[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                    MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES
                      CHANGES FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                           SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

                               __________








                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







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

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57-053                    WASHINGTON : 2024












                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

                    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas, Chair

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania      JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Member
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
CHIP ROY, Texas
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia

                    Jennifer Belair, Staff Director
               Donald C. Sisson, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

                 GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania, Chair

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana, Vice Chair      Ranking Member
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia

                                 ------                                

             Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

                  MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota, Chair

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New 
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,            Mexico,
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas                      JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           September 19, 2024

                                                                   Page
Opening Statements:
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Texas and Chair of the Committee on Rules.....     1
    Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Ranking Member of the Committee 
      on Rules...................................................     2
Witness Testimony:
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................     3
    Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................     5
        Prepared Statement.......................................     7
    Hon. Harriet Hageman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wyoming...........................................     9
        Prepared Statement.......................................    11
    Hon. Brittany Pettersen, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Colorado......................................    14
        Prepared Statement.......................................    16
    Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Missouri..........................................    18
        Prepared Statement.......................................    20
    Hon. Bill Foster, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Illinois................................................    22
        Prepared Statement.......................................    24
    Hon. Joaquin Castro, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Texas.............................................    30
    Hon. Rudy Yakym, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana.................................................    32
        Prepared Statement.......................................    35
    Hon. Andrew Ogles, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Tennessee.........................................    67
        Prepared Statement.......................................    70
    Hon. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina....................................    75
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
    Statement from the Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a 
      Representative in Congress from the State of Florida.......    39
    Statement from the Hon. Kevin Mullin, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of California......................    41
    Statement from the Hon. Mike Levin, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of California......................    42
    Statement from the Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of California......................    44
    Letter from the Hon. Joaquin Castro, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Texas...........................    49
    Letter from the Hon. Darrell Issa, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of California......................    57
    Letter from the Hon. Darrell Issa, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of California......................    59
    Letter from the Hon. Chuck Edwards, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of North Carolina..................    61
    Statement from the Hon. Anthony D'Esposito, a Representative 
      in Congress from the State of New York.....................    64
    Statement from the Hon. William Timmons, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of South Carolina..................    77
    Statement from the Hon. James Moylan, a Delegate in Congress 
      from the Territory of Guam.................................    79









 
                   MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES
                     CHANGES FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

                          House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Rules,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Michael C. Burgess [chairman of the 
committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Burgess, Fischbach, Norman, 
Langworthy, and McGovern.
    The Chairman. I call the Committee on Rules to order.
    Good morning, everyone. I do want to welcome everyone to 
the House Committee on Rules Member Day for the 118th Congress.
    Pursuant to Section 3(h) of H. Res. 5, the committee is 
convening this Member Day to hear from the broader body about 
issues under this committee's jurisdiction.
    I am grateful to see the interest and participation of the 
membership off our committee and look forward to hearing their 
ideas.
    Before we get to that, I do just want to touch on the work 
we have done so far in this Congress. For the first time in 
years, this body has considered legislation under an open rule. 
This committee has also considered nearly double the amount of 
bills so far this year as the previous two Congresses at the 
same point in time.
    We have considered nearly double the amount of bills under 
a structured rule as the previous Congress. We have eliminated 
the use of en bloc authority for amendments, ensuring that each 
amendment that was made in order under the rule is given its 
appropriate consideration and vote.
    We have created the Select Committee on the Strategic 
Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist 
Party, which has done incredible work investigating the extent 
of the CCP's global ambitions and providing legislative 
recommendations on how to combat this aggression.
    We have also established the Select Committee on the 
Weaponization of the Federal Government to fully investigate 
the Biden-Harris administration's assault on the constitutional 
rights of American citizens.
    And finally, we have adjusted various rules to make this 
body more accountable to the people who elect us, more 
efficient, and more conscious of the taxpayer dollars with 
which our constituents entrust us.
    The Congress has not been without its challenges. And I 
look forward to the discussion today on ideas to make things 
work better here, but I wanted to make a quick note of the 
accomplishments of this committee.
    And I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. 
McGovern, for his observations and any other remarks that he 
wishes to make.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, when Democrats came into power during the 
116th Congress, we spent months engaging with Members and 
vetting their ideas to make this body better. The result, the 
Rules package we came up with actually reflected bipartisan 
ideas.
    We worked hard to create an inclusive process. It 
demonstrated our commitment to the fundamental principle that 
no party has a monopoly on good ideas. Good ideas can come from 
anywhere. And today, I hope we can carry that same spirit into 
our conversations.
    You see, a willingness to work together is a necessary part 
of ensuring that we have a well-functioning House, one that 
doesn't just work for one political party or the other, but 
works for the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what is going to happen in 
November. What I can tell you is that if Democrats have the 
honor of returning to the majority, we will see to it that the 
House of Representatives is a place where we can debate ideas 
professionally, a place that gives Members the opportunity to 
have their voices heard, and a place that can get real things 
done for this country.
    We should all want to strive for a more collaborative 
process, rules that further improve transparency and 
accountability, measures that will bring this institution into 
the 21st century and reforms that will advance the efficiency 
and the efficacy of Congress.
    I also hope, no matter who wins, after the election, that 
we can move away from the practice of so many closed rules. The 
last time my friends were in the majority, they set the record 
for the most closed rules. They beat that record in this 
Congress.
    This has to be a place where a variety of ideas get to be 
brought to the floor and debated, and I hope we can strive to 
do better on that. I am eager to hear the ideas and the 
proposals that our colleagues have prepared for today's 
discussion.
    And, with that, I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair thanks the gentleman.
    Without objection, any prepared statements that our 
witnesses have will be included in the record.
    The first panel is called to the table, and Mr. Griffith of 
Virginia; Mr. Kilmer of Washington, Ms. Pettersen of Colorado, 
and Mr. Cleaver----
    Did I say Ms. Hageman of Wyoming?
    Ms. Hageman. Not yet.
    The Chairman. And Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, if you would 
join us at the table for our first panel.
    And the order I have here, Mr. Griffith, you are first.
    And I would just a housekeeping detail. The Rules Committee 
is famous for not having a clock. However, each Member will 
have 5 minutes to testify, so if you have got multiple issues, 
I do recommend summarizing each submission and proposal if you 
have multiple.
    So, Representative Griffith, I welcome your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think it was 
appropriate you mentioned that before I got started, because I 
do have multiples, as you know.
    So I have got the text, and you all should have that. If 
you don't, I will leave it with you. But one, I do think we 
need to go back in and work on the germaneness rule. I proposed 
the same language 2 years ago. We then went into negotiations 
with leadership. I think it was fair that we tried to, you 
know, work out concerns.
    The problem is the rule has never been used. The rule is 
not effective as it was written, notwithstanding all of our 
good intentions, both on my part and the part of leadership to 
work out a compromise. It hasn't worked.
    I believe that if we have a strict germaneness rule, no 
matter who the Speaker is, it makes that Speaker more powerful 
vis-a-vis the Senate, because it would deny the Senate the 
ability to tack all kinds of garbage. Like I said before, you 
can take a coin bill and turn it into an omnibus, according to 
the Senate.
    That clearly is not germane. It shouldn't be germane, and 
we need to have the ability to make that stricter. And so there 
is the language that I have proposed. I am happy to discuss 
that at any time with anybody.
    Then I have a limitation on that waiver, and that is 
basically you can't by rule without a super majority. Now, I 
know that is not going to work, but it still makes me feel 
better. If we put it in there, it would put a limitation on 
waiving our single-purpose rule, which has worked somewhat, and 
our germaneness rule. And if we enhance the germaneness rule, I 
think it is important that we don't waive that with every rule 
on every bill as we move forward.
    I then have a whole set of complicated proposals open to 
discussion related to the timing of actions and reports. I 
believe if a committee reports a bill out, one, I think there 
ought to be a timeline once it gets to Rule, that you have a 
certain number of days--21 is what I proposed--legislative days 
to get the bill out of the Rules Committee.
    Now, that can be a lot of different things. It can be a re-
referral back to your--to a new committee or a referral to a 
different committee. I have also set up a process where if the 
committee has--if the bill has been sent to more than one 
committee, once a major committee, one of the primary 
committees sends it to the Rules Committee, the other committee 
would only have 7 legislative days to send in their copy. If 
there are differences, as there often are, rules would conform 
those differences before the bill went to the floor.
    I think it is one of these deals where if--I think it would 
make the committees more responsive as well in making sure that 
they had good measures that they sent to the Rules Committee as 
opposed to saying, We will fix it as we are moving.
    But I also think that when a bill comes out--and we have 
seen it before. We have all seen it, where a bill comes out of 
a committee with either a unanimous vote or maybe there are two 
or three dissenters, but it is a strong vote, and then for 
various reasons, we can all come up with scenarios, that bill 
never moves forward.
    I think people need to know if you get a bill out of 
committee that there is going to be a time when you actually 
get to hear that bill. So I have got that action. Again, that 
language you should have. If you don't, I have got it here with 
me today.
    One that I love that I know most Members of this body don't 
love, but I got this adopted in Virginia in 1998 and, believe 
it or not, it is still there. And that is proportional seating 
on the committees. This is fair to everybody.
    The committee ought to reflect the floor. The American 
people in a democratic republic send us here, 435 of us, and 
one party or the other will have a majority and they should 
have the majority. And the rule sets up that it is proportional 
seating, fractional people going to the majority party.
    So, obviously, you can't have, you know, 20\1/2\ people on 
a committee on one side and 19\1/2\ on the other side. So the 
fractional person goes to the majority party.
    That covers the big ones. I would say this, though, and I 
wanted to take a minute to talk about the Holman Rule. I hope 
that it will be kept. I still think it is effective. We have 
not successfully passed a Holman Rule. That is okay. It is not 
designed to be used every single day or every single bill. It 
is supposed to be extraordinary.
    People have been doing this business, though, and it drives 
me crazy. As the chairman knows, I get all worked up about this 
stuff. And down to striking the last word he knows is one of my 
pet peeves, because you can always talk to the measure if it is 
the first time you have spoken on it.
    But in regard to the Holman Rule, people want to say you 
only get a dollar. Well, I think that is probably not legal. 
And so I haven't voted in favor of any of those, because you 
still have your minimum wage laws.
    Now, you can reduce them to minimum wage if you want to, 
but the purpose of Holman is not to reduce an individual. It is 
to rearrange the agency. Sometimes that affects one individual, 
but it is to have a retrenchment of expenditures while 
rearranging an agency or a subagency or a department.
    That is the real beauty of it. And it can work, and it can 
work for people on the left and the right. It is amazing how 
folks on the left don't understand that this can be helpful to 
them too. If you have got an agency that is not doing right, 
you can stick in a Holman amendment and rearrange the agency to 
make it more efficient, to make it do more of what you intended 
it to do in the first place when we passed legislation. So I 
hope that you all would keep that.
    I think I am still within my 5 minutes, but I am happy to 
answer questions. And in all fairness, you know, every day I 
think of something new and these were the ones I had ready to 
go. But if you had another hearing in November, I would 
probably have two or three more.
    And I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair thanks the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for 
not striking the last word before he spoke.
    Mr. Kilmer, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member 
McGovern, for the opportunity to testify today.
    You might be surprised to see a retiring Member before you, 
but in the time I have left, I am hoping to leave my campsite 
better than I found it.
    The Fix Congress Caucus, which I started with Congressman 
Timmons, my former co-chair of the Select Committee on the 
Modernization of Congress, and our Members of the Caucus have 
put a lot of thought into how to improve Congress' 
effectiveness.
    Several proposed rules changes in your committee's purview 
have come up, and I just wanted to share five with you today.
    First, I propose we institute a biennial bipartisan retreat 
for Members of Congress at the start of a new Congress. This 
retreat would provide a rare opportunity to engage with one 
another outside of the pressures of Washington, D.C., and to 
build relationships across party lines.
    Too often, we fail to collaborate simply because we don't 
know each other well enough. A retreat focused on mutual 
understanding and shared goals would help us form the 
coalitions we need to tackle some of the Nation's biggest 
challenges.
    Second, I propose we amend the House rules to require every 
committee to hold a bipartisan agenda-setting retreat at the 
beginning of each session of Congress. While we won't always 
agree and often don't on every policy issue, these retreats 
will allow us to identify areas of mutual concern and agreement 
so we can know what we can work together on as a committee. 
Most functional organizations start by saying, So what do we 
want to get done? And we don't really do that here enough.
    Next, I recommend allowing two Members from opposing 
parties to jointly sponsor bills. A model for this--and I am 
sure he will speak to it--is Representative Cleaver's 
bipartisan H. Res. 668, the BUDS Resolution. This simple change 
would incentivize bipartisanship. It would ensure that 
legislation reflects true collaboration and shared effort, 
while giving credit where it is due. We all know we have worked 
on bills together where we have to, in essence, you know, flip 
the coin on whose name is going to be on top of it. And that 
doesn't seem right, and it doesn't foster bipartisanship.
    Additionally, I suggest we establish a new joint committee 
on legislative processes, tasked with expediting the 
consideration of legislation that has passed one Chamber with 
broad bipartisan support. This is outlined in Congresswoman 
Williams and Congressman Timmons' bipartisan H. Con. Res. 8. 
Too often, good legislation supported by Members on both sides 
languishes in the other Chamber. This joint committee would 
examine ways to streamline the process to better prevent that 
from happening and to improve our ability to pass sound 
legislation for our constituents.
    And finally, I urge the creation of a select committee on 
refreshing our democracy, with equal party representation. This 
committee would be charged with making recommendations on how 
to reduce political violence, toxic polarization, and the 
spread of misinformation.
    It would also explore ways to incentivize collaboration and 
evidence-based policymaking to improve public confidence in 
Congress and to address critical issues that we haven't really 
engaged on adequately, like our existing candidate selection 
processes and the role of money in politics.
    As we reach America's 250th birthday, we can't allow our 
democracy to be undermined by forces of division. These aren't 
partisan proposals. These are practical solutions. By 
instituting bipartisan retreats, bipartisan committee agenda-
setting meetings, allowing joint sponsorship of bills, 
streamlining legislative processes between the House and the 
Senate and formally exploring reforms to strengthen our 
democracy, we can improve Congress and our output for the 
people we were sent here to represent.
    I know your committee and House rules significantly impact 
House operations and our legislative work. I hope you seriously 
consider these proposals no matter who holds the gavel next 
year. And while I won't be here anymore, I will be rooting for 
you and this institution always.
    I thank you again for your time and for your leadership on 
these issues. Thank you for the final chance to testify.
    And finally, I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
Ranking Member, to you and to your staff. I know how hard this 
committee works, and the fact that you are available to us day 
and night. And I particularly want to thank Don Sisson for 
going above and beyond for me this past week. You are all good 
partners in this effort to modernize Congress, and I thank you 
for that.
    [The statement of Mr. Kilmer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks 
the gentleman.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member McGovern, and 
members of the Rules Committee, thank you for allowing me to 
testify on proposed rule changes for the 119th Congress.
    Today, I would like to speak on my proposed rule change, 
which would amend House Rule XXI, restrictions on certain 
bills, to add a new clause 13 preventing the House from 
considering legislation unless the measure has a sunset 
provision.
    Sunset provisions automatically terminate the legislation, 
discretionary appropriation, or program unless Congress renews 
or reauthorizes to continue beyond a fixed period of time.
    As a freshman Member of Congress, I have learned, largely 
to my horror, how many unauthorized government agencies, 
offices, and programs exist and watched as controversial 
authorities extend in perpetuity, limiting reform 
opportunities.
    I believe this proposed rule change will make Congress a 
more professional body, and make the executive branch more 
accountable to the legislature, as intended, as it will require 
ongoing oversight and review of authorities, programs, and 
spending in order to determine whether they should continue as 
is, be modified, or be terminated in their entirety.
    Under our current system, programs and authorities have 
avoided congressional scrutiny simply because they exist, 
again, essentially into perpetuity. Even when concern about a 
particular program, agency, or spending priority is raised by 
our Members, the status quo of doing business, calendar 
constraints, political will and outside influences often 
prevent Congress from doing its job.
    If we, as the lawmakers, are subjected to a routine and 
ongoing scrutiny in what essentially amounts to performance 
review through elections, then so should the authorities, 
programs, and agencies we create. Our discretionary spending 
should surely be subject to such ongoing review.
    House Rule X, clause 21, lays out the general oversight 
responsibilities of the standing committee to analyze, quote, 
``the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness 
of Federal laws,'' end quote, and quote, ``conditions and 
circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability 
of enacting new or additional legislation,'' end quote.
    Clearly, it is Congress that is intended to conduct this 
routine oversight. In light of our historical failure to do so, 
however, using sunset provisions as I am proposing could 
resolve the issue. Congress should have ongoing and routine 
oversight of the authorities, programs, executive offices and 
spending that we approve, even when there is broad 
congressional support for such programs, et cetera.
    Oversight is an integral part of the legislative process, 
and routine reform is how we prevent or control issues long 
before they develop into a significant problem.
    During the 118th Congress, the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee provided a great example of how this could work when 
it unveiled a discussion draft of a bill to sunset Section 230 
of the Communications Decency Act.
    Section 230 is well-known to our Members these days. And 
while we all have different ideas for how it should be 
reformed, I would argue that there is a general consensus among 
our Members and their constituents that some action is needed.
    I seriously doubt that the social media companies would 
have so readily censored conservative speech had Section 230 
been subject to periodic congressional review.
    A sunset would require Congress, as part of the process of 
extending the authority, to work the policy through its 
committees of jurisdiction, where oversight and reform ideas 
could be proposed. This would then tee up the entire House to 
vote on whether to reform and/or extend an authority which has 
not been subject to substantive reform since its creation in 
1996.
    An example of a sunset clause working relates to Section 
702 of FISA, of the FISA Act. Because it had a sunset 
provision, Congress was able to implement several substantive 
reforms this year in order to prevent the FBI and other Federal 
agencies from abusing the FISA court and process, such as what 
was discovered as part of the Russia collusion hoax.
    Sunset clauses would require Congress to do its job. 
Routine consideration of extending authorities, appropriations, 
and programs would ensure Congress takes ongoing responsibility 
for addressing the important issues of the day, while also 
providing Members with more opportunities to shape policy and 
govern other than through a handful of must-pass bills that are 
not subject to proper process or consideration.
    Adding a sunset requirement for bills Congress considers 
will only strengthen this body and contribute to efforts to 
make Congress a more professional and accountable body to the 
people.
    Thank you again, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member 
McGovern, and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Hageman follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks 
the gentlelady.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 
Pettersen.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRITTANY PETTERSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. Pettersen. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 
Member. It is great to be with you all today. I really 
appreciate the opportunity to testify.
    I am proposing rule changes for the next Congress to ensure 
that our rules are addressing some of the systemic barriers 
that make this body more representative of the American people.
    Since the establishment of Congress in 1789, there have 
been more than 12,500 Members that serve on this body. Just 12 
of those Members are women who have given birth during their 
term, and there is a reason for that.
    In today's Congress, of the 541 current Members across both 
Chambers, only 37 of them are women with children under the age 
of 18. Moms of kids are underrepresented in this body, and we 
have the opportunity to remove some of those barriers to make 
sure that we change things to make it more accessible.
    The current prohibition on proxy voting forces pregnant 
Members and Members who have recently welcomed a new child, to 
choose between taking care of their newborn or representing 
their constituents.
    I am proposing that within the House rules, a narrow 
exception to the prohibition on proxy voting be added to allow 
Members to vote by proxy while taking parental leave, right in 
line with what we have for Federal employees for up to 12 weeks 
for parental leave. And that includes if you have a medical 
condition that makes it so you can't be here in person before 
giving birth, which would take from the total of 12 weeks.
    To address the concerns around quorum, Members voting by 
proxy under this exception would not count towards quorum. So 
this would just be for voting on the floor and voting in 
committee.
    I am personally--I was invested in this before. As I served 
in the legislature, I was the first person to be on leave when 
I gave birth to my newborn, Davis. Unfortunately, our laws were 
incredibly restrictive as well.
    This was a priority for me, coming to Congress, to make 
sure that it was more accessible. And now I have a current 
vested interest. I am 20 weeks pregnant and due at the end of 
January or beginning of February.
    And so, when I think about what it looks like to navigate 
being a Member of Congress and deciding am I going to be home 
taking care of my newborn, or am I going to be here to be a 
voice for my constituents. Do I have to bring my family and 
pull my child out of preschool to live in a studio apartment 
while we try to be here so that I am able to vote.
    It is comparable to--what you go through physically is 
comparable to a very difficult surgery. The recovery time. You 
know, childcare isn't available for 3 months. So this is a 
necessary move to make sure that we are modernizing Congress, a 
very narrow focus. Like I said, only 12 people have given birth 
while serving, but this should also apply to spouses who have 
newborns at home as well.
    So thank you for your time and consideration, and I hope to 
be able to work with you to address these barriers in the 
future.
    [The statement of Ms. Pettersen follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    Just prior to recognizing Mr. Cleaver, I would invite Mr. 
Foster if he wanted to join us at the witness table. And we 
will go to you after Mr. Cleaver.
    Mr. Cleaver, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking 
Member, Mr. McGovern, for giving us the opportunity to make 
these suggestions.
    Before I get into my specific recommendation, I would like 
to just say to this committee as I would like to say to the 
entire country, I think we had something with this committee 
that I think the people around the country of goodwill would 
love to see each day coming out of Washington.
    Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Graves, Mr. Timmons worked fabulously, with 
a high level of civility and dignity, on the Committee on 
Modernization. It was rewarding to those of us who were on the 
committee to just come to a meeting and see that there was no 
name-calling, no screams across the aisle.
    And I wanted to make sure I had a chance to say that on the 
record. Mr. Kilmer is here. I wish I had the opportunity to say 
that to Mr. Graves, although I did run into him a few months 
back and shared with him my delight in working with him.
    I want to now thank you particularly for allowing us to 
come before you today. And I think it is important for us to 
voice our own experiences and ideas on how we can make this 
beautiful chaotic institution into something that would work 
just a little bit better.
    During the 116th and 117th Congresses, I had the honor of 
serving on the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress, 
otherwise known as the Modernization Committee.
    As you know, this select committee was slightly different 
from the others in our illustrious Chamber. It had an equal 
number of Democrats and Republicans working together to find 
bipartisan reforms that would, if implemented, make Congress a 
little more effective, efficient, and reflective of the will of 
the people.
    Over those 4 years, I am happy to say that we were able to 
conjure up more than 200 recommendations that will help all of 
us better serve our constituents.
    While I was proud of all the recommendations that we 
formally passed under the leadership of Chairman Kilmer and Mr. 
Timmons and Mr. Graves, there is one that I found particularly 
powerful, one that ultimately became my BUDS Resolution or 
Building Unity through Dual Sponsorship Resolution.
    This important legislation would pull one small but very 
powerful lever that I believe would facilitate greater 
collaboration in the Halls of the House. This resolution would 
allow for any bill in the House to have two lead sponsors, 
provided they are from Members of different political parties.
    I was proud to introduce the BUDS Resolution along with 
Representative Young Kim, who, in an ideal world, would be 
listed as a lead sponsor as well, and Representatives Derek 
Kilmer, William Timmons, Dean Phillips and Mike Carey.
    There are two key advantages to this resolution that I hope 
to emphasize. First, it can help us promote bipartisanship and 
civility, which I believe is desperately needed in our 
polarized politics.
    Second, it can help give better recognition to Members who 
are working hard and seeking common ground here in D.C.
    Allow me to take the second point first. Recognition for 
the hard and important work that lawmakers do is something that 
we can often feel uncomfortable for the most humble of 
lawmakers, because the last thing any of us wants to admit to 
our districts is that Members deserve praise.
    But we all know that there are some Members, particularly 
when their party is in the minority, who are working hard every 
single day to craft meaningful bipartisan bills with the 
majority party to meet the needs and deal with the issues that 
our constituents are concerned about. We also all know that 
there are some Members who don't.
    Even if the BUDS Resolution did not change behavior in any 
way, it would immediately become much easier for our 
constituents and the media alike to see when the Member of 
Congress is actively writing and introducing legislation when 
concurrently they would get listed top line.
    I do believe, as do many others, that we won't just see 
better recognition for those Members who are working to 
introduce bipartisan bills, we will see a clear incentive 
change where Members know that it is now further in their 
advantage to work in a bipartisan manner more frequently.
    I strongly believe that this is a key ideal we should be 
striving for in how we craft rules packages. This idea has 
gotten a lot of traction with the Fix Congress cohort of 
organizations we have worked with.
    And we work with organizations like the Bipartisan Policy 
Center, Demand Progress, The Foundation for American 
Innovation, Issue One and many more.
    But I believe that anyone who believes in smart 
organizational incentives and good system design can get behind 
this change, which I think would be of great aid to this 
organization.
    Let me end by just saying that Mr. Kilmer opened up about 
having a retreat when we first come together at the beginning 
of a Congress. I spent a lot of time meeting with Ray LaHood 
and talking with him about it, because he actually organized 
one of those retreats for Members of both parties. And I just 
got ideas from him on what he did and how much time it took.
    I think we make a terrible mistake--and I am through--when 
Members get elected and there is a Democratic bus and there is 
a Republican bus right at beginning. And that is a declaration, 
it is a scream, we are not together. And I think that that can 
be fixed if we come together at the beginning of each Congress.
    Thank you very kindly.
    [The statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Foster of Illinois for his 
observations.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member.
    It is not well-known by most Members of Congress, but prior 
to 1993, signing onto a discharge petition was an anonymous 
act. This made the discharge petition much more effective at 
its intended purpose, which is sort of to operate as a safety 
valve against, you know, the Speaker's rather dictatorial 
power, or absolute power, to control what gets voted on.
    And then often this power, in a situation where the Speaker 
is holding onto power by a bare majority, that transfers the 
power to veto what gets voted on to, frankly, the most extreme 
wing of either party.
    And so prior to 1993, this wasn't the case. And in a 
typical session of Congress, you had a handful of significant 
pieces of legislation that advanced because they were supported 
by a majority of usually centrists in the U.S. Congress.
    And that has been missing since the rules change happened 
in 1993, which ironically came about as a result of a discharge 
petition. And the rules change made it public.
    And at that point, any Member who signs onto a discharge 
petition from the opposing party immediately finds himself 
under threats from the Speaker, and under attack from the 
extreme wing of their own party. If you made it anonymous, you 
would allow Members to sort of probe support for centrist 
legislation.
    You know, I am a scientist, but I am also a machine 
builder. And when I see a broken machine, I spend a while 
trying to study it and trying to understand how it ever worked 
and what could be done to fix it. And in this case--you know, I 
have been amused for a long time at how can it be that there is 
legislation supported by 70 or 80 percent of the public, a 
clear majority of Members of Congress, and yet we are not 
allowed to even vote on it, because it would clearly pass.
    And it has to do with this absolute power of the Speaker 
and the threat, you know, that happens in both parties. You 
know, one of my first caucus meetings consisted of the then-
Speaker of the House threatening Heath Shuler, a nice centrist 
Blue Dog Democrat, threatening him, or reaming him out for 
signing onto an enemy discharge petition.
    And so then you say, all right, why was this rules change 
made? It was done in the name of transparency, because 
apparently some Members were claiming they signed onto a 
discharge petition when, in fact, they had not. Okay.
    The rules change, which is in the form of legislation if we 
want it that way, provides a fix to that, that when you sign a 
discharge petition you simply check the box to say, I want this 
public. So that if you wish, it will be public. If you wish to 
make it private.
    But what this would do, it would allow coalitions of 
centrists to probe the support for a centrist resolution 
without exposing themselves to the wrath of either the party 
leadership or the extreme wing of their party.
    And maybe we would get rid of this logjam of centrist 
legislation that we don't get to vote on. And I think, you 
know, there are many examples of this.
    One that I often refer to is just imagine a version of the 
Dream Act that would provide immediate legality but no path to 
citizenship. You know, you would get a big majority of both 
parties.
    But right now, if any Democratic or Republican Speaker 
brought that up, they would catch hell from, you know, the 
extreme wing of their party on this. And providing anonymity 
during the period when we were probing the support, optimizing 
the language, would really go--you know, that is my best fix 
for trying to make this broken machine work better.
    And so, we have legislation on this that I would like 
everyone to have a look at. If you want to sort of educate 
yourself about the history of the discharge petition, there is 
an excellent Wikipedia article. So everyone can go and just 
study that and the references in it.
    And so, I think this would do a lot because, as the article 
points out, a lot of the legislation that advanced came about 
because the Speaker saw that the number of signatures was going 
up. And they then panicked and would go back and say, Look, we 
are going to get legislation drafted by the opposing party 
unless we come together as a party and make some moderate 
thing.
    So it really gives the Speaker a lot of leverage against 
the extreme wing of their party. And so in a way, this would be 
liberating to a Speaker, even though someone might think that 
it is, you know, something no Speaker will ever agree to.
    Anyway, I think we should consider adopting this in the 
coming session of Congress, at least on a temporary basis, and 
see if this actually oils the machine a little bit better. It 
is a good time to discuss this right now.
    And why I bring it up is no one knows who is going to be in 
control of Congress. And when there is that uncertainty, it is 
a good time to understand if this is the sort of proposal that 
will make it work better whether or not you will end up being 
the winner or loser on this.
    Anyway, that is I think a very important, very simple rules 
change that could go a long ways toward making this institution 
work again.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Foster follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
yields back.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for their very 
thoughtful presentations and their thoroughness. You have done 
such a great job, the chairman has no questions, and I will 
yield to the ranking member for questions.
    Mr. McGovern. I appreciate everybody's testimony here 
today, and there is certainly a lot to think about.
    And, Mr. Kilmer, I am sorry you are leaving. And I want to 
thank you for your work on the Select Committee on 
Modernization and on the Fix Congress Caucus. I think your work 
has already made this place better, and so, I want to publicly 
thank you for that.
    I like the idea of two lead sponsors of a bill. I think it 
would encourage more bipartisanship. I also think there is a 
case to be made for two lead cosponsors, period. I mean, if you 
have two Members from the same State who are interested in a 
bill on behalf of a committee that both of them represent, you 
know, that is not a bad thing. They may be two Republicans or 
two Democrats. They might want to do that as well.
    But I do think it is helpful to be able to have two leads, 
especially if you are trying to show some bipartisanship. So I 
think that is a good idea.
    Ms. Pettersen, congratulations. And look, it is frustrating 
to me that this institution refuses to acknowledge that it is 
2024. Technology is a reality. And, we learned during COVID 
that we could operate. And, you know, the challenge is to be 
able to allow flexibility for people, in your case, who are 
about to have a baby, but there are other cases as well.
    We ought to be able to--we ought to allow for exceptions. 
We don't want to go so far that this place becomes a body that 
operates remotely, but there are cases. There are cases that I 
think we ought to allow for proxy voting, and so I am very much 
open to that.
    And, Ms. Hageman, including sunsets in legislation, I 
personally believe should be up to Members as part of the 
legislative process on a case-by-case basis, because I am 
concerned, quite frankly, with the backlog of reauthorizations 
that this could potentially cause, totally clogging up the 
legislative process. But I am open to learning more about that.
    Mr. Griffith, I appreciate all your recommendations. I 
didn't look deep enough on the committee ratios. Did you 
include the Rules Committee on that? Because----
    Mr. Griffith. The Rules Committee is the one exception.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah, well, you know----
    Mr. Griffith. Historically, that is----
    Mr. McGovern. But if you did, this would have been a seven-
to-six kind of committee, and we could have had some fun this 
year. And----
    Mr. Griffith. I think the Rules Committee is always fun. I 
love watching and--but that being said, no, I did not include 
the Rules Committee. It includes all committees other than 
Rules.
    And if it works so well, and I think it will, as it has in 
Virginia, both--we have had numerous party changes since that 
rule was adopted in 1998, and both parties see value to it.
    So I think it is something that we should look at. It is 
fair to the people of the United States. It may not be fair to 
the majority party on a given day, but what it has done in 
Virginia is not only has it made the situation fair, but both 
parties realize that they need to get out and work for their 
colleagues, not just because of the majority, but because an 
additional seat that they might win means that they might stay 
on a committee where otherwise they might be bounced off a 
committee. So it really makes both parties work harder.
    Mr. McGovern. Right. But this committee I would argue, is 
about whether there should be fairness or not. And so it kind 
of trumps all the other committees, if you will, in terms of 
how legislation is presented. But, again, it is something----
    Mr. Griffith. I recognize that concern and, should you be 
in the majority, would not oppose that as a rule.
    Mr. McGovern. What about if you are in the majority?
    Mr. Griffith. I will have to defer then to the leaders of 
my party.
    Mr. McGovern. I got to tell you I don't agree with you on 
the Holman Rule. I don't. You know, I support our hardworking 
Federal employees, and I don't agree with you on that.
    Mr. Griffith. I do think that it is extraordinary. It is 
hard to pass. And I do believe that it could be used in a 
bipartisan fashion, or in a partisan fashion by both parties.
    It is not set up to protect or to help one party or the 
other, and it is not set up just as a cudgel on Federal 
agencies per se, but it does give Congress more authority.
    And I am having to explain this regularly to folks, that 
this is a wonderful tool. It was created in the 19th century. 
And it allows us to, as long as we are doing retrenchments, we 
can actually rearrange agencies on the floor. And I think it is 
a valuable tool, but I understand your objections.
    Mr. McGovern. And just one final thing. I can't remember 
the Rules Committee on either side making in order a nongermane 
amendment under the majority.
    So, I agree that nongermane amendments should not be made 
in order, but I think the Rules Committee has pretty 
consistently blocked all nongermane amendments. And so, I think 
we are doing that.
    But in any event, I appreciate everyone--we have a lot here 
to think about, and I appreciate your recommendation as well. 
This is all very, very helpful.
    So, with that, I thank you and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The gentlelady from Minnesota.
    Mrs. Fischbach. No questions.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady has no questions.
    The gentleman from South Carolina.
    Mr. Norman. No questions.
    The Chairman. The gentleman has no questions.
    The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Langworthy. No questions.
    The Chairman. Has no questions.
    So seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of 
this panel, I do want to thank you for your thoughtful 
presentations. Congratulations in advance of January.
    And this panel is excused.
    As the first panel makes their way out, I call up our 
second panel and invite Mr. Castro to the witness table.
    And, Mr. Castro, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOAQUIN CASTRO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, members 
of the committee. Great to be with you all.
    I want to take up two rules in particular and first want to 
say thank you for allowing me to testify today, for giving all 
of us Members a chance to offer our suggestions on the rules.
    I come to address an issue that is critical to our ability 
as Members of Congress to fulfill our legislative and oversight 
responsibilities effectively: Ensuring Members of Congress who 
have national security duties are provided staff who can 
support them in their work.
    As someone who is a senior member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, I have served since I came in in January of 
2013, and also the Intelligence Committee, I have been there 
between 8 and 8\1/2\ years--I know that staff's access to 
classified material is not just a convenience. It is essential.
    It enables our staff to support us as we review 
legislation, meet our oversight responsibilities, receive 
detailed briefings from executive branch officials, and visit 
various facilities, like military bases in our district.
    Currently, Members may designate up to two personal office 
staff as eligible for top secret security clearances, following 
a background investigation. While a top secret clearance is 
helpful, it is insufficient for the needs of modern-day 
oversight over national security agencies.
    These staff members remain ineligible for access to 
Sensitive Compartmented Information, or what is known as SCI, 
which limits their effectiveness in assisting us with our 
national security responsibilities.
    The limitation on SCI access is increasingly challenging. 
As you know, information designated as SCI typically means that 
it relates to sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or 
analytical processes.
    Over the past several decades, the executive branch has 
overseen an unprecedented expansion in the volume of SCI 
content and classified information. We also see the phenomenon 
of, quote/unquote, ``overclassification,'' where agencies 
assign higher classification levels than required.
    In the words of the Director of National Intelligence, or 
DNI, quote, ``Overclassification undermines critical democratic 
objectives, such as increasing transparency to promote an 
informed citizenry and greater accountability.''
    This, combined with the fact that thousands of executive 
branch employees hold TS/SCI clearances means that a standard 
top secret clearance no longer lives up to its name.
    Three years ago, the United States Senate recognized the 
same problem and made a change. Today, Senators can designate a 
member of their personal office, a member of their staff, to 
hold a Top Secret/SCI clearance. In the House, access to such 
information is restricted to a handful of leadership and 
committee staff.
    So just to give the concrete example of what is going on, 
the members that sit on the committee are not allowed to have 
any staff member from their staff, their personal office, join 
them at any of the meetings in the SCIF, which undermines our 
ability to do our work.
    When a Senator visits a sensitive facility on a military 
base in their State or attends a classified briefing here in 
Washington, they can bring a member of their staff to assist in 
their duties. When a Member of the House of Representatives 
does the same, we cannot.
    To emphasize, the House of Representatives is at a 
disadvantage in comparison to the Senate when it comes to 
conducting oversight over U.S. national security.
    To address these challenges, the House of Representatives 
should request that the House direct the Sergeant at Arms to 
update the House Security Manual to better reflect the 
realities of today's national security environment and allow at 
least one personal office staff member as eligible for a top 
secret/SCI clearance, contingent on a favorable background 
check investigation, just as the Senate has already done. So, 
again, the United States Senate made this change 2 years ago.
    I want to emphasize that this would be a narrow change, 
consistent with current practice. Staff would still not gain 
access to classified information unless they demonstrate a need 
to know. In fact, even within the committee staff, there are 
times when compartmented information is being discussed that 
some committee staff will be in the room and others will not.
    It would not, on its own, grant classified network access 
or permit the storage or transmission of classified information 
except where explicitly authorized by the House or relevant 
committees.
    In addition, the adjudication process is the same for a top 
secret and top secret/SCI clearance, so the overall volume of 
requests would not increase and there wouldn't be any 
additional costs.
    If a cleared individual divulges classified information 
without authorization, because I know that leaks are a concern, 
they would be subject to criminal prosecution, as currently law 
and House policy provides.
    In closing, Members of Congress have a solemn duty to 
provide for the common defense and to conduct effective 
oversight of the executive branch. But to do so, we need 
appropriately cleared staff to support our efforts. If not, the 
way it currently exists, I believe that there is a handicap for 
House Members that the Senate no longer has.
    The current policies encumber our ability to fulfill these 
responsibilities, and in some cases, they render it nearly 
impossible.
    The second issue I would like to take up is one that we all 
deal with and all face in our own districts and our own work, 
and that would be to allow volunteers to support congressional 
events. The second issue I raise today concerns a policy 
regarding volunteers and the application of the House Gift 
Rule.
    As Members of Congress, one of our core responsibilities is 
to support the needs of the communities that we represent, 
including through town halls, where we solicit input from 
constituents, and events, where we advertise Federal resources 
to our constituents.
    These events take time and money and the hard work of staff 
to organize successfully, and they are necessary to ensure that 
Members of Congress continue to serve our communities.
    One constraint that Members face in organizing such events 
is in our ability to work with volunteers that may want to help 
and support these efforts. And this, again, runs afoul of the 
House Gift Rule. So that work, that volunteerism can't be 
accepted.
    I request that this committee consider a change in the Gift 
Rule or revise the application and guidelines of that rule to 
allow for limited support from volunteers for congressional 
offices, particularly in the district. The kind of support I am 
envisioning includes helping check in guests or helping an 
event be set up or pulled down.
    To prevent abuse, any such change would need to have 
limits, of course. That could include prohibiting any such 
support from lobbyists and corporations or requiring a process 
to notify the Committee on Ethics of any instances where 
volunteers may be used at a particular event.
    This change, while minor, I think could significantly 
improve the ability of Members of Congress and our offices to 
serve our constituents and to do our work.
    Thank you so much for your time and consideration on these 
rules, and I look forward to your questions if you have any.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Thanks to the 
gentleman.
    The chair recognizes the gentleman for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUDY YAKYM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member 
McGovern, for holding today's hearing on proposed Rules changes 
for the 119th Congress.
    On behalf of Chairman Jodey Arrington and the Budget 
Committee, I am here to present several ideas for the Rules 
package for the 119th Congress that will ensure greater fiscal 
accountability and responsibility.
    We recommend three changes to the Rules package for the 
next Congress. Our first recommendation relates to caps on 
budgetary outlays. It is no secret that our Nation's fiscal 
health continues to decline more and more each year.
    Currently, there is no enforcement mechanism in the House 
of Representatives when an appropriations bill or an amendment 
exceeds the acceptable 302(b) suballocation of outlays.
    To fix this problem, the House should implement a rule that 
caps outlays in appropriations measures. This would enhance the 
transparency and integrity of the appropriations process and 
ensure sustainable fiscal controls.
    Under current law, the Senate has an enforcement mechanism 
for an appropriations bill or amendment that exceeds the 
acceptable 302(b) suballocation of outlays.
    Our next suggestion has to do with the emergency spending 
designations. As you know, emergency designations are exempt 
from fiscal constraints, including requirements to offset 
spending. Circumventing spending caps distorts our true fiscal 
condition and reduces the much-needed transparency and 
accountability that we owe taxpayers.
    Since 1991, Congress has enacted more than $4 trillion in 
emergency designated discretionary spending. This constant 
practice of designating non-emergencies as emergency spending 
has undermined the original intent of the designation and led 
to reckless spending.
    For example, nearly 4 years ago, Congress passed and 
President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. All $415 billion of its outlays were designated 
as an emergency, including $66 billion for Amtrak. This influx 
of funding came a year after Amtrak received $1 billion for 
true emergencies--pandemic-related problems such as, quote, 
``to avert further job losses and cuts to essential services.''
    The $66 billion Amtrak requested a year later received an 
emergency designation but was allocated for entirely 
foreseeable and longstanding items on Amtrak's wish list, 
including $13 billion in funds that will not even be spent 
until fiscal years 2030 and 2031.
    Some examples include replacing Amtrak's fleet of railcars 
and locomotives with, quote, ``comfortable state-of-the-art 
equipment'' and various other backlogged projects. However 
worthy, none of these meet the statutory definition of 
``emergency.''
    IIJA was not responding to an emergency, so its funding 
should not have been treated as such.
    We recommend that the House should consider a reform that 
would require Members who want to attach the, quote, 
``emergency'' designation, to proposed spending to submit a 
written justification explaining how: number one, the funding 
meets the narrow criteria in the law to prevent, mitigate, or 
respond to, quote, ``loss of life or property or threat to 
national security. . .''; and, number two, the situation is, 
quote, ``unanticipated'' by describing how it is, quote, 
``sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.''
    We believe requiring an emergency spending justification 
would better inform members and limit using funds for non-
emergency purposes.
    Lastly, we should consider ways that eliminate the use of 
illusory savings in appropriations measures. Specifically, a 
``CHIMP,'' or ``Change in Mandatory Spending Program'' occurs 
when an appropriations bill reduces mandatory budget authority 
for a program, then uses those, quote/unquote, ``savings'' to 
offset new discretionary spending.
    Shifting taxpayer dollars to the discretionary side of the 
budget allows Congress to increase discretionary spending 
without technically breaking any applicable cap on spending. 
However, not all CHIMPs are created equal. Some legitimately 
reduce long-term spending while others do not.
    A, quote, ``bad CHIMP'' may reduce spending but only 
temporarily, and eventually lead to higher spending.
    As a result, these provisions mislead lawmakers and 
taxpayers by creating the appearance of budgetary savings even 
as debt grows. Such provisions undermine the integrity of the 
budget process, encourage lawmakers to use illusory savings to 
justify increases in spending, and distort the full extent of 
our nation's fiscal condition.
    According to the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), 
President Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request included 
$41.5 billion in total CHIMPs, which included provisions 
related to the Crimes Victims Fund and the Children's Health 
Insurance Program among others.
    So-called ``bad CHIMPs'' cut funding that would not have 
been spent anyway, so not only--and do so only on a temporary 
basis. Quote, ``The offsets only appeared to exist on paper'', 
EPIC notes, ``but the spending continues.''
    The House should consider implementing a rule that would no 
longer reward bad behavior and ensure that new spending adheres 
to applicable spending caps and results in genuine--not 
illusory--savings.
    Thank you again for holding today's hearing to solicit 
input on proposed Rules changes for the 119th Congress. The 
ideas from the Budget Committee outlined in this testimony will 
help ensure that we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars and 
promote greater transparency and accountability in the budget 
and appropriations process.
    Thank you again. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The statement of Mr. Yakym follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks 
the gentleman.
    I thank both of you for your thoughtful and thought-
provoking testimony.
    Mr. Yakym, I'm mindful of the fact that I am also missing a 
budget hearing currently to chair this meeting. But let me ask 
you, as far as the Budget Committee is concerned, doesn't the 
Budget Committee already have jurisdiction over defining 
emergency situations?
    Mr. Yakym. We do. But we also believe that having this 
fully baked into the Rules would be an additional layer of 
accountability and enforceability.
    The Chairman. Is there additional legislation that needs to 
come through the Budget Committee, though, in this regard?
    Mr. Yakym. We may be introducing additional legislation on 
this matter, but we think having a hard and fast rule baked 
into the House Rules going into next year would certainly be in 
the best interest of not only our House but also the broader 
country as well.
    The Chairman. Well, it certainly begs credibility that you 
would pass something as an emergency that is not going to be 
spent for another 8 years, so I understand your anxiety there.
    Again, I want to thank you for your testimony.
    I will go to the ranking member for his questions.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank you both for your 
suggestions. They certainly deserve consideration.
    And Mr. Castro, on the issue that you brought up initially, 
you know, as someone who has worked on issues over the years 
that require access to the SCI information, I certainly 
understand the importance of ensuring Congress has the capacity 
to analyze this information.
    If I recall, when we took over a while ago, this issue was 
brought up. I think we kind of looked into it. I think there 
are some complications, but we ought to stay in touch and 
figure out----
    Mr. Castro. Yeah. I hope you all will take a fresh look, 
Ranking Member.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Mr. Castro. Obviously, it makes it harder to do our work as 
Members. Remember, the only time we can view these materials is 
by going to the SCIF.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah.
    Mr. Castro. So you have got all of these people with busy 
schedules who are supposed to be performing oversight, no 
personal staff help, so we are with all relying on committee 
staff. And the committee staff does an incredible job. They 
work very hard. But, I mean, as you know, these are--the 
material that we are dealing with, it is some of the highest 
stakes in this building.
    Mr. McGovern. Right.
    Mr. Castro. And I just think it is a liability at this 
point not to have somebody there to be helpful.
    Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent 
to insert into the record the following statements from 
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz writing in support of 
remote voting for new parents; Representative Mullin writing in 
support of codifying House digital services as the Office of 
Digital Services; adjusting staff pay for inflation, and 
piloting floor schedule improvements to reduce the number of 
travel days and improve productivity; Representative Mike Levin 
writing in support of placing the Transition Assistance Program 
under the primary jurisdiction of the Veterans Affairs 
Committee; and Ranking Member Takano writing to urge us to 
establish a House office for science and technology.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered. All of those 
will be entered into the record.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. McGovern. I yield back.
    The Chairman. And recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota 
for questions.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I have none.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady has no questions.
    The gentleman from South Carolina.
    Mr. Norman. No.
    The Chairman. No questions.
    Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions of this 
panel, I----
    Mr. Castro. Chairman, can I enter just a letter into the 
record on the first issue I presented on?
    The Chairman. On----
    Mr. Castro. Just enter this letter into the record?
    The Chairman. And the letter?
    Mr. Castro. Yeah, it is a letter that was signed by many 
Members of Congress in support of the first issue that I 
described allowing for personal staff from members of certain 
committees who sit on the Intelligence Committee.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Castro. Thanks.
    The Chairman. And, again, I want to thank the panel for 
their thoughtful presentation and the thoughtful responses to 
questions, and this panel is excused.
    Prior to going to our next panel, I also want to--without 
objection, the written testimony of the following members will 
be included in the record: Mr. Issa, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
D'Esposito.
    Without objection, all of those members' statements will be 
inserted into the record.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. We will call up our next panel, Mr. Ogles.
    Let me again remind you any materials that you wish to be 
made as part of the record will be done so. And you are now 
recognized to give us your summary of your prepared remarks.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDREW OGLES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Dr. Burgess, Ranking Member.
    Each of us has an obligation to the American people to make 
this historic institution work for them, and I know that we all 
share common commitment. When Republicans took the majority, we 
had a chance to fix how Washington works to make it work for 
everyone, and after the longest Speaker fight since before the 
Civil War, we developed a House rules package befitting the 
greatness of the people of our Nation. From sea to shining sea, 
to my home in Maury County, Tennessee, this rules package gave 
all Americans a greater voice into our legislative process.
    Through the efforts of my colleagues and I, Republicans 
passed with near unanimous support the current rules package 
governing how the House does business, and the results speak 
for themselves. When I say 2026, I am not talking about the 
calendar year. I am talking about the number of Republican 
amendments that have been made in order since last January. And 
my colleagues and I have indicated from the very beginning 
having all viewpoints from across the Republican Conference 
represented in this legislative process provides greater input 
and diversity as we move forward for our respective districts.
    The number of Republican amendments made in order since 
this last January is more than a total combined number of those 
amendments made in order from the 115th to the 117th Congress. 
With members having the ability to amend legislation, every 
House Republican has the opportunity to deliver on district-
specific priorities, including those Republicans in 
congressional districts Joe Biden carried in 2020. For my own 
part, I have been able to get 59 amendments through the House. 
That matters enormously to my constituents back home. This 
outcome across the conference is unprecedented in terms of its 
level of success. It has yielded great results and has 
benefited Republicans from New York, to Middle Tennessee, to 
California.
    Despite the numerous positive outcomes for Republicans and 
our constituents this Congress, I know there are plenty of 
well-meaning folks on our side who want to change House rules 
and move back to the previous status quo. However, I would 
argue that changes to the reforms adopted in this Congress' 
rules package would make it even harder to develop a consensus 
among Republicans in the new Congress.
    For instance, aside from the second appropriations minibus 
this past March, House leadership has done a great job of 
adhering to the so-called 72-hour rule, giving members and 
their staff 72 hours, a real 72 hours, to review consequential 
legislation.
    Legislation should continue to be focused on a single 
subject along with the comparative print. This ought to be the 
rule for the 119th Congress, and I would be surprised to hear 
any opposition to this that isn't led by the Democrats. But if 
we changed it, we would start losing our own colleagues.
    Another flash point this Congress has centered around the 
use of the Holman Rule. I recognize the concerns that some on 
this panel may have, including the potential 
unconstitutionality of reducing salaries to $1. I would support 
a modified Holman rule which would address the minimum wage 
concern raised by folks in the conference. But otherwise, any 
amendment to either reduce the salary or expenses of an 
underperforming individual or office must be made in order to 
any appropriations bill.
    Again, every single person in our conference, with the 
exception of one, voted in support of the Holman Rule in 
allowing individual members acting on behalf of their 
constituents to hold rogue and underperforming bureaucrats to 
account.
    This Congress' rule package also includes permitting rank-
and-file members to raise a question of the privileges of the 
House under clause 2(a) of rule IX. Insofar as most 
Republicans' applications of rule IX are concerned, from 
censures to voting on terminating national emergencies, if you 
are opposed to the underlying policy, members can simply vote 
against the things they don't support. Quite frankly, that is 
how this place is supposed to work. There is no good argument 
to deny rank-and-file members who would like the option of 
influencing the legislative debate.
    The most significant implication of keeping clause 2(a) of 
rule IX the same is the motion to vacate. I personally want to 
make this point clear: I never have, I don't plan to, or have 
any desire to utilize the motion to vacate. And I am sure many 
of my colleagues would agree with that same sentiment.
    However, if we attempt to change the parameters and 
circumstances under which a motion to vacate may be brought up, 
it would undoubtedly fracture the Republican Conference. We all 
agreed on the changes to clause 2(a) of rule IX as well as the 
one-person motion to vacate. Everybody who is a Republican 
serving today, aside from one person, agreed to that on the 
record. Again, attempts to change the threshold would invite 
more chaos.
    Aside from keeping the rules package as it is currently 
constituted, I would like to propose a few ideas of my own, if 
I may. The first is incorporating a modified version of GOP 
Conference rule 29 into the rules of the House. Rule 29 says we 
can't consider any legislation under suspension of the rules if 
it fails to include a cost estimate or to which the cost 
estimate exceeds $100 million. However, this rule has often 
been waived. Indeed it's been waived far too many times.
    As a result, I would recommend the 119th Congress nullify 
the waiver completely when incorporating Conference rule 29 
into House rules.
    We should simultaneously also put an end to the bills that 
authorize appropriations in excess of $100 million. If we want 
to get serious about spending--that should be a common 
objective among Republicans, by the way--we cannot just let 
bills authorizing hundreds of millions in spending pass on 
suspension by voice, and also argue that it won't affect direct 
spending. It is more than a little disingenuous, it misleads 
the American people, and if Congress wants to consider massive 
spending legislation we ought to do so under a rule, not under 
suspension.
    On the topic of suspensions, we also need to return back to 
the pre-Pelosi era norm of only considering suspension votes 
Monday through Wednesday. This was the norm of the House 
codified in clause 1 of rule XV. The ability to airdrop 
suspension votes at any time creates additional confusion, 
disruption, and incentivizes both parties to plan less 
effectively.
    Another proposed change to the 118th rule package 
implicates amendments to appropriations legislation. It is 
nearly impossible to cut from one program to fund another. In 
other words, rank-and-file members are still unable to 
prioritize spending within an appropriations bill.
    My recommendation directs the Congressional Budget Office 
to provide congressional offices with the outlay rate of any 
program requested within an appropriations bill. And if the 
ensuing amendment balances; in other words, if it doesn't 
affect the debt, the amendment must be made in order; that or 
commonsense increase/decrease amendments ought to be made in 
order. I am perfectly amenable to both.
    In sum, I recommend the following: Keeping the 72-hour rule 
for reviewing legislation; securing the Holman Rule while 
addressing concerns with decreasing someone's salary, the 
minimum wage concern; preserving the right of any member to 
offer a question of the privileges of the House, and retaining 
the motion to vacate threshold as it is; abandoning closed 
rules; incorporating a modified Conference rule 29 into the 
House rules and eliminating existing waiver authority; 
reimposing the pre-Pelosi era rule that suspensions may be only 
considered Monday through Wednesday; directing the CBO to work 
with member offices to obtain outlay rates and making 
subsequent appropriation amendments in order; and otherwise 
maintaining the 118th rules package.
    This rules package must be the floor not the ceiling for 
subsequent negotiation and debate. Again, 220 Republicans voted 
for it.
    I thank you for this opportunity and the time that you have 
allowed me and your graciousness, sir. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Ogles follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North 
Carolina, Chairman Foxx, Dr. Foxx.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. 
Thanks for hosting this member day and giving members the 
opportunity to speak before the committee.
    As we all remember, the start of the 118th Congress was a 
turbulent time for this institution. While we worked diligently 
to elect a Speaker of the House, there was confusion about when 
Members-elect officially become Members of Congress bestowed 
with the powers of the office to perform their duties, such as 
receiving intelligence briefings and conducting oversight.
    Legal scholars agree that Members-elect must take the oath 
of office to begin exercising the authorities of office. While 
the Speaker of the House is traditionally the one who 
administers the oath of office, the 20th Amendment to the 
Constitution states that the terms of Representatives shall 
begin on January 3 at noon. Therefore, it is the opinion of 
many that it is not a requirement for the Speaker to administer 
the oath of office, but rather the usual practice of the House.
    Therefore, to prevent confusion in the event that future 
Congresses also have difficulty electing a Speaker, I believe 
it is wise to ensure that Members-elect become full-fledged 
Members of Congress on January 3 at noon. The best way to do 
that is to require Members-elect to submit signed oath of 
office cards to the House Clerk before noon on January 3. This 
ensures that at noon all Members-elect will be able to exercise 
the powers of office immediately. Members-elect already sign 
oath of office cards that are filed with the House Clerk, and 
counting these signed cards as the legal oath of office would 
reduce confusion and help this institution function better.
    The Speaker of the House could still ask members to affirm 
their oaths of office in the Chamber publicly after his or her 
election as Speaker, but the removal of uncertainty about when 
the powers of office begin would strengthen this institution 
for future generations.
    We owe it to our posterity to fix the problems of our time 
and leave these institutions stronger than when we arrived.
    So that is my--I have introduced the bill to do that, and I 
think it would help us a great deal if we did it.
    The Chairman. Again, I thank you both for bringing these to 
the committee.
    Let me just ask you, Ms. Foxx, Dr. Foxx, the term of a 
departing Member of Congress, that would not extend beyond noon 
of January 3 even if the Speaker was not elected and the new 
Congress was not supporting it. I just want to make sure that I 
can make plans for after noon on January 3.
    Ms. Foxx. Yeah, I think you would be released, Dr. Burgess, 
if that is what you wish.
    The Chairman. I'm telling any day now I shall be released.
    I will recognize the ranking member for his questions.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Foxx, thank you for bringing this to our 
attention. I need to think about it a little bit. This is the 
first time I think anyone has brought this kind of amendment 
before us.
    And, Mr. Ogles, I was listening to you, and I am looking at 
the summary that you submitted, and one of the things in the 
summary that you guys submitted was dialing back closed rules, 
prioritizing open or structured rules by keeping Mr. Massie, 
Mr. Roy, and Mr. Norman on the Rules Committee. And I love them 
all, but I may feel bad for Ms. Fischbach.
    But the deal is, I guess what I find somewhat amusing is 
that you guys just broke the record of the most closed rules in 
history. We had 106 closed rules come out of this committee. 
And I am just doing a quick search. Mr. Massie voted for 93 of 
them; Mr. Norman voted for 94 of them; Mr. Roy voted for 91 of 
them. And you, Mr. Ogles, voted for 97 closed rules on the 
House floor. And by the way, of the amendments that were 
denied, more than half of them were Republican amendments that 
were brought before this committee that were blocked in this 
Congress.
    So, I don't know whether rules changes or assigning who 
goes on the Rules Committee is going to do the job. I mean, 
there just has to be a mindset change that ideas--by the way, 
not just Republican ideas, because you talked about how great 
the committee was to Republicans, although, I, again, point out 
half of the Republican amendments were denied. But this is a 
place where there has to be more space for people of all 
opinions to be able to offer their ideas and have a debate.
    And so, I just wanted to point that out because I thought 
it was kind of strange that was the point of your testimony 
given the fact that, again, Republicans just broke their 
previous record of the most closed rules of any Congress in 
history. And I get it, when you are in charge, you want to 
control the process. You know, you don't want to have people--
your members take tough votes. But this is the Congress of the 
United States, and I think people expect us to have a freer 
exchange of ideas on the House floor than we currently do.
    And so, again, I thank you for being here.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The gentlelady from Minnesota.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I have no question.
    The Chairman. Mr. Norman.
    Mr. Norman. No questions.
    The Chairman. Seeing no other members wishing to ask 
questions, this panel is excused. And thank you for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. I would just ask is there anyone else who is 
seeking to testify before the Rules Committee?
    Seeing none, without objection, the committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]