Member Day Hearing on Proposed Rules Changes for the 120th Congress

your in your opener you may want to um probably should wait for sure um i don't have time on this um ok i think we if you want we can we got a couple here we can get started and sure sure I think I have some more silver. You don't have any more yet. Or like one hundred. Good morning. The committee will come to order. Uh, I wanna welcome as a special guest our former Parliamentarian, Tom Wickham, and, uh, all of you for coming today. Um, today's meeting in the Rules Committee will be a little bit different from how we normally operate. I believe everyone here enjoys a little bit of change from time to time. All of us on the Rules Committee have a lot of a spirited debate, especially the ranking member who's always so exuberant and bombastic, without fail. And it's because all of us value debating the issues, policies, and perspectives that we care about. We wouldn't be here in Congress if we didn't have strong feelings about things. That said, today's meeting is an opportunity to look at ideas through a different lens than we normally do. Many people tend to forget that one of the other important jobs of the Rules Committee is to prepare changes to House rules based on the lessons learned from the current and previous Congresses. That's exactly what we're here to accomplish today. We'll hear our colleagues on both sides of the aisle offer their ideas on possible improvements to the rules of the House.

Yeah.

for the hundred and twentieth Congress. In the end, that's what good governance is all about. It's about taking a pulse check and making a deliberate effort to diagnose where we can improve, how we can improve, and the mechanisms through which we conduct our work. Yes, we may not all agree on the issues of the day, and that's to be expected. That's the beauty of having an open exchange of ideas. What we can reach agreement on, I believe, is how to improve the operating capacity of the institution so that it can make us better as legislators and help us deliver lasting positive results for those we are fortunate to represent. I look forward to hearing from our colleagues today and listening to the solutions they are proud to put forward. With that, I yield to the ranking member, Mister McGovern.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, members' day may not be the flashiest thing that we do around here uh but these conversations really do matter the rules of the house determine how members participate in the law making process uh whether good ideas get a fair shot whether the public can understand what we're doing and ultimately whether this place can actually function and some of the best ideas for improving this institution come from members who run into the same problem over and over and over again and finally say there has gotta be a better way to do this that's why when i became chairman of this committee in twenty nineteen one of the changes we put in to our first rules package was a requirement that committees hold member day hearings like this one uh the idea was simple you shouldn't have to sit on a particular committee to bring a good idea before it and that was really part of a broader effort to open this place up a little bit more to give members a greater voice in how the house works and to make sure that good ideas could come from anywhere you know we spent months working with republicans and democrats alike we didn't agree on everything no great surprise there but we listened incorporated ideas from both sides and produced one of the most bipartisan rules packages in recent memory and member day worked members from both parties brought forward reforms uh some made their way into the rules package that's why i believe in this process not every proposal we hear today will wind up in the house rules but we have seen first hand that opening the door to more ideas can make this institution work better neither party has a monopoly on good ideas making the house work better shouldn't be some grand ideological fight there ought to be plenty of room for common sense we should want a house where members can debate big ideas where people have a real voice in the process where the public can see and understand what we're doing and where every once in a while we actually have a real debate cast a vote and change something for the better that's what this place is supposed to be for so i'm looking forward to hearing what our colleagues have brought us today there will be ideas we agree it with um ideas we don't and probably a few none of us have ever thought about before that's the whole point so i look forward to this this this discussion uh i thank uh i the the general lady for her opening remarks i promise to be less bombastic i'm on my meds today so i will be on my best behavior but i look forward to this hearing i yield back

thank you very much mister mcgovern um we take our work seriously we don't have to take ourselves so seriously um so i now welcome to the witness table mister min mister fein Mister Schneider and Miss Houlihan. Without objection, any prepared statements our witnesses may have will be included in the record and i have read over um the what you all have suggested myself and i feel certain that uh mister mcgovern and miss ganlin have also so we have your prepared statements already but um you're now welcome recognize mister min

uh thank you chair prox um To strengthen government transparency. However, I believe one area that needs stark improvement is in prohibiting members of Congress from using their offices for self enrichment and personal gain. Now, I began my career as a lawyer many years ago at the Securities and Exchange Commission, This was right after the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals. I turned down lucrative Wall Street jobs uh because I believe it's really important that we uphold the integrity of capitalism. Uh, and the people that make the rules have to be above reproach. And the challenge right now is that people see us and they think we're fundamentally corrupt they see people trading stocks uh actively, they trading bonds and other securities uh and making lots of money. And the fact is that we in Congress receive access to information that by any other standard be deemed material and inside information. Uh, people do trade on this and I think it is uh a shame, it erodes public trust in our institution, uh and I think we have to do something about this. Uh, and that is why several members of this body, including myself, have introduced a range of legislative pro- proposals to address uh this critical issue. My legislation, H. R. thirty-seven seventy-nine, otherwise known as the Stock Act two point O, would strengthen restrictions on individual stock trading by members of Congress, Uh, critically, it builds on the important foundations of the original Stock Act by prohibiting members of Congress from trading individual stocks and securities, requiring members of Congress and senior congressional staff to report their perceived benefits of value, including contracts, grants, agricultural subsidies, and the like, increasing penalties for failure to file St- Stock Act disclosures, and enabling increased oversight by relevant ethics agencies and offices. This bill is supported by many important and leading good governments groups and I want to thank them again for their support and for their technical assistance in developing and promoting this bill. These organizations include the Government Information Watch, GIW, Patriotic Millionaires, Oxfam America, and Citizens United, Democracy Defenders, Action, DDA, Public Citizen, Project on Government Oversight, and Fix the Court. I introduced this legislation because I believe public service is a privilege that we have but should not be an opportunity for self enrichment. I I know people think when when we trade stocks it's not hurting anybody, it hurts the integrity of the markets, uh that is why we have the securities exchange, uh because we had a history in this country of people using their positions to enrich themselves, and it's fraud on the market, it hurts individual retail investors out there. Now Speaker Johnson has said repeatedly he would consider addressing this issue during this Congress, but he has refused to take any meaningful action. Instead he's offered inconsistent and insufficient explanations for the delay. Uh, if he does not bring my bill forward, then I would ask you to incorporate these provisions into the standing rules of the House in the one hundred twentieth Congress. The full House must vote and be on the record on this issue. I'd like to end my remarks by once again thanking the Rules Committee for its work in consideration and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Mann. Mr. Schneider.

Uh, thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and the whole committee. I want to thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts as the Committee on Rules prepares for the upcoming one hundred and twentieth Congress. I am here as the chair of the New Democrat Coalition. Our one hundred and fourteen members represent thirty-one States plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Our coalition is committed to strengthening the effectiveness, transparency, and accessibility of the House of Representatives. I am pleased to offer our support for several initiatives to reform House procedures and congressional conduct. We believe the following proposals would help modernize the institutions, improve members' ability to serve their constituents, and foster greater public trust in Congress. First, the House must do more to reinforce public confidence and trust. One priority should be addressing actual potential and even perceived conflicts of interest to ensure congressional decision-making remains above a reproach. I know the committee has already discussing how to address insider trading. We just heard from my uh friend and colleague, m- um, Mister Min. Uh, I'm gonna speak personally, I would take it a step further and establish within the Congress, as we have in financial services firms and others, an office of compliance to enforce the nee- the um compliance and avoid insider trading. We also believe the House should prohibit participation in prediction markets by members of Congress and where appropriate congressional staff. consistent with similar ethics reforms adopted by the Senate. Second, we propose restoring proxy voting for very limited special circumstances, just such as pregnancy, childbirth, and paternity or maternity leave. Carefully tailored proxy voting authority would allow members to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, and ensure their constituents are represented while they navigate significant time-limited life events. Third, we believe the House must do more to encourage collaboration across the aisle, and better reflect the cooperative work that despite what my uh what other people might believe, so often actually does happen during the legislative process. We propose permitting legislation to have two bipartisan lead sponsors, a Republican and a Democrat, in line with House Resolution five O one, the Bud's Res- uh uh resolution. Lastly, require committee meeting times be posted on a shared scheduling system to improve coordination reduce conflicts and create a more predictable schedule for members and staff Rule ten of the rules for the ninety-seventh Congress mandated the use of scheduling service a shared scheduling service by committees though this requirement was struck down in nineteen ninety-two. Just for reference, in nineteen ninety-two the cutting edge hand-held technology was the famous Palm Pilot. Outlook wasn't introduced until nineteen ninety-seven. And the first iPhone would not be introduced until two thousand and seven. I think I can safely say that technology has come a long way in the thirty-four years since that rule was appealed I think it's time for Congress to start to catch up. We appreciate your consideration on these recommendations as you work to develop a vision for House rules package for the hundred and twenty Congress. The new Democrat coalition stands ready to work with you and our colleagues to advance reforms that strengthen the institution and improve our houses the people's house ability to serve the American people thank you for your leadership and for your consideration of these recommendations I yield back

um thank you Mister Schneider uh Miss Houlihan you're recognized

thank you uh thank you chair and thank you ranking member and thank you to all the members of the committee thanks for the opportunity to speak today I think that we can all agree that business as usual in Congress is a lot less sustainable. Less legislation is making it to the floor, including bipartisan and otherwise non-controversial legislation. Members of this Congress have had less time to work, less time together, and less time to participate in committee events. Bipartisan efforts are not prioritized, and worst of all, national security information is routinely leaked or mishandled by members and staff alike. The changes to the rules package that I am proposing today are not designed to undermine the majority or to restrict the minority. Instead, they are are a very few steps towards a more efficient, more bipartisan, and more trustworthy Congress. First, a National Security, as a National Security Democrat who has spent the majority of my time and career in classified settings and now who sits on two security-focused committees, I am routinely exposed to classified materials. However, despite having access to some of the most restrictive and secret information that our government maintains, members of Congress currently receive no formal training on how to manage it, or on how to safeguard this material. None of us in this room actually has had a background check, or holds a clearance, and unless you have previously served as I have, you have not ever been trained on how to handle classified materials as a member of Congress. And if the American people really understood the gravity of what that meant, they'd be mortified and horrified. The most that members are required to do at this point in time is literally sign an oath swearing not to disclose national security information. And that standard is horrifyingly, unbearably low. My proposal would bring to Congress uh uh training, and would bring Congress in line with the rest of the government who handles this material, required training, on classification levels, on security, and on counter-intelligence awareness as well. Secondly, the Congre- congressional calendar just does not favor district work or legislative work. It really favors travel days and travel days alone. For some like me, travel days are not too onerous, Pennsylvania is fortunately within driving distance. But for most, this involves twice-weekly flights to and from the capital. The calendar also forces committee work to overlap with votes. The calendar is simply not efficient. So I propose longer district and legislative work periods, fewer travel days, and protected committee time, all of which that would strengthen opportunities for bipartisanship. Speaking of bipartisanship, there are fewer and fewer incentives to work across the aisle. In the current rules there are no structural incentives that support bipartisan legislation. I support previous proposals from colleagues, including Representative Emanuel Cleaver, who have tirelessly pushed for the right to have two sponsors on legislation from different parties. I further propose that any legislation be voted voted out of committee with bipartisan support, be brought to the floor for consideration of the whole house. We were sent to Washington by our constituents to enact legislation, not to obstruct it. By allowing these non-controversial bipartisan members be, uh, me- uh, measures before the house, more legislation will be reviewed, adopted, or rejected. We will do more work together, and our constituents back home will benefit. These proposals do not benefit one party over the other. They do not limit or encourage the views of the extremes in either of our parties. Instead, they make Congress do be a much more serious place of business and a place that does the work that our constituents demand of us. We can and must do better. I appreciate so much the time that you have allowed us for this opportunity to speak on this, and I yield.

Thank you. Mister Fein, you're recognized.

Well, well thank you Madam Chairman uh, Chairwoman, and I I actually start with a sigh of relief. I actually really appreciate your remarks. When I became I thought I didn't get any training on classified information because I came in in a special election and I actually couldn't agree more with what you said in fact. Because I've never dealt with it before, I don't talk about anything. They could say the sky is blue in one of those hearings and I because no one ever says what you can talk about and what you can't talk about, so whatever they say in that room I never reveal any of it and I couldn't agree more. the idea of training. It's a great idea. But ironically we didn't coordinate our remarks. The two ideas that I brought today are very similar to a couple of yours, and actually, um, speaks to what Mister McGovern talked about, which is the need for debate, which in my seventeen months in this chamber I have found does not happen a whole lot, unless you like doing it in empty rooms. Um, and so I've also observed that we're very inefficient, as you spoke about, that we spend as much time sitting on airplanes as we do here. So the two ideas that I'm bringing forward today aren't partisan, but I think they're intended to foster more debate and more efficiency, which I think would be good for all members. The first is is a is a very specific idea, that when we come to Washington we come for a week, um, and that the weeks start Monday at nine and they end Friday at five. But in return for coming for a whole week, that the following week would then be a week that we could spend in our districts. Now, I've done the math on this. If we actually did this a week here and a week home, we would actually spend more time working in Washington, we would spend more time working in our districts, and we would spend less time sitting on airplanes and traveling. Because when you think about our weeks, which are largely four-day weeks, two of the four days are largely spent on travel, two of the days end up being jam-packed with so many things that it doesn't facilitate the kind of debate because everyone has so many things to do. So regular Americans work Monday to Friday, nine to five, we should do it one week on and then one week back on our districts. Better for our families, better for our constituents, better for everyone up here. That's idea number one. Idea number two is would facilitate more time for members to interact in committees, which from my time in the legislature was where I found that I was able to work with my colleagues more. Now when you're when you have twelve things to do at once, um, you may not be sitting in a room with other people and - and all too often we have floor time that overlaps with committee time and the second idea would simply say in one of those five days that can only be for committee meetings and one of those five days, however the committee meetings are structured, it would just be committee meetings. The other four days, there could be floor time and committees, but one of the five days every week would simply be allowed for committee hearings which would remove one of the many time burdens that we have on our time. The reason more people aren't in this room, the reason more people aren't in many rooms is not because they want, don't want to be there, but it's because there are too many things going on simultaneously. I think both of these ideas would facilitate more efficiency, more working together, more time to learn about the issues, and I think would make the job, frankly, more pleasant for everyone involved as well. So those are my two ideas, I appreciate you considering them, and I yield back my time.

Thank you very much, Mister Fein. Mister Jack. Do you have any questions you would like to ask of the panel?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm curious, uh, Representative Schneider. You mentioned that in nineteen ninety-two, uh, I was intrigued by your idea about the committee meeting times being consolidated. You mentioned nineteen ninety-two, that was struck down. Do you have any context as to why it was removed from the rules package that year?

I don't. What I do know was introduced, I forget which number, Congress about a decade prior, and then, um, removed. Uh, I have hypothesis which is is is not certain but you had this was uh uh the clinton era you had uh different congress it it it could have been a a function of that but i i don't know why

thank you that's it madam chair

the government

i want to thank all of you for your ideas i i think they're all legitimate and i think we ought to figure out whether we can you know incorporate them into our our host rules and mr. fine i agree with you i i want place to be a place where we we we debate more um one of my frustrations um is that um we we we have broken all kinds of records in terms of close rules where you can't offer amendments and you you we limit debate in fact this rule that we the people voted for yesterday um basically shuts down debate can't we can't amend anything i mean i it it doesn't seem like that's appropriate in a in a body like this but those who voted for that rule voted to basically shut up shut up shut down debate no amendments nothing um and um and again we had a bunch of gotcha bills that were brought to the floor uh but um i i hope that uh and again we when we were in charge um you know there there is a role for closed rules and when we were in charge we had some closed rules but nothing like this congress a hundred and hundred and sixty eight completely closed rules so um so i i i i think that um you know one of the things we have to strive for is understanding and we bring bills to the to the floor that uh there are different ideas ideas that i agree with and ideas that i don't agree with um and we ought to the floor ought to be a place where those ideas can be discussed um so um but i think you know your your what you proposed here today makes sense to me i also think the idea of making sure that there's a higher standard uh when it comes to viewing classified materials i i you know

maybe a way to

i probably couldn't pass a background check so i don't know i i probably won't be able to

yeah

read any classified material but i do think that that's not a an unreasonable um request um and on the stock trading stuff i'm i'm i'm i'm in agreement with you on that we gotta figure out how to how to get that right But in any event, I thank all of you for being here, uh, and, uh, I will yield back.

Miss Fischbach, you're recognized.

I will, I will yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Miss Gendlin, you're recognized.

Yeah, I wanna thank you all for coming. It's interesting to hear how many of the suggestions are reflected in the work that's the select committee on the modernization of Congress did a couple years ago. Um, and I think whoever is drafting rules packages should, um, look at those, those findings, those conclusions, and, um, we've gotta find ways to make this place work better. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Gendlin. I wanna thank you all for coming today to, as I said, I read over what you have submitted, um, to the Rules Committee, and I'm, I'm impressed at the thoughtfulness and the um detail with which many of you submitted comments um to the rules committee for consideration for the next rules package. And I appreciate the work that Mister McGovern uh did before. Um, I know that in twenty uh eleven uh we had a bipartisan committee that worked very very hard on the calendar because there was a lot of concern with how we were operating and lot of good changes got made to the calendar and uh mister fein I will tell you when I got elected that um Howard Coble said to me the worst part of this job is the travel back and forth and I certainly agree with you I don't know the answer to a lot of these issues that we're facing But it is heartening to know that there are a lot of people agreeing and feeling the same way. So, uh, I promise you we will take these issues into consideration as we talk about what to propose for the next Congress. So thank you all very much for being here. And there being no further questions, you're dismissed. Um. I I'd like to ask these other members to come forth. Miss Jacobs, Miss Pedersen, Miss Titus, Miss Kiggins, Miss Blusenkamp-Perez, and Miss Scholten. Yeah, sure. Sit wherever. i i called you up in the in the order in which you came mmm i'm sorry except i understood miss jacob was wanting to wait till there were two of you so but i'll go across the table now so right uh miss gluesenkamp perez if if you wanna wait you wanna wait so we can get in at five minutes that's perfectly fine ok happy to accommodate you ok miss titus no ok and then we can give you ideas for any type of which one's first i could just keep order it little easier and don't jump around ok

no no i'm i'm i'm ready i'm ready

ok go ahead

ok thank you Well, thank you, Chair Wilman Fox, uh, ranking member, Mayor Gouverne, all the members of the committee, for giving us an opportunity to have input into the rules. And I'm here today to testify in support of including House Resolution twelve forty-eight that I introduced in the upcoming package. The principle behind this resolution is really simple. Public service should never provide an opportunity for private financial gain based on privileged access to Now members of Congress and congressional staff are routinely entrusted with information that's not available to the public. We participate, as you heard before, in classified briefings, we receive information from federal agencies, and we work on legislation and government actions before they are announced publicly. Prediction markets now create a new and particularly concerning opportunity to monetize such information that we have access to. these markets increasingly allow participants to wager on matters that are directly related to government action and that includes elections legislation, who's gonna be speaking when, and what they're gonna be talking about, among other things. Now, recent events have uh shown that this concern is not hypothetical, it's very real. I'll just give you a couple of examples. In the days leading up to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, traders placed sizable wagers on whether Maduro would leave office before the end of January twenty twenty six. One of those traders was a soldier who was later arrested and charged with using non-public information to profit, reportedly, more than four hundred thousand dollars. Now, this Maduro case is not an isolated event. More recently, we've seen the story about a White House teleprompter operator who settled a federal investigation after regulators determined that he used advanced access to President Trump's prepared remarks to place wagers on what the president would say reportedly making over a hundred thousand dollars on the calcium market so the lesson is really very clear you don't have to be president or a cabinet member to possess valuable public uh non-public information. Just being close to a government decision sometimes gives you an opportunity to profit, and that's not right. American people should never have to wonder whether a member of Congress or congressional employee is placing a financial wager based on information obtained through public service and they should never have to question whether an official government action could affect someone's financial position. And that's why I think Congress needs to act uh now, be proactive on this. We don't need to wait for another case to come out in the headlines. before we established some ethical rules. Now the Senate's already recognized this concern and they amended their rules to prohibit senators and Senate staff from participating in prediction markets. And I believe the House should do the same. And that's why on April thirtieth of this year I introduced House Resolution twelve forty eight. It's a bipartisan resolution. It's cosponsored by twenty-eight members of Congress. It would simply amend the rules of the house to prohibit members, officers, and employees from the house from participating in prediction markets related to political events. We already impose restrictions on members and employees when the unique access and responsibility of their public service creates conflicts of interest, and this is just an extension of that. Excuse me. The resolution applies to the same principle of a new emerging financial activity, and it gives a direct incentive to misuse non-public government information, creating, I believe, a similar conflict of interest. So I would urge the committee to include this resolution in an upcoming rules package. I think doing so would strengthen the confidence that the American people place in this institution, and it would make clear that

Thanks. Ms. Dias,

Oh, you'll bet.

Ms. Jacobs, Ms. Pedersen, do you all want to speak as a team or individually?

You know, individually.

OK. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member McGovern. Um, as we look forward to the a hundred and twentieth Congress, I'm hopeful that this body can take some reasonable steps Uh and I've been really impressed with all of the proposals that have uh been submitted so far um one of the things that uh Representative Pedersen and I really want to focus on is making this a place that's more accessible to parents and more representative of the American people and I think a great place to start is by including our bipartisan resolution um that would allow proxy voting for twelve weeks for members after they or their spouse have given birth. Now, I know that there are some objections to proxy voting. I know it's been abused by both sides of the aisle. I was here for those very long vote series while we were waiting for all of the proxy votes to be done. But you can't fake being pregnant or giving birth. And I trust that the future parents of this body will recognize this privilege and treat it as such. With this resolution, we can help make this institution a little more representative of the American people so we can work toward passing legislation that reflects the everyday experiences of half our country, from child care to fertility access and more. So right now, in the a hundred and nineteenth Congress, we actually have twenty-three percent of members who are fathers with young children compared with fifteen percent of American adults. But for women, only seven percent of members, or thirty-nine lawmakers, are moms with young children, compared to eighteen percent of American adults. And only fifteen women, in the history of Congress, the two hundred and fifty years of American Congress, have ever given birth while in Congress. Those numbers don't surprise me. I don't think they surprise many of you. It's hard to be a parent while serving here, and it's even harder to give birth while serving here. As many of you know, I have frozen my eggs because I knew I know I want to be a parent, but I also know that the logistics of doing it in this job are really, really hard, and I really take my hat off to people like Brittany and Kat and Anna, who have figured out how to do it and made it work for themselves, their kids, and their families. But I don't believe we should impose these kinds of restrictions and barriers on new parents when we don't have to, and when we have the technology and the communication to make it work. For many of us on the West Coast, we are on round-trip flights for twelve hours total, often two, three, sometimes four times a month. Um, you literally are not allowed to fly at some point in your pregnancy. Um, imagine doing that with a newborn who needs their parent around. Including our resolution in next year's rules package would have other benefits, too. It would help shake up the status quo of Congress and bring in new perspectives. It's not a secret that Congress has wildly low approval rating. The American people are angry about systems that don't actually help them and politicians who want to keep things the way they are. One of the best ways to get new ideas and new solutions is with new, younger members. And honestly, this place doesn't really work for younger people. It doesn't really support families. It doesn't welcome women. And it's far beyond time that we adapt the way we govern to reflect our goals. If we want more young people and more women in Congress, which I think we all do, then we must remove the barriers that are keeping them out. Members should have the flexibility they need after giving birth, so they don't have to choose between their job and taking care of their family. So they don't have to choose between whether their constituents get representation or whether they can do what they need um and create a family. The federal workforce already gets tw- twelve weeks of paid family leave thanks to congressional action in twenty nineteen. This is why proxy voting is so important. For me it's literally gonna decide if or when I can start my own family, and I know that's true for many others. Anna, Brittany and I have already done the hard work of finding bipartisan agreement. I'm hopeful that we can include this resolution in the rules package next year. Thank you so much. I go back.

Thank you. Miss Pedersen.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. It's so great to be with you all today, and I'm here to advocate for our bipartisan proposal to change our roles, to address the challenges and barriers that people face while being pregnant and also uh post giving birth and making sure that we don't have to choose between whether or not we're going to be here and fulfill our constitutional duty, or if we're going to be home taking care of our newborn. Uh, this is not just, uh, moms and women coming together. This was men, parents, who have been, uh, have had to go through difficulties post-birth of their child being in the NICU, and worrying about whether or not they were going to be there when they needed them most, or fly back here to Washington. I stood before you actually two years ago. I was pregnant with uh with Sam and I asked for these changes. We were able to come together uh to provi- to provide a path forward that aligned with federal policies for workers. It was aligned aligned with the paid family leave policies to ensure that people have up to twelve weeks, whether that's before giving birth or after, their vote could still be represented even if they couldn't be here in person. Uh, making sure that, uh, we are recognizing how important that time is for the safety of, of our, our babies, our families, and also the importance of our constituents being represented. Uh, I'm really proud that we were able to get a hundred and seventy-five co-sponsors, wide bipartisan support for this measure. Uh, deeply disappointing that we were unable to get it done and nothing I put a finer point on the struggles of of what that meant, and the challenges you face as an as a parent going through this than giving birth to Sam uh last Jan- or that January. Uh, I remember when we were still fighting to get these changes done, I I thought that I might be able to have my constituents represented during that time. Um, ultimately that did not come to fruition and I was forced with a choice with an incredibly uh important bill for my constituents to be here to vote on and my baby who was only four weeks old and whether or not I was going to be home with him or I was going to come here to represent my constituents. I remember going back and forth uh that day twenty times on whether or not I should leave Sam at home, what that meant, I was nursing, I didn't know if we would be stuck in DC for days on end. I knew that my newborn needed me, and I also knew that my constituents needed me. So I had no choice but to take uh Sam with me, and we know that uh with a n- with a new baby, you're terrified of everything, going to the grocery store, an exposure to germs, uh you wanna be home where they're safe and protected. Uh in this situation, I was bringing my newborn on into the airport, on the plane, coming to the house floor. I'm grateful for the love and support, but um he was passed around to to many people here. Uh and so the the worry and concern um i- is i- is definitely front and center as a parent. Um so I ultimately um brought Sam here, uh we were able to uh join together in representing our constituents. He was actually the the first baby to be held on the house floor, uh while speaking against um the bill that we came to fight fight against. It was uh That just marked the beginning of the challenges that we faced. I I continued to come back for every vote that I needed to be here for. Before Sam was six months old he Took twenty-four flights, and more than most adults have taken in their life that I talked to. Uh, that is the path that I have ch- have chosen. We were waiting on child care wait lists like so many parents across the country, and had no other option, because I had a, another, uh, child at home who was in preschool. So, this place does not work for, for young families. Uh, that is a detriment Uh, I I'm telling my story because the systemic barriers that we have the ability to change, w- this place does not have to work this way. We haven't adjusted in two hundred and fifty years the way that we do things here. The beginning of this country, this, uh, women weren't even allowed to vote, let alone were thought about when it came to serving here in Congress. Uh, so it is time that we adjust for the workforce needs of today. Because the American people deserve representation, a people who understand the struggles that they're going through right now, not what it was like in decades past. I, families have never needed representation more um than than the challenges that they're facing today. And so our proposal is simple. It aligns with the paid family and medical leave that federal workers get. up to twelve weeks where our voices can be represented. This does not count towards, uh, proxy voting would not count towards having a quorum. Uh, we know that being challenged time and time again in the courts has been proven to be to, uh, to be constitutional and it is in alignment with the family values, American values. When I brought Sam, the reason we got national attention is because I think that Americans were shocked that we don't accommodate for anything, uh, for somebody in the position that we were at. And people who have gone through this recognize the challenges uh that that you're facing with a newborn. It is when they are the most vulnerable, where they need their parents to be there with them, and we shouldn't have to decide between the health and well-being of our babies and our constituents. So, Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. We must do better because it matters for representation and the issues that we advocate for here in Congress.

Thank you very much. Miss Kagan, sure to recognize.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking Member and Committee, for having us today to be able to talk about our ideas for next Congress. My resolution very closely aligns to what Congresswoman Houlihan was discussing about the need to protect our classified information. I remember as a Navy veteran, uh, married to as a helicopter pilot, married to an F-eighteen pilot, now a proud mom of a Naval aviator, how protected we kept our classified information when we were in the military. So when I showed up here in Congress on January of twenty-three, that was one of the first questions I asked my staff. Where do I do my background check? When do I get the briefing? How do I make sure that, cuz they offered me time in the skiff, I said on Armed Services Committee, there's a lot of opportunities to be able to hear what's very important, classified information important to our national security and protection of our great country so when my staff told me there is no requirement, you were elected as a member of congress, you have immediate access to all classified information from top secret level on down, I wa- was shocked and have been shocked for four years now, that we do not handle our classified information any better. This is obviously an extremely bipartisan issue with support on I just watching, not just my family, but the constituents I represent in Virginia's second district and Hampton Roads, home to so many military, so much classified information, SEAL teams watching and knowing what they go through on an annual basis to train and to safeguard our nation's most precious secrets and that we have none of that here in Congress it is mind-boggling I think the words Miss Houlihan used was that our constituents would be mortified and horrified to know that we had access all four hundred and thirty-five of us to the most classified of classified information and that there's no training done so that is my ask, and our resolution really has four pillars, number one is an annual requirement watching again my military family and friends in the annual they do a a PowerPoint that is is has multiple exams and quizzes throughout the PowerPoint that they have to do in person uh my resolution also sets forth what some of that should contain And then also asks that people who are on committees of jurisdiction that hand handle more sensitive information like armed services committee, like intelligence committees, like foreign foreign affairs committee might have a a curtailed uh classified training that they have to do every year so that they can understand those repercussions. Uh and then it also has a little bit of of teeth in it that's saying that if you do not do your and comply with your annual training then you will no longer be able to access that classified information. to start treating this information much more seriously. I I am afraid for our national security what we, the the members of Congress don't understand what this information, if it was to get out or leaked, what that would mean for the security of our country. I know we've h- already had issues on our services committee. If you talk to Chairman Rogers, he will tell you his frustration as well, and we routinely get reminded about this information. But we have to change that. I am still shocked and mortified and horrified along with with about the fact that we do not treat this with greater respect. I'm a I I would go so far as to at least consider even background checks for members of Congress but I think this is a good place to start for now, so thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much. Miss Shulton, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, uh, Chairwoman Fox, uh, Ranking Member McGovern, for holding this important hearing today so that we can weigh in on behalf of I'm thrilled to be here today to propose a set of common sense rules that would support good governance and transparency in the hundred and twentieth Congress. The House has the unique ability to establish its own rules and procedures. The power that we have to determine how we want to go forward should not be understated. Uh, in in the United States government there is only one branch where uh the only way to serve is to be elected by the people and so that power, uh, should not be taken for granted, it is given to us by the people and and we can set these rules to enhance our transparency and our accountability. As Vice-Chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus I'm pr- I'm really proud to support a comprehensive package of sexual misconduct reforms put forth by uh my good friend, uh our Chairwoman, Congresswoman Teresa Leisure-Fernandez, in addition to my own proposals. Americans across the country are rightfully concerned about the scale the scale of misconduct in this chamber. And we have the power to do something about it. We can set our own rules. The striking lack of transparency and accountability is shocking. That's why we must prohibit inappropriate sexual relationships between members of Congress and House employees ensure that House Eth- House ethics investigatory work isn't impacted by upcoming elections and provide adequate resources, including sufficient training, to identify, prevent, and address sexual misconduct in the workplace. In addition, I've submitted several proposals that seek to modernize Congress and strengthen good governance. Nearly every member of Congress will serve as a caregiver at some point in their lives. Many others will experience a period of bereavement or serious illness or assume significant family responsibilities. following childbirth or adoption. I associate myself with the comments of uh Miss Pedersen and Miss Jacobs, with respect to proxy voting. And I just want to underscore the point that was made about uh the lack of representation of parents. Uh while I did not give birth, uh in Congress I am the parent to school-age children, actively parenting my young children uh at this stage, and the demands um on our our time for being in this body, uh, and and also being at home should not be overstated. And I've heard many say, well, then maybe you should choose a pr- a different profession. That would be an incredible disservice to the American people. They are underserved when they don't have voices like ours in Congress to speak on them. We all know how busy we are. In any given day you're dealing with issues of the environment, education, immigration. It's the tyranny of the urgent. And there's several moms sitting around this table right here who know what it's like when you know you're making choices at the grocery store about what you can and cannot afford you're looking at you know crumbling education systems, the threat of addictive patterns of on-line algorithms uh you know preyed on by uh predatory social media users and and it is up to us who feel those threats every single day to respond with the urgency that those threats demand. That is what representation is all about and that's what we do here in Allowing parents the ability to actively parent and take the issues that they see back home and turn it into legislative priorities is what we should be doing to best serve the American people. I'm also supportive of reforms to uh house expulsion and censorship procedures. As we've seen over the last uh year, our current system can fall short when it comes to holding bad actors accountable and also can be used as a political tool. uh when it's not necessarily uh intended for that purpose. We need more intentional and deliberative process, one that would hold members accountable for rules and ethics violations,

Yes.

while also ensuring that disciplinary procedures themselves are used appropriately, and again not as a a political uh weapon against someone across the aisle, but truly to ensure accountability when bad conduct has occurred. Third, I propose that the House engage with our Senate counterparts to prioritize popular bipartisan legislation in both chambers. We have to be responsive to the needs and views of our constituents, but far too often legislation stalls once it passes in a chamber of origin. That's not acceptable. When legislation passes the House or the Senate with broad support, whether unanimous consent or two-thirds majority, it should receive expedited consideration in the next chamber. Lastly, I suggest that two members of Congress can serve as the primary sponsor of a bill Uh, should it be in a bipartisan effort? There's already precedent for this practice from the hundred and fourth Congress, where uh, House of Representatives allow the first twenty bills introduced in the first session to have more than one member listed as a sponsor. I'm proud of my bipartisan record in Congress, and I know that incentivizing two different members, uh, especially from opposite parties to serve as an original sponsor of a piece of legislation would continue to incentivize that work. I urge my colleagues to support these reforms and look forward to discussing more ways that we can make Congress accessible and accountable to the American people. Thank you for your time today, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. Mister Jack. Oh, sorry. You're ready now, uh, Miss Glussenkamp-Perez.

Yes, thank you.

Sorry.

Tha- thank you so much, Chairwoman, and thank you, um, to the members of the Rural Committee for, um, bringing us here today. Um, so proud of what has been said, and I cannot, uh, say enough. how much I think the representation of the body is improved when we have a more representative body um I believe there are fewer than ten members of Congress who have a child in daycare is it any shock then that daycare uh has not become a priority of this body uh so I'm very glad to be exiting that club but I'm here to talk about um another form of representation ensuring that rural districts that normal people are able to be committee witnesses it is so easy to get an expert with a PHD or a lobbyist to come before your committee and give testimony. But if you're a mom who has to get a babysitter, if you're running a small business, you can't drop everything, book a hotel room, and come to DC to be an expert witness testimony. My bridge to Congress ensures that we allow remote testimony in our committees, and I uh urge the support of it. Next I'd like to urge um adoption of the resolution supporting the bipartisan select committee on electoral reform. Regardless of party or ideology, more and more Americans feel that our democracy is not working for them. Uh, they are losing faith in government and and they view an unre- it as unreflective of their communities and values. Um, as members of Congress we need to take a step back, re-examine how we got here, and work towards what we can do to fix it. Realistically there's not one easy trick that's gonna fix this, um, but I believe that a select committee on electoral reform will bring together an evenly split bipartisan group of lawmakers to study our electoral methods conduct public hearings and submit recommendations to polarization and strengthen our representative democracy's effectiveness. Um this committee will examine a series of reforms to improve our electoral system, including independent redistricting commissions to push back against gerrymandering, um instant run-off voting, also known as known as ranked choice voting, to ensure an election winner represents a majority of voters, and multi-member districts to increase proportional representation, not um preferencing or biasing any of those, but examining those opportunities to build a more representative body. Um My biggest frustration uh in in the in the fall of the twenty twenty five shutdown was that members like me had no real way to bring the house back into session after the speaker sent everyone home in September. The speaker has had designated the house as being in a district work period, and that matters because during a work district period um uh the speaker can effectively adjourn the house unilaterally. Members don't get the same opportunity to object to an adjournment, or force a vote. Even resolutions of the highest level of privilege are unable to call the House back into session. We need to fix this. If a majority of the House wants to come back to Washington to do the people's work, there should be a way for them to do it. Uh, my idea is pretty simple, if a sufficient mem- number of House members believe the House needs to come back from a district work period, we should have a mechanism to let that happen. I encourage this committee to allowing a majority or even potentially a supermajority of members to terminate a district work period, and require the House to reconvene. Um, fourth, I'd like to thank uh Representative Leger, Fernandez and Kammick for their and the Democratic Women's Caucus for their leadership on this next issue. As members of Congress, it is our responsibility to ensure this institution um is predicated on accountability and trust. Right now, that responsibility begs our action to address sexual misconduct. As members, we are here to work, not to date. The next rules package should include a code of conduct that prohibits members of Congress from having sexual relationships with house staff no matter where that staffer works whether in another member's office a personal office a committee or a caucus. This is about trust and accountability and not giving powerful people a free pass to continue perpetuating a culture of sexual assault and misconduct Americans deserve to know that their elected officials are held to high standards and this body will not regain the confidence of the American pot people until we do that. Um, finally, I wanna address a difficult subject. Um, too often we ignore the elephant in the room. Um, Americans elect members of Congress to be their voice in Washington, and that responsibility comes with a clear standard of conduct. Clause one of rule twenty-three of the House rules requires members to, quote, behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibly on the House. When a member is no longer able to fulfill the responsibilities of the office because of significant irreversible cognitive impairment, and unelected staff are effectively running the office on that member's behalf, we have to ask whether we are meeting that standard. This is not about age. Some of our sharpest and most valuable members of this body are among our oldest. This is about cognitive capacity, clarity, and the ability to fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to members of Congress. That's why I introduced legislation directing the Office of Congressional Conduct to establish a standard for addressing these circumstances. For such a standard to be directly enforceable, it would need to come through this body. It would need to come through rules committee, be debated, be adopted. This changes nothing about the Constitution and the rules for removing members of Congress from their office. Um, I don't have all the answers. Uh, but we can't continue to ignore this issue. I urge the committee to consider including a provision addressing the abilities of members to fulfill the responsibilities of their office and the code of conduct for the hundred and twentieth Congress. Thank you again. uh to chair fox and i thank you and for giving me the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to working with you

thank you very much mister jack do you have any questions no questions not yet mister mcgovern

i want to thank you all for being here and on the issue of proxy voting um uh i i i'm in agreement um you know we we initiated proxy voting when i was chair of the rules committee and um during covid uh that was the right thing to do there were some that abused it um and so i think we need clarity in terms of how we would how we would proceed but um but uh but i think there are compelling instances where it makes sense i mean this we're in living in twenty twenty six not nineteen forty six i mean we have the technology to be able to to be able to accommodate people who are not here um and so um you know but uh i appreciate all the suggestions uh that have been put forward uh and again even on the issue of how we handle classified information i think we just need to do a better job um and this shouldn't be a controversial issue so we we we can work on that and um uh but anyway uh i look forward to working with all of you as we put a rules package together and um thank you for being here i yield back

thank you mr. mcgovern miss ganlin

yeah i just wanna thank everyone for your really um concrete testimony about ways we can drag

uh this is legislature fernandez

uh thank you very much uh and and i also really wanna thank you know the vice chair uh we've had so many meetings uh and with regards to addressing uh the sexual misconduct and the sense the sense of pervasiveness that occurs uh in this congress and the fact that our staff our staff tell us about it over and over again we'll conduct the last of our uh meetings with staff um this week and so there will be a uh hopefully it'll be a bipartisan we're really looking forward to having a bipartisan proposal uh put forth that will have many uh proposed rule changes i think right now we're at about fourteen very specific rule changes that will go to the issue of accountability right that there should be a code of conduct that says you will not have sexual relations with any staff that you will not use your position to abuse to harass to take advantage because there is a power imbalance and anybody who thinks they're not is not a power imbalance is lying to themselves to their constituents and to others uh and it needs to be meaning the consequences for violating that code of ethics need to be meaningful and they need to be clear so that when if you start walking down that path you know what's at the end uh that you may lose your committee assignments you may be you may have to face an expulsion vote we need due process so we need to make sure that happens we need to make sure that everybody knows where to go it's very confusing right now if you have been subject to sexual harassment where do you go uh so we are calling it a one stop shop uh uh for somebody knows where to go and that there is the appropriate training in person training so people can't like not pay attention well there is a video going on about what what does it mean to harass people uh and that there are timely timely investigations and thorough investigations because that is important it should not be based on a tweet or based on a mere accusation people uh the the american people and the people who sent um who were sent here their constituents also need to know what happened so that if there are consequences it's very clear so we'll be submitting that and i wanna thank everybody who participated in it people who raised it i think it's really important and the other stuff it's like yes absolutely of course we should be doing these things right we should be making it easier for brand new parents to serve uh i represent the los alamos national labs and when uh and i've gone previously in a previous position i've gone through uh the uh i've i've gotten clearance and when i walked in there it's like ah now we tell you everything you know come into the blue room come into the red room cause you've been elected it's like oh my god right like we need to protect our security and we should not assume that everybody knows right that everybody knows what you should say what you can say and so all of these make sense we should not be using our position uh to make money the the prediction markets uh need to be reined in in so many ways but we can do our piece here in a rules package so i thank everybody uh for their proposals and thank you for taking the time and and sharing them directly with the committee uh and with that madam chair yield back

thank you miss leger-fernandez i wanna uh echo uh much of what my colleagues have said i appreciate very much you are all coming uh all the people who have made the suggestions uh to us for incorporating an um, items into the rules. Um, I agree with you, too. The American people expect us to be role models. Um, I frankly am often shocked, shocked by the behavior of people in this body, and not just on things that you've brought up, but on other little things that happen. And um, I'm assuming most of us grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong. And when people don't exhibit right behavior, it surprises even me. So, um, I don't know how, how we can make sure that we get people who come here to serve who want to do things for the right reasons. But, I appreciate your suggestions. I will also want to, um, emphasize what Miss Ganlin had said about the, um, uh, Modernization Committee. In the last four years, the House has implemented most of the two hundred and two recommendations provided by the Modernization Committee. And I certainly have a brief appreciated the things they've done. And House Administration Committee's actively seeking new modernization ideas. So, I think it's not just the Rules Committee that is looking at how to make things better as we operate the House of Representatives and the Congress. But, um, there are other committees actively working on these things, and I'm sure there'll be, uh, member days for those committees if they haven't ha- uh, especially house administration. So I hope, uh, people will be paying attention to that and making suggestions there. Doesn't all have to be done in the Rules Committee. There are other ways that it can be done. So, thank you all very much for coming, and I think there are no further questions, so you're excused.

can you move over one mile from here please

yup thank you

thank you

you're so annoying sorry our space is so crowded mister cleaver mister kylie i think you guys know the drill we welcome your um written statements mister cleaver you're recognized

good morning mary jerry um this uh resolution would allow for an appeal and the house to uh do the least possible

was somebody else put their mike on do you wanna put your mike on

Sorry. Uh, but this suggestion actually was made, I I didn't realize it, uh, they were in the same position but, uh, they made the same recommendation, uh, that, uh, we should move to allow members of different political parties uh to participate in in the top of the uh bills. And, uh, I was proud to introduce the Bud's resolution alongside Representative uh, Young Kim, who in an ideal world would be listed as a lead sponsor as well, uh as well as representatives of Scott Peters, Williams William Timmins, uh Kevin Mullen, and Mike uh Carsey. There are two key advantages to this resolution that I hope to emphasize. First, it can help us promote bipartisanship, which I believe is desperately needed in our polarized politics. Second, it can help give better recognition to members who are working hard and seeking common ground here in DC. Let me take just a few seconds to point something out. Uh, recognition for the hard and important work that lawmakers do is something that can often feel uncomfortable for the humbleness of lawmakers because the last thing any of us want to admit to our district is that members deserve plaudits, or praise. But we allow, but We all know that there are some members, particularly when their party is in the minority, who are working hard every single day to craft meaningful bipartisan bills with the majority party to meet the needs of their constituents and make their communities a better place to in which to live. We also know that there are some members who don't. Even if the Bud's resolution did not change behavior in a in a way, it would immediately become much easier for our constituents and the media alike to see when the member of Congress is actively writing and introducing legislation whereas currently they wouldn't get uh listed, uh, on the top line. However, I would contend that the Bud's resolution would change behavior and that's the other benefit here, promoting bipartisanship. I believe, as do many others, that we won't just see better recognition for those members who are working to introduce bipartisan bills. We'll see a clear incentive change where members know that it's now further it's now further in their advantage to work in a bipartisan matter matter more frequently. My flood of uh Omaha, a hundred and thirty miles away from me in Kansas City, uh and I started working right after the election, uh almost two years ago. And eventually uh we went out to dinner and sat down, uh had some ideas that were similar, And we introduced uh what what is now uh the law, and that is this bipartisan uh a housing bill, the first of its kind in almost three decades. But we started it having dinner uh and started working together. Now uh I never f- for one moment uh believed that I should go to and and demand that my name be on the top line, uh but I do believe that it it does help. Uh, the idea's gotten a lot of traction uh with the cohort organizations aimed at fixing Congress. And we've heard an outstanding amount of support from groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center uh Demand Progress the Foundation of American Innovation, Issue One, and more. Uh, and I absolutely believe that democracy demands debate and dialogue, and that can happen more frequently when we uh are able to work together and having a bipartisan bill actually uh introduced. Uh, I I am consen- I am absolutely convinced that that bill would never have uh come to fruition, it would have never become law, uh had uh I had some kind of uh anger based on the fact that my name was on the b- was not on the bill. Uh, but I I'm I'm seeking your uh support on something like this because I think it does matter. Thank you, Madam Chair, uh Thank you, Mister, uh, Master, Miss, and others who are not here.

Thank you, Mister Cleaver. Mister Kiley, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, today I am proposing a change, uh, to the house rules to protect the right of members to serve on standing committees, irrespective of their membership or affiliation in a party, caucus, or conference. In other words, to protect the right of independent members to serve on committees. This will restore the fair, uh, common sense practice that prevailed for most of American history, uh, up until the nineteen seventies, when committee seats suddenly became, uh, the property, uh, of the parties. And the parties have, of course, used this newfound, uh, power, uh, to in many ways contribute to the partisanship, polarization, and dysfunction uh that prevails in this building. Uh the power to assign committees is of course used uh to enforce party discipline, to punish members, just yesterday uh we had a couple democrat members who voted away that the minority leader did not want them to, and so he has announced that he is going to crack down uh on them, which of course one of the obvious ways to do that is through committee assignments. Uh committee seats are also used to compel uh members to participate in the political political activities of the party uh outside of the building, with the expected level of participation indeed being uh determined in a formulaic way uh based on the uh prestige of the members' committee assignments. When Americans learn about how all of this all works, the sheer griminess of it, uh they are uh without uh without exception uh shocked. It's a system that very much needs reform. Uh but today I'm not going to propose fixing this system uh broadly um but instead uh targeting a particularly perverse consequence of it uh which is that independents do not get committee seats uh now think about just how deeply counter-intuitive this is if you're an independent uh elected by your district duly elected maybe you're elected precisely because you are independent and voters are dissatisfied with both parties If you don't affiliate with one of the two party caucuses, you cannot sit on standing committees and really participate in the heart of policy making. Your voters on constituents uh are in many ways disenfranchised. Uh perhaps most jarring, rule ten functions in such a way that if a member sitting on committees becomes independent, then they are automatically removed from those committees. Just like that, just because they are not affiliating with a party anymore. what does the one have to do with the other why do you suddenly lose your committee seats just because you are not affiliating with one party or the other so an independent member like myself in order to fulfill my commitment that i had at the beginning of this term to serve on the committees that i am on to chair the subcommittee that i chair on the education committee i have to as a formality affiliate with one party or another just to fulfill those commitments that is not the way that it should work and it's not the historical uh practice indeed this provision of rule ten was only adopted in nineteen eighty three as things stand independents are the most underrepresented group in uh in the entire country upwards of fifty percent of americans are independent and yet there is exactly one member out of four hundred and thirty five in the house who is independent and this is largely because of structural impediments such as the denial of committee seats. So, uh what I'm proposing today is a simple change that simply assures that an independent member has the right to serve on standing committees whether or not they affiliate with a party caucus, uh or conference. And the way I've proposed it, and this is not necessarily the only way to do it but I think it's one that makes sense, uh is that the member could uh suggest or up to six uh or uh a total of six preferred committees and would be guaranteed at to be uh assigned to at least one of those six, so that they couldn't just be given whatever is the worst or the least desirable of all the committees. And they'd also have a right to a second committee, but wouldn't be able to uh to to s to suggest particular preferences uh with respect uh to that one. I think that this is a common sense change that the vast, vast majority of Americans would support. Everyone I've talked to is very surprised, whether they're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that this is the way that the house works. And frankly, we are serving at a time when Congress has a ten percent approval rating, uh when we had this redistricting war that's broken out across the country, when we had the longest government shutdown uh in American history, I think that a modest change to allow for members to have a greater ability to operate uh here and to allow to make independent representation more viable, uh would be a good start in reversing these trends. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Kiley. Mister Jack. Do you have any questions? No.

No, sorry.

Mister McGovern.

I um first I wanna ask you and I'm as consent to insert into the record testimony from representative Gonzales in support of proxy voting and virtual witness participation and I would uh ask you and I'm as consent to insert into the record

With Adam's action.

testimony from rep uh Budzinski uh in support of multiple ideas to reform house rules including banning house affiliated individuals from participating in prediction markets and allowing bipartisan joint sponsorship of members.

without objection

i wanna thank both of of our colleagues for uh for being here uh mr. carley you you are on committees now aren't you

i am

yeah ok yeah and um uh so i i i mean cause i remember when bernie sanders was here he was on committees as well and was very uh he wasn't blocked from being on committees um and um uh and i so i i hear what you're saying uh uh on the other hand i mean i i watch how people vote Um, and you vote pretty consistently with the Republicans, and so I I I don't know, you know, whether or not we need to create a whole another category. Um, you know, uh, but in any event I hear I hear what you're saying and

Well, I vote with the Republicans when I agree with what, um,

What

the Republicans are doing. I vote with the Democrats when I agree with what the Democrats are doing. So on three reconciliation bills I voted with the Republicans once, I voted with the Democrats twice. I think that you should be able to do that here without, uh,

Yeah.

you know, having to uh you know uh feel like there will be consequences for it

well i i i keep i keep score like on the rules um and uh and the the and the i keep score when it comes to the rules um and um

say it again

basically um you know um my critique has been that uh uh people have been locked out of offering amendments pretty consistently this is the most closed congress in history and you vote all the time pretty much maybe with one exception i guess or one or two exceptions with uh with the republicans has shutdown the process so i would think that one of the things that we need to do uh to try to make this place work better is to understand that not everybody thinks alike um and that um and that we ought to have legitimate debate on the floor that doesn't mean that it's a free for all uh but this eh we're getting into the habit of just shutting everything down because it's convenient um and um and i think that that's undermines kind of the the uh influence of individual members whether the democrats uh are republicans or independents uh and i think it's not good for I I legislating, I think we could we could do a lot better. But uh anyway, I appreciate you both being here and um and uh I I think

I appreciate that. Madam Chair, if I could just uh there's some jargon thrown out by uh the ranking member there of about rules and what not just so folks understand what he's referring to. Uh a rule is the as we consider it on the floor is just a means of bringing a bill to the floor for a vote. Uh I generally support those because I think it's good when members can vote their conscience on the underlying bill. Uh of course two members of your party who voted for one are now gonna be punished for that, folks the opportunity to vote on the underlying bill but you're right that it's that's the it works the other way around it's not just one party or the other

no no it's not excuse me this is my it's my time it's my it's my time right yeah

oh i'm sorry

it's it's my time alright and the bottom line is we we had a hundred and sixty eight closed rules so it's it's more than just about bringing a bill to the floor and and and and and to have people vote their conscience bottom line is these are closed rules

sure and i agree with you i think they should wear a mask

so i can't even bring an idea to the floor uh you can't bring an idea to the floor nobody can bring an idea to the floor so it's more than just oh it's just oh we're bringing a bill to the floor people vote their conscience i mean bottom line is i i i've never met i've never seen a perfect piece of legislation

yeah

um and and the bottom line is that um you know uh you know members by the way just not democrats i mean we're disproportionately cut out of offering amendments but uh you know a majority of republican amendments have been uh banned have been have been denied um and um and again you know i mean i'm i'm looking at the the record here and you and you you have voted basically to tell your fellow republicans that they can't offer amendments either I just I think there's just something I think we're getting too comfortable in that habit and we need to open things up so

if I may brutally just express agreement I I agree with you on that I think that we should have more open rules I think there should be more opportunities for amendment uh we're we're in agreement with that one hundred percent

yep yeah but your votes don't agree with that but anyway that's another story

uh I disagree I mean I think that I I

no but when you vote when you vote for closed rule after closed rule after closed rule and then you come up here and say we ought to have more uh participation by democrats and republicans in the

well mister remember the alternative is you don't get to vote on anything at all so if I had a choice between an open rule and a closed rule I of course vote for the open rule

no the the alternative is you the alternative is you vote down a rule and then you come back and you create a better rule where there could be more debate that's all that's I mean that's that's the

sure alright well if you if always we can work on that together I would love to cause I would love to see more open rules so let's uh let's talk more about that

I you're back

thank you Mr. McGuver miss Cameron

and just thank you for coming to testify uh mister your points about providing more opportunities for people to work through legislation in a bipartisan manner in advance and and to get more effective legislation forward are very well taken thank you

and uh i thank you both uh for coming and um here no further questions you're excused

thank you both very much

thank you Madam Chair

thank you Where is it? Oh, oh, sorry. Um, without objection, I'd like to submit written statements from uh, Mister Womack, uh, for the record. Anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, the committee is adjourned.