and
so maybe you can talk a little bit more about the effects on this
institution that it is going to have in the future and some of those
difficulties that the freshmen have experienced, if there is more
that you want to add to what you mentioned to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. DAVIS. I will be very quick because I know we have some
others waiting. You know, I mentioned I think the process itself
has led to more partisanship. I agree it has led to more en bloc
votes. It has led to less relationship building. But, really, I think
it goes down to the individuals not being able to serve their con-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
stituents as well when the normal processes return because it is
going to be such a surprise. It is one of the things I tried to reit-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
34
erate during orientation, but there are so many things coming at
the freshmen at the time. And we are learning from that too as we
move into planning for the next freshman class.
But, in the end, I think your class above all, in my time in Con-
gress and my time as a staff member, has sacrificed the most at
being able to build those bipartisan relationships that transcend
politics, transcend even, in my case the freshman classes, some
who ran for President. You know, we are still friends. And those
relationships were developed by having a drink after the day was
over, that if we tried to do that at the Hyatt during COVID, the
mask vigilantes would come flying around and say: Oh, you can’t
be here. You can’t do this.
That is where your class suffered the most, and I do believe that
we, as House Administration, should develop some type of ongoing
process, education about what the processes will look like when we
return to normal so that it isn’t such a surprise to you and your
fellow classmates, both Republicans and Democrats because, again,
that was in person.
I was there in person every day for those orientation meetings
and orientation events, and I feel a connection to your class even
though you are a little more difficult to train than others. I don’t
know what type of breeder, you know——
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Oh, Mr. Reschenthaler just told me you are his
official mentor. Okay, now I know.
Mr. DAVIS. That is his problem too, Ed.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Okay.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. But, you know, just—and appreciate the—a few
laughs, but it really is, I think, a serious issue, and I do think that
it is going to have long-term effects just given the issues that the
freshmen had in developing those relationships.
And, before I finish up, I did want to—I forget—I want to ask
unanimous consent to enter the testimony, a letter from Mr.
Thompson of Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you very much. And, with that, I yield
back.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you.
I want to thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being the
last remaining person standing on this panel. I just want to just
say before you leave, we talk about this as either/or. It either has
to be this or that. I mean, there are nuances here that are worth
discussing.
And, again, going back to what Representative Sanchez said in
her testimony, I mean, Congress has changed. In a lot of ways, in-
cluding more women getting elected to Congress, and there are
some realities that I think we need to be a little bit more consid-
erate of.
And I don’t think constituents should be disfranchised because
there is a natural disaster in your district or because somebody is
ill. I think most of you do too, because people continue to vote by
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
proxy on the Republican side as well. So there is some utility here.
The question is, as we move forward, what do we keep and what
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
35
don’t we keep or do we keep nothing or do we keep at all. I mean,
that is what we are trying to figure out here. And so I appreciate
very much your testimony, and you are free to go.
Oh, Mr. Neguse is with us here. Do you have questions of Mr.
Davis or can we go to the next panel?
Mr. NEGUSE. Yeah, just a quick question of Mr. Davis to under-
score the point that you had made, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, as
you all know, I am not there in-person. I am participating remotely
because I tested positive for COVID earlier this week.
And, to get to the question, I missed the top of the hearing, but,
for Mr. Davis, is it your contention that there should be no excep-
tions, that we should just eliminate proxy voting in its entirety?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. NEGUSE. Okay. And so, I guess, I would query to you, and
I suppose you have given this some thought, but, you know, this
week there are 10 Members of Congress who have tested positive
for COVID, who, like me, are unable to participate, but nonetheless
are able to participate via remote voting or proxy voting, if you
will.
And I guess, what would you suggest to the 7 million people
whom we collectively represent who would be deprived of the abil-
ity to, you know, opine on various different pieces of legislation
that we are considering on the floor essentially because their rep-
resentative happened to be diagnosed with this illness?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, as I stated in my testimony, I would provide
200 years of precedent before this pandemic began and before this
majority decided to implement proxy voting for the first time ever
in American history. So we have got 200 years of evidence. I mean,
there are hard decisions that have to be made, but we also have
to look at COVID as a risk-management issue now.
You have the Queen of England, who 95, I believe, was—came
down and tested positive with COVID, asymptomatic, as I see—and
I hope you are too, Mr. Neguse. But there comes a time where the
Queen of England was able to still conduct business while being in-
fected. We have got to get to a point where we look at this virus
and learn how to deal with it as a risk-management issue because
it is never going to be a zero-tolerance issue. And proxy voting was
established when there was a zero-tolerance mentality in dealing
with COVID.
And we have learned so much more. And what we have learned
about proxy voting, Mr. Neguse, is that it has destroyed the fabric
of the institution. It stopped a lot of bipartisan activity. It stopped
a lot of interaction that I think is crucial and what our forefathers
envisioned when they created the House of Representatives. So
that is——
Mr. NEGUSE. Well, look, I respect your opinion, obviously and
enjoy working with you, Mr. Davis. I think the notion that it has
destroyed the institution is a bit much. You know, certainly a lot
of bipartisan agreement is still happening in a variety of the com-
mittees of jurisdiction and bipartisan agreements that we have
been able to push through the floor.
You know, obviously, I understand that you would like to see this
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
practice eliminated, that others would like to see the practice re-
formed. I think I land in the latter category. But fundamentally,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
36
I don’t—I think that that is a bridge too far to suggest that it
somehow has sort of destroyed the entire institution.
I also would say, I don’t disagree with you regarding the risk tol-
erance question, but I think that is a different line of inquiry. From
my perspective, simply because the precedent suggests that we
haven’t had remote voting or proxy voting in the past, that is not
a reason alone to not have proxy voting today. And I, for one,
would be devastated to deprive, you know, the minority of my star
performance during the Rules Committee proceeding earlier this
week simply because I was diagnosed with COVID.
So I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I will yield back
to the chairman.
Mr. DAVIS. Got to be a Broncos fan.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. I think we are all set. Thank you very
much.
Let me just say, just because we have been doing something for
200 years doesn’t mean we should continue the same old, same old.
The bottom line is, if that were our rationale, some of the people
who are serving in this Congress wouldn’t be here.
So, in any event, I now want to call the next panel: Majority
Leader Hoyer, Representative Castor, Representative Gallagher,
Representative Roy, Representative Rose, Representative Biggs,
Representative Takano, and Representative Bost.
Mr. Hoyer is not here, so we will begin with Representative Cas-
tor.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Well, good morning, members. Chairman
McGovern, and Ranking Member Cole, and committee members,
thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I want
to——
The CHAIRMAN. Order.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. It is wonderful to return to the Rules
Committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
I wanted to simply highlight some of the benefits that we have
learned from holding remote hearings. We were forced to go to
many of virtual and hybrid hearings out of necessity due to this
global pandemic. But as we come out of the pandemic and move to
the next phase, there is a lot that we have learned that we can now
incorporate into the operations of the House of Representatives.
And I want to highlight three benefits in particular.
One, remote hearings gave us the ability to hear from a wider
variety of Americans and witnesses during our committee meet-
ings, and to hear from people who are underrepresented, who have
never had the opportunity or cannot afford to travel to Washington,
D.C., to provide testimony in front of a congressional committee.
Two, because we were able to have remote and virtual and hy-
brid hearings, we reduced the carbon footprint across the Congress,
across the country. That is a tremendous benefit.
And, three, it provided significant cost savings and energy sav-
ings to the Congress, and to the nonprofit organizations, and the
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
wide variety of Americans who want to have the ability to have
input on—in the legislative process.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
37
So, first, the benefit of greater opportunities of a wider variety
of Americans and a larger number of unrepresented groups to par-
ticipate. Just think about the hearings that you have had in your
committees where there were witnesses from farther flung states,
there were witnesses from rural areas that typically would not
have the ability to travel here; farmers, Tribal nations had the abil-
ity—greater ability to access the legislative process.
Each of the 14 hearings that the Select Committee on the Cli-
mate Crisis held during the 117th Congress has included at least
one remote witness. And this really added to the weight and depth,
breadth of the testimony, everything we learned on both sides of
the aisle to move forward. And I know you experienced that in your
committees, especially the underrepresented groups, environmental
justice communities, frontline communities, all—everyone who is
underrepresented had a greater voice in the democratic process.
Two, carbon pollution reduction. Remote witnesses also allowed
us to reduce the carbon footprint because they didn’t have to travel
to Washington, D.C. And I just want to get these stats quickly into
the record.
As an example, three out of four witnesses for the Select Com-
mittee’s remote hearing on July 15, 2021, would have needed to fly
into the D.C. area to testify in the hearing in person. The three re-
sided in Montgomery, Alabama; Los Angeles, California; and Flag-
staff, Arizona. And based on the data that the committee gathered,
these three round-trip, nonstop flights would have equated to a
total of 1,894 kilograms of carbon dioxide. This is the equivalent to
the emissions of 230,390 smartphones, fully charged, over 2,000
pounds of coal burned, or 213 gallons of gasoline consumed. And
those—this reflects just one hearing. Multiply that across all of the
Committee’s hearings, and all of the Congress, what a tremendous
benefit in savings.
Third, remote hearings allowed us and the witnesses, this broad
cross-section of Americans, to reduce their travel costs and to re-
duce their energy costs, not just avoiding carbon pollution, but it
saves people money. And isn’t that critical at a time that we are
dealing with coming out of this global pandemic, dealing with the
global challenges of supply and demand, the higher cost that
Putin’s war of aggression now is exacerbating?
We know that we can reduce demand for energy by allowing wit-
nesses to Zoom in or Webex into our committee hearings. Again, a
lot of expertise all across America.
So, in closing, remote and hybrid hearings have really helped re-
duce the economic time and geographic barriers for witnesses. We
have benefited from it. We have a wider cross-section of experts
and everyday Americans that we have been able to hear from.
And, committee members, America is the leader in technology
and innovation. Times have changed. Things have modernized, and
that Congress shouldn’t be left out. The American people shouldn’t
be left out. We can all benefit from it.
Thank you very much. And I yield back my time.
[The statement of Ms. Castor of Florida follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
I want to call our majority leader, distinguished Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer, to testify. Welcome.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
38
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, am I on? Can you hear me?
As I listened to the previous panel, I thought to myself that—you
will probably all remember, Ben Franklin turning to James Madi-
son and arguing about whether we ought to zoom or not. The world
has changed. Technology is extraordinary. And every business in
America, every enterprise in America is utilizing technology to its
benefit. I think that is what this is really about.
But I do want to say at the outset—I am sorry that the ranking
member of the House Administration has left—this is one of the
more productive Congresses in which I have served, and this is my
20th Congress. And I am going to make a better case for that at
some point in time. But this representation that somehow proxy
voting has made this a less productive Congress, I think, is demon-
strably untrue. And I will make that case, but not today. I know
all of you are happy about that.
A lot of talk about proxy voting. This House of Representatives
is a relatively, perhaps, very unique body, because we have 435
people who come from every place in America: high risk, low risk,
and every risk in between. And we gather together in a relatively
small room for 435 people. So it was uniquely a place where trans-
mission could be very much magnified.
Doctor, I am not a medical doctor, but I think that is self-explan-
atory. And so in answer to an extraordinarily once-a-century pan-
demic, we responded. And we responded in trying to make sure
that we could keep Members, staff, press, visitors as safe as pos-
sible. We don’t know what safe as possible is, but we made that
effort. I think it was the right thing to do. The courts indicated we
had the authority to do that, which did not surprise me, and we
proceeded.
And now the issue is, as we hopefully are passing through this
pandemic, what do we do? During the COVID–19 pandemic, Mr.
Chairman and members, much like the other legislatures around
the world and like business across America, took steps to adapt our
working to the challenge of social distancing, which we were ad-
vised to do. We took unprecedented measures to ensure that Mem-
bers and committees could continue to do our jobs and serve the
American people uninterrupted.
I made the observation on the floor that my people voted for me;
none of them, not a single one of them cared where I expressed
their opinion, if it was going to be affected. They didn’t care wheth-
er I voted from a machine on my side of the aisle, a machine on
another side of the aisle, or from wherever. That was not in their
minds. It was that I was available to express their opinion on a
particular issue, which we have allowed Members to do, notwith-
standing their risk aversion or the realities of our health environ-
ment.
H. Res. 965, the 116th Congress, adopted measures like virtual
committee hearings and meetings, as well as proxy voting and
longer voting times on the floor. I think reasonable steps to take,
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
from a health perspective. Those were big changes, which were ac-
companied by smaller changes, such as the Clerk’s Office creating
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
39
an eHopper. I haven’t heard anything about that, where you can
file a bill and you didn’t have to go. By the way, probably a few
of you know, and particularly Mrs. Fischbach. I didn’t know what
a hopper was, and I was president in the Maryland Senate for 12
years.
A hopper is piece of furniture, and it has various levels, and you
see it in the old Senate Chamber, but I thought a hopper was just
a box. Why does somebody have to personally hand that—they can
do it now electronically.
The electronic filing of bills, the statements for the record, and
the Chief Administrative Officer implementing the Quill system for
electronically collecting Members’ signatures, so you don’t have to
go from each office to office to get the actual signature.
As a result of these adaptations, the House and its committees
were able to meet safely and produce major legislation that helped
Americans meet the challenge of the pandemic and address critical
national needs over the past 2 years. And I would say as an aside
to my friends, the polarization has nothing to do with proxy voting.
Nothing. Unfortunately, this is the most polarized Congress in
which I have served.
I came here in 1981. And I tell people I served on the Appropria-
tions Committee. There were 13 of us on the Labor Health Com-
mittee. Eight Democrats, we were in charge, five Republicans. And
what I tell people is you could put us together, throw us up in the
air, and come down in random chairs and do a markup, and you
would have been hard-pressed in 1983 to say which was the Demo-
crat and which was the Republican on the Labor Health Com-
mittee. Sil Conte from Massachusetts was the ranking member of
that committee.
Other acts we have taken include the enactment of the Families
First Act and CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan, a central leg-
islation to fund the government, prevent default of our obligations.
I suggest to you that this comment about proxy voting only pre-
sumes the outcome would be different if, in fact, we precluded
somebody from voting if they were sick if, per chance, they were
absent. As was the case we just saw in our sister body, the United
States Senate, when our former colleague, Ben Ray Luján, had a
stroke, and he couldn’t come. Yes, the outcome would have been
different, because it would have been then 50–49 on the other side.
Should that be the case? Should those people in New Mexico not
have been represented because he was fully cognizant, mentally
able? He was not physically able for a period of time to come.
Should we have said to them, Coloradans (sic), by act of happen-
stance, you will not be represented. I think not.
We also, as the chairman pointed out, we passed the infrastruc-
ture bill, an extraordinary bill that I, frankly, think, with all due
respect to my friend—and Tom Cole, I don’t know off the top of my
head, Tom, how you voted, but we only got 13 Republicans, 19 in
the Senate. The percentage is radically different. Why? Because
your leadership said don’t vote for it. And then when voted for it,
we talked about partisan. The 13 that did vote for it got criticized,
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
and some even suggested removing them from their committees be-
cause they differed.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
40
During the time of these changes were put in place, the House
passed—I won’t mention the bills, but I will go into that at some
point in time—as infection, hospitalization, and fatality rates have
dropped, and as vaccination rates have risen, we have adapted by
ending the practice of voting by group and reducing voting times
on the floor. So we are moving towards what I think we all want,
a shorter period of time.
Now, let me just say as an aside that the defense bill had over
200 amendments on it. It is not unusual to have en bloc voting. We
have always had en bloc voting, since I got here. Now, you do the
math. Five minutes at 209 amendments. That is over a thousand
minutes. A lot of time. As a practical matter, a body of 435 tries
to accelerate. Doesn’t do it perfectly. And as Mr. Cole pointed out,
sometimes there is a bloc and you are not looking forward to them.
And you get put in a position of—and doing them all. Seriatim
would be better, but it also would be very, very timely.
Other measures such as the greater adoption of remote working
tools ought to remain in place, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause we have seen how they help make the House more account-
able, transparent, and efficient.
While nothing can truly replace in-person work—and I want to
emphasize that—the Speaker, myself, at the time we adopted the
proxy voting, and Mr. McCarthy, all indicated in-person is better.
I agree with that premise for the reasons Mr. Cole pointed out and
also Mr. Perlmutter, I think, mentioned it. But given the tech-
nology that we have available to us in this extraordinary age in
which we live, we can accommodate not being in person, even
though that is the preferable, and we ought to promote that hap-
pening, including as the appropriation does and as you have done,
Mr. Chairman, meetings in person.
Virtual committee hearings have made it possible, however, to
hear from a more diverse group of witnesses and experts, including
those with disabilities, who find it difficult to travel to Washington
in person. As a sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that
is called a reasonable accommodation. As well as those who can’t
make it here because of work obligations or because they cannot af-
ford to travel. Which means you can get experts from Europe, from
Asia, from Australia, from other places to testify.
Tools like the eHop and Quill, which I mentioned earlier, cer-
tainly ought to continue in use, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion. They
are just a use of technology to do what we otherwise had to do by
walking from office to office. They have been proven valuable to
Members and staff.
With regard to proxy voting, I see a number of cases in which
it may be appropriate to continue having it as an option—not as
a preference, not as a practice, but as an option, such as when
Members may be ill, have to care for a sick loved one, or welcome
a new child.
There may also be future cases with national emergencies. We
talked about Ukraine. I don’t know that they don’t vote by proxy,
maybe you do, or by electronic device. But if your parliament is
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
being bombed, it is probably a good thing to do, if you want to cre-
ate a consensus, not to make sure that people have to go to some
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
41
place that is being bombed and make them very vulnerable to
being killed by a criminal thug called Putin.
So I hope the committee will explore how proxy voting, now
shown to be effective and constitutional, can be incorporated into
the House’s work so that no districts’ constituents are left out of
the full representation they deserve.
I would reiterate, no constituent of mine in 41 years has ever
asked me, where did you vote from? Did you vote from this ma-
chine, that machine, the other machine? Now, you will say, well,
you are all in the same room. They don’t care. What they care is
Steny Hoyer stands up and expresses their views. That is what de-
mocracy is about. It is not about a place where you vote. It is about
voting. It is about expressing their opinion, about representation.
We ought to be prepared for any eventuality, such as if a new
variant or virus has emerged that is deadlier than for which we do
not now have a cure. The business of the House must be able to
continue uninterrupted. Technology allows that to happen in ways
that our Founders had no concept of.
I want to thank this committee. I want to thank its chairman.
I want to thank its ranking member, who I think is one of our best
members and who works very hard at collegiality. And I don’t have
any doubt, Tom, you walked over there and talked to Ms. Pingree
and said, look—but, very frankly, we can do that on the phone. We
can do it as Mr. Perlmutter said. I find Zoom an extraordinary
technology that is not in-person but is like in-person, because you
can interrupt, you can see the smile, you can see the frown, you
can see the physical gestures.
And I want to thank this committee, again, and the chairman
and all the members, for the work that you do. We have contended
with this pandemic and had to adapt the workings of this institu-
tion to meet its challenge. We have done that. There has been no
interruption. And as I say, at a later date, I will make the case
that this is one of the most productive, not—to say it is unproduc-
tive is to ignore what we have done for the American people.
In particularly want to thank Chairman McGovern for his lead-
ership, as well as Staff Director Don Sisson, with whom I have had
the pleasure to work. It has been an honor working closely with
you in this effort, and I hope we can continue to find ways to en-
sure that the people’s House, the people’s House represents the
people, whatever the circumstances may be, and that their voice
can be heard. And it has been heard on every vote.
Whether Republicans voted proxy, yes, they may not have been
there, but the voice of the people they represented was heard.
When somebody said, by proxy, I vote aye or nay, the voices of that
district were heard. How much better that is than, by happen-
stance, the people of New Mexico’s voice not being heard on an im-
portant issue because their Member had a stroke. Not disabled, his
mental acuity never lost. That was good for our democracy, it was
good for our country, and it was good for the Senate and the House.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Hoyer follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And I know that you need
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
to meet with the Taoiseach.
Mr. HOYER. I do.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
42
The CHAIRMAN. And I hope that we——
Mr. HOYER. I understood that the Taoiseach had been positive.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, so we won’t be meeting with the Taoiseach
then.
Mr. HOYER. No, but our President may be here.
Mr. COLE. I know the gentleman has to leave, but I just wanted
to make one——
Mr. HOYER. And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to
leave because I know that is not your practice.
Mr. COLE. Absolutely. Of course. I just know it was an omission
that you didn’t mention Kelly Dixon with Don Sisson at the same
time.
Mr. HOYER. Well, I love Kelly. I don’t know whether that embar-
rassed her——
Mr. COLE. She is watching on her television in a room.
Mr. HOYER [continuing]. Or gets her in trouble, but as a——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. She is Zooming in.
Mr. COLE. Yeah. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to go
on record.
Mr. HOYER. I am so thankful you gave me that because, let me
tell you, Kelly and I, when we—when she was working, she was—
Kelly, did that really mess it up that I said I loved you? I am sorry
if that was, you know, damning you with faint play.
But in any event, thank you Tom for giving me—Mr. Cole for
giving me that opportunity.
This committee—and I will tell you, I am so glad you brought it
up, because we get pretty contentious on the floor, but there was
never a time when I could not—when Kelly was on the floor and
helping to manage the floor when I couldn’t go over to Kelly and
talk to her and say, hey, this is the deal. And, of course, Mr. Cole
and I are good friends, and so we have had that opportunity to do
that as well.
The partisanship that we confront and the polarization is a far
bigger issue than whether we vote by proxy or vote in person. This
polarization is hurting our country. This polarization where we are
not thinking about the substance but the politics is hurting Amer-
ica. And the fact at a time of war, we are war. We are not phys-
ically on the field with the Ukrainians, but we ought to do every-
thing we possibly can to make sure that they can meet this enemy
and defeat this enemy. And we need to be united in that effort.
And we ought to all remind ourselves that we are Americans. We
may be Democrats, we may be Republicans, we may be something
else, but we are Americans. And Zelenskyy was right; we are the
leaders. We are the leaders of the free world. And if we sound by
our division an uncertain trumpet, the world will be a lesser place.
Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallagher.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. GALLAGHER. I would like to make a slightly different argu-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
ment than some of my colleagues. I don’t think this is primarily
about spending time together, I don’t think it is about partisanship.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
43
I don’t think it is about technology, as the majority leader argued.
I think it is just about the truth. Because when you proxy vote—
I have never proxied—buy my understanding is you have to sign
a piece of paper that says, I am unable to physically attend pro-
ceedings in the House Chamber due to the ongoing public health
emergency, i.e., coronavirus. That is what you are signing your
name too, right? There is no dispute about that. It is clear in the
language.
So we know, notwithstanding Mr. Neguse, who I think is the ex-
ception that proves the rule today, the over, overwhelming majority
of Members proxy voting are lying when they sign this piece of
paper. We have all heard the anecdotes of people going to fund-
raisers—Democrats and Republicans, by the way. I am not saying
only the other side has abused this. Let me prove this to you math-
ematically why this is a massive lie.
The average number of proxy votes on a normal day in Congress,
a full day like today, is about 68, if you crunch the numbers. Magi-
cally, on fly-in and fly-out days, those numbers skyrocket to around
a hundred. So what happened? Are people getting COVID on Mon-
days, Tuesdays, or Thursday, Fridays, but not Wednesdays? No.
They are abusing proxy voting so they can have a longer weekend,
right? Because it is an inconvenience to come to D.C., and in the
process, signing their name to a lie on this piece of paper.
Now, if you want to make a different argument, right—I actually
think Mr. Perlmutter has made a high-integrity argument. He
openly says he wants a more libertarian system where everyone
can proxy vote. I disagree, but that is an entirely different thing.
Then you need to advance a proposal whereby people can sign their
name saying, I need to proxy vote because of X, Y, Z, not because
of COVID. Because it is not about COVID.
Indeed, we just had at least four Members of Congress on this
panel admit, against interest, that it is not about COVID; it is
about birthdays, graduation parties, it is about the birth of chil-
dren, it is about climate change, it is about strokes. That is a dif-
ferent thing. So I actually concede the point to the chairman that—
I am not suggesting proxy voting is causing this unprecedented po-
larization, if that is even true that we are unprecedented in our po-
larization. I think it is exacerbating a lack of trust in the institu-
tion because so many Members are lying.
I mean, put differently, right, how—one argument was made that
we are disenfranchising voters if their Members can’t proxy. Are
you not disenfranchising voters if you are lying to them? Or some-
one made an appeal to the integrity of the institution, and if you
proxy vote, that we are going to be able to have more options and
will retain the integrity of the institution in the modern age. How
can you maintain the integrity of the institution if you are institu-
tionalizing lies? It makes no sense.
So I am happy to have the different argument about proxy voting
for other reasons. I will still oppose it. And if you put forward that
proposal, I suspect you would lose that vote. But there is no ques-
tion it is obvious and inarguable, to the point of being self-evident
now, that people are abusing proxy voting. And every single day we
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
are countenancing scores of lies by our colleagues. If nothing else,
we have to change what is on this piece of paper and stop lying.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
44
And, with that, I yield.
[The statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Roy.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHIP ROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. ROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Gallagher
wholeheartedly as one of the most frustrating things about this en-
tire experience is watching my colleagues blatantly lie when sign-
ing a piece of paper. And we all know it is true. We all know it.
And we see it every day, but we just kind of countenance it and
say, oh, go, yeah, go to a fundraiser. Good for you. Or one story was
voting from a—somebody was out on an interview in a car in the
parking lot while there is somebody proxy voting for him in here.
And, again, both sides of the aisle. Let me make it perfectly clear,
both sides of the aisle.
You know, look, we are talking about a number of things. And
my name was invoked earlier. I will only respond to it briefly about
the institution being broken. And the majority leader has ref-
erenced this; otherwise, I wouldn’t go down this road too much be-
cause this is about proxy. But the institution is broken. And a lot
is made of so-called procedural votes and that it is somehow delay-
ing the institution or causing harm. I mean, well, keep in mind
that there are limited tools that you have when you are in the mi-
nority, but in particularly when you are not a chairman, when you
are particularly not on the Rules Committee, or particularly you
are not on—you are not the majority leader, right? So there are
limited rules you have.
And so, last week, for example, when I am sitting with my staff
watching a vote being called for a voice vote for basically $16 bil-
lion worth of continuing resolution that I didn’t bless, and which
most people knew in my party and, generally speaking, it is not
like I am shy about it, that that is not something I would agree
to by voice vote. Yeah, I was frustrated that our rights weren’t pro-
tected and that we didn’t have a roll call vote on that. So what did
I do? I did force two more procedural votes. Why? Because that is
about all I got in my arsenal.
I went down and talked to Keith on the floor. Said, Keith, you
know, I am sorry, I was trying to get to Philadelphia. I ended up
withdrawing the last one out of some sort of deference. But we
have limited tools in our arsenal to say, protect our rights, Rep-
resentative. We are talking about the institution. We are talking
about disenfranchising our voters.
What is the ultimate disenfranchisement of voters? The lack of
any power of any one Member of Congress, because it has all been
handed over to a handful, a handful of people in the majority and
minority and the leadership offices, and/or in the Rules Committee,
to make decisions about what we vote on.
We get a 2,700-page bill at 2 o’clock in the morning and to vote
on the rule the next morning? 2,700 pages with 5,000 earmarks
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
and $10 billion. $100 billion of increased spending. Massive com-
plex pieces of language and 2,700 bills my staff is pouring over in
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
45
the middle of the night, just trying to figure out what we are even
looking at, right? That is no way to do business. So if we are going
to talk about the institution being broken, let’s start there.
You know, I heard—the majority leader said, we are at war.
Now, he kind of tweaked that a little bit after he said we are at
war, about standing with the people in Ukraine and so forth. We
haven’t declared war. That is a constitutional requirement. We
have not declared war.
One of the best conversations I have had in this building was a
building downstairs, two floors down, 2 years ago, with three
Democrats, three Republicans, and—well, I might as well say Jus-
tin, because I was going to say an Independent, because he was the
only Independent—talking about the authorizations of the use of
military force. Twenty years in to authorization of the use of mili-
tary force. And that conversation, over a beer, in person, resulted
in a joint op-ed among the seven of us, raising questions about 20-
year authorizations of the use of military force.
But I think that is a really important thing we just saw here
talking about this body. We are at war. That is a very big state-
ment. That is a debatable statement, one we ought to be debating.
We talk about, you know, being productive, and there is some de-
bate about the productivity. I would argue productivity for leader-
ship in the Rules Committee—and I do want to appreciate the
chairman having this ability for us to come speak. It is important,
and I genuinely thank you for it. But productivity by whom? Pro-
ductivity by a handful is not the people’s House. And here we sit,
and we talk about, you know, whether this proxy policy is further
breaking the institution.
I heard the word extremely polarized. Well, I mean, when the
Secretary of Treasury and the Vice President duel, maybe we will
be as polarized as sometimes in our past. Yes, we are polarized. We
have had a lot of differences over in our history.
But in this point here with Mr. Gallagher at the fraudulent cer-
tification, I do agree that that is disenfranchising and that it is
causing distrust in the institution. But, you know, one of the best
things that I have been able to do in here is work with my friend
Dean Phillips on the PPP Flexibility Act. Again, backbencher, Free-
dom Caucus Conservative, Dean Phillips, we are able to get some-
thing done on a bipartisan basis in the middle of COVID. But we
did that because we are able to get to know each other and sit
down and have that beer and sit down and know each other.
We break down the human interactions when we blow up the
whole point of us coming together as Congress. As somebody talked
about earlier, the definition of Congress is us coming together and
representing the people.
The Constitution. And sorry, I have had to look at notes because
we have been here for so long. But the fact is we all take an oath
to defend the Constitution of the United States. We do. And I be-
lieve that we all, therefore, have an obligation to carefully examine
the merits of the constitutional question raised by proxy voting. It
is a legitimate, constitutional question. We haven’t had any long
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
significant hearings on it. I am sure my friend from Maryland
would love to have in-depth conversations about this. I suspect we
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
46
disagree on this point. But at least we ought to have that in-depth
debate about the core constitutional question.
And maybe the Speech and Debate Clause protects what I be-
lieve is unconstitutional proxy voting. Obviously, the Supreme
Court denied cert, deferring to essentially us, right? To kind of—
they punt, essentially. So here we are, and there is a question. I
think we have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
It is my perspective that it is, in fact, unconstitutional for us to
engage in proxy voting. I think that the Constitution is pretty clear
on it. I think if you read the text of the Constitution, words like
‘‘meeting,’’ ‘‘assemble,’’ ‘‘attendance,’’ ‘‘present,’’ ‘‘absent,’’ ‘‘recess,’’
‘‘sitting,’’ ‘‘seat,’’ it clearly requires a Member of Congress to be ac-
tually present in the House or the Senate Chamber.
I understand technology has changed. Well, then let’s amend the
Constitution. Let’s have a debate about it. But I believe the Con-
stitution clearly believed that we should be—or articulated we
should be present.
Quorum requirements. The same thing. The majority of each
shall constitute a quorum, and blah, blah, blah, may be authorized
to compel the attendance of absent Members.
If you go look at the text and the history and understanding of
what a quorum is, presence matters. The yeas and nays require-
ment. Right? When you get down to the desire of one-fifth of those
present be entered in the journal, it was contemplating presence.
And I understand there could be some debates about what presence
means and whether you can establish presence in a different form.
I don’t believe that is what we agreed to in the Constitution when
we were establishing these things.
Nondelegation principle. We the People, right? We are formed on
‘‘We the People.’’ All the legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a
Senate and the House of Representatives.
I understand we can set our rules. I understand that we can
come up with ways to represent We the People differently. But the
contemplation is that we are not delegating our vote to another
Member.
When we talk about remote voting, we can have that debate, but
this changes the entire point. We have last-minute changes on the
floor. And we have got these rules in place that says, well, your
staffer has to tell you the specific vote on that vote. I don’t know
how it works because I have never proxy voted. But I know there
is some rules in place to try to protect, but you are changing the
nature of the institution when you hand your voting card off to
somebody else. And that is, effectively, what we are doing.
I could go a little bit more into that. And I will only address the
question on the constitutional issues raised about certain Members
being pulled off of the litigation. And people have talked about
that. And so, ultimately, it was the minority leader and myself on
the litigation in the end, after having more Members on it at the
beginning. And in part, that was just to clarify and simplify who
was on the case. And we all know the facts, we have seen the stuff,
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
that there were some Members that had been on the original litiga-
tion that ultimately proxy voted.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
47
Now, I would say, well, why is that? I wouldn’t have, with all due
respect to my Republican colleagues who are on the litigation and
pulled off. I think that was wrong.
But the flip side is, is the pressure. Okay. What is done when
we change the institution? Let me give you an example of a vote.
I was sitting in Fredericksburg, Virginia, waiting while we were
going through all of the transportation votes last fall, and we were
debating. Remember, every Friday, we would have these ridiculous
sit-and-wait sessions, wondering when the heck we were going to
vote? And it was Friday afternoon. I had committed months prior
to speaking at the University of Virginia, my alma mater, and I
was supposed to be there. And they had put out all the advertising,
and there is a big thing, and I had committed to do it.
So I am sitting in Fredericksburg, Virginia, at a Starbucks, be-
cause I was just having to figure out, am I going to Charlottesville
or am I going back to D.C., waiting for the powers that be to tell
me when we were going to vote on a bill I knew I would vote no
on, but the vote might be close. But I am not going to hand over
my vote to someone else, and Keith knew this on the floor. And I
said, Keith, well, can you let me know as soon as possible. Leader-
ship team knew it, and they were trying to—hey, well, we might
need you here for the vote.
And my point is just, I had a whole lot of proxy voting Members
who didn’t give a crap about where they were that day because
they would hand off their vote to someone else. There was immense
pressure on a lot of Members to say, well, you know, we are doing
this tug of war about how we are going to run the place. And it
makes it a lot easier to force votes Friday night at whatever, with-
out having any advanced notice, if half the damn body is voting by
proxy.
So I am sitting at a Starbucks and, finally, Keith gave me the
green light, we are voting on some random bill that wasn’t the ac-
tual transportation bill. And I was like, fine, I will skip it. My con-
stituents will forgive me for knowing that I would have voted no
on whatever that ridiculous vote was that we voted on that night.
So that is the question.
And I would just say—I know I want to move on to other col-
leagues, but I just want to offer one more thought here is that
what we do here is important. But I think sometimes we have a
heightened sense of our own importance. There is 435 of us. There
is 535, if we count the Senate. At the end of the day, this country
is going to plod along, and we are all going to come and go, and
we are all going to be pushing up daisies soon enough. We are just
Members of Congress. And there is 330 million Americans. And we
act like, oh, my gosh, this is the most important thing, and we got
to be here all day long.
Put your vote in the record how you would have voted. And if it
was that important of a vote, then give up whatever that thing is,
sacrifice for the good of the country, and get your butt to Wash-
ington and vote. I mean, Ron Wright traveled across the country
in the last weeks of his life, ravages of cancer, because he knew he
couldn’t get on the airplane, and it was brutal for him. But he got
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
in a car and drove across the country. And I just think, when we
think about what we are doing here—my son is back here and,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
48
clearly, you know, for all of everything we are talking about. But
my son is back here. Do you know how many things I miss? I miss
them all the time. I mean, I heard the testimony earlier about giv-
ing birth and having family members—how many things have you
sacrificed, right? But I do it for him. So when I miss the baseball
game, when I miss school, when I miss the event, I am doing it for
him, I am doing it for my daughter, I am doing it for my wife.
When my wife is sitting at home dealing with the stuff she is deal-
ing with. When the freezer is freezing, and the freeze comes in
Texas, and the hot water heater is not working, and I am here.
Right? Those things are all hard. But it is our job. It is our obliga-
tion. And if you can’t do it, think about not running again. Think
about resigning. Thinking about giving it to someone else.
There are 750,000 people in Texas 21. I ain’t that important. I
am just not. I mean, at the end of the day, our job is what is impor-
tant. And I believe that the Constitution is strengthened, our Re-
public is stronger if we are here in person, and we are following
the constitutional order. And if we want to change that, we should
debate on an amendment, and we should vote on it.
And, with that, I will yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Roy follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
And I know Ms. Castor has to go. Let me just thank you for your
testimony. And also, thank you for reminding us that—again, these
are not either/or situations. Allowing for remote committee hear-
ings doesn’t mean every committee hearing has to be remote. You
can meet like this but have somebody testify from across the world
and be able to provide information. And I think most people have
thought that—I have heard from Republicans and Democrats—
have thought that was a useful thing. But thank you so much for
your testimony.
I am now going to go to Representative Biggs.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY BIGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for holding this hear-
ing. I appreciate it. I think it is an important topic.
I noticed that the Ranking Member Cole mentioned more than
once the culture of this body and the impact of proxy voting on the
culture of this body. I agree with him. The culture has been im-
pacted. And, you know, before I speak further, I just got to say
this, I am reminded of Mo Udall, who was a longtime Congressman
from the town I grew up in. And he used to say, Everything that
needs to be said has been said, just not by everyone yet.
So I feel like I have got—I am going to be batting cleanup for
when the bases have been cleared. So I am going to—I have got
to make my——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. [Inaudible.]
Mr. BIGGS. Oh, Bost, didn’t even see you there, pal.
Anyway, I just want to cover a number of these items quickly.
They may be repetitive to you, but they are important to get out.
I mean, I think what Mr. Roy just mentioned actually gets to a
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
point I was going to make that there is a distinction, quite frankly,
between the quorum and the proxy vote. And the deal is we have
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
49
decided we are going to count whoever proxies as part of our
quorum. And the constitutional requirement seems to be very, very
clear that physicality is necessary to constitute a quorum in order
to conduct business.
And I am reminded of the very first—the very first Congress
when it came together. They waited 30 days, 30 days before they
could get an actual physical group of a majority into Congress to
actually conduct business. And I was also reminded when the rank-
ing—not the ranking, the majority leader was talking about he is
kind of making a snarko about, you know, Zoom. You know, Frank-
lin talking to Madison about Zooming in. That was kind of inter-
esting, kind of funny. But the reality is it actually painted the pic-
ture exactly the opposite of the point he was trying to make, and
that is this: If there was a time that proxy voting should have been
authorized, it would have been when people literally had to travel
for 2 and 3 weeks to get there and stay there and miss item after
item of their home lives for months.
Why didn’t they allow proxy voting then? Because it was so im-
portant to get together as a Congress, as someone defined Congress
earlier today, where you actually meet, you actually have dialogue,
you have conversation, you move together. I will give you an exam-
ple. Just give you a couple of anecdotes here.
When I was first in, I won’t get into the fact that the leadership
took my bill away from me, it was my bill that passed. But what
happened is, I negotiated it—I negotiated it with the Democrats.
And so when that bill passed, it was—it was the substance of my
bill, under somebody else’s name, that I worked my tail off, and it
was a bipartisan bill. That never would have happened if I couldn’t
have gone to talk to people. I talked to Mr. Perlmutter about that
bill.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I voted for your bill.
Mr. BIGGS. Yes, you did doggone it. And I appreciate it to this
day, and so do Americans.
The point is we were able to get together and negotiate these
things out, which is missing. I know contrary, you have created a
warm relationship with Representative Timmons over Zoom. Imag-
ine how warm it would be if you guys were sitting side by side and
in person. I mean, that is a huge distinction. It deals with the cul-
ture of the body again.
And so—and then we move into this notion of the votes. I don’t
mind fifteen, five, two, two, two votes. Those are fantastic. We are
still on the floor, we can still talk.
But you know what? I will give you an example of what hap-
pened just yesterday. I voted on the first bill, and I said, oh, I got
this errand, I have to run off campus. I had time after I voted to
go down, pick up my car, bring it up, park in front of this building,
get out, go back up and have 10 more minutes to wait for the next
bill. Then I voted, walked out to my car, drove across town, did my
business, came back, had 15 minutes to wait. That is—I am not—
Congress is not designed to be efficient, but that kind of takes it
to the outer limits of inefficiency. And it also negates some of what
we do in Congress.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And I have talked—I mean, everybody’s talked about this. I will
reiterate what Mr. Roy was talking about and what Mr. Gallagher
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
50
was talking about. This document that people have signed, even
though I have never voted proxy, I never voted proxy, even though
my name was omitted from the lawsuit, also over my objection.
That happens from time to time. But the reality is, when I—when
I read the rules again in preparation for this—and I think the
chair was right. I think you guys did try to put some safeguards
there. But this document is pretty clear. You are going to be talk-
ing about of—of you are not there because of the COVID. And that
hasn’t happened. And I will give you an idea to understand it.
A study was done and released just a couple of weeks ago. You
have individuals that have voted more than 400 times by proxy.
More than 400 times. I will tell you, I was very surprised about
this, because there is a friend of mine on the other side of the aisle
and rarely here, rarely here. In fact, I think he has been here six
times in his Congress, six times. And I thought, that person has
voted by proxy more than anybody else. Had to. Three hundred
times plus. Top five but not number one, because number one is
over 400.
And I just—I am trying to understand how we sanction this. And
I know that the chair is looking for ways, and he has mentioned
Representative Escobar’s—maybe you can find a medium—a mid-
dle ground. I don’t know how you get to the middle ground because
you have a quorum issue that I think we have violated the Con-
stitution on. I think the Supreme Court punted on that, and they
sent it back to us.
But I will just—I don’t want to take too much more time, because
I feel like I am saying so much, but I will just ask this last ques-
tion. We are engaged in public service. Every one of us, every one
of us gave up something to be here. We continue to give up some-
thing. And my question for you is, why are you trying to take the
sacrifice out of public service? And this—and when the majority
leader talks about it, his rationale was it is easier, technology is
easier, and so we should implement it now. I would just suggest
to you that does not, that does not, that is not the sound rationale
necessary to eradicate 230 years of practice.
And so, with that, I will yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Biggs follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bost.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am—there are a few things that I may repeat, but I am
going to go at a different angle because, you know, as the ranking
member for the VA Committee, I am going to talk about some
things that have happened in the VA Committee while doing this
virtual thing.
And, you know, I am proud of being on the VA Committee. I am
proud of the fact that I am an old jarhead marine, father and
grandfather of a marine, and I take serious the work that we are
doing. But we don’t do our jobs well on the Veterans’ Affairs Com-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
mittee when we are doing it virtually. And let me give you an ex-
ample of that.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
51
You know, we have done our jobs but not well, in part, due to
the limited virtual work. And let me tell you that the VA Com-
mittee has been stricter than many other committees. Where they
went to a hybrid, we refused not to in our rules, by the majority.
And we—it lasted for quite some time. And even at the point when
we were voting on some very, very, very serious issues, vaccines
were wide—were available, cases were down, but we still wouldn’t
return in the VA Committee. So, you know, that is the rules that
each individual committee person or chairman can set.
But during one markup, we were spending tens of billions of ad-
ditional taxpayer dollars, and some of our members, one, could not
be heard, therefore, their vote didn’t count or it interrupted the
vote. Or some of them couldn’t be seen on camera, but they could
be heard, which interrupted the vote, by the rules. But yet we con-
tinued to—down this path for a very, very long time.
And I know that Chairman Takano had to leave. And these are
all things he and I have discussed over and over and over again,
and the complaints and concerns that we had.
Now, someone said in one of the additional talking points earlier
of the carbon footprint that we are saving. Well, I don’t know, have
any of you noticed that a lot of the people are actually putting a
pretty solid carbon footprint because they are doing it while driving
around in their vehicles? Even so much so that, at one time, we
had someone driving on a lake with their boat, to the point that
the chairman—that that chairman at that time of the Transpor-
tation Committee actually said on record, Is he on a boat? Is he
driving his boat? I don’t think that actually helps the carbon foot-
print that much. I am sorry. I think that—you know, the concerns
that I see there.
And let me also say this. It is really wild because there are three
of us at this table that have never voted proxy, that until we were
removed, stayed on the lawsuit. I have never voted proxy. I believe
my constituents sent me here to vote for them, and I believe that.
Now, you may disagree, but I believe that. I believe it is our job
to be here.
I spent 20 years in the State legislature, 20 years. After I got
here, I actually had a staffer from the State legislature that called
me, and he goes, Hey, Mike, we were looking something over. Do
you realize how many votes you missed in 20 years? Now, under-
stand, I had children born, I had grandchildren born, I had—I said,
no, how many? He said none. I said that is amazing, because I sure
didn’t know it.
But I have missed votes while I am here, since I have been here.
Matter of fact, I had one opponent that actually brought up the fact
that I had missed several votes, and I couldn’t figure out why. The
opponent felt pretty bad because I looked back, and it was actually
the week that we buried my mother. So, you know, there are those
times that you can’t be here.
But I do agree with the fact that I don’t think it is constitutional
for us to cast these votes. We can have that debate, and we should
have that debate, if we want to change it. But this being present—
and then when we do the—when we did the vote first off to just
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
be present, how is it that we can vote present by proxy? Isn’t that
kind of go wrong on the definition in the Webster Dictionary? I
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
52
think it kind of clashes. And there are some—there is some real
problems with that.
And I know we have all talked about it here, and I don’t want
to belabor it, but it is time that we are to a point that we should
go back to operating this House. I know there is new technology.
That is fine. I have lived through the fact that, you know, when
the State legislature—good heavens, I can remember we went sup-
posedly paperless, and that is when we got laptops. And, of course,
we still burn through just as much paper.
But there is a time that the Constitution and, truly, the history
of this institution should be held up in the fact that this is what
we have done. I know that it is a pandemic. I understand. And I
know that technology wasn’t around during the last pandemic, and
they actually missed several months of not being able to get
quorum. I understand that. But we do have a tradition of being
here, even when our Capitol is under attack. It was done—when
the Capitol was burning, they met down the street.
I think it is vitally important that we get back to really operating
this House in a way that is traditional. And I believe that there
has been a lot of problems that have been caused by doing this.
And I appreciate the people who have had it. Remember, I was out
2 weeks ago, and I did what I could do, but I didn’t vote.
Again, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to witness before
you today, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Bost follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate you being here.
Let me again say for the record, I have never voted by proxy ei-
ther. I wrote the rule—but I have been lucky, right? I didn’t get
COVID. If I had COVID, I would have voted by proxy because that
is what it was there for. I think if one of my kids had COVID, I
think that—and I don’t know—and, again, I am going to the issue
that Mr. Gallagher raised.
Look, I don’t police every Member of Congress to find out are
they really telling the truth or are they not? Those who have not
been, we know about them, in large part because the press have
recorded it. They have to deal with their constituents as to whether
or not it was an appropriate use of that. But for me, I have fol-
lowed the letter, every word of that. I have missed votes because
I had to go to an event at the White House or I had to go to some
other event, and I missed the vote because I thought that I had a
special obligation—because this thing came out of this committee—
to say that we are interpreting this the way it was intended.
So, the issue, obviously, is do we—for those who want to keep
some form of it—do you find better ways of making sure that peo-
ple cannot misuse it? Are there more checks and balances in place?
Do you limit it to only certain things? I mean, that is a question
that ought to be talked about.
In terms of the constitutionality, I am not a constitutional schol-
ar, you are, so you can talk about that. But, a court case was filed,
it went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court did not come
out on the side of those who said it was unconstitutional. But if you
believe it is unconstitutional, if you believe it is unconstitu-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
tional——
Yeah.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
53
Mr. ROY. They didn’t grant cert.
The CHAIRMAN. Right, okay.
Mr. ROY. Different.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will let him—but if you believe it is un-
constitutional, again, it is mind-boggling to me that you would uti-
lize it. But in any event, that is obviously the case here.
And going back to what Ms. Castor talked about, about hybrid
hearings or you being able to utilize technology in the hearing
room, I think there is value to that. I know the majority leader
mentioned President Zelenskyy, but you could have—I mean, you
can conceivably have President Zelenskyy testify before the Foreign
Affairs Committee or the Defense Committee from Ukraine re-
motely. I mean, that is a good thing—I think that is something we
ought to think as something we want to preserve.
Obviously, as the public health emergency is moving in a direc-
tion that we all hope it continues to go in where we no longer have
one, my hope is that more and more chairs will say we need—you
got to meet in person. But I will say, I continue to believe that
what we did at a very challenging time saved lives here, and it en-
abled us to operate and be able to move things that needed to be
moved.
And as I said before, in 1918, they had to get everything done
by unanimous consent. And let me say this, let me preface this by
saying, I love everybody here, right? But getting unanimous con-
sent is almost impossible. Getting unanimous consent to have a
glass of water is almost impossible here. That is just the reality.
I am not passing judgment, I am just saying it is the reality.
And so for us to be able to have responded to this pandemic the
way we did, I think this was necessary. And so I continue to feel
that this was the right thing to do. And I think the point of this
hearing is to hear from people. And we have heard from everybody,
from Mr. Perlmutter to those who want this totally done away with
and everything in between. And what we need to do is figure out
how do we proceed forward?
Yes, Mr. Roy.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, may I address the 1918 point real quick
on——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah.
Mr. ROY [continuing]. The unanimous consent? The other point
to remember—and I feel the need to speak on behalf of my friend
from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, who stood on the floor of the
House, not pleased that we were going to proceed by using voice
vote to move a $2 trillion bill. And we can debate that. And under-
stand the timing of it. But the Constitution requires one-fifth,
right, in order to be able to have the numbers there to force the
roll call vote.
So there is a mechanism by which the overwhelming majority
can say, you know what, we will do this by voice. There is a mecha-
nism to do that without consent. So you don’t have to do it by con-
sent. You can do it by voice. And you can say, look, unless you got
a fifth of the body saying no, no, no, no, no, we dang well better
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
be present; there is a mechanism for doing that. I just wanted to
make sure the record reflected that.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
54
Mr. PERLMUTTER. You had to be there, and everybody had to
stand up at that point——
Mr. ROY. A fifth would have had to be present in order to do
that.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Right.
Mr. ROY. My point is just you can do that with a body. Other-
wise, you can do it with voice if you don’t have the fifth. I mean,
you can do it by voice.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. I think it is not unreasonable, based on
where we are and what we have seen, to believe that it would be
very difficult for us to proceed without what we put in place. And
I think that is just the reality. And I am glad we were able to pro-
ceed. I am glad we were able to get some stuff done.
But let me yield to my friend, Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. I am going to have to leave.
I am already late. But I want to make a few quick remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not going to the St. Patrick’s thing, are
you?
Mr. COLE. No. I am going to one later tonight, though.
The CHAIRMAN. You can have my meal.
Mr. COLE. Anything in the middle of the—it would be a St. Pat-
rick event in the evening. I promise you.
Mr. ROY. You can leave your proxy with me.
Mr. COLE. But, first, I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking
you for the hearing. I think it is very important for the institution
to have the hearing. I want to thank all our witnesses for I know
you waited a long time in many cases to have an opportunity.
I want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Roy, on his son, because
that is a pretty well-behaved young man to sit there that much
time and listen to adults drone away. So good job, dad.
I do want to respond—I want to do this very respectfully to the
majority leader. He did not have a chance to be here. So this is—
you know, I don’t usually like talking—or replying to somebody
when they are not here, but there are a couple of things—several
things he said that I wanted to just take, have a different perspec-
tive on, perhaps he doesn’t, just make sure it gets in the record.
Mr. COLE. One, he talked about en blocs, and they are common
around here, and they are. But pre-COVID, the way it was done
was always by consent; in other words, we all agreed pretty much:
We know these are going to pass so we are going to group them
all together. And if the individual Member wanted to pull one out
and have a vote on that, that Member could do that. That is not
what we are doing now.
So the en bloc is not how it has been. We can debate the wisdom
of it, but come on, we all know they are packed: This group is going
to lose; this group is going to win. And if you like one in the group
that is going to lose, you are not going to have a chance to maybe
pull that across the line. So I think that is a big loss and something
we ought to think about moving forward.
Second, he brought up, not particularly relevant to our deal, the
infrastructure bill and made the point that all of us that voted
against it did so because our party leaders voted—told us to. That
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
is just not true. You know, number one, and this is really impor-
tant for everybody in America to understand, that bill that the Sen-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
55
ate wrote never came through committee over here. I mean, the
own committee chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
bill never had a chance to offer an amendment or shape the most
important bill probably of his career. That was true for every single
Member of the body, majority or minority had zero chance to im-
pact that bill. So that is one reason to be against it.
And, number two, I will tell you, even in the Senate it did not
go through the Public Works Committee, and so the people on that
committee had nothing to do with it. It was all done by people hon-
estly all of whom were not on the Public Works Committee.
So, you know, I seldom vote against bills because of what hap-
pens in the Senate. But, you know, process alone, I will tell you,
the, quote/unquote, bipartisan infrastructure bill was the biggest
surrender of institutional authority by this body that I have ever
seen in 20 years. We just said: We don’t have anything to do with
it. We are taking whatever the Senate wants to do, won’t go
through our committee. Our Members, Democrat or Republican,
majority or minority, they are not going to have anything to say
about it. That is a pretty damn good reason to be against any bill
no matter what.
Second, my friends chose the President of the United States to
link it with Build Back Better. Nobody on my side was for Build
Back Better, and when you put them together and said, ‘‘We are
not moving this one until you move this one’’—and with all due re-
spect to my friends, a considerable number of your members were
in that position too saying ‘‘I won’t vote for this unless you vote for
this even if you are against it’’—that is what muddied the water
and partisanized the bill even more.
And in terms of holding it up, let’s be real, your Members held
it up. We didn’t hold it up. I mean, we don’t have the ability to hold
it up. Your Members squabbled for months on end over this proc-
ess, and that is why we ended up without having what is normally
a very bipartisan process. You know, normally infrastructure bills
are bipartisan. But you guys made it partisan, and you got the
kind of vote honestly that I think the bill deserved.
I mean, even some of your own Members—you know, you had to
have the Republican votes to pass it because your own Members,
there wasn’t enough of your own Members, you wouldn’t have been
able to pass otherwise. And I have no quarrel with Members that
voted for it, my side or your side. Zero quarrel. If that is what you
thought you needed to do, fine by me, you got a vote.
And I would separate myself from anybody that called to remove
any Member from a committee. That very many people did, quite
frankly, and those Members, for the record, were all still on the
same committees that they were on. So this mock outrage, my
gosh, we are so afraid of what was going to happen to these 13 peo-
ple, they are all there. Don’t worry about it. And that was never
going to happen on our side.
Finally, or two more quick points, I want to associate myself with
something you said, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you, there is a big
difference between witnesses testifying by Zoom and Members par-
ticipating by Zoom, as my friend, Mr. Bost, and I have zero prob-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
lem. I think that has opened up a new area for us, offers us the
ability to bring people in to testify. I think that is something that
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
56
is really worth thinking about, and it probably has enriched the
body, and that is one where, you know, maybe technology does
make a good difference.
Last point I want to make is just about proxies. And I agree with
you, I am not interested in policing other Members. I am really not.
But I also agree with Mr. Gallagher. I mean, come on, when it is
twice as likely on Monday and Friday as it is on the days in be-
tween, that tells you everything you need to know. No question this
process has been abused in a bipartisan way. I don’t single out ei-
ther side for that.
And I think it hints at the challenges of maintaining it. None of
us want to police our colleagues, you know. We don’t like to do it.
We don’t like to sit in judgment and with good cause. But when
you look at something and on the face of it, it is being abused every
day by Members of both sides, it is just an easy habit to fall into.
So sometimes maybe we should just remove the temptation. I
don’t particularly like proxy voting. I am all for getting away with
it. The Senate managed to function on its own without it. I think
the majority leader made some good points about, you know, the
challenges of somebody just not being there for a very good reason,
like our friend Mr. Luján. That is worth considering. I don’t agree
with it. I think that just happens.
I am sort of where my colleagues that remain on the panel are.
I just don’t like the practice. I think it is bad, and I think it ulti-
mately destroys—and you just deal with these problems when they
occur. And Mr. Roy made a good point, you know, honestly, you
know, none of us are usually that important. That is a pretty rare
deal. And I noticed the Senate managed to get through it without
ever proxy voting and managed to get through this whole process.
So, if we are one of the most productive Congresses in history,
something I would probably not accept, but, you know, for the pur-
pose here, they had to do their part too, because nothing happens
around here without both bodies agreeing. And if they were that
productive and they could do without proxies, then we should be
productive and we should have been able to do it without proxies
or certainly not going forward, certainly not in the current climate
that we are in.
But last point, and I want to finish on a very positive note,
again, we have this discussion today where we have got a robust
exchange in where we have had views that are very different
across the spectrum because you gave us the forum.
And my colleagues here, and I hate to say this as I am getting
ready to walk out, thank you guys for being here all day. And those
of you that are following us remotely, I appreciate that participa-
tion too, because, again, our members of our committee, Mr. Chair-
man, have continued to participate in a variety of ways, and they
spend a lot of hours up here.
We have made you guys spend a lot of time here, and we apolo-
gize for that, but, you know, this is pretty routine in our com-
mittee. This is a very robust committee. It is a very well-run com-
mittee by the chairman, and I would like it if we are nine to four
in the other direction. As a matter of fact, it is may too well run
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
in that sense. There is never a defection on the other side, and
there is never one on ours either.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
57
But, again, thank you for hosting the debate, because we are
going to be wrestling with these problems for a while. We have had
very unusual circumstances that led us into this particular place
that are worth talking about. They are worth thinking about. They
are worth, you know, us wrestling with as a body as to what we
should do going forward, because, again, I do see some limited
cases where I would agree this technology can be useful.
I don’t think I probably would ever come to the point that I think
proxy voting is useful, but if those are the rules, I guarantee you
I will play by the rules. And, if you make them the rules, I don’t
have any problem with somebody that says: Okay, I don’t agree
with the rules. There is a lot of things about campaign finance I
don’t agree with, but I play by the rules.
There is a lot of things, you know, procedurally in my committees
I may or may not agree with, but if that is the procedure and these
are the rules of the House, they have been voted by a majority of
the House, I accept that, and I play by those rules. And then, if
the majority changes, I hope the rules will change that reflect
maybe something a little closer. But that is not abuse of the sys-
tem, and I don’t think that is doing anything wrong.
But, with that, again, thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. COLE. Thank you for allowing me to go on a little bit as a
rant, particularly as I am getting up and leaving, which is not
courteous, so I apologize to my colleagues on the panel. I particu-
larly apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody else up here.
The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate it.
Mr. COLE. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I am going to pass to Mr. Raskin because I
have to go vote remotely in that room in Financial Services.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I wanted to first start by saying hello to Mr. Roy’s son, who has
demonstrated that the use of technology is perfectly consistent with
the legislative process today, and we are delighted you are here.
I have got to agree with one point my friend, Mr. Roy, made, and
then disagree with one point. The point I agree on is that the Su-
preme Court’s denial of cert letting stand the lower court ruling,
which is that this is a political question, doesn’t decide it for us be-
cause all of us swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitu-
tion against all enemies foreign and domestic and to interpret it
the best we can.
So it is not just within the province of the judicial authority to
interpret the meaning of the Constitution. I think all of us are
called upon to do that, and that is why this is an important and
fundamental conversation that we are having today.
However, I think that my friend from Texas kind of flippantly
said, well, you know, if we didn’t have telephones or computers
when the Constitution was written then we update the Constitu-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
tion to adjust to the technology. The Supreme Court, for one, has
been very emphatic actually that the values and the principles of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
58
the Constitution must be applied by us through the prism of new
and existing technology.
And one Supreme Court decision that leaps to mind on that front
is Katz vs. United States in 1967 on the interpretation of the
Fourth Amendment. I see I got the attention of one of my former
law students here, who is a distinguished staff member on the Re-
publican side of the aisle.
But you will remember that Katz vs. United States was about
whether the placement of telephone bugging devices by the govern-
ment on a phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment reason-
able—violated the Fourth Amendment. And the argument made by
the government was, well, it couldn’t violate the Fourth Amend-
ment because telephones didn’t exist when the Constitution was
written and neither did telephone bugs, and therefore, how could
it violate the Fourth Amendment.
And the Supreme Court said, it is the principle embodied in the
Fourth Amendment that we must translate to the application of
new technologies. And the principle there the court said in a 7-to-
1 decision, I think it was Justice Stewart who wrote it, was that
there is a reasonable expectation of privacy embodied in the Fourth
Amendment, and we can determine what the reasonable expecta-
tion of privacy means in the context of the development of new
technology.
So how does that apply to the question of legislative voting in
Congress? Well, when the development of computerized voting took
place in Congress, all kinds of cries were heard by people saying
this violates the Constitution because it didn’t exist when the first
Congress met. James Madison used his voice. The ayes and the
nays, it was said, requires a voice vote and not pushing a green
button or a red button.
And one can see kind of the simplistic appeal of that argument.
That is the way it was always done. But what really was the un-
derlying constitutional value? It was the vindication of the voice of
the Members representing the will of the people. And so even
though it is true the first Congress didn’t look up at the board to
see green and red and even though it did alter the political dynam-
ics, because in those days you had to hear, well, how does Mr. Roy
vote or, before that, how does Mr. Biggs vote in alphabetical order.
But you know what, there is nothing in the Constitution compel-
ling the use of alphabetical order, and the real issue was the vindi-
cation of the will of the people as transmitted through the effec-
tuation of the vote of the Member. And so the computerized voting
took place, and the proxy voting took place during COVID.
Now, I would argue that proxy voting actually effectuated the
meaning of the Constitution all built into the first three words of
the Constitution: We the people. Because the people’s voice was en-
abled to be heard by virtue of the proxy voting that we developed.
Because, otherwise, we know that there would have been legiti-
mately here—and I will get to the question of the illegitimate uses
of it, which I think is the real question—but legitimately we would
have lost hundreds or thousands of votes representing the will of
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
the people. And so we actually vindicated the constitutional design
and the will of the people by implementing proxy voting.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
59
Now, so let me turn to that. And let me first say, I am pleased
to hear a lot of consensus, I think, with the possible exception of
Mr. Bost, that, on hearings, the use of Zoom technology and other
such technologies was a very positive thing that we were able to
actually incorporate the voices of a lot more Americans from all
over the country, including the nonmainland, Hawaii and Alaska,
and we were able to do that in a way that saved people money,
that didn’t require people to spend $1,000 or $2,000 to come to
Washington. And it also had some positive environmental implica-
tions at least for, you know, those who believe that climate change
is a problem.
All right. So, on the hearing side, I think that there is a very
strong consensus that we have done the right thing, and this is
something that we should enable in the future. So the real question
comes down to proxy voting on the floor. Now, let me start with
this, if anybody has got standing to complain about proxy voting,
I think it is me, okay. I live closer to the Capitol than any other
Member of Congress with the exception, I think, of the nonvoting
Delegate from the District of Columbia, okay.
I have been the proxy voter, I have been the courier for hundreds
and hundreds of proxies, and I will say this does qualitatively
change the experience of the Member who has got to do it because
it is like a second job. You are working all the time to make sure
you are getting the proxy votes in, that you are scrupulously ob-
serving exactly what they have told you to do, and then you have
to stand up, record all those votes, then you have got to go down
and turn in the reds cards and the green cards and so on.
But you know what, I was proud to do it. I have been proud to
do it, because those people would otherwise not have been able to
vote. And their constituents, millions of constituents, would not
have had their will embodied and representative in the votes that
took place.
And you know what? I ended up using it just about 3 or 4 weeks
ago because I came down with COVID. Now, I was in the shocking
position suddenly of asking somebody else to carry a proxy for me.
I think I missed only 2 days; maybe it was 3 days’ worth of votes.
I had a positive test. I didn’t want to go in and infect anybody else,
but I wanted my constituents to be heard, and I wanted to be
heard on the things that were being done. So I think there the sys-
tem worked.
I think that Mr. Gallagher has put his finger on the question we
need to deal with, which is, have there been abuses of this system?
And we are not an investigative committee. We don’t need to go
into all of this, but I think it is some people’s sense that there has
been some slipperiness at the beginning of the week, at the end of
the week. Although I will say, 4 out of the 7 days of the week are
the weekend or Mondays or Fridays, so you would expect that
there would be more use of it during that majority of the week
when, you know, more of the time would be lost.
But, setting that aside, let’s say, I think we need to define very
carefully what the principle is that we need to embody in our role.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And, for me, and I appreciate the honest discussion about this,
what I would say is that Members should be able to avail them-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
60
selves of proxy voting if they have a compelling medical reason to
do so or, I would say, a compelling family reason to do so.
And, on that point, I will just say, as you guys know, my family
experienced a catastrophe with the loss of my son. And I would
say, at the very least, for dealing with a death or very serious ill-
ness in the family, Members should be able to meet their constitu-
tional duties of representing their constituents and also meet their
family needs.
I think that that is a reasonable, legitimate, and compelling exer-
cise of our power under Article I, section 5, to set the rules of our
own proceedings. That is why the Supreme Court turned it over to
us. That is why the courts stand back, because they say, under Ar-
ticle I, we have the power to define these rules.
So we are going through right now, this moment, precisely the
exercise I think that the Constitution contemplates for us: Where
do we draw these lines? And for me, I would want to say that peo-
ple should have to attest that they are using the proxy procedure
for a compelling personal, medical, or family reason.
And then, at that point, it is between that member and their con-
stituents, and if they are lying about it, if they are out doing a
fundraiser, if they are at a golf tournament or, you know, even if
they are at a meeting at the White House, I am sorry, if you have
to miss your legislative duties because of a meeting at the White
House, you should be able to explain to your constituents why you
were advancing the legislative agenda you were elected to come
and serve, or you can explain it to the President, you have got to
go vote. I think the President will understand.
So, to my mind, it is just a question, Mr. Chairman, of how do
we develop a system that implements a principle which is that
Members should be able to avail themselves of a proxy if they have
a compelling medical reason or a compelling family reason. And I
think that not only will all the Members of Congress understand
that because of our common humanity and our common citizenship,
but I think all of our constituents will be able to understand that,
and let’s develop a system that would make that work. And that
is my basic sense of it.
Mr. Roy, I have invoked your name a couple times. I don’t know
if you have any response to my thoughts on it.
Mr. ROY. I have a couple of observations, and I appreciate you
giving me the opportunity. Number one, with respect to the search-
and-seizure comparison, I would argue that that is the point. I
mean, we can disagree on what ‘‘presence’’ means, and we could
have a long discussion about that, but search and seizure is search
and seizure. I mean, the fact that—and I understand there was a
debate there and there was, again, that opinion. But search——
Mr. RASKIN. They said it was physical. That is what was so in-
teresting. They said it has got to be physical.
Mr. ROY. Fair, but at the end of the day, it is a question, but
the principle was search and seizure. The principle was your ability
to not have your conversations or your privacy invaded, et cetera.
But, in this case, the principle is presence. And for me, if you go
look—you know, the quorum, right, where they are saying attend-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
ance is compelled, right. Now, that is quorum. It is not specifically
to the vote.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
61
But the Constitution is littered with ‘‘presence,’’ with ‘‘seat,’’ with
being here. And so we can debate whether it is a good thing or a
bad thing. We debate the use of technology. We can debate whether
we should be able to vote from Austin, Texas, and I go push a but-
ton there in a secure mechanism, whatever—let’s put aside the se-
curity question, which raises a whole other issue.
But let’s say you could do that by Zoom or otherwise, I think it
would be a terrible idea. But I still think that violates presence,
and that would be a debatable proposition, right. But I think when
you make that kind of a change, that is a trajectory shift, in my
opinion, when you are changing that in that kind of a direction.
The second thing I would point out, and I do want to—I want to
say this very carefully and with extraordinary admiration, you
were here last January, and I admired you immensely for it, even
though there were heightened disagreements on the political reali-
ties of the impeachment debate, and we had numerous conversa-
tions about all of that. I admired you enormously for your fortitude
of being present in this building in January of last year. And I
think that was a testament to the strength of what this body is
supposed to mean by our doing our jobs and being physically
present, and I say that carefully and with enormous respect.
Mr. RASKIN. Sure, Mr. Biggs, did you want to add something?
And thank you, Mr. Roy, for that. I—well, it is a personal con-
versation. I am not——
Mr. ROY. I understand.
Mr. RASKIN. Yeah. I am not sure about the implications for that
in all cases, but I appreciate your saying that.
Mr. ROY. Appreciate it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Raskin, for giving me just a moment.
I think for me part of the problem is you focused on proxy voting.
And I think where I am, and I think Mr. Roy probably is there too,
that is very different than—you never get to the proxy voting ques-
tion because you haven’t resolved the quorum question. And until
you resolve the quorum question, I don’t think you can address the
proxy voting question.
And I don’t think allowing people and just throwing it in a House
resolution that, okay, we are going to deem you if you vote by
proxy that you are physically present, I don’t think that gets to the
question of the constitutionality of how we are now defining
quorum. I think that is where the shift really is taking place in
how you are defining quorum.
And once you have defined quorum and said, if were we to get
there, and I think it is unconstitutional to say that a quorum con-
sists of somebody who is not on site, not present, not meeting the
myriad references to it or Article I, section 5, which says a minority
of the body can send someone to compel you to attend—have I been
off the whole time?
Mr. ROY. My staff said you weren’t on anyhow.
Mr. BIGGS. Okay. Let me start back over. I am just saying——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. That is why I came in here.
Mr. BIGGS. Thanks, Ed.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
So you see what my point is you have moved into the secondary
question before you have resolved the Article 1, section 5, presence
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
62
and quorum question. And I don’t think that you can satisfy that
by saying if you are not here and somebody else deems you to be
here; I don’t think that is constitutional.
And that is—I think that is a different question, but I think—
I don’t think you ever can get to the proxy voting question until
you have resolved that question, and I don’t think you can resolve
that question in favor of a proxy presence for quorum.
Mr. RASKIN. Well, I think you are right. We have treated them
as really the same question. You could bifurcate it and say—you
could make the argument, perhaps you are making it, that, once
you have established a physical quorum as traditionally under-
stood, then you could have proxy voting at that point, or you could
say you can’t have proxy voting at that point.
But, you know, there is a history to this that predates COVID–
19, which relates to, what if there’s a violent attack on the Capitol?
We have seen one as recently as perhaps right now, I don’t know,
or January 6, you know, last year. You know, are there alternative
quorum rules, and there have been some that, you know, have been
adopted, you know.
Yeah.
Mr. BIGGS. Yeah, thanks. I want to respond to that. A professor
of law, David Forte, he has taken where you are going. I thought
you might end up there. But his position would be you still have
a major problem because of the parameters of the Constitution as
it is set forth. If you want to change it, you would need to some-
thing akin to the 25th Amendment or something like that where
you lay out a succession, emergency succession.
Mr. RASKIN. I gotcha. And, for me, it all comes back to Article
I, section 5, that the Framers did endow Congress, each House of
Congress itself with the power to write the rules unless it violates
some extrinsic constitutional boundary. And that is like Powell vs.
McCormack in 1969, where the Court said we are not going to
admit a particular Member, and the Court said: Well, you can’t do
that because the constitutional qualifications are set forth specifi-
cally.
But I don’t think we have got some kind of explicit constitutional
boundary that, you know, that restrains us in that way. But I
under—that is an honest disagreement.
Mr. BIGGS. Yeah, we can continue this debate. Thank you.
Mr. RASKIN. Yeah. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was actu-
ally enjoying that debate. So I know we were talking about con-
stitutional issues. I am going to talk about more practical implica-
tions.
But, before I do that, I want to, Mr. Chairman, ask for unani-
mous consent to enter in the record an article written by my good
friend Matt Gaetz.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Or unanimous consent to enter that in the
record. Thanks. I appreciate it.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, whatever you want.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. And I will reference that.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
63
Mr. ROY. Can I object to that? Because I think Matt disagrees
with me on this point, but anyway, okay.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Well, Mr. Roy, we are going to talk about
this, so I will get to that.
But, before I do that, I would also, Mr. Chairman, ask unani-
mous consent to enter the testimony of my other good friend Mr.
William Timmons. He wasn’t able to be here, but interesting take
on how in-person meeting could actually increase civility, so, with-
out objection, I would like to enter that.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks.
So, getting back to the article by Mr. Gaetz, basically to over
summarize this, to basically distill it down, he basically says it is
not good for legislators to be here in Washington, D.C., lots of rea-
son for that. The practical implications of proxy voting would lead
to what Mr. Gaetz is advocating for, and that is for us never to
come to Washington, D.C.
And I remember a few years ago, you know, I am a big fan, Ben
Shapiro said: Why do we even send Representatives to D.C.? Why
don’t we just vote from the district? And there is an inclination by
people to jump to that default position. There are serious implica-
tions to us not being here. And I tell my constituents all the time,
I say: Look, if I am not in Washington, D.C., you are not rep-
resented in Washington, D.C., like your voice is not heard here.
And it is just more than voting, because it is the face-to-face
interactions. It is the advocacy in committee, in our conferences, et
cetera. We have got to be here to effectively push legislation. And
if we are not here, I have a big fear that all the power that the
rank and file has will just gravitate to the leadership because lead-
ership is here.
Mr. Roy, do you have any thoughts on that practical implication?
Mr. ROY. Yeah, I do. And, in fact, Matt or Mr. Gaetz and I have,
you know, debated this quite a bit on the House floor and just in
general. And I appreciate where he is coming from, right. I mean,
I am fairly well known as a limited government conservative. I
would just as soon we meet, you know, once a year for like 2 days
and, you know, pass a balanced budget and get out of town and
stop messing up America, right. That is my general world view
about these things. And I don’t say it flippantly, but I mean it is
my general philosophical persuasion on it.
But I also think—take very seriously the importance of our being
here when we are conducting business. And we conduct more busi-
ness than I would prefer we do, and we are engaged in a whole lot
of things I wish we weren’t, but we are. And I would think we need
to be here and debate them, and I think we need to look at each
other face to face. And I think that it is kind of flippant to say:
Well, let’s just stay back in our districts and vote.
And I think it would totally shift power even further to a very
small handful.
I mean, again, since I think May of 2016—and I have said this
on the floor; I think it is correct—we haven’t been able to offer an
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
amendment on the floor in open debate, and that is both leadership
and control. And that is, I think, bad. I think that is bad for the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
64
institution. I think this is breaking down the ability for 435 Rep-
resentatives to come here and have engagement and debate.
And one last point on that, I would rather that we come in the
beginning of a Congress and not leave for a while, much like a
State legislative session, and sit here and do the core business of
passing the budget and appropriations I prefer to a smaller amount
and balanced amount, and then get—and then do whatever you are
going to do and then space some time out. Go back home for a
while. Then come back and do some oversight and offer some bills.
But I would rather just come here for 3 or 4 months and let’s
do our job. We come in Monday. We have a fly-in vote. We have
a couple of random rule votes for a couple of days. I don’t even
know what they are going to be half the time. And then we fly out
Thursday night, and then we rinse and repeat. That is not, in my
opinion, a very effective way for us to conduct business. Again, that
is a bipartisan critique.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I speak for all of us on this side. None
of us associate ourselves with Mr. Gaetz’——
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. I find that totally shocking, Mr. Chairman,
but noted.
Mr. Biggs, you wanted to comment?
Mr. BIGGS. Yeah. Just, I will say that a lot of what you have
heard from people who want to be here in person, it is lets—it al-
lows us to cross the aisle and have bipartisan discussion. And that
is true, but it also allows you to have intraparty discussions that
are missing, quite frankly. And so, once we got back into person,
you know, Judiciary Republicans, we can get together, same with
OGR, whatever committee you are on you can get together, you
could—and that makes just as much difference as me sitting 5 feet
from you intraparty as anything.
So I just think that if we are going to just basically get to Matt’s
point of view, Gaetz’ point of view—which by the way, I actually
had a constituent tell me when I was first running, he said: I will
vote for you if you ever get a chance to never go back to D.C. and
just vote out here and never go back to D.C.
I said: Well, I will consider that.
But the reality is I think we need to be here because this is a
collaborative process.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Right, I couldn’t agree more. And that,
frankly—and, again, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Gaetz. We are
friends. But that is the problem with proxy voting is that it leads
to the extreme argument that we should just stay home and vote
via proxy. And, again, all the power would gravitate toward leader-
ship into and to an even larger extent the unelected bureaucracy
and in the executive branch, because we are not doing oversight at
that point if we are not here. But I am belaboring point.
The other issue that it brings is that, within the conference, I
know we were talking about bipartisanship, but within the Repub-
lican Conference and the Democratic Caucus, you would have a
gravity shift to the larger delegations. What I mean by that: If you
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
can’t build relationships with people from various States, then
what you would have is you would have all the leadership elections
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
65
determined by, in our case, it would be Texas or Florida, and/or
Florida, and on the Democratic side, it would be basically Cali-
fornia and New York, because you would just vote as a delegation.
So someone from a small—I am from the fifth largest State in
population, but somebody from a small State would have zero shot
of working his way—his or her way through leadership, and cer-
tainly they would not be well represented——
Mr. RASKIN. Like Steny Hoyer, for example.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. What is that, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. RASKIN. Like Steny Hoyer, for example.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Yes, exactly. Exactly. Thanks, Mr. Raskin.
Do you have any thoughts on that and just the shift toward the
larger States?
Mr. BIGGS. I think—oh, now I am on. I think you are exactly
right. And I think it would—not only would you see the power go
to those States, which are already there—I mean, we have got Cali-
fornia in the top two spots anyway, but you would see it filter on
down, I think.
I don’t know how the Democrats choose their chairmen and
chairwomen, but I think you would see it filter down. And I think
that you are right on the first point you made in your first question
is that it would also arrogate power to the center or the leadership,
so that would be a concern.
Mr. ROY. Yeah, I agree. I don’t have too much more to add. I
mean, I don’t think I have a whole lot of, you know, likelihood of
moving up the leadership ranks regardless of whether it is through
the Texas delegation channel or whether it is through the model
you just described.
Mr. BIGGS. You never know.
Mr. ROY. But what I would say is, I do think it changes the
power balance. Like, I mean, again, getting back to the core ques-
tion here, physical presence matters. We all get that. I mean, I ap-
preciate—and I haven’t opined much on the hearings, but there is
a distinction between Members being present for hearings and
markups versus witnesses being able to avail themselves of tech-
nology. I think that is a distinction.
I think physical presence matters, not just because I see it
through a constitutional lens, but because human interaction mat-
ters, being able to, you know—it is why texting is terrible. It is
why social media is largely garbage. It is just that you break down
that human interaction that I think is necessary for us to try to
truly strengthen the Republic. And I think this is one of those con-
sequences.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks.
Mr. Ranking Member Bost, I have not ignored you. I have a
whole line of questions for you, and I will be brief with it.
Mr. BOST. I am not offended.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Well, I am glad you are not offended.
Ranking Member Bost, would you like to talk about how remote
proceedings have impacted your committee?
Mr. BOST. Yeah. And you know what? Some of the speakers that
spoke about the importance of actually giving someone the oppor-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
tunity to give witness, and to your example, the President of
Ukraine, great.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
66
But when we are going into a voting situation and technology is
what it is, you have breakdown in the communication, you have a
breakdown in the vote, you have rules that have been set forth but
I have to, as my side of the aisle, remind them that the person is
not present, there is not a good connection, trying—and then you
are interrupting votes and you are doing all of this.
And, quite often, it is even worse than the proxy, in the fact that
you don’t have to sign a paper to say, ‘‘I am staying home and
doing this because —.’’ You are just doing it because. And that
breaks down that ability.
And also—and we don’t want to take away the power of the chair
of each committee to make the decisions on their own, but there
needs to be a standard set that decides when it is that we need to
meet in person, when we need to have a hybrid, when we need—
as things start to slide away from the initial reason why we did
it, and that was this pandemic.
By moving in the way that we have, we have some committees
that do this and some committees that do that, and it is the call
of the chair. And because of that, Members become frustrated, on
both sides of the aisle. And I just see a lot of problems and particu-
larly with our committee with what we have tried to get back.
Mr. ROY. Can I just add one point to that?
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Yes.
Mr. ROY. Which is, how many of us have had the situation where
you have competing hearings, and, you know, especially in the
height of all of this when it was happening? We are not forced to
make the tough choices of deciding where I am physically going to
be present.
And so then you have people that have—you have two iPads up,
and you are listening to one and you are only kind of half-listening,
so you can go over and get a vote in on the other, because now it
is sort of assumed that you are present for the hearing——
Mr. BOST. Even though the rules say you can’t do that.
Mr. ROY. Right. But that is what—but people would do that.
Mr. Bost. They would do that. I know.
Mr. Roy. And you would see—and then the expectation—it goes
back to that example of me sitting in Fredericksburg, where I am
trying to figure out what to do.
But yet there are Members that are going to vote; they are sit-
ting at home doing whatever, or they are—and I don’t mean to im-
pugn any Members. But I am just saying——
Mr. BOST. Writing a book.
Mr. ROY [continuing]. It is a lot easier if you are just saying,
‘‘Okay, I am out, I am going to do my thing, but I will just chime
in and vote,’’ as opposed to, ‘‘I am going to physically be there and
give up X in order to be there and vote.’’
And we are all here by choice, right? You guys didn’t call me in
as a witness. I am here because I think this is an important topic.
And I have blown three meetings already. I have just blown
through—and I am missing good brisket right now with the Texas
lunch. But—anyway.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. I hate to stand in the way between you and
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
brisket, so, just briefly, I want to hit on en bloc, because Ranking
Member Cole had mentioned it.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
67
Ranking Member Bost, I saw that you lit up at that point. Would
you like to talk about how it has affected bills coming out of your
committee in particular?
Mr. BOST. Other than the fact that I would just agree with the
previous speaker that en bloc—en bloc is something that we have
done. It is done in other ways. But now, with this, it even confuses
that more. You don’t have, really, the chance to remove things from
en bloc like we did whenever I first got here. We should have that.
And whoever is in the majority and they have the power, it is
going to move. But at least have the ability to remove things that
might be detrimental to those—no matter what side you are on.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Chairman Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. So I offer this solely because I am a contrarian in this
sense. I don’t think we should ever do an en bloc. I think we should
have a recorded vote on every bill, every amendment. And the rea-
son is because I think it is our responsibility to let the American
people know what you are voting for and who is voting for it.
I mean, the first rule change that I got to vote on in our con-
ference, before I had even been sworn in, was whether we were
going to go to a recorded vote on everything, no suspensions, a re-
corded vote. And when they came up and said, how are you going
to vote on that? I said, you mean we don’t have a recorded vote on
everything? I was stunned. And I remain stunned by that.
And, quite frankly, I think my constituency is—every time I
mention that, they are baffled by it. And they want to know what
we are doing, and they want to know what every bill is, and they
want to see how I am voting on every bill. And I think that is real-
ly what this place is missing sorely, if you want to get trust back
from the public.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks.
And thank you for the generosity in time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Before I yield to Mr. Perlmutter, let me just say, I think we all
agree that presence is important, whether in committee hearings or
on the floor. The question is, are there exceptions? You know, are
there cases that should be considered in a way that, you know,
where somebody could vote remotely? And I think that is kind of
what we are trying to figure out here.
But, no, I think in-person meetings and hearings and activity on
the floor is very, very constructive and very, very productive and
enables us to get things done. So I don’t think that that is the
question.
The only thing that has been bothering me, Mr. Roy, is some-
thing you said. You were in Fredericksburg at a Starbucks, not
Dunkin’ Donuts? Because Dunkin’ Donuts is the coffee of Massa-
chusetts.
And Mr. Reschenthaler, you know, only drinks Polar Seltzer,
which is a Massachusetts product.
But, anyway, I always bristle when I hear that.
Anyway, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks. Just a couple points.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
First, I think we should—and we have started sort of distilling
this thing. I think we can break this down. You know, what do we
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
68
do on the floor? Is proxy available? Could we actually do remote
voting on the floor, or do you always have to be there? Okay. Sec-
ond, what do we do in committee? Can you have remote voting? Do
you have to be present? Can witnesses be remote? So, one, you
have the floor; second, you have committee.
Then, I think Mr. Hoyer did a great job in his testimony talking
about, sort of, the electronic upgrades of—do we have to actually
hand—you know, even traditionally—and we have always done it—
you put the thing in the hopper. Can’t you do that electronically?
You know, in the courtroom, you always had to go deliver it by
hand to the clerk of the court, but you don’t have to do that any-
more. But that was tradition. So do we allow technology to really
take its place, or does that damage what we do here? And I don’t
think it does damage, but that is where this debate comes in.
And then lastly would be, kind of, the witnesses. What do we do
with witnesses, primarily, obviously, in committee?
But I think we can kind of segment this. Me, I am going to be
very laissez-faire about the whole thing, I mean, obviously. I don’t
think that Mr. McGovern needs to police me as to whether I should
have stayed home or not and voted from my house or voted from
wherever. You know, that is the people; they are the ones that po-
lice me. And I don’t want to disenfranchise them.
So that is where I am coming from. And, you know, quite frank-
ly—and I appreciate, sort of, the comments about sacrifice and all
that jazz. You know, I was here a year ago November. I caught
COVID over Thanksgiving you know, I was here. Got it on Vet-
erans Day. Had to stay here by myself. I was told, ‘‘Get off the
campus.’’
My stepson had caught it. They found it when he was going back
to work in New York. My wife calls me and says, ‘‘You better go
get checked.’’ I said, ‘‘I am fine.’’ ‘‘No, go get checked.’’
I get checked, you know, downstairs. They call a few hours
later—I am in Longworth—and they say, ‘‘You have COVID.’’ I
said, ‘‘That is’’—unrepeatable here. I said, ‘‘I don’t have COVID.’’
They said, ‘‘Get off the campus.’’ They said, ‘‘Get off the campus
now. You cannot remain here.’’
And I said, ‘‘Okay, I will go to my apartment. Can I go home?’’
‘‘No. You will quarantine in your apartment here for 10 days,’’
when I used proxy to be able to vote on a couple matters that we
had come up before Thanksgiving.
So it was that—it wasn’t that I hadn’t sacrificed, Mr. Roy. I was
here. But I couldn’t be here. But the fact that we had a mechanism
in place that took into consideration both proxy and technology, I
could represent my people. They didn’t lose their vote. They didn’t
lose their voice.
So I think this is—I guess I would—one thing you had suggested,
Mr. Roy—and I appreciate this—is, you know—because we are try-
ing in the Modernization Committee to figure out a better way to
schedule things. You know, I have three committees going right
now, you know.
And how do young families operate? It is not, you know, that we
are masochists here. ‘‘Let’s make it as hard for us as possible.’’
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
That is silliness to me. You know, voting on every single amend-
ment that may be agreed to, I think that is, you know—and I think
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
69
you overstated your case a little bit there. I mean, I could under-
stand the rest, but that, sort of, I don’t get.
But I remember one of the things that changed the dynamics in
this place was back in 1994, not that I was here, but just reading
the history. And, at that time, Representative Gingrich said about
Democrats, ‘‘They have gone Washington. They are in Washington
too much.’’ And, you know, to the point that Mr. Gaetz is trying
to make, nobody should go to Washington, because potentially you
change.
And I think that that—because we are not here on weekends; we
are not here to socialize—I think it did have an effect on how this
place operates, just from my view of history.
So, as much as I might agree with you on ‘‘let’s come in here and
stay a block a time and just get stuff done,’’ we are all going to be
subject to this ‘‘going Washington.’’ I would, in the campaign, say
it about you; you would say it about me.
I do think it probably hurt the ability to collaborate, you know?
Because where the friendships really develop are in passing, at din-
ner, you know, doing sports together, family outings together. Then
you can’t demonize the other person. And that is what you all are
talking about, and I agree. The presence, it is harder to demonize
somebody.
The last thing I want to say is, I have just started thinking about
Paul Bunyan, okay, and the steam engine. You know, Paul and
Babe, you know, they are out there, they are chopping everything
down, they can do it, and then this steam engine comes along.
‘‘Well, I can beat that steam engine, and I will show you how
strong and how tough I am’’ and all that stuff. Well, the steam en-
gine seemed to work, and it beat poor Paul Bunyan. And for us to
deny the technology——
Mrs. FISCHBACH. No, it didn’t.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, in the Disney movie it did, by a quarter
of an inch, 240 feet.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. From my district, no.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. But I just want to say, we can’t deny tech-
nology that—and it may be that we aren’t able to conduct business
the way—by using technology, we can’t conduct business. But I
don’t think we should deny the technology just because it makes
our lives a little bit easier, that working—you know, that mom.
You know, Linda Sanchez’s testimony was just, I think, spot-on,
you know?
So, for me, I would open this up wide, and I wouldn’t have any
limitations. And the chairman and I have disagreed on this; Mr.
Raskin and I; Mr. Reschenthaler and I. I am, like, just totally lais-
sez-faire on this. Either we don’t do any of it or we just open it up
and let the people police whether I have been a good Representa-
tive or not, whether I have been their voice or not.
With that, I will yield back to the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And Disney might have had it wrong. I don’t know, but—you
know. There is a big statue in my district that says that——
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Of Paul Bunyan?
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Of Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
70
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I guess I am sorry I brought him up.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. I am just teasing you. And, you know, I have
seen the Disney movie too. So I didn’t mean to digress on that.
But, Mr. Chair, before I start, I wanted to ask unanimous con-
sent to enter into the record a letter from Rick Allen and an addi-
tional letter from Mr. McCaul.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, I will have to say that I was very disappointed that
Mr. Hoyer couldn’t stay—he gave his testimony—and so we are un-
able to have to discussion and ask him questions. And, you know,
we have had many, many of our witnesses today stay a very long
time and answer a lot of questions, and so it is disappointing that
Mr. Hoyer did not.
The CHAIRMAN. You could have objected.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. You know what? I should have, now that I
think about it.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. In Mr. Hoyer’s defense, he sat here for an hour
before he was allowed to testify, so——
Mrs. FISCHBACH. And, Mr. Chair, I understand that, and many
of our other witnesses did too, so—and I do appreciate all the ef-
fort.
But he did say a couple of things—Mr. Hoyer said a couple of
things, and he had said that, you know, the proxy voting and some
of the remote things had nothing to do with the partisanship. And
you know what? Maybe, but it certainly didn’t help. It does not
help, when we don’t have that person-to-person kind of interaction.
And, you know, we are talking about Zooms, we are talking
about those—but you know what? You miss that ‘‘I can see your
eyes,’’ you know, ‘‘I can see the look on your face.’’ There is a lot
missing when you don’t have that interaction.
And this is a collaborative business. This is something—you
know, I think Mr. Cole told the story about how, you know, after
he had withdrawn an amendment, he walked over and talked to
another Member about it and explained it a little better. That kind
of thing doesn’t happen on Zoom.
And, you know, I have talked a little bit, earlier on, about being
a freshman. And you know what? As a freshman, you really miss
that, because you don’t have those established relationships. I don’t
have everybody’s cell phone. I don’t have someone, you know, I can
pick up the phone, even if you are on a Zoom, and call them about
something.
And so I don’t think it helps. I think—and I can’t remember
who—was it Mr. Perlmutter who said it is easier to demonize—or
Mr. Raskin, I can’t remember—it is easier to demonize them when
you are not there. And I think that is very obvious. And I think
that is much—that, I think, really, really adds to the partisanship.
You are not there. You are not, you know, there with them, and
so it is easier, much easier.
I do think that Mr. Perlmutter was absolutely right when he
talked about being in segments. Are we going to be allowing it in
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
committee? Are we going—you know, because proxy voting, I be-
lieve, is probably the most egregious. And then how are you going
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
71
to deal with, can you accept testimony? So I appreciate that you
mentioned that.
You know, someone used the example of the Zelenskyy presen-
tation Zoom meeting that we had the other day. And I think that
really had nothing to do with—that is just one of the wonderful
things about technology. Yes, we can accept his speech by tech-
nology. It doesn’t have anything to do with proxy voting or how we
run a committee. We were able to hear from him remotely, and I
think that is just simply an advantage we had from technology.
But, you know, I have to just kind of reiterate the fact that, you
know, the relationships that I have seen, you know, around the
table—I believe it was Mr. Cole and Mr. Hoyer talked about what
good friends they were—those were established because they were
here, not because they saw each other on Zoom. They were estab-
lished because they were able to meet with one another, talk to one
another, shake hands in the morning, whatever the case may be.
And I think that is what we are getting away from.
And, you know, technology is a wonderful excuse, but we need
to be here. We need to be here to talk to one another, to collabo-
rate, to do the best we can for our constituents and for the country.
And so I just have real strong concerns about moving to that di-
rection. You know, as someone talks about just voting from our dis-
trict—well, that is just—how do you offer an amendment if we are
just voting—then we might as well just say everybody—you know,
we will just put it all on the internet and everybody—and I know
that there are some that might advocate for that, but just, you
know, eliminate representation and just have everybody vote up or
down on every bill. You know, the whole country, everybody gets
a vote.
And, like I said, some will advocate for that, but I think it be-
comes more and more difficult to be more bipartisan, to get things
done, when we are not here, we are not here casting our vote for
the people that we represent.
And I would just like to ask either Mr. Biggs or Mr. Roy if they
have anything they would like to add.
Mr. ROY. I will just add, number one, because I haven’t stated
affirmatively how much I appreciate the Republican leader leading
litigation to make this point. I think it was important. It didn’t
come out the way I wanted it to, in terms of the Supreme Court
granting cert, but it was important for the leader to lead that law-
suit, and I want to thank him for that.
And to the point just raised, I mean, at the end of the day, for
me, this is—we have all said here, we agree, you know, human
interaction matters, it is better, and so forth. I just think that, fun-
damentally, this breaks down the institution, if we go down this
road. I have already established what I think in terms of the con-
stitutional question. And we have talked ad nauseam about, I
think, all of these points.
But we want to bring to summation: We are going to undermine
the whole idea of a republican form of government and sending
Representatives to represent people and engage in the kind of dis-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
course, debate that we are supposed to do, in my opinion, if you
start breaking that down.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
72
I respect immensely, I think, the intellectual consistency of say-
ing, well, kind of, either A or B and not trying to split the baby
on this. But I think that there is a danger in opening that up wide,
as the gentleman would do, in which, you know, kind of, let your
constituents decide. Yeah, they will decide, but, in the process, you
have empowered a handful to make decisions.
And I would actually disagree about getting things done. I think
lots would get done. I just think it will get done a very few num-
ber—a very few, powerful group of people with very little engage-
ment by the whole body. And that, I think, would be ultimately the
worst outcome, if you go down that road.
Mr. BIGGS. I just want to just address what Mr. Perlmutter was
talking about, segmentation.
I think we get back to the point that I am trying to make, maybe
rather inarticulately, but that you have to deal with the quorum
question as a constitutional question first. And then, once you have
done that, then you can take it in segments if you will.
But I just don’t see how you can get to proxy voting and have
that count as being in absentia and also being present for a
quorum. And that is what we are doing when we are conflating
proxy voting with a quorum. And, thus, I think that that is why
proxy voting—that is one reason that proxy voting just seems in-
congruous with the constitutional Republic that we are today.
Thank you. Thanks.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
And I want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record
statements from Representatives Plaskett, Velazquez, Waters,
Johnson, Grijalva, Porter, and Ross.
Without objection.
[The information follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Before I see if anyone else has any questions
here, I just want to make the point, we—first of all, let’s not pre-
tend that COVID never happened. I mean, what brought this about
was COVID, this terrible pandemic where people died. We didn’t
know how to handle it at the beginning, and we reacted in a way
basically to protect Members and staff and everybody who works
up here, the Capitol Police.
And like a lot of things that were put into place in a whole vari-
ety of areas as a result of the pandemic, I think it is appropriate
to kind of go back and say, okay, is any of this worth continuing?
And if so, what? And if not, why not? I mean, that is what this dis-
cussion is about.
And I just have to say—and, again, present company excluded—
and I could exclude myself, because I have never voted by proxy.
But when people start talking about how this has been an egre-
gious, you know, breach, I just want to state for the record that 60
percent of Republicans have voted by proxy, including members of
this committee.
So this idea that somehow this is a terrible constitutional breach,
that it is egregious, and then, you know, ‘‘but don’t pay attention
to what I have done.’’
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And I appreciate your consistency. I mean, I have missed
votes——
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
73
Mr. BIGGS. Same here.
The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. As a result. I went to the White
House when the President announced his relaunch of the Moonshot
to combat cancer in this country, and I wanted to go. And people
were saying, ‘‘Oh, you have to vote? You should vote by proxy.’’ No,
because it is not COVID-related. I mean, if I had COVID or if my
kids had COVID or whatever, then there is a justification, in my
view.
But every Member has to make their own decision, right? Every
Member has to decide whether or not this is the appropriate thing
to do. I know you haven’t. I haven’t.
But I just want to put this in context, because I don’t want this
to be viewed as the only people who utilized proxy voting were
Democrats. That is just not the case.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROY. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I just say one thing on that?
The CHAIRMAN. I will go to him and then to you.
Mr. ROY. And I know we want to wrap up, and I don’t want to
belabor it.
I appreciate your consistency on that, and I appreciate you hav-
ing this hearing. And I would not defend any of my colleagues, ei-
ther side of the aisle, who have questioned constitutionality or
raised issues with this and then decided to go ahead and do it, par-
ticularly for reasons that are not COVID-related or might be for,
I think, some dubious reasons, both sides of the aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. No, I——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, I——
Mr. ROY. The only point I want to reiterate is the point—the ex-
ample I made with my Fredericksburg example going to UVA, but
that is true for everybody. Once you go down—this is important for
this discussion. Once you go down the road, then it becomes easier
to play games with the legislative schedule. It becomes easier to,
say, force a late night vote, that if everyone who is voting by proxy,
they are not worried about it because they are hanging out at home
or they are wherever they are. And then there are people going,
well, I am hosed. And then they have to decide, well, what am I
going to do?
And so some kind of flipped their position because this is now the
rules of the game. Once you have changed the rules of the game—
now, I would argue it is unconstitutional, so I am not going to
change the rules. But there is some that were just like, well, God,
I am beaten down, I am going to miss this vote, so I am going to
go ahead vote that way. I just think there is——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. And I guess the other point—and I will
yield to Mr. Reschenthaler—is we are also—the vast majority of
people are back. I have spent more time in this committee in the
last couple of weeks with this wonderful family than I did with my
own family. And when I go to the floor to vote, there is a ton of
people, Democrats and Republicans, voting. Yeah, there are some
people voting by proxy. But this notion that somehow we are not
back, we are not coming back, and we now—I have seen the latest
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
reports about how the whole complex is going to be more opened
up.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
74
But it is not like there is nobody here. The overwhelming major-
ity of people are back and are voting, are debating on the floor.
And I can’t speak for other committees. I can only speak for this
committee, you know, but we are meeting in person. And I am
grateful for that most of the time.
But, anyway, Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, to pre-
serve the record and also for intellectual honesty, look, again, I am
one of the people that voted proxy——
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, did you?
Mr. RESCHENTHALER [continuing]. Which goes against it. Yes, I
did it a few times. But I am still—I still preserve the right to op-
pose the rule on proxy voting, because once the rules are changed,
we got to play by those rules. And if we don’t, there is a huge ad-
vantage to the majority—well, in this case, the majority.
But—so, for example, if we were not proxy voting, and we could
not make it, we would likely give up a 10 percent advantage to the
Democratic Party, because at any given time, roughly 10 percent
of us are not here. With margins this thin, we should still be en-
gaged in proxy voting, because if we don’t, we negate any advan-
tage we have.
But I am going to belabor the point. I will yield back, but I just
want to preserve that point.
The CHAIRMAN. No. And I guess you made the point that winning
is more important than constitutionality. I mean, if we could have
followed that—I am just saying, what I said before about—you
know, again, consistency is one thing. I mean, you have said it, you
believe it is unconstitutional, and you have not utilized it. There
are others who have said it is unconstitutional and have utilized
it.
I do think, for me, if I thought something was unconstitutional,
I wouldn’t do it. I—and everybody has their own comfort level here.
But just for me, if I thought this was unconstitutional, I would
never utilize it. I haven’t utilized it because I haven’t had COVID
or I haven’t had family members who have come down with COVID
where it might make me a risk to all of you. But I am just talking
about, you know, when we talk about this being egregious and peo-
ple utilize it, I think, for me, it is a little bit of a disconnect.
Yeah.
Mr. BIGGS. Well, I appreciate that you see it as a disconnect. And
for me, I am very—I think I have been very consistent.
The CHAIRMAN. I——
Mr. BIGGS. I missed maybe three votes because of not wanting
to vote proxy. But never forget that the majority implemented that
rule. And what happened is, as this developed on, there are people
who have sincerely held views that this is unconstitutional.
The CHAIRMAN. And I am not disputing that.
Mr. BIGGS. Yeah. But my point is, I don’t think that we should
disparage somebody’s motivations.
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah.
Mr. BIGGS. And that is exactly what I think is happening. And
that is all I am saying.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
The CHAIRMAN. No. And I would just say one other thing too,
just for the record, because I think it is important to get this on
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
75
the record. When we debated this, I have a list of Republican Mem-
bers a mile long who came to me and said you got to do this. We
can’t be with you, but you got to do this. And I will—I remain firm
in the belief that what we did, I think, save lives here and allowed
us to continue our work. That is where I come from on this. And
so that is my principle on this.
So, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Just a couple of points. You know, I think to
Mr. Reschenthaler, to Mr. Biggs, Roy, I think you are right, I think
obviously the proxy benefits the majority. The majority is making
the rules. And it benefits leadership. I don’t think there is any dis-
agreement there. Now, you know, how does that play out when we
make a vote on the rules? You know, if you guys are in charge
sometime, you may say, you know what, we want to do proxies. It
depends.
Now, on the constitutionality, just for the record, I got to say,
having been part of, you know, drafting this rule and all that stuff,
the fact that we do have to be here present at the beginning of the
session, you know, which, you know, a year ago was chaotic and
scary, but we had to be here, that is when you—that is when you
set down the rules. And, ultimately, we had to be here again when
we changed this rule.
There is a quorum at that point. There is no issue about that.
And we, in my opinion, and I think the Supreme Court would
agree, I think that is why they didn’t grant cert, because it is, in
my opinion, it is pretty darn clear we have the right to write our
own rules as we see fit.
To your point, were there enough people? Yes, when we did the
rule. And then it—the rules are such for the next 2 years, and then
you have to vote again on the rules package at the beginning of the
session.
And, with that, I will yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I mean,
the discussion has been great. I think we have all said it a million
times.
The CHAIRMAN. We will go to Mr. Roy first. Who was it?
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Well, he was asking for——
The CHAIRMAN. Okay. We will go to Mr. Roy, then Mrs.
Fischbach.
Mr. ROY. I was going to make two points. The first one I was
going to make to the point that we are all back. I would note that
13 percent of the votes that have been cast since the State of the
Union have been cast by proxy. And I don’t believe 13 percent of
the body has been dealing with COVID, but I will let other people
reserve judgment on that to say we are back. Okay.
And then the second point is on this issue. To say that the
quorum principle is transitive, that it translates from day one that
you can then establish quorum essentially for the rest of the
time——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. But the rule is translated, and that is why you
have the quorum.
Mr. ROY. I don’t believe—now, I would take issue with saying
that the constitutional requirement for quorum to then conduct
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
business is a one-time start of the Congress thing, and then you
are done. I would take issue with that.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
76
The CHAIRMAN. Okay.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. [Inaudible.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Chair, thank you.
And I just wanted to point out that the—you know, the majority
put this rule in place, good or bad. I mean, my understanding, and
I wasn’t here originally when it was put into place, but my under-
standing is no Republicans voted for it. And then when we voted
on the rules again, that is the case.
So the majority put this in place. And Mr. Perlmutter admitted
it that this is an advantage to the majority. And I guess I am con-
cerned about the rules being skewed one way or the other on pur-
pose, but that is the case.
And, Mr. McGovern, you say that, you know, it saves lives, it
was good at the time——
The CHAIRMAN. Yeah.
Mrs. FISCHBACH [continuing]. It was everything, but now is the
time to end it. And I think that is what we are getting at, is it
needs to be stopped now.
Potentially, there was a value in it during the pandemic, but we
have the opportunity to end the proxy voting now, where whoever
took advantage of it, didn’t take advantage of it, but that is the
question in front of us. And I do believe that we should be ending
it and go back to the tradition of the institution, which is no proxy
voting. And I mentioned it earlier, over 200 years, we have been—
that has been the way it has been done.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you go, just to make sure, is there any-
body else on the Democratic side who wants to ask a question—I
don’t see anybody.
Mr. ROY. My son Charlie hopes not.
The CHAIRMAN. No, but wait a minute. Dr. Burgess does.
Dr. BURGESS. I am just worried that someone will invoke Mr.
Udall again, so I won’t say anything.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. So you are free to go. Thank you.
All right. So our next panel is Representative DeSaulnier, Rep-
resentative Takano, Representative Rose, and Representative
Westerman.
So, Mr. DeSaulnier, you are on.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK DESAULNIER, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DESAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, so nice to see you. Seems like
just yesterday we were in Worcester.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in front of
this most esteemed committee of the House of Representatives.
As someone who lives with a chronic form of cancer that is man-
ageable but uncurable, I am immunocompromised. I am not alone.
Throughout the United States, there are 7 million people who are
considered immunocompromised.
From the start of this pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention made it clear that people like myself were at in-
creased risk of contracting coronavirus and having worse health
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
outcomes. In more places across the country, people with health
conditions have been adjusting to make sure they can continue to
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
77
work on maintaining their safety. That is exactly what Congress
and our leadership did when it authorized proxy voting and remote
committee participation.
Because of my leukemia and a freak accident I had coming back
from a run on National Mall years ago, that landed me in George
Washington University ICU on a ventilator, my doctors told me
early on in the pandemic that it was unsafe for me to travel on a
plane, gather in the crowded House Chamber, and attend com-
mittee meetings, especially in a very small Rules Committee hear-
ing room.
Proxy voting and remote committee proceedings allowed me to
safely represent the people of California’s 11th District while not
risking my own life. Proxy voting works. It is a low-tech option that
is easy to use, and it has allowed my constituents to have a voice
on the House floor when I was unable to physically be present.
Remote committee proceedings ensured I could continue serving
on Rules and three other House committees I sit on while safely
teleworking. While I and my family are happy to report that I am
healthy and the treatment I take for my leukemia is working, I will
say thankfully much of that treatment, as the taxpayers’ invest-
ment, that has been supported by Members in Congress in bipar-
tisan fashion.
The threat from this virus is not over. Members continue to test
positive. There were at least four last week. Allowing for proxy vot-
ing demonstrates to the American people that we take the advice
of public health experts seriously and can continue to work on be-
half of the country without putting other people’s lives at risk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Cole.
And I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. DeSaulnier follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Representative Takano.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you, Mr. McGovern, Chairman McGov-
ern, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the com-
mittee on the subject matter at hand.
I will just try to cut short some of my introductory remarks and
just get straight to what—what I have observed with the new
House procedures. And there is four points I would like to make
today.
First, the House rules should allow committees to take remote
testimony from witnesses as the standard part of our proceedings.
Prior to hybrid and virtual hearings, too often committees often
only heard from witnesses who had the ability and resources to
travel to Washington, D.C. I have a small travel budget. I could
pay for some witnesses to get here, but certainly not on the kind
of basis that we began to do when we changed the rules.
Allowing witnesses to appear virtually means that we can gather
a much greater amount of diversity of opinions and experiences
and, therefore, gain a more complete understanding of the issues.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Virtual hearings allowed us—allowed my committee to hear from
many more veteran organizations, representing minority, women,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
78
Native, LGBTQ+, and other veteran communities, some of whom
would not have been able to join in person.
As an example, one compelling witness we met at our roundtable
on veterans and the digital divide. The witness is a double ampu-
tee, living in very rural Montana. He told us that to testify in
Washington, that would require him—he would be required to
catch a once-a-day Amtrak, travel 2 hours to the nearest airport
thereafter, and then catch two flights to Washington, D.C.
This is the type of American that we need to continue to hear
from, and it is my hope that we can allow virtual testimony in the
future in order to open the door to diverse voices here. The pan-
demic taught us that we can use technology to bring the govern-
ment closer to the people.
Second, the pandemic forced us to modernize some antiquated
House practices that we should continue. For instance, introducing
bills, adding cosponsors, filing committee reports, signing letters,
and other official actions were rightly made an electronic exercise
during the past 2 years. As Members, we may not have noticed the
change, but these updated procedures have saved many hours of
work for our staff and should be continued and improved upon.
Third, Congress must strengthen its technological ability to han-
dle virtual hearings. We must acknowledge the hard work and long
hours performed by the House Information Technology and Record-
ing Studio staff, as well as committee and personal office staff to
support these events and determine the best systems to use under
stressful times.
However, even after 2 years, we have not worked out all of the
kinks. Committee rooms still do not have the technology that we
need to avoid issues as basic as sound quality and reliable
connectivity. We still use workarounds to ensure that we can inte-
grate in-person and remote participation to attempt to hold seam-
less proceedings. We need support staff and resources devoted to
the virtual aspects of our work for the long-term. Technology con-
tracts should be both robust and flexible and should account for
necessary support for these—for remote hearings.
I might just add that I am hopeful that the bipartisan infrastruc-
ture bill, which provides funding for rural areas and underserved
urban areas in terms of broadband, is also partly the solution to
make sure that there are connections from throughout the country
that are going to be reliable and secure, allowing various parts of
our country, diverse parts of our country, to be able to participate
in what goes on here in Washington. So the House should continu-
ously evaluate the technology options available so that we can
test—that we may best meet our responsibilities to the American
people.
Fourth, we should ensure the House rules clearly address lessons
for—that we have learned for holding virtual hearings. There is a
need for more guidance and training for Members and staff on how
to successfully hold virtual markups and hearings, as well as addi-
tional guidance on the enforcement of decorum. At the very least,
we must be prepared for the next emergency that forces Congress
to work virtually, and there will be another emergency. This is not
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
a matter of if but when a major natural or human-made disaster
strikes.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
79
I believe my committee’s experience has shown that remote pro-
ceedings can be successful, and there is also additional work to be
done. And I look forward to continuing to engage with this com-
mittee on that effort.
I just might, on a final note, just—I was just looking on this
issue of the quorum and proxy voting, and probably the hours of
testimony that preceded me, you probably already covered the sort
of experience in 1918 and the pandemic and the idea that we had
a quorum of 50. And there was hope then that somebody would not
object to the absence of a quorum. But the government actually ran
on 50 votes. And so it seems to me an absolutist reading of some
parts of our Constitution—the parts of our Constitution address the
presence of a quorum.
I mean, I don’t know how much more democratic it is; if 50 peo-
ple were running the government, then all 435 of us being able to
participate because of proxy voting. That is my final reflection, and
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Takano follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rose, Representative Rose, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN W. ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. ROSE. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman McGovern, and Ranking Member Cole,
and members of the committee, for allowing me to provide testi-
mony on proxy voting and remote committee proceedings as estab-
lished by the House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress and re-
newed in the 117th Congress due to the public health emergency
established in 2020.
Since May of 2020 when the House Resolution 965 was passed,
thousands of votes have been cast in committees and in the House
Chamber without ever being—without Members being physically
present. Unfortunately, Members were allowed no alternative to re-
mote committee proceedings, but we were allowed to choose wheth-
er or not to participate in proxy voting in the House.
To this day, I am proud to have been one of, by my count, 56
Members of the House who have, in my opinion, not abdicated
their constitutional duty to represent their constituents by partici-
pating in proxy voting.
There are many reasons for this. First, and most importantly,
failing to vote on important legislative matters in person would be
failing my constituents that elected me and trusted me to serve
their best interest in Congress. My constituents wake up every
morning and go to work on the farm to feed our families, in the
classroom to teach our children, into the police station to serve and
protect our communities, or into the factory to make the things we
use in our everyday lives.
They should rightfully expect the same from me and all Members
of Congress. When we don’t meet those expectations, when we don’t
lead by example, we lose the moral authority to lead our country
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
during one of the most perilous times in our history when such
leadership is most direly needed.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
80
Second, oftentimes, there are important discussions, debates, and
procedures that happen in the Chamber. Constituents whose Mem-
bers vote by proxy and, thus, do not have their Representative
present in the Chamber, lose out on those thoughtful discussions
and debates that can sway opinions or change legislation.
While the world is becoming more connected than ever with this
constant streaming of ideas and information on the internet, its
people are actually becoming more detached from reality as we
spend more time on our phones than we do with real people. This
has almost assuredly been at least a contributing factor to the rise
of raw partisanship we see in the Congress today, where toxicity
amongst political ideas or ideologies has become the norm.
One simple way to combat this is by meeting face-to-face and ac-
tually listening to one another’s ideas. Of course, we may choose
to disagree on particular issues, but it is easier to understand and
to respect from where the other side may be coming by simply hav-
ing those face-to-face conversations.
I have found that respect and affinity for one another is almost
always enhanced from a positive face-to-face human interaction.
Unfortunately, we seem to have fewer and fewer of these opportu-
nities today, and proxy voting only exacerbates the situation.
Last, the rule on establishing proxy voting and remote committee
procedures was implemented during a time when our strategy was
to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on healthcare providers.
We put our trust in public health officials and locked ourselves in-
side our homes for 15 days to slow the spread, or flatten the curve
as some said.
Commercial flights ground to a halt, and lodging was nearly im-
possible to find as governments imposed restrictive measures to
limit private businesses from offering services, in a countrywide ef-
fort to mitigate the health effects COVID would have in the short
run of the pandemic.
This, obviously, made it difficult for Members to travel to Wash-
ington, D.C., hold hearings, and conduct additional official busi-
ness, as it would have flown in the face of our public health offi-
cials. But those days are long over. There are no more excuses or
mandates. As the resolution makes clear, the only purpose of proxy
voting should be due to the ongoing health emergency, which no
longer exists, in my opinion.
Members bring no honor to themselves or to this institution
when a foregone public health emergency is used as the reasoning
for them not casting their votes in person. At the end of the day,
Members of Congress have a constitutional duty to represent their
constituents. While we can differ in our opinions as exactly what
is required of us to satisfy those constitutional responsibilities, we
are all sworn to uphold—and surely, surely we can agree that there
is merit and honor in striving to optimize, not merely meet those
obligations.
By continuing to proxy vote after any national health emergency
has obviously dissipated, the quality of our representation of our
constituents is to one degree or the other diminished. The pan-
demic has brought much heartache on our constituents and our
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
country. The least we can do is make our best effort to represent
them as effectively as possible. And to do that, the requirement for
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
81
in-house voting and the face-to-face Member interaction that ac-
complishes such—accompanies such is an essential component.
I hope the committee takes into account these reasons for why
I have chosen not to participate in proxy voting, and will finally
mark the end of this emergency procedure that may never have
been appropriate but that has certainly outlived any legitimacy it
may have ever had.
Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the com-
mittee.
[The statement of Mr. Rose follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Representative Westerman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKAN-
SAS
Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Chair McGovern and members the
committee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on the im-
pacts of remote committee proceedings.
You know, the word ‘‘Congress’’ means the act of coming together
or meeting, and that is what I believe this body should reflect.
Mr. Chairman, I have not voted by proxy or remotely from out-
side of D.C., even on committee markups. And although I have
strong convictions about voting in person, I want to focus my re-
marks today on why I believe remote committee meetings are detri-
mental to our Congress and why virtual is not the best way to
come together or to meet.
In June of 2021, the House Committee on Natural Resources
held its first hybrid full committee hearing, where we received tes-
timony from Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland. At that time,
I expressed my frustration that it had taken 6 months for our com-
mittee to hold an in-person hearing. Little did I know then that
meeting would be our only in-person full committee meeting of the
117th Congress to date.
Simply put, I believe the persistence of remote proceedings has
made our committee and this institution less civil toward our col-
leagues and witnesses, less efficient and effective as a deliberative
body and, ultimately, less able to serve the constituents we were
all elected to represent.
I never thought I would have to say this, but committee pro-
ceedings are not a time to shave your face or brush your teeth, and
they are certainly not a time to change your pants, but I have seen
it all on remote proceedings. Sometimes I wish I could unsee
things, but I simply can’t.
While my Democratic colleagues may not always agree with the
positions of our Republican Members, just as I don’t always agree
with our Democratic Members, our committee rules exist for an
open, fair, and respectful debate of pressing issues. Unfortunately,
in our committee, Members of the Democratic majority have found
new ways to circumvent our rules and weigh in without saying a
word, constructing tinfoil hats that they probably wear on the non-
public back end while our Republican colleagues are speaking.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
The disrespect in our committee is not limited to interaction be-
tween Members either. We have had Members of our Democratic
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
82
majority make fun of witnesses for their attire, lie in bed, and
order and eat their lunch while witnesses are offering testimony.
I can only imagine the disrespect the witnesses who have worked
days and nights to prepare the testimony they are presenting be-
fore our committee, that disrespect that they must feel when they
see these kinds of actions from Members of Congress.
Conversely, we have also had Members deprived of their ability
to engage and question witnesses. When witnesses choose to log off
from committee proceedings before adjournment, Members lose the
opportunity to benefit from the expertise of the witnesses. Unfortu-
nately, in some instances, early witness departure has been due to
technical difficulties. Other times, it was a calculated action to
avoid questions that challenged their testimony or were contrary to
their own world view. Regardless, it is an unfortunate outcome that
could be easily remedied by a return to in-person proceedings.
A virtual format also deprives Members of full participation in
committee hearings. Looking at a computer screen of faces is not
the same as being in a room together. In addition, the value of per-
sonal interaction with our colleagues. We have had Republican
Members denied recognition to speak because the chair could not
hear them over background noise or because of technical difficulties
on the chair’s end. Now, this is just in the Natural Resources Com-
mittee. I also serve on the Transportation Committee.
Representative Bost talked about people voting in their swim
trunks on the lake. We have seen all kinds of things in the Trans-
portation Infrastructure Committee that I don’t believe are becom-
ing of what Congress should be about.
Recently, in our committee, a subcommittee hearing was delayed
because the Democratic subcommittee chair was precluded by Dem-
ocrat staff from participating in person from the committee room.
The hearing was noticed as remote and, therefore, the staff would
not turn on the AV equipment in the room, and the chair was
forced to run back to his office and log on to his computer alone.
While he relocated, the entire subcommittee proceeding was held in
limbo.
While the Natural Resources Committee hearing room has been
open upon request for the use during committee proceedings this
Congress, I must bring my laptop and earbuds to participate as our
proceedings have been remote, and the majority will not turn on
the microphones or the AV equipment in the hearing room. Mem-
bers who show up in person are forced to be on their computers,
even though our hearing room is one of the most technologically
advanced rooms within the House office buildings.
This is the challenge the subcommittee chair encountered when
he mistakenly thought he could conduct his hearing from the hear-
ing room. He didn’t have his laptop, and the committee refused to
move to a hybrid format.
American taxpayers did not equip Congress with offices and tech-
nology for it not to be available or to be used. At times, Members
have even lost the ability to have their votes counted accurately,
or counted at all, as the clerk tries to align videos with voices on
the Brady Bunch screen in the room.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
With all these antics, I worry that some Members and witnesses
have stopped taking congressional committee business seriously.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
83
We see this every meeting when Members are seen laughing on
long phone calls, playing musical instruments, and making meals,
unmuting only to vote and change their votes when they learn that
the measure—that what the measure was that we were considering
was not the one they were voting on.
A colleague made it through a whole opening statement for the
wrong hearing, one she had already given, before realizing a mis-
take. Our ability to legislate is at stake. It appears that remote
proceedings have allowed Members to treat legislating like a device
they can turn on and off instead of a job they have been elected
to do with their constituents.
Congress is not, nor has it ever been, a virtual body, and we can-
not simply turn off our responsibilities to our constituents. During
a time of global unrest, skyrocketing gas prices, energy and secu-
rity dependence on rogue nations for our minerals, and historic
wildfires and drought, the Natural Resources Committee has seri-
ous work to do.
Virtual legislation, I believe, has gone on long enough. The
American people cannot wait until gas hits $6 a gallon before we
decide to come back and get to work. This country is open for busi-
ness, and Congress should be as well.
There has been a lot of discussion, as I have listened in, about
technology, how we should embrace it and how we should use it.
And I think there is a format for that. I think we can have
roundtables that aren’t formal committee hearings where we do
that virtually, and people don’t have to have the expenses of flying
here to D.C., and we can embrace technology. But I believe when
it is an official, formal meeting of Congress, that we should do that
in person.
And I really appreciate you taking time to consider this issue. It
was not something that I expected to happen, and was pleased to
have the opportunity to come and voice my concerns. With that, I
yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
I thank you all for your testimony and your patience here today.
Again, I just want to kind of put all this in perspective. I mean,
these procedures were brought forward in the middle—in the be-
ginning of this pandemic. And I continue to believe that what we
did saved lives. I think it was a responsible thing to do. The point
of this hearing is to look at all the things that we have done, not
just here in Congress, but things that we have done to help pro-
grams become more efficient. You know, what should be kept and
what shouldn’t? And is it all, or is it nothing, or is it a piece of
this? And that is what we are looking at.
And so we still have a national health emergency, whether we
all—hopefully, it is going in the right direction. We have an aver-
age of a thousand people a day dying of COVID. Yesterday was
2,000. I hope the trends continue to go down, but that is just the
reality.
We heard from Mr. DeSaulnier, his unique set of circumstances.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And, you know, we value his ability to participate in this com-
mittee and to be able to represent his constituents back in Cali-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
84
fornia. And so I think there are—the question is, are there excep-
tions here?
In terms of the decorum on hearings, I can’t speak for every com-
mittee—I mean, I am only on this committee—but, you know, we
don’t deny the minority access to this room or we don’t shut down
the audiovisual equipment, although one time we had the air-con-
ditioning on too high in the winter, and everybody was getting cold.
But other than that, it wasn’t intentional.
But the point of the matter is there are rules, believe it or not,
that accompanied the measures that we took here, including rules
about decorum. And to be honest with you, all the chairs should
insist that those rules be enforced. And I think if they are not, you
have every right to complain.
I think Members remotely, for example, must conform to the
same standards for proper attire as required to participate in a
committee proceeding in person. I mean, I just want to—I am not
going to read all of them here, but there are standards here that
are supposed to be followed. If they are not, it is perfectly appro-
priate to call it out. And we need to reflect on that, as we move
forward, to say it. How do we make sure everybody follows the
rules that were there?
As far as somebody changing their pants in the middle of a hear-
ing, that is a new one. We haven’t seen that in this committee yet,
and I hope we never do.
But I just point that out to you because these rules were put in
place for the safety of all those who work up here and making sure
that we had the ability to get our work done. If the rules aren’t
being followed, if certain committees are not adhering to the basic
rules of decorum, then we should have a discussion about that as
well.
So, again, I appreciate your testimony. And I am—and, again, we
heard a lot of different ideas today, and we certainly value your
contribution here.
Did you want to——
Mr. ROSE. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, okay. You were just—okay. I am going to
yield to Dr. Burgess.
Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Takano, it is a little bit off topic, can I ask you, are the men
and women who work at the Department of Veterans Affairs work-
ing remotely or are they back in the building?
Mr. TAKANO. I don’t know how to answer that. I mean, I have
not been over there recently. And time—you know, things change
very quickly. I mean, I have—so the answer is I don’t know.
Dr. BURGESS. You know, it strikes me, and it has been a problem
for sometime; it is not just during the pandemic and with remote
working, but getting questions answered by veterans from the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs takes a long time. And I don’t know
if you have done any oversight hearings as to has this problem in-
creased with remote working at the Department?
Mr. TAKANO. Just off the top of my head, I mean, I have to get
back with you on that question. We have done some oversight. We
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
have concerns about there has been a backlog of claims processing
and because of the way exams get done and, yeah, the comp and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
85
pen exams. So there was a lot of issues there that I am not pre-
pared to answer that question, but I will definitely get back to you
about that, Dr. Burgess.
Dr. BURGESS. And I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. It is—
my office in the Rayburn Building is right across from the Hubert
Humphrey Building. I don’t think there has been a light on in that
building for 2 years. I mean, it is working from home.
I get the impression that the CDC is the same way. I feel like
the FDA in a lot of instances is not onsite and working. Again, I
know the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not in. It
seems like it has lengthened the time that our constituents are re-
quired to get an answer to their questions.
And the only reason I bring that up is we can’t very well ask the
men and women of the Health and Human Services, Department
of Energy to go back into their buildings and get to work if we are
not willing to abide by that ourselves. So there is a real down-
stream consequence of not recognizing that whatever was nec-
essary to get us through the pandemic is now in the rearview mir-
ror. Mrs. Fischbach outlined it very eloquently in the last panel,
but we need to recognize it is in the rearview mirror and get back
to work.
This morning, our Doctors Caucus had a briefing with the head
of the—the Director of the CDC, and I was grateful that she came
on. It was an important opportunity for us to exchange ideas. Un-
fortunately, because of technology, the first 15 minutes were kind
of lost. And that is the reason I was late to get to this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
But what came up in that briefing was concern about the loss of
credibility that our Federal agencies have, in the CDC’s case, be-
cause of conflicting information. And Mr. Hoyer tells us, well, ev-
erything was necessary over here, done with CDC guidance for
mandatory masking, and yet at the same time, the Senate didn’t.
And so the public looks at that and says, this doesn’t add up. This
is not consistent. We don’t know whether to believe what is coming
out of our Federal agencies, our public health agencies. We don’t
know whether to believe that or not.
And so then when they are confronted with losing their job be-
cause they don’t do a vaccine, when the Federal Government says
they have to, even though the Federal Government doesn’t have
the authority to do that, they get rightly frustrated, and oftentimes
they take that frustration out on their Member of Congress. I am
sure many of you have felt it as well.
But, Mr. Rose, let me just ask you, is this your first trip up here?
Mr. ROSE, My first trip to Rules?
Dr. BURGESS. Yes.
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Dr. BURGESS. Well, welcome. I thought it was. And, usually, we
acknowledge a Member’s first visit to this—to the Rules Com-
mittee. And welcome. We hope it is a first of many, now that you
know where we are.
Mr. ROSE. Thank you.
Dr. BURGESS. Don’t make yourself so scarce.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
The CHAIRMAN. Do you need to——
Mr. TAKANO. May I be excused?
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
86
The CHAIRMAN. Anybody need to question him?
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Oh, I am so tempted, Mr. Chairman. I will not
object. I will not object. He can go.
Dr. BURGESS. Yes, thank you for your participation. Thanks for
answering my questions.
Again, Mr. Rose, welcome to the Rules Committee. It is a—as
you can see, we are an unheralded but extremely important part
of the function of this Congress.
And, Mr. Westerman, I appreciate your comments. We heard
from Mr. Cole when he was here how markups in the Appropria-
tions Committee were done as—as markups were done in person.
And I think that is important.
Man, we have had all these reconciliation bills, the infrastructure
bill, all this stuff that came through committees where—that I
serve on as well, jurisdiction Energy and Commerce, jurisdiction on
the Budget Committee. But the first actual hearing was here in the
Rules Committee. And oftentimes, it is a bill that spent $1.8 tril-
lion or $1.9 trillion.
But what I have noticed in the virtual markups is, because of the
sake of expediency, the staff gets a lot of control. Committee staff
gets a lot of control over how those markups are conducted, what
amendments are going to be heard, what amendments are going to
be made in order, which ones are going to be allowed to come to
a recorded vote. And the structure of the hearing is changed be-
cause it is a virtual—a markup, rather, is changed because it is a
virtual markup. And I just wondered if you had any experience
with that in your committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Yeah. And I know it varies highly across com-
mittees, which I don’t think it should be that way. If we are going
to have rules, they should apply across the committees on the deco-
rum and the way the hearings are held.
I mentioned I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. Those, you can go to the meeting room, you can use the
audiovisual equipment, the microphones are there. It is much bet-
ter. Although, there is a large screen with a lot of squares on it
with people who are coming remotely.
The Natural Resources Committee, you literally have to take
your laptop in, put earbuds in and—so that you are not disturbing
other people with the sound coming across your computer.
Dr. BURGESS. Well, if I may, taking testimony in a hearing is one
thing, but an actual markup where you are preparing the legisla-
tion then to come to us in a Rules Committee, an actual markup
is different. And it is harder to do that remotely, at least that has
been my observation.
I was actually relieved to hear Chairman Cole—I am sorry,
Ranking Member Cole—say that in the Appropriations Committee,
they actually had in-person—not virtual but in-person markups. I
found the virtual markups in Energy and Commerce to be cum-
bersome. In the Budget Committee, they were hopeless.
And, again, you abdicate a lot of our input, our authority as
Members of Congress, elected Members of Congress. And, obvi-
ously, it goes somewhere. Nature abhors a vacuum. So staff takes
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
on that role and decides which amendments are going to be heard,
which amendments are going to be allowed to have a vote, in the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
87
name of expediency, to get things to go, because these things are
cumbersome sometimes and take a lot of time. The actual partici-
pation is sacrificed. I just wondered if you have experienced that
in yours.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Absolutely. And I think—you know, I like com-
ing to the Rules Committee because you all are in-person, because
I can look around the room and see facial expressions, and it is a
much better way to——
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Gestures.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Gestures, yeah.
Dr. BURGESS. Strike that from the record.
Mr. WESTERMAN. But it allows that interaction. And one thing I
have noticed having—you know, obviously been through a lot of
committee hearings that were in person, is that the virtual hear-
ings interrupt the dialogue. You know, a lot of times one member
will be talking, and they may refer to another member, and some-
body would say, would the gentleman yield, and you have a little
bit of a dialogue. And it makes—I think it brings a lot more to the
meeting. But if you are virtually and somebody interrupts to ask
somebody else to yield, it just throws the whole meeting off.
And then you get to all the connectivity issues. Especially on
markups. You know, anytime, I believe, when we are voting, I
would hope we would do that in person and not—I hope we move
back to in-person meetings.
Dr. BURGESS. Yeah, I do too. And I appreciate your participation,
Mr. Rose, your participation.
I will yield back to the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
And I just want to—Mr. Westerman, you had mentioned that the
only in-person Natural Resources hearing was with Secretary
Haaland. And, you know, people were actually watching this hear-
ing, and apparently at that hearing, it turns out there was a mem-
ber who was COVID positive, who refused to wear a mask, and
Chairman Grijalva, who is in several high-risk categories, caught
COVID. So I guess I can understand why they didn’t continue
meeting in person. But, anyway, I just wanted to point that out for
the record.
I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Just quickly, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair-
man, I want to thank staff, both sides. I mean, we were in an
emergency, and we needed to protect the Members, the staff, all of
the witnesses, given COVID, and what we knew and what we
didn’t know about COVID. And the doctor—you know, we were
learning on the go dealing with COVID.
So I just want to thank everybody for allowing the government
to continue, for us to be able to continue to operate, do it in a way
that was safe, clearly not perfect, but it was an emergency.
And at the end of the day, Mr. Rose can agree with me or dis-
agree with me on that, but in Financial Services, it was really—
we were stumbling for a while, but then we learned how to do it.
And it is a big committee. And, you know, it would be Perlmutter
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
votes whatever. And, you know, we learned that you got to call
twice because somebody might fumble a little bit. And, you know,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
88
by the end, we can do this thing pretty quickly and pretty effi-
ciently coming through an emergency.
So I felt the rule, at the time, and I expressed this at the time,
was too limited. I felt it should be more expansive, not limited to
just COVID-related things. But, in the end, what we did was we
allowed the government to continue and people to be safe with a
virus that none of us understood, and it turned out to be pretty
darn dangerous.
Second thing I wanted to say was, for me—and there is other
philosophies—but for me, the ability to allow my staff and others
to work remotely, to testify remotely, whatever, if they do the job,
I am okay. They don’t have to be here. I don’t have to see them.
I don’t—you know, and I like you when I pass in the hallway, and
I like talking to you, but that doesn’t mean it has to be here. If
the job gets done, that suffices for me.
The last thing, I believe, opposite of what some have testified,
given the fact that we have done lots of conference calls when we
first were kind of getting into this, whether it was within our cau-
cuses or as committees, and then Zooms, the communication level
on a pretty regular basis has increased among all—at least
among—or on legislative issues, if you will, you know.
And so I believe we should expand this rule. I think it should be
ongoing. I think we are going to hold the House, and we should
keep the rule in place. If Mr. Davis is correct, then he can change
it. But I don’t think it makes a lot of sense. I think we need to take
technology and use it to our benefit.
And I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
And I know Mr. DeSaulnier has another hearing to go to. Does
anyone have any questions for him? We can let him go?
You are free to go.
Mr. DESAULNIER. I think I want to stay, Mr. Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will be brief be-
cause I mentioned it before. And, you know, if this was—if this was
something that had to be done, and I wasn’t here when it originally
went into place, we need to stop now. We are over that. You know,
we know what—we know what to expect.
Most of the rest of the country is getting back to normal, and we
need to get back to our business, get our business back to normal,
and end the proxy voting. And if there is something that needs to
be looked at with remote hearings, what—you know, with Mr. Perl-
mutter, then that needs to be examined.
But, at this point, we are over the emergency, and we need to
get back to normal and take the—you know, the advantage for the
majority, take this—take the rule away now, the proxy voting rule
away now because, admittedly, it gave that advantage to the ma-
jority. And I just—again, we are just missing so much without that
personal interaction.
And, with that, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
89
I have taken some careful notes on these witnesses and the prior
panels, and I am counting six different values that have been in-
voked as being implicated by the proxy rules or the new hearing
rules. And let me just quickly state what they are.
One is democracy, having the voice of the people represented.
Second is Republican representation, meaning dialogue and discus-
sion among Members. Third is friendships among Members. Fourth
is civility among Members. Fifth is the efficiency of the legislative
process. And sixth is etiquette and the appearances of things.
And it seems to me that we sort of have had three different posi-
tions on the table. I do want to associate myself with Mr.
Perlmutter’s remarks about the past. I think what we did was an
absolute necessity. And you are to be commended for your leader-
ship, Mr. Chairman, which was historic in terms of rising to the
occasion and getting us through the nightmare of COVID–19,
which has cost us nearly a million of our people and caused so
many problems in the country.
But I want to talk about the future, because now what we have
the advantage of being able to look at what took place with COVID,
and we are able to make a decision not in the context of the emer-
gency and the crisis quite so much as before. And I would say that
there is sort of three types of solutions that have been advanced
that we could subject to the test of these six different values.
One is the Gaetz position, we can call it that, which is that it
is better for us not to be here whenever we don’t need to be here.
And so I guess that militates towards being absent is much—being
absent as much as possible. And a rule that would get to that is
sort of the one, I am not sure if he is supporting it, but the one
that Mr. Perlmutter articulated of you can use proxy whenever you
want, essentially.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I am supporting that.
Mr. RASKIN. He is supporting that. Okay. So we will call it the
Gaetz-Perlmutter position for the record.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Oh, come on.
Mr. RASKIN. So, all right, which is basically you can opt out
whenever you want to opt out of being physically present, and you
can vote by proxy. That is in one extreme.
The other extreme is you never allow it, and we compel physical
presence in all cases for voting.
And there is the one that—which I have tried to articulate based
on our recent experience, which is that presence is to be presumed
and favored in all circumstances, except when a person has a com-
pelling medical reason that makes it impossible for them to come
or a compelling family reason that justifies their absence.
Okay. And I think, you know, if you quickly run down all of the
values, I do think that the position I am outlining is the one that
best advances every value that has been invoked by the Members
who have come here today.
First of all, in terms of Democratic representation of our con-
stituents, I think—I mean, it is a tie between here, my rule and
the Perlmutter-Gaetz rule. I mean, everybody is going to be able
to vote a hundred percent of the time, which means their people
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
will be a hundred percent represented. If we go with never allowing
it, then there are going to be millions of people who are not rep-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
90
resented in almost every vote that takes place on the House floor.
And if somebody gets really sick, then a constituency could go for
weeks or months without being represented.
Okay. Republican representation, dialogue. Well, I would again
argue that—that the compelling reason for voting proxy and par-
ticipating—and being able to participate that way in terms of hear-
ings advances maximum dialogue, because we are not losing the
voice of people who are sick, or they have just lost a family mem-
ber, or for—you know, they are medically compromised and they
can’t leave. We are losing their voice. We are losing the ability to
get their views. So we are reducing Republican dialogue by saying
it is only going to be the 80 percent or 90 percent of the people who
can be physically present.
Civility. Well, I think, again, my system advances civility the
best, because the presumption is we are there, we are respecting
each other, but we also respect each other enough to know that
people experience medical infirmities and family emergencies. And
that is a gesture and an expression of civility too, to say, everybody
goes through these things and we can accept that.
Friendship. I don’t know to what extent, you know, the Constitu-
tion or the people necessarily favor friendship, but it is clearly
something that the Members have talked about. I think it is the
exact same thing. I think that it promotes friendship among the
Members like it provokes civility. There seems to be this presump-
tion that if we are all physically present, everybody is nice to each
other. I have been sitting on the floor with a Republican colleague,
and I have had other Republican colleagues come up to us and yell
‘‘traitor’’ at that person. Okay. Face-to-face, 3 feet away. We have
seen school board meetings where people show up and scream in
each other’s faces and talk about going home and getting their
guns and so on.
So you can be rude in person, you can be sweet in person. You
can be nice on Zoom, you can be mean on Zoom. So I just think
that the technology and the physical presence are indeterminate
factors in terms of the behavior of our colleagues.
In terms of efficiency, I think it promotes efficiency here to have
the maximum participation of people. Sometimes people get sick or
otherwise waylaid whose presence is needed, right. And so——
And, finally, I do think, in terms of etiquette, I think your point
is probably right that physical presence and never allowing it
might—might best advance etiquette. Although the chair is correct
that you can have rules of etiquette that apply to Zoom, that apply
to physical presence. You know, I have seen people wearing sneak-
ers on the House floor and sneaking on, you know, doing this or
that. You can also violate, you know, rules of etiquette in person
like you can do it on Zoom. But it does seem easier. I think you
win on that point. But I would say that the etiquette point might
be the least value, the lowest value of democracy, Republican dia-
logue, efficiency, and so on.
So, Mr. Chairman—and I don’t know whether either of you want
to comment on my rundown of those different values, but I tried
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
to systematize it a little bit because I like to try to think in a sys-
tematic way as possible because people are throwing in all kinds
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
91
of different values and principals and then making judgments
about them. And I think we need to try to discipline it.
Mr. ROSE. Since you coined one as the Perlmutter-Gaetz position,
I wonder if you want to ascribe a name to the other two positions?
Mr. RASKIN. Well, the one of never allowing it—well, I think sev-
eral people have said go back to never allowing a proxy. I don’t
know if somebody wants to have it named after them. I don’t know,
is that the Rose——
Mr. ROSE. No.
Mr. RASKIN. Okay. But I am happy to—I am happy to embrace
the Raskin rule of the compelling medical or family reason.
Did you have anything, Mr. Westerman?
Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes, sir. I commend you. I think you are a good
notetaker in categorizing and systemizing things well. And I don’t
necessarily agree with your six points there.
Mr. Perlmutter talked about it works, but I think we should be
striving to what works best. And I still believe it works best when
we are in person.
And I don’t want to get into the chairman of my committee’s
health records, but I don’t think he caught COVID from that meet-
ing we had in person. And I am pretty sure our members were very
cognizant of wearing masks while Secretary Haaland was there. I
think he had gotten COVID a year before that, and I think he even
got another case of it when he was back home. But I just wanted
to set the record straight on that.
And, also, I don’t think—you know, we can talk about the past,
where we were, how we got there, the benefits of it, but I was hop-
ing this was about the future, where we are going. And is it time
to end virtual hearings? Is it time to come back and vote in person?
I mean, I know when we voted for the Speaker, that there were
COVID-positive Members that were allowed in the Chamber. There
was even a Plexiglass container built up in the gallery to house
them in. So, you know, there is—seems like there is always some
political motivation behind what happens here.
But, hopefully, going forward, my wish will be that we could get
back to in-person meetings and get back to voting in person as
well. And, again, I appreciate the committee having the hearing
and hearing us out.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Any other questions?
If there are no other questions, you are free to go. Thank you
very much.
Yeah, let me just again reiterate, this is not an either/or type of
thing. The deal is, you can allow for there to be hybrid hearings
or virtual hearings, but you may never utilize them, or you may
utilize them once; it may make sense once. But the ability to have
that option is something we want to—as we look to the future, do
you want to preserve that?
And I should say that proxy voting didn’t end the Republic. And
I think we all agree that presence is important, and more and more
people understand that. And more and more people are here in per-
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
son, and more and more committee meetings are in person. And
that is the trend that we all want to go in. And, you know, it is
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
92
one of the reasons why I got us back into this committee room as
soon as the doctors and scientists said it was okay to do so.
As I said, the pandemic is not yet over. A thousand people a day
dying, 2,000 people yesterday. I think there are situations in the
future, post-pandemic, that we heard here today where there might
be exceptions, you know, where proxy voting might be useful.
Again, I go back to Mr. DeSaulnier’s testimony. Yeah, I mean, he
has a compelling case here. And I don’t think he wants his voters
disenfranchised, and I don’t think his voters want him not to be
able to participate.
While proxy voting wasn’t created for a number of the situations
we talked about here today, it has actually helped increase voting
participation in the House, believe it or not. Based on recent vote
analysis by CQ Roll Call, House Members participated in a record
98 percent of roll call votes taken in 2021. You know, that is the
highest rate of voting participation in the House since 1953, when
they began tracking these numbers. More Members voting means
more Americans are being represented in each vote.
And I would say, I don’t think—this is not about political advan-
tage. The deal is, to the extent Democrats have a political advan-
tage, it is that more Democrats were elected to Congress than Re-
publicans. And if for some reason Mr. Perlmutter and I couldn’t be
here or if it meant the difference in a vote, you know, on an impor-
tant vote, they would probably postpone the vote until we can get
here.
So this is not about anything other than giving people the oppor-
tunity during these difficult times or during difficult times in their
life to be able to participate. Three-hundred-and-eighty Members
have used proxy voting, which means over 280 million Americans
have had their voices represented on the House floor through the
proxy system.
And, look, I want to suggest, after listening to our discussion,
that there may be a case for a limited use of proxy voting in the
future if there is a major natural disaster in your district, the
death of somebody in your family, or a severe illness when you
can’t get on an airplane, where it is not safe. I mean, I think that
is what we would be talking about.
I am not yet with—I am not convinced that the Perlmutter-Gaetz
way is the way to go. But I think that those are good uses that
could benefit the entire institution.
I also want to say that, again, the remote committee proceedings
have helped Congress hear from a more diverse list of witnesses
from across the country, because, quite frankly, sometimes it costs
a lot of money or people can’t afford to miss work to come here and
to testify. I mean, we have been able to do that. We should find
more ways to stay engaged with our constituents, and having folks
testify virtually I think is a net positive for this institution.
Again, I think all of us, I think, are of the mindset that, to the
extent possible, we should be here in person as much as possible,
because there is benefit to that. But the stuff that we have done
hasn’t resulted in the end of our Republic or an undermining of
this institution.
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
And I would just close with this. Yeah, this is a very polarized
Congress. We have a very polarized political situation in this coun-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
93
try. It had nothing to do with proxy voting. Now, as Mr. Raskin
pointed out, I mean, there are some pretty non-civil moments up
close and personal. We ought to have a discussion about what we
can do to lower the temperature here on that.
But, in any event, I think this was a necessary thing. We have
a lot to think about. Thank you for taking the time.
Thank you to everybody on this committee for sticking with it.
Thank you to the staff on both sides of the aisle for all that you
have done.
And there is nobody else here, so, with that, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
94
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 190 here 49396A.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
95
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 191 here 49396A.002
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
96
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 192 here 49396A.003
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
97
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 193 here 49396A.004
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
98
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 194 here 49396A.005
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
99
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 195 here 49396A.006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
100
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 196 here 49396A.007
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
101
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 197 here 49396A.008
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
102
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 198 here 49396A.009
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
103
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 199 here 49396A.010
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
104
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 200 here 49396A.011
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
105
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 201 here 49396A.012
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
106
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 202 here 49396A.013
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
107
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 203 here 49396A.014
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
108
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 204 here 49396A.015
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
109
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 205 here 49396A.016
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
110
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 206 here 49396A.017
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
111
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 207 here 49396A.018
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
112
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 208 here 49396A.019
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
113
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 209 here 49396A.020
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
114
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 210 here 49396A.021
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
115
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 211 here 49396A.022
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
116
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 212 here 49396A.023
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
117
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 213 here 49396A.024
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
118
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 214 here 49396A.025
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
119
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 215 here 49396A.026
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
120
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 216 here 49396A.027
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
121
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 217 here 49396A.028
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
122
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 218 here 49396A.029
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
123
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 219 here 49396A.030
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
124
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 220 here 49396A.031
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
125
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 221 here 49396A.032
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
126
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 224 here 49396A.035
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
127
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 225 here 49396A.036
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
128
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 226 here 49396A.037
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
129
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 227 here 49396A.038
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
130
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 228 here 49396A.039
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
131
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 229 here 49396A.040
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
132
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 230 here 49396A.041
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
133
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 231 here 49396A.042
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
134
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 232 here 49396A.043
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
135
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 233 here 49396A.044
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
136
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 234 here 49396A.045
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
137
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 235 here 49396A.046
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
138
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 236 here 49396A.047
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
139
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 237 here 49396A.048
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
140
DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
Insert offset folio 238 here 49396A.049
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:18 Apr 12, 2023 Jkt 049396 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A396.XXX A396
File and source
- File
- CHRG-117hhrg49396.pdf
- Size
- 9,994,055 bytes
- SHA-256
- 793a8a97958c3e44a31e15d102ec051fb502ccb80a503f8429c6d4976f22f765
- Our copy
- CHRG-117hhrg49396.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov