[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





  MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES CHANGES FOR THE 120TH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

                               __________










    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules      
             
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
64-581                   WASHINGTON : 2026



















             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts,
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina           Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas                      MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia,
  Vice Chair
BRIAN JACK, Georgia
                    Steve Waskiewicz, Staff Director
               Donald C. Sisson, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

               MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota, Chairwoman
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
BRIAN JACK, Georgia                  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
                                 ------                                

             Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

               NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York, Chairman
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina         TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Mexico,
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                  Ranking Member
                                     JOE NEGUSE, Colorado   
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           September 2, 2026

Opening Statements:
                                                                   Page
    Hon. Virgina Foxx, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina 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. Dave Min, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      California.................................................     3
        Prepared Statement.......................................     4
    Hon. Bradley Scott Schneider, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Illinois.................................     5
        Prepared Statement.......................................     6
    Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................     8
        Prepared Statement.......................................     9
    Hon. Randy Fine, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Florida.................................................    10
    Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Nevada..................................................    13
        Prepared Statement.......................................    15
    Hon. Sara Jacobs, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................    16
    Hon. Brittany Pettersen, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Colorado......................................    17
        Prepared Statement.......................................    19
    Hon. Jennifer A. Kiggans, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Virginia......................................    21
        Prepared Statement.......................................    22
    Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Michigan......................................    24
    Hon. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Washington...............................    25
    Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Missouri..........................................    30
        Prepared Statement.......................................    31
    Hon. Kevin Kiley, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California..............................................    32
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
    Statement from the Hon. Vicente Gonzalez, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Texas...........................    34
    Statement from the Hon. Nikki Budzinski, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Illinois........................    36
    Statement from the Hon. Stephen A. Womack, a Representative 
      in Congress from the State of Arkansas.....................    39

 
  MEMBER DAY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULES CHANGES FOR THE 120TH CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

                          House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Rules,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
H-313, The Capitol, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the 
committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Fischbach, Jack, McGovern, 
Scanlon, and Leger Fernandez.
    The Chairwoman. Good morning. The committee will come to 
order. I want to welcome as a special guest our former 
parliamentarian, Tom Wickham, and all of you for coming today.
    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 love a spirited debate--
especially the ranking member, who is always so exuberant and 
bombastic, without fail--and it is 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 is exactly what we are here to accomplish today. We 
will hear our colleagues on both sides of the aisle offer their 
ideas on possible improvements to the rules of the House for 
the 120th Congress.
    In the end, that is what good governance is all about. It 
is 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 is to be expected. That is 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, Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Member Day may not be the flashiest thing that we do around 
here, but these conversations really do matter. The rules of 
the House determine how Members participate in the lawmaking 
process--whether good ideas get a fair shot, whether the public 
can understand what we are 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 got to be a better way 
to do this.
    That is why when I became chairman of this committee in 
2019, one of the changes we put into our first rules package 
was a requirement that committees hold Member Day hearings like 
this one.
    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 that sure good ideas could come from 
anywhere.
    Now, we have 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. Some made their way into the rules package. 
That is why I believe in this process.
    Not every proposal we hear today will wind up in the House 
rules, but we are seeing 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 are doing, and where, every once in a while, 
we actually take on a big issue, have a real debate, cast a 
vote, and change something for the better. That is what this 
place is supposed to be for.
    So I am looking forward to hearing what our colleagues have 
brought us today. There will be ideas we agree with, ideas we 
don't, and probably a few none of us have ever thought about 
before. That is the whole point. So I look forward to this 
discussion.
    I thank the gentlelady for her opening remarks. I promise 
to be less bombastic. I am on my meds today, so I will be on my 
best behavior. But I look forward to this hearing.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. We take 
our work seriously. We don't have to take ourselves so 
seriously.
    So I now welcome to the witness table Mr. Min, Mr. Fine, 
Mr. Schneider, and Ms. Houlahan.
    Without objection, any prepared statements our witnesses 
may have will be included in the record. And I have read over 
what you all have suggested myself, and I feel certain that Mr. 
McGovern and Ms. Scanlon have also. So we have your prepared 
statements already.
    But you are now recognized, Mr. Min.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVE MIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Min. Thank you, Chair Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, 
for the opportunity to speak before the House Rules Committee 
today.
    I want to begin by recognizing the vital role this 
committee plays in safeguarding the integrity of the House, 
ensuring the House's standard rules are regularly updated, 
helping this institution stay ahead of emerging challenges, 
including adopting best practices, the work environment, and 
improving how technology is used 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 because I believe it is really important that 
we uphold the integrity of capitalism.
    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 are fundamentally corrupt. They see people trading 
stocks actively, trading bonds and other securities, and making 
lots of money.
    And the fact is that we in Congress receive access to 
information that would by any other standard be deemed material 
and inside information. People do trade on this, and I think it 
is a shame. It erodes public trust in our institution, and I 
think we have to do something about this.
    And that is why several Members of this body, including 
myself, have introduced a range of legislative proposals to 
address this critical issue.
    My legislation, H.R. 3779, otherwise known as the STOCK Act 
2.0, would strengthen restrictions on individual stock trading 
by Members of Congress.
    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 received 
benefits of value, including contracts, grants, agricultural 
subsidies, and the like, increasing penalties for failure to 
file STOCK Act disclosures, and enabling increased oversight by 
relevant ethics agencies and offices.
    This bill is supported by many important and leading good 
governance 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 know people think when we 
trade stocks it is not hurting anybody. It hurts the integrity 
of the markets. That is why we have the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, because we had a history in this country of people 
using their positions to enrich themselves. It is 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 has offered 
inconsistent and insufficient explanations for the delay.
    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 120th Congress. The full House must vote and be on 
the record on this issue.
    I would like to end my remarks by once again thanking the 
Rules Committee for its work and consideration, and I yield 
back the remainder of my time.
    [The statement of Mr. Min follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Min

     Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 
McGovern, for the opportunity to speak before the House Rules 
Committee today.
     I want to begin by recognizing the vital role this 
Committee plays in safeguarding the integrity of the House of 
Representatives. Ensuring that the House's standing rules are 
regularly updated helps the institution stay ahead of emerging 
challenges, including adopting best practices that promote safe 
work environments and improving how technology is used to 
strengthen government transparency.
     However, one area that this institution has fallen 
short, time and time again, is failing to adequately prohibit 
Members of Congress from using their office for self-enrichment 
and personal gain.
     In particular, the public and the media have--
rightfully--identified Members of Congress in both parties who 
appear to have benefited from stock trades made while serving 
on committees with access to sensitive information.
     While public trust in government is at one of its 
lowest points, we must have the courage to confront this 
problem and take steps to restore the public's faith in the 
House of Representatives.
     That is why several Members of this body, 
including myself, have introduced a range of legislative 
proposals to address this critical issue.
     My legislation, H.R. 3779, otherwise known as the 
``STOCK Act 2.0'', strengthens restrictions on individual stock 
trading by Members of Congress. Critically, it builds on the 
important foundation of the original STOCK Act by:
           Prohibiting Members of Congress from 
        trading individual stocks;
           Requiring Members of Congress and senior 
        congressional staff to report received benefits of 
        value (contracts, grants, agricultural subsidies, 
        etc.);
           Increasing penalties for failure to file 
        STOCK Act disclosures; and
           Enabling increased oversight by relevant 
        ethics agencies and offices.
     This bill is supported by many leading good 
governance groups, and I want to thank all of them again for 
their support and their technical assistance in developing and 
promoting this bill.
     These organizations included the Government 
Information Watch (GIW), Patriotic Millionaires, Oxfam America, 
End Citizens United, Democracy Defenders Action (DDA), Public 
Citizen, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), and Fix the 
Court.
     I introduced this legislation because I believe 
that public service is a privileged honor, not an opportunity 
for self-enrichment at the expense of constituents.
     While Speaker Johnson has said he would consider 
addressing this issue during this Congress, he has not taken 
any meaningful action. Instead, he has offered inconsistent and 
insufficient explanations for the continued delay.
     If he will not bring my bill forward this 
Congress, then we must incorporate these provisions into the 
standing rules of the House for the 120th Congress. The full 
House must vote--and be on the record--on this issue.
     I built my career at the SEC holding the rich and 
powerful accountable, prosecuting corporate fraud and insider 
trading. Members of Congress should not be allowed to rip off 
taxpayers by trading on the inside information they have 
because of their positions. Enough is enough.
     I'd like to end my remarks by once again thanking 
the Rules Committee for its work and consideration.
     I yield back the remainder of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Min.
    Mr. Schneider.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, 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 120th Congress.
    I am here as chair of the New Democrat Coalition. Our 114 
Members represent 31 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 decisionmaking remains above reproach.
    I know the committee is already discussing how to address 
insider trading. We just heard from my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Min.
    I am going to speak personally. I would take it a step 
further and establish within the Congress, as we have in the 
financial services firms and others, an office of compliance to 
enforce 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, 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 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 501, the BUDS 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 X of the rules for the 97th Congress mandated the use 
of a shared scheduling service by committees, though this 
requirement was struck down in 1992.
    Just for reference, in 1992, the cutting-edge handheld 
technology was the famous PalmPilot. Outlook wasn't introduced 
until 1997. And the first iPhone would not be introduced until 
2007.
    I think I can safely say that technology has come a long 
way in the 34 years since that rule was repealed. I think it is 
time for Congress to start to catch up.
    We appreciate your consideration on these recommendations 
as you work to develop a vision for a House rules package for 
the 120th Congress. The New Democrat Coalition stands ready to 
work with you and our colleagues to advance reforms that 
strengthen the institution and improve our House's, 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.
    [The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Scott Schneider

    Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern, thank you for 
inviting me to share my thoughts as the Committee on Rules 
prepares for the 120th Congress.
    I am here as Chair of the New Democrat Coalition.
    Our 114 Members represent 31 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 
institution, 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 reproach. I know the committee is 
        already discussing how to address insider trading. We 
        believe the House should also 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 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 so often occurs 
        during the legislative process. We propose permitting 
        legislation to have two bipartisan lead sponsors, in 
        line with H. Res. 501 the BUDS 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 X of 
        the Rules for the 97th Congress mandated the use of a 
        scheduling service by committees, though this 
        requirement was struck in 1992.
    For reference, in 1992 the cutting-edge handheld technology 
was the Palm Pilot. Outlook was introduced in 1997, and the 
first iPhone would not be introduced until 2007. Technology has 
come a long way in 34 years. We think it's time for Congress to 
start to catch up.
    We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations 
as you work to develop a vision for the House Rules Package in 
the 120th Congress. The New Democrat Coalition stands ready to 
work with you and our colleagues to advance reforms that 
strengthen the institution and improve the House's ability to 
serve the American people.
    Thank you for your leadership and for your consideration of 
these recommendations.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
    Ms. Houlahan, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISSY HOULAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. 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 
noncontroversial 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 a very few steps towards a more 
efficient, more bipartisan, and more trustworthy Congress.
    First, 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 would 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 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 counterintelligence awareness as 
well.
    Secondly, the 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 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 
noncontroversial, bipartisan 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 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.
    [The statement of Ms. Houlahan follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Chrissy Houlahan

    Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to speak today.
    I think we can all agree that business as usual in Congress 
is unsustainable. Less legislation is making it onto the Floor, 
including bipartisan and otherwise non-controversial 
legislation. Members of Congress have less and less time to 
work together and 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 I am proposing today are 
not designed to undermine the majority or restrict the 
minority. Instead, they are a few steps towards a more 
efficient, bipartisan, and trustworthy Congress.
    First, as a national security Democrat who has spent the 
majority of my career in classified settings and now 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 our government maintains, 
Members of Congress receive no formal training, instructions, 
or guidance on how to safeguard this material.
    None of us in this room hold a clearance, and unless you 
have previously served, as I have, you have not been trained on 
how to handle classified materials. And if the American people 
really understood what that meant, they'd shake in their boots.
    The most that Members are required to do is sign an oath, 
swearing not to disclose national security information.
    That standard is unbearably low.
    My proposal brings Congress in line with the rest of the 
government: required training on classifications, security, and 
counter-intelligence awareness.
    Second, the Congressional calendar does not favor district 
work, or legislative work--it favors travel days.
    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 Capitol.
    The calendar also forces committee work to overlap with 
votes. The calendar is simply not efficient. I propose longer 
district and legislative work periods, fewer travel days, and 
protected committee time--all of which will 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 Rep. 
Emmanuel Cleaver who have tirelessly pushed for the right to 
have two sponsors on legislation from different parties.
    I further propose that any legislation 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 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 views of the extremes in either 
party. Instead, these proposals make Congress a more serious 
place of business, a place that does the work our constituents 
expect from us.
    We can and must do better.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Fine, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RANDY FINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Fine. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, gentlewoman.
    And I actually start with a sigh of relief. I actually 
really appreciate your remarks.
    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 have never dealt with it before, I don't talk about 
anything. They could say the sky is blue in one of those 
hearings 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 with the idea 
of training. It is 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 speak to what Mr. McGovern talked about, 
which is the need for debate, which in my 17 months in this 
Chamber I have found does not happen a whole lot, unless you 
like doing it in empty rooms.
    And so I have also observed that we are 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 am bringing forward today aren't 
partisan, but I think they are intended to foster more debate 
and more efficiency, which I think would be good for all 
Members.
    The first is a very specific idea, that when we come to 
Washington we come for a week, and that the weeks start Monday 
at 9 and they end Friday at 5. 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 have 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 9 to 5, we 
should do it one week on and then one week back in our 
districts. It is better for our families, better for our 
constituents, better for everyone up here. That is idea number 
one.
    Idea number two 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 have 12 things to do at once, you may not be 
sitting in a room with other people, 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. In 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 don't want to 
be there, but it is 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 it would make the job, frankly, more 
pleasant for everyone involved as well.
    Those are my two ideas. I appreciate you considering them. 
And I yield back my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fine.
    Mr. Jack, do you have any questions you would like to ask 
of the panel?
    Mr. Jack. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Yes, I am curious, to Representative Schneider, you 
mentioned that in 1992, I was intrigued by your idea about the 
committee meeting times being consolidated. You mentioned in 
1992 that was struck down. Do you have any context as to why it 
was removed from the rules package that year?
    Mr. Schneider. I don't. What I do know is it was 
introduced, I forget which number Congress, about a decade 
prior, and then removed. I have a hypothesis, which is not 
certain, but this was the Clinton era, you had a different 
Congress. It could have been a function of that. But I don't 
know why.
    Mr. Jack. Thank you.
    That is it, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank all of you for your ideas. I 
think they are all legitimate, and I think we ought to figure 
out whether we can incorporate them into our House rules.
    And, Mr. Fine, I agree with you, I want this place to be a 
place where we debate more. One of my frustrations is that we 
have broken all kinds of records in terms of closed rules where 
you can't offer amendments and we limit debate. In fact, this 
rule that people voted for yesterday basically shuts down 
debate. You can't amend anything. I mean, it doesn't seem like 
that is appropriate in a body like this, but those who voted 
for that rule voted to basically shut down debate. No 
amendments, nothing. And, again, we had a bunch of ``gotcha'' 
bills that were brought to the floor.
    But I hope that--and, again, when we were in charge--there 
is a role for closed rules, and when we were in charge we had 
some closed rules, but nothing like this Congress, 168 
completely closed rules.
    So I think that one of the things we have to strive for is 
understanding when we bring bills to the floor, that there are 
different ideas, ideas that I agree with and ideas that I don't 
agree with, and the floor ought to be a place where those ideas 
can be discussed.
    But I think what you proposed here today makes sense to me. 
I also think the idea of making sure that there is a higher 
standard when it comes to viewing classified materials. I 
probably couldn't pass a background check, so I don't know, I 
probably won't be able to read any classified material. But I 
do think that that is not an unreasonable request.
    And on the stock trading stuff, I am in agreement with you 
on that. We have to figure out how to get that right.
    But, in any event, I thank all of you for being here.
    And I will yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Mrs. Fischbach, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Fischbach. I will yield back, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon, you are recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. I want to thank you all for coming.
    It is interesting to hear how many of the suggestions are 
reflected in the work that the Select Committee on the 
Modernization of Congress did a couple years ago. And I think 
whoever is drafting rules packages should look at those 
findings as conclusions. And we have got to find ways to make 
this place work better.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    I want to thank you all for coming today, too. As I said, I 
have read over what you have submitted to the Rules Committee, 
and I am impressed at the thoughtfulness and the detail with 
which many of you submitted comments to the Rules Committee for 
consideration for the next rules package.
    And I appreciate the work that Mr. McGovern did before. I 
know that in 2011 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 a lot of good changes 
got made to the calendar.
    And, Mr. Fine, I will tell you, when I got elected, that 
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 
are facing, but it is heartening to know that there are a lot 
of people agreeing and feeling the same way. So 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 are dismissed.
    I would like to ask the other Members to come forth, Ms. 
Jacobs, Ms. Pettersen, Ms. Titus, Mrs. Kiggans, Ms. Gluesenkamp 
Perez, and Ms. Scholten.
    Sure. Sit wherever. I called you up in the order in which 
you came, except I understood Ms. Jacobs wanted to wait until 
there were two of you. So I will go across the table now.
    So Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez.
    Ms. Perez. [Inaudible.]
    The Chairwoman. You want to wait.
    Ms. Perez. [Inaudible.]
    The Chairwoman. That is perfectly fine. Okay. Happy to 
accommodate you.
    Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. [Inaudible.]
    The Chairwoman. I can just keep in order. It is a little 
easier than jumping around. Okay.
    Ms. Titus. I am ready.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Ms. Titus. Okay. Thank you.
    Well, thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, 
all the members of the committee, for giving us an opportunity 
to have input into the rules. And I am here today to testify in 
support of including House Resolution 1248 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 information.
    Now, Members of Congress and congressional staff are 
routinely entrusted with information that is 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. That includes elections, legislation, who is going to 
be speaking when and what they are going to be talking about, 
among other things.
    Now, recent events have shown that this concern is not 
hypothetical, it is very real. I will 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 
2026. One of those traders was a soldier who was later arrested 
and charged with using nonpublic information to proffit 
reportedly more than $400,000.
    Now, this Maduro case is not an isolated event. More 
recently we have seen the story about a White House 
teleprompter operator who settled a Federal investigation after 
regulators determined that he used advance access to President 
Trump's prepared remarks to place wagers on what the President 
would say, reportedly making over $100,000 on the Kalshi 
market.
    So the lesson is really very clear: You don't have to be 
President or a Cabinet member to possess valuable nonpublic 
information. Just being close to a government decision 
sometimes gives you an opportunity to proffit, and that is not 
right.
    The 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 is why I think Congress needs to act now, be 
proactive on this. We don't need to wait for another case to 
come out in the headlines before we establish some ethical 
rules.
    Now, the Senate has 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.
    That is why on April 30 of this year I introduced House 
Resolution 1248. It is a bipartisan resolution. It is 
cosponsored by 28 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.
    The resolution applies to the same principles of a new 
emerging financial activity, and it gives a direct incentive to 
misuse nonpublic 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 public service should 
not be used as a vehicle for personal financial gain.
    So thank you for this opportunity, and I hope you will 
consider it.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Titus follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus

     Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today in support of including H. Res. 1248 in an 
upcoming Rules package.
     The principle behind this resolution is simple: 
Public service should never provide an opportunity for private 
financial gain based on privileged access to information.
     Members of Congress and congressional staff are 
routinely entrusted with information that is not available to 
the public. We participate in classified briefings, receive 
information from federal agencies, and work on legislation and 
government actions before they are announced publicly.
     Prediction markets create a new and particularly 
concerning opportunity to monetize such information. These 
markets increasingly allow participants to wager on matters 
directly related to government action, including elections, 
legislation, and even statements made by public officials.
     Recent events have demonstrated that these 
concerns are not hypothetical:
     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 2026.
     One of those traders was a soldier who was later 
arrested and charged with using nonpublic information to 
reportedly profit more than $400,000.
     And this Maduro case is not an isolated incident.
     More recently, a White House teleprompter operator 
settled a federal investigation after regulators determined 
that he used advance access to President Trump's prepared 
remarks to place wagers on what the President would say, 
reportedly making over $100,000.
     Again, the lesson here is clear.
     You do not have to be the President or a Cabinet 
Member to possess valuable nonpublic information. Sometimes, 
simply being close to government decision making can provide an 
opportunity to profit.
     The American people should never have to wonder 
whether a Member of Congress or congressional employee is 
placing a financial wager based on information they obtained 
through public service. And they should never have to question 
whether an official government action could affect someone's 
personal financial position.
     That is why Congress must act proactively.
     We should not wait for another case to make 
headlines before establishing clear ethical rules.
     The Senate has already recognized this concern by 
amending its rules to prohibit Senators and Senate staff from 
participating in prediction markets.
     The House must do the same.
     That is why, on April 30, 2026, I introduced H. 
Res. 1248, a bipartisan resolution cosponsored by 28 Members of 
Congress, that would amend the Rules of the House to prohibit 
Members, officers, and employees of the House from 
participating in prediction markets.
     We already impose restrictions on Members and 
congressional employees when the unique access and 
responsibility of public service create conflicts of interest. 
This resolution applies that same principle to an emerging 
financial activity that can create direct incentive to misuse 
nonpublic government information.
     I, therefore, urge the Committee to include my 
resolution in an upcoming Rules package. Doing so would 
strengthen the confidence that the American people place in 
this institution and make clear that public service should 
never be used as a vehicle for personal financial gain.
     Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 
and I look forward to working with the Committee on this 
important issue.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Jacobs, Ms. Pettersen, do you all want to speak as a 
team or individually.
    Ms. Jacobs. We will go individually.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. You are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SARA JACOBS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member 
McGovern.
    As we look forward to the 120th Congress, I am hopeful that 
this body can take some reasonable steps forward to modernize 
Congress, and I have been really impressed with all of the 
proposals that have been submitted so far.
    One of the things that Representative Pettersen and I 
really want to focus on is making this a place that is 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 that would allow proxy voting for 12 
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 has 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 childcare to fertility 
access and more.
    So right now in the 119th Congress we actually have 23 
percent of Members who are fathers with young children, 
compared with 15 percent of American adults. But for women, 
only 7 percent of Members, or 39 lawmakers, are moms with young 
children, compared to 18 percent of American adults. And only 
15 women in the history of Congress, the 250 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 is hard to be a parent while serving 
here, and it is even harder to give birth while serving here.
    As many of you know, I have frozen my eggs because 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 12 hours total often two, three, sometimes four 
times a month. You literally are not allowed to fly at some 
point in your pregnancy. 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 is not a secret that Congress has a 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 is 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 and create a family.
    The Federal workforce already gets 12 weeks of paid family 
leave thanks to congressional action in 2019. This is why proxy 
voting is so important. For me, it is literally going to decide 
if or when I can start my own family, and I know that is true 
for many others.
    Anna, Brittany, and I have already done the hard work of 
finding bipartisan agreement, so I am hopeful that we can 
include this resolution in the rules package next year.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Pettersen.

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

    Ms. Pettersen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is so great 
to be with you all today.
    I am here to advocate for our bipartisan proposal to change 
our rules to address the challenges and barriers that people 
face while being pregnant, and also post giving birth, and 
making sure that we don't have to choose between whether or not 
we are going to be here and fulfill our constitutional duty or 
if we are going to be home taking care of our newborns.
    This is not just moms and women coming together. This was 
men, parents who 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, 2 years ago, I was pregnant 
with Sam, and I asked for these changes. We were able to come 
together to provide a path forward that aligned with Federal 
policies for workers. It was aligned with the paid family leave 
policies to ensure that people have up to 12 weeks, whether 
that is before giving birth or after, that their vote could 
still be represented even if they couldn't be here in person, 
making sure that we are recognizing how important that time is 
for the safety of our babies, our families, and, also the 
importance of our constituents being represented.
    I am really proud that we were able to get 175 cosponsors, 
wide bipartisan support for this measure. It was deeply 
disappointing that we were unable to get it done.
    And nothing put a finer point on the struggles of what that 
meant and the challenges you face as a parent going through 
this than giving birth to Sam that January. I remember when we 
were still fighting to get these changes done I thought that I 
might be able to have my constituents represented during that 
time.
    Ultimately, that did not come to fruition and I was forced 
with a choice, with an incredibly 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 that day 20 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 D.C. 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 Sam with me. And we know 
that with a new baby, you are terrified of everything, going to 
the grocery store and exposure to germs. You want to be home 
where they are safe and protected.
    In this situation I was bringing my newborn on into the 
airport, on the plane, coming to the House floor. I am grateful 
for the love and support, but he was passed around to many 
people here. And so the worry and concern is definitely front 
and center as a parent.
    So I ultimately brought Sam here. We were able to join 
together in representing our constituents. He was actually the 
first baby to be held on the House floor while speaking against 
the bill that we came to fight against.
    That just marked the beginning of the challenges that we 
faced. I continued to come back for every vote that I needed to 
be here for. Before Sam was 6 months old he took 24 flights, 
more than most adults have taken in their life that I talk to.
    That is the path that I have chosen. We were waiting on 
childcare wait lists like so many parents across the country 
and had no other option because I had another child at home who 
was in preschool.
    So this place does not work for young families. That is a 
detriment. I am telling my story because the systemic barriers 
that we have the ability to change. This place does not have to 
work this way. We haven't adjusted in 250 years the way that we 
do things here.
    At the beginning of this country, women weren't even 
allowed to vote, let alone were thought about when it came to 
serving here in Congress.
    So it is time that we adjust for the workforce needs of 
today because the American people deserve representation of 
people who understand the struggles that they are going through 
right now, not what it was like in decades past. Families have 
never needed representation more than the challenges that they 
are facing today.
    And so our proposal is simple. It aligns with the paid 
family and medical leave that Federal workers get, it is up to 
12 weeks where our voices can be represented.
    This does not count towards--proxy voting would not count 
towards having a quorum. We know that, being challenged time 
and time again in the courts, has been proven to be 
constitutional, and 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 for somebody in the position that we 
were at. And people who have gone through this recognize the 
challenges that you are 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.
    [The statement of Ms. Pettersen follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Brittany Pettersen

     Thank you, Chairwoman. I am grateful to be here 
and appreciate the opportunity to testify as part of this 
Member Day Hearing.
     Today, I want to speak about my proposed rule 
change--one that goes to the heart of whether Congress truly 
reflects the people it serves.
     At the start of my second term, my husband and I 
welcomed our second baby boy, Sam. With his arrival, I joined 
an extraordinarily small group of women who have given birth 
while serving in Congress--just 14 voting Members in American 
history. When Sam was born in January 2025, I became part of 
the 0.1 % of Members who have experienced childbirth while 
fulfilling their constitutional duties.
     Those numbers alone tell a story. Of the Members 
currently serving in both chambers--only 38 are moms with young 
children.
     That disparity reflects systemic barriers that 
make it harder for parents with young children to serve. And 
when Congress does not look like America, America is not fully 
represented.
     Serving in Congress has been one of the great 
honors of my lifetime. But after Sam's birth, the realities 
facing new parents in this institution became impossible to 
ignore.
     At just four weeks old, Sam became the first child 
ever held by a speaking Member of Congress on the House floor. 
I remember packing his tiny diaper bag--bottles, burp cloths--
before heading in to vote and speak for my constituents. I 
cherish every moment with my newborn, but this wasn't a choice. 
I had to bring my newborn with me to Washington in order to 
fulfill my duties as a Member.
     Late in pregnancy, I also faced the fear of not 
being able to safely travel at all. Like so many parents, I was 
juggling doctors appointments, childcare for my older son, and 
the constant calculation of how to keep my family safe while 
still doing my job.
     Members should never have to choose between 
representing their constituents and being a parent.
     if we want a future where working parents can 
serve, we must remove the barriers that force pregnant Members 
or those with newborns to choose between their families and 
their responsibilities.
     That is why I have worked on a bipartisan effort 
to propose a narrow exception to the current prohibition on 
proxy voting while Members are on parental leave. This is not a 
broad rewrite of House rules. It is a targeted, commonsense fix 
that mirrors the 12 weeks of parental leave guaranteed under 
the Family and Medical Leave Act.
     This exception would allow pregnant Members or new 
parents to vote by proxy on the House floor and in Committee 
for up to 12 weeks while on parental leave.
     It would also allow limited proxy voting before 
birth if a pregnant Member has a serious medical condition that 
makes travel unsafe, with any pre-birth leave deducted from the 
total 12 weeks. No leave under this exception would count 
toward establishing a quorum.
     This should also apply to new parents who are 
adopting, fostering, or welcoming a child through surrogacy.
     Last year, along with Representatives Luna, 
Jacobs, and Lawler--a group of parents I was proud to work 
with--I introduced a bipartisan resolution outlining this 
proposal. It now has 175 cosponsors, a clear sign that Members 
across the political spectrum understand the need for 
modernization.
     But this effort is bigger than party. It is about 
whether this body is willing to confront outdated policies that 
shut out people who know firsthand the challenges everyday 
families are facing.
     When Congress looks like America, we all benefit. 
As new generations of men and women run for office, it is time 
we adapt so no one has to choose between caring for their 
family and caring for their country.
     If Congress wants to stand with mothers and 
fathers and support growing families, then it must adopt 
policies that allow its own Members to do the same. We cannot 
credibly legislate for families while maintaining rules that 
exclude the very people who understand those challenges 
firsthand.
     Thank you again for this opportunity. With that, I 
yield my time back to the Chair and am happy to answer any 
questions.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Kiggans, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

    Mrs. Kiggans. 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 
Houlahan was discussing about the need to protect our 
classified information. I remember as a Navy veteran, as a 
helicopter pilot married to an F-18 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 in January of 2023, 
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? Because they offered me time in the SCIF, I sat 
on the Armed Services Committee, there was a lot of 
opportunities to be able to hear what is 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 was 
shocked, and have been shocked for 4 years now, that we do not 
handle our classified information any better.
    This is obviously an extremely bipartisan issue with 
support on both sides of the aisle. Just watching, not just my 
family, but the constituents I represent in Virginia's Second 
District, in 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 Ms. Houlahan used was that our 
constituents would be mortified and horrified to know that we 
had access, all 435 of us, to the most classified of classified 
information and that there is 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 and the annual, they do a 
PowerPoint that has multiple exams and quizzes throughout the 
PowerPoint, and then they have to do in-person. My resolution 
also sets forth what some of that should contain.
    And then also asks that people who are on committees of 
jurisdiction that handle more sensitive information, like Armed 
Services Committee, like Intelligence Committee, like Foreign 
Affairs Committee, might have a curtailed classified training 
that they have to do every year so that they can understand 
those repercussions.
    And then it also has a little bit of teeth in it that is 
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.
    We have to start treating this information much more 
seriously. I am afraid for our national security that 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 already had issues on the Armed 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 Congresswoman Houlahan, 
about the fact that we do not treat this with greater respect.
    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.
    [The statement of Mrs. Kiggans follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer A. Kiggans

     Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Rules Committee and to contribute to the update of the rules 
for the 120th Congress.
     I am before this Committee today to address a 
significant issue in how Congress protects classified 
information.
     Currently, Members of Congress need only take an 
oath and sign a piece of paper to be granted access to 
classified material.
     And yet, every Member of this body is entrusted 
with access to information whose exposure could put American 
lives, sources, and national security at risk.
     Unlike the men and women in our intelligence 
community, our military, and the executive branch who handle 
that same information, Members of Congress are not currently 
subject to a uniform, recurring training requirement to ensure 
we understand how to protect classified information.
     Unless a Member has previously served in a role 
that required this kind of training, many have received little 
to no practical, hands-on instruction in how to handle 
classified material once granted access.
     We are never walked through the mechanics of 
proper handling of classified information or given real-world 
scenarios on how foreign intelligence services attempt to 
target people in our position.
     This is a significant risk to our national 
security and one we have the power to close today. That is why 
I submit this proposal to strengthen classified information 
security training for Members of Congress.
     This resolution is straightforward, and it rests 
on four pillars:
          (1) First, it establishes an annual training 
        requirement.
                  a. Every Member with access to classified 
                information would be required to complete a 
                classified information security refresher 
                course each year--not a one-time oath upon 
                arrival, but an ongoing obligation.
          (2) Second, it sets a curriculum floor. That training 
        must cover:
                  a. the proper handling, marking, storage, and 
                safeguarding of classified material
                  b. how to recognize and report foreign 
                intelligence targeting--from social engineering 
                and cyber phishing to suspicious contacts while 
                traveling;
                  c. the rules governing personal phones and 
                electronic devices around classified 
                discussions;
                  d. and the criminal and administrative 
                consequences of mishandling classified 
                information.
     Members should not be able to say they didn't know 
the rules. This proposal makes sure they do.
          (3) Third, it recognizes that not every committee 
        carries the same risk.
                  a. Members serving on the Permanent Select 
                Committee on Intelligence, Armed Services, 
                Foreign Affairs, and Homeland Security are 
                exposed to more sensitive material, more often, 
                and face more sophisticated adversaries as a 
                result.
                  b. This proposal requires an additional, 
                committee specific module for those Members.
          (4) Fourth, and critically, it has teeth.
                  a. Training without enforcement is a 
                suggestion, not a standard.
                  b. Under this proposal, a Member who fails to 
                complete the required training and 
                certification by the deadline would have their 
                access to classified information suspended 
                until they come into compliance.
                  c. And to make sure this isn't a paper 
                requirement that quietly lapses, the Sergeant-
                at-Arms would track compliance and report 
                quarterly to the Committee on House 
                Administration, which in turn would report 
                annually to the full House.
     We ask servicemembers, intelligence officers, and 
federal employees across this government to retrain on handling 
classified information as a condition of keeping their 
clearance. We should hold ourselves to the same standard we 
hold them to--no less.
     This is not about distrust of any Member; it's 
about institutionalizing a baseline of readiness so that human 
error does not become the vulnerability our adversaries 
exploit.
     This proposal is a common-sense, good-governance 
reform.
     It costs little, it asks nothing of Members that 
we don't already ask of the people who work for us and 
alongside us in classified spaces, and it closes a significant 
gap in how this institution safeguards our nation's secrets.
     I urge the Committee to support this proposal, and 
I'm happy to answer any questions.
     Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Scholten, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Scholten. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking 
Member McGovern, for holding this important hearing today so 
that we can weigh in on behalf of our constituents.
    I am thrilled to be here today to propose a set of 
commonsense rules that would support good governance and 
transparency in the 120th 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.
    In the United States Government there is only one branch 
where the only way to serve is to be elected by the people, and 
so that power should not be taken for granted. It is given to 
us by the people, and we can set these rules to enhance our 
transparency and our accountability.
    As vice chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus, I am really 
proud to support a comprehensive package of sexual misconduct 
reforms put forth by my good friend, our chairwoman, 
Congresswoman Teresa Leger 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 is why we must prohibit inappropriate sexual 
relationships between Members of Congress and House employees, 
ensure that 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 have 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 Ms. Pettersen 
and Ms. Jacobs with respect to proxy voting.
    And I just want to underscore the point that was made about 
the lack of representation of parents. While I did not give 
birth in Congress, I am the parent to school-age children, 
actively parenting my young children at this stage, and the 
demands on our time for being in this body and also being at 
home should not be overstated.
    And I have heard many say, well, then maybe you should 
choose 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, and any given day you are dealing 
with issues of the environment, education, immigration. It is 
the tyranny of the urgent.
    And there are several moms sitting around this table right 
here who know what it is like when you are making choices at 
the grocery store about what you can and cannot afford. You are 
looking at crumbling education systems, the threat of addictive 
patterns of online algorithms preyed on by predatory social 
media users.
    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 is what we do here 
in this body.
    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 am also supportive of reforms to House expulsion and 
censure procedures. As we have seen over the last year, our 
current system can fall short when it comes to holding bad 
actors accountable, and also can be used as a political tool 
when it is not necessarily intended for that purpose.
    We need more intentional and deliberative process, one that 
would hold Members accountable for rules and ethics violations, 
while also ensuring that disciplinary procedures themselves are 
used appropriately. And, again, not as a political 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 is 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 should it be in a bipartisan 
effort. There is already precedent for this practice from the 
104th Congress where the House of Representatives allowed the 
first 20 bills introduced in the first session to have more 
than one Member listed as a sponsor.
    I am proud of my bipartisan record in Congress, and I know 
that incentivizing two different Members, 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.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. Perez. Thank you so much, Chairwoman. And thank you to 
the members of the Rules Committee for bringing us here today.
    So proud of what has been said, and I cannot say enough how 
much I think the representation of the body is improved when we 
have a more representative body. I believe there are fewer than 
ten Members of Congress who have a child in daycare. Is it any 
shock, then, that daycare has not become a priority of this 
body? So I am very glad to be exiting that club.
    But I am here to talk about 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 Ph.D. or a lobbyist 
to come before your committee and give testimony. But if you 
are a mom who has to get a babysitter, if you are running a 
small business, you can't drop everything, book a hotel room, 
and come to D.C. to give expert witness testimony.
    My BRIDGE to Congress ensures that we allow remote 
testimony in our committees, and I urge the support of it.
    Next, I would like to urge 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. They are losing 
faith in government, and they view it as unreflective of their 
communities and values.
    As Members of Congress, we need to take a step back, 
reexamine how we got here, and work towards what we can do to 
fix it.
    Realistically, there is not one easy trick that is going to 
fix this, 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 reduce polarization and 
strengthen our representative democracy's effectiveness
    This committee will examine a series of reforms to improve 
our electoral system, including independent redistricting 
commissions to push back against gerrymandering, instant runoff 
voting, also known as ranked choice voting, to ensure an 
election winner represents a majority of voters, and multi-
Member districts to increase proportional representation, not 
preferencing or biasing any of those, but examining those 
opportunities to build a more representative body.
    My biggest frustration in the fall of the 2025 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 had designated the House as being in a district 
work period, and that matters because during a district work 
period 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.
    My idea is pretty simple. If a sufficient 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.
    Fourth, I would like to thank Representatives Leger 
Fernandez and Cammack 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 
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 people 
until we do that.
    Finally, I want to address a difficult subject. Too often 
we ignore the elephant in the room.
    Americans elect Members of Congress to be their voice in 
Washington, and that responsibility comes with a clear standard 
of conduct. Clause 1 of Rule XXIII of the House rules requires 
Members to, quote, ``behave at all times in a manner that shall 
reflect creditably 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 is 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 
the Rules Committee, be debated, be adopted. This changes 
nothing about the Constitution and the rules for removing 
Members of Congress from their office.
    I don't have all the answers, 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 in the Code of Conduct for the 
120th Congress.
    Thank you again to Chair Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern 
for giving me the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to working with you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Jack, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Jack. No questions, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank you all for being here. And 
on the issue of proxy voting, I am in agreement. You know, we 
initiated proxy voting when I was chair of the Rules Committee 
and during COVID. I thought it was the right thing to do. There 
were some that abused it.
    And so I think we need clarity in terms of how we would 
proceed, but I think there are compelling instances where it 
makes sense. I mean, we are living in 2026, not 1946. I mean, 
we have the technology to be able to accommodate people who are 
not here.
    But I appreciate all of the suggestions that have been put 
forward. And, again, even on the issue of how we handle 
classified information, I think we just need to do a better 
job, and this shouldn't be a controversial issue. So we can 
work on that.
    But anyway, I look forward to working with all of you as we 
put our rules package together, and thank you for being here.
    I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. I just want to thank everyone for your really 
concrete testimony about ways we can drag this body into, if 
not the 21st century, at least the 20th century. But, I mean, 
your proposals are things that have been implemented in 
companies, in legislatures around the world. It is far pastime 
that we catch up. So thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much. And I also really 
want to thank, you know, the vice chair. We have had so many 
meetings.
    And with regards to addressing the sexual misconduct and 
the sense, the sense of pervasiveness that occurs in this 
Congress and the fact that our staff, our staff tell us about 
it over and over again. We will conduct the last of our 
meetings with staff this week. And so there will be a--
hopefully, it will be a bipartisan--we are really looking 
forward to having a bipartisan proposal put forth that will 
have many proposed rule changes.
    I think right now we are at about 14 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 there is not 
a power imbalance is lying to themselves, to their 
constituents, and to others.
    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 if you start walking down that path, you know 
what is at the end, that you may lose your committee 
assignments, you may have to face an expulsion vote.
    We need due process. We need to make sure that happens. We 
need to make sure that everybody knows where to go. It is very 
confusing right now. If you have been subject to sexual 
harassment, where do you go?
    So we are calling it one-stop shop where somebody knows 
where to go and that there is appropriate training, in-person 
training, so people can't, like, not pay attention while there 
is a video going on about what does it mean, what does it mean 
to harass people. 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.
    The American people and the people who were sent here, 
their constituents also need to know what happened so that if 
there are consequences, it is very clear.
    So we will be submitting that, and I want to thank 
everybody who participated and people who raised it. I think it 
is really important.
    And the other stuff, it is like, yes, absolutely, of 
course, we should be doing these things, right. We should be 
making it easier for brand-new parents to serve. I represent 
the Los Alamos National Labs, and I have gone previously--in a 
previous position, I have gone through the--I have gotten 
clearance. And when I walked in there, it is like now we can 
tell you everything, you know, coming to the blue room, coming 
to the red room because you have been elected. It is 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 shouldn't say or what you can say. And so all of these make 
sense.
    We should not be using our position to make money. The 
prediction markets need to be reined in in so many ways, but we 
can do our piece here in a rules package.
    So I thank everybody for their proposals and thank you for 
taking the time and sharing them directly with the committee.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    I want to echo much of what my colleagues have said. I 
appreciate very much your all coming, all the people who have 
made the suggestions to us for incorporating items into the 
rules.
    I agree with you too, the American people expect us to be 
role models. I, frankly, am often shocked, shocked by the 
behavior of people in this body. And not just on things that 
you have brought up, but on other little things that happen.
    And I am 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 I don't know 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 also want to emphasize what Ms. Scanlon had said about 
the Modernization Committee. In the last 4 years, the House has 
implemented most of the 202 recommendations provided by the 
Modernization Committee, and I certainly have appreciated the 
things they have done. And House Administration Committee is 
actively seeking new modernization ideas.
    So I think it is 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 there are other 
committees actively working on these things, and I am sure 
there will be Member days for those committees if they haven't 
had--especially House Administration.
    So I hope 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 are excused.
    Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Kiley, I think you guys know the drill. We 
welcome your written statements.
    Mr. Cleaver, you are recognized.

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

    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chair. The resolution would 
allow for any--in the House will involve two lead sponsors----
    Mr. McGovern. You need to put your mike on.
    Mr. Cleaver. Sorry. This suggestion actually was made; I 
didn't realize it. They were in the same position. But they 
made this same recommendation that we should move to allow 
Members of different political parties to participate in the 
top of the bills.
    And I was proud to introduce the BUDS Resolution alongside 
Representative Young Kim, who, in an ideal world, would be 
listed as a lead sponsor as well, as well as Representative 
Scott Peters, William Timmons, Kevin Mullin, and Mike Carey.
    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 D.C.
    Let me take just a few seconds to point something out. 
Recognition for the hard and important work that lawmakers do 
is something that can often feel uncomfortable for the humblest 
of lawmakers, because the last thing any of us want to admit to 
our districts is that Members deserve plaudits or 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 of their constituents and make 
their communities a better place in which to live.
    We also know that there are some Members who don't. Even if 
the BUDS Resolution did not change behavior 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 listed on the top line.
    However, I would contend that the BUDS Resolution would 
change behavior, and that is 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 will see a clear incentive 
change where Members know that it is now furthering their 
advantage to work in a bipartisan manner more frequently.
    Mike Flood of Omaha, 130 miles away from me in Kansas City, 
and I started working right after the election almost 2 years 
ago, and eventually we went out to dinner and sat down, had 
some ideas that were similar, and we introduced what is now the 
law. And that is this bipartisan housing bill, the first of its 
kind in almost three decades. But we started it having dinner 
and started working together.
    Now, I never for one moment believe that I should go and 
demand that my name be on the top line, but I do believe that 
it does help. The idea has gotten a lot of traction with the 
cohort organizations aimed at fixing Congress, and we have 
heard an outstanding amount of support from groups like the 
Bipartisan Policy Center, Demand Progress, the Foundation of 
American Innovation, Issue One, and more.
    And I absolutely believe that democracy demands debate and 
dialogue, and that can happen more frequently when we are able 
to work together in having a bipartisan bill actually 
introduced. I am absolutely convinced that that bill would 
never have come to fruition, it would have never become law had 
I had some kind of anger based on the fact that my name was not 
on the bill.
    But I am seeking your support on something like this 
because I think it does matter.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mister, Miss, others who 
are not here.
    [The statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Emanuel Cleaver

    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I'm Representative Emanuel Cleaver, and I have the honor of 
representing the 5th District of the great state of Missouri.
    I want to thank both Chairwoman Virginia Foxx & Ranking 
Member Jim McGovern for all your hard work over the past two 
years. I know your jobs haven't always been easy, but you've 
demonstrated a commitment to civility, respect, and integrity 
that should be celebrated by your respective communities and 
the entire nation.
    Today, I also want to thank you particularly for allowing 
America's Representatives this opportunity to voice our own 
experiences and ideas on how we can make this beautiful, if 
also increasingly chaotic, institution that we all love work 
just a little bit better.
    During the 116th and 117th Congresses, I had the honor of 
serving on the Select Committee on the 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 make Congress a little more effective, 
efficient, and reflective of the will of the people.
    Over those four years, I'm 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 Derek Kilmer, 
there is one that I found particularly powerful, one that 
ultimately became my BUDS Resolution, or ``Building Unity 
through Dual Sponsors'' Resolution.
    This important legislation would pull one small but 
powerful lever that I believe would facilitate greater 
collaboration in the halls of the House--which is something I 
think the vast majority of Americans are yearning for.
    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 alongside 
Representative Young Kim, who in an ideal world would be listed 
as a lead sponsor as well, as well as Representatives Scott 
Peters, William Timmons, Kevin Mullin, and Mike Carey.
    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 the 
Members who are Working hard and seeking common ground here in 
DC.
    Allow me to take the second point first.
    Recognition for the hard and important work that lawmakers 
do is something that can often feel uncomfortable for the 
humblest of lawmakers, because the last thing any of us wants 
to admit to our Districts is that Members deserve plaudits.
    But we all know that there are some Members, particularly 
when their party is in the Minority, who are working hard every 
day to craft meaningful bipartisan bills with the Majority 
party to meet the needs of their constituents and make their 
communities a better place in key, tangible ways.
    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 & the media alike to see when their Member of 
Congress is actively writing and introducing legislation, 
whereas currently they wouldn't get listed ``topline.''
    However, I would contend that the BUDS 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 in their advantage to work 
in a bipartisan manner more frequently.
    I strongly believe this is a key ideal we should be 
striving for in how we craft a Rules package.
    This idea has gotten a lot of traction with the cohort of 
organizations aimed at ``fixing Congress'', and we've heard an 
outstanding amount of support from groups like the Bipartisan 
Policy Center, Demand Progress, the Foundation for American 
Innovation, Issue One, and more.
    But I believe that anybody who believes in smart 
organizational incentives & good system design can get behind 
this change, which I think would be of great aid to this 
organization.
    With that, I thank you for your time and appreciate your 
audience.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
    Mr. Kiley, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN KILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Today I am proposing a change 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, commonsense practice that 
prevailed for most of American history, up until the 1970s, 
when committee seats suddenly became the property of the 
parties. And the parties have, of course, used this newfound 
power to, in many ways, contribute to the partisanship, 
polarization, and dysfunction that prevails in this building.
    The power to assign committees is, of course, used to 
enforce party discipline, to punish Members. Just yesterday we 
had a couple Democrat Members who voted a way that the minority 
leader did not want them to, and so he has announced that he is 
going to crack down on them, which, of course, one of the 
obvious ways to do that is through committee assignments.
    Committee seats are also used to compel Members to 
participate in the political activities of the party outside of 
the building with the expected level of participation, indeed, 
being determined in a formulaic way based on the prestige of 
the Member's committee assignments.
    When Americans learn about how this all works, the sheer 
griminess of it, they are, without exception, shocked. It is a 
system that very much needs reform.
    But today I am not going to propose fixing this system 
broadly, but, instead, targeting a particularly perverse 
consequence of it, which is that Independents do not get 
committee seats.
    Now, think about just how deeply counterintuitive this is. 
If you are an Independent elected by your district, duly 
elected--maybe you are 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 policymaking. Your voters, constituents are in many 
ways disenfranchised.
    Perhaps most jarring, rule X 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 is 
not the historical practice. Indeed, this provision of rule X 
was only adopted in 1983.
    As things stand, Independents are the most underrepresented 
group in the entire country. Upwards of 50 percent of Americans 
are Independent, and yet there is exactly one Member out of 435 
in the House who is Independent. And this is largely because of 
structural impediments, such as the denial of committee seats.
    So what I am 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, or conference. And the way I have proposed it--
and this is not necessarily the only way to do it, but I think 
it is one that makes sense--is that the Member could suggest up 
to six--or a total of six preferred committees and would be 
guaranteed to be assigned to at least one of those six, so they 
couldn't just be given whatever is the worst or the least 
desirable of all the committees. And they would also have a 
right to a second committee but wouldn't be able to suggest 
particular preferences with respect to that one.
    I think that this is a commonsense change that the vast, 
vast majority of Americans would support. Everyone I have 
talked to is very surprised, whether they are 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 10 percent approval rating when we had this redistricting war 
that has broken out across the country, when we had the longest 
government shutdown in American history.
    I think that a modest change to allow for Members to have a 
greater ability to operate here and to make Independent 
representation more viable would be a good start in reversing 
these trends.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Jack, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Jack. No questions.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. First I want to ask unanimous consent to 
insert into the record testimony from Representative Gonzalez 
in support of proxy voting and virtual witness participation.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Vincente Gonzalez

    Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for convening this Member Day hearing 
and for giving Members the opportunity to offer recommendations 
for improving the Rules of the House for the 120th Congress.
    I appreciate the Committee's willingness to hear directly 
from Members and consider their proposals. This process 
strengthens the institution and ensures we take a more 
thoughtful approach to the rules that govern our work.
    As we prepare for the new Congress and technology continues 
to evolve, I believe the House should continue modernizing its 
procedures to ensure full participation, transparency, and 
efficiency.
    Today, I want to highlight two specific reforms: proxy 
voting and virtual witness participation.

First proxy voting:

    Given the realities of modern congressional service, 
including overlapping committee hearings, district 
responsibilities, and unexpected scheduling conflicts, I 
believe the House should consider establishing a permanent, 
structured proxy voting system for certain limited, well-
defined circumstances.
    When properly safeguarded, proxy voting can ensure that 
constituents are not left without representation simply because 
a Member is unable to be in two places at once or is dealing 
with a district emergency as many of us are familiar with.
    A transparent and accountable proxy voting system would 
give Members greater flexibility to meet their obligations 
while keeping limitations to preserve the integrity of the 
legislative process.
    It would also empower the House to continue operations 
during emergencies or disruptions--something recent Congresses 
have experienced firsthand.

Second, virtual witness participation:

    I also urge the Committee to continue evaluating and 
formalizing the use of virtual witness testimony in committee 
proceedings.
    Remote participation proved effective and reliable during 
prior Congresses, allowing committees to hear from experts, 
community leaders, and stakeholders who might otherwise be 
unable to testify due to the cost, time, or logistics involved 
in traveling to Washington.
    This is particularly important for many disadvantaged 
communities I represent in South Texas.
    I represent many small and rural cities who have limited 
resources to cover their aging infrastructure let alone fly to 
Washington on short notice to testify.
    Asking those communities to spend thousands of dollars to 
send someone to Washington just to testify before Congress can 
be an unrealistic burden.
    At a time when everyday goods and services are skyrocketing 
putting pressure on families, local governments, and small 
communities, we should be asking ourselves whether there is a 
better way.
    And frankly, we are doing ourselves a disservice when we 
make it unnecessarily difficult for people to participate.
    We are missing out on vital testimony from experts all 
around the country who have valuable firsthand knowledge to 
share with Congress.
    We should be making it easier--not harder--for them to be 
heard.
    Integrating virtual witness participating into committee 
rules would allow us to not only strengthen oversight but 
broaden the perspectives presented at hearings. It would also 
reduce logistical burdens without compromising the quality or 
accountability of testimony.
    Both proxy voting and virtual witness participation are 
pragmatic, commonsense reforms that recognize the realities 
Members and committees face today.
    Each would enhance the efficiency, fairness, and 
accessibility of the legislative process while preserving the 
transparency and institutional integrity that the House rightly 
demands.
    I look forward to continuing to engage with the Committee 
as we consider reforms for the 120th Congress.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. McGovern. And I would ask unanimous consent to insert 
into the record testimony from Rep. Budzinski 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.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Nikki Budzinski

    Dear Chair Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern, Thank you for 
holding a Member Day hearing on proposed rules changes for the 
120th Congress. In an effort to make the House of 
Representatives a more modern, efficient, bipartisan, and 
ethical institution, I write today to urge the House Committee 
on Rules to consider the following changes as you work on a 
House Rules package for the coming Congress:
    1. Ban Insider Trading on Prediction Markets
          This bipartisan proposal, cosponsored by Rep. Adrian 
        Smith of Nebraska, would include in the House Rules a 
        ban on House Members, officers, employees, and their 
        immediate families and/or fiduciaries from purchasing 
        event contracts on political or government events on 
        prediction market platforms. This rule would prevent 
        Members of Congress, officers, staff, and family 
        members from using sensitive, nonpublic information 
        that is entrusted to them by the public for personal 
        profit.
    2. Bipartisan Joint Sponsorship of Measures
          This proposal would allow two lead sponsors from 
        different parties on one piece of legislation, so 
        cross-party authorship is formal and recognized. This 
        would give Members on both sides of the aisle equal 
        ownership of measures they worked on together, rather 
        than allowing only one side to be listed as the lead in 
        committee proceedings or on Congress.gov.
    3. Predictable House Calendar and Remote Voting Allowance
          This proposal encourages setting a House voting 
        calendar that includes fewer travel days, longer 
        working weeks, and protected committee time set in the 
        rules, so the schedule does not turn on one leader's 
        preference. To allow personal flexibility, there could 
        also be a mechanism by which Members could participate 
        and vote remotely for up to 10 days per year. This 
        change would give Members on both sides of the aisle 
        predictability in the House calendar and provide more 
        time for Members to collaborate on legislation, 
        including in committee.
    4. Sponsor Modification of Legislation Prior to Committee 
Markup
          This proposal would provide a Member the opportunity 
        to amend their own legislation before markup, rather 
        than needing to have it amended by the Chair or during 
        the committee markup. This would give Members on both 
        sides of the aisle the opportunity to be flexible on 
        good ideas and amend legislation to garner needed 
        support between the time a bill is introduced and when 
        it is marked up in committee.
    5. Bipartisan Priority Calendar
          Under this proposal, committee-reported bills with 
        robust bipartisan support would be given a fast-tracked 
        path to a Floor vote, not dependent on leadership's 
        discretion. This would expedite consideration of 
        bipartisan bills with broad support that does not rely 
        on the preferences of either party's leadership.
    6. Members-Only Speaker's Lobby
          This proposal would convert the Speaker's Lobby to a 
        Members-only space off the floor where Members of both 
        parties can speak with no cameras or outside groups. 
        This would help foster a culture of bipartisanship and 
        negotiation among Members of the House.
    7. Finish Reforming the Motion to Vacate
          Finishing the reformation of the motion to vacate the 
        Chair would make it so that no single faction of the 
        House can throw our body into crisis over the gavel, 
        regardless of who holds it. This would help ensure 
        stability and certainty in the leadership of the House.
    8. Bipartisan Commission on Legislative and Institutional 
Reform
          This proposal would establish a bipartisan commission 
        of former Members of Congress and experts to study and 
        recommend fixes for structural and procedural issues in 
        the House, with a defined path to a vote. This 
        commission would bring together individuals with deep 
        institutional knowledge to make recommendations to the 
        House on how House operations and procedures could be 
        improved to enhance efficiency and bipartisanship.
    I look forward to continuing our work together on these 
proposals and others that would make doing the business of the 
American people more efficient, transparent, and ethical. I 
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today.
    Mr. McGovern. I want to thank both of our colleagues for 
being here.
    Mr. Kiley, you are on committees, though, aren't you?
    Mr. Kiley. I am.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. Okay. So I remember when Bernie Sanders 
was here, he was on committees as well and very--he wasn't 
blocked from being on committees. And I hear what you are 
saying.
    On the other hand, I mean, I watch how people vote, and you 
vote pretty consistently with the Republicans. And so I--I 
don't know, you know, whether or not we need to create a whole 
other category, you know. But in any event, I hear what you are 
saying and----
    Mr. Kiley. Well, I vote with the Republicans when I agree 
with 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, you know, 
having to, you know, let there be consequences for it.
    Mr. McGovern. I keep score, like on the rules and the----
    Mr. Kiley. Say it again?
    Mr. McGovern. I keep score when it comes to the rules. And, 
basically, you know, my critique has been that 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--one or two 
exceptions--with the Republicans to shut down the process.
    So I would think that one of the things that we need to do 
to try to make this place work better is to understand that not 
everybody thinks alike and that we ought to have legitimate 
debate on the floor. That doesn't mean that it is a free-for-
all. But we are getting into the habit of just shutting 
everything down because it is convenient. And I think that that 
undermines kind of the influence of individual Members, whether 
they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, and I think 
it is not good for legislating. I think we could do a lot 
better.
    But anyway, I appreciate you both being here and----
    Mr. Kiley. I appreciate that.
    Madam Chair, if I could just--there was some jargon thrown 
out by the ranking member there about rules and whatnot. Just 
so folks understand what he is referring to, a rule, as we 
consider it on the floor, is just a means of bringing a bill to 
the floor for a vote. I generally support those because I think 
it is good when Members can vote their conscience on the 
underlying bill. Of course, two Members of your party who voted 
for one are now going to be punished for that for giving folks 
the opportunity to vote on the underlying bill.
    Mr. McGovern. No, no.
    Mr. Kiley. But you are right that it is not--it is not just 
one party or the other.
    The Chairwoman. It is----
    Mr. McGovern. It is my time.
    Mr. Kiley. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. McGovern. It is my time. All right. And the bottom line 
is we have had 168 closed rules. So it is more than just about 
bringing a bill----
    Mr. Kiley. Sure, and I agree with you. I think there should 
be more open----
    Mr. McGovern [continuing]. And to have people vote their 
conscience. Bottom line is these are closed rules. So I can't 
even bring an idea to the floor. You can't bring an idea to the 
floor. Nobody can bring an idea to the floor. So it is more 
than just, oh, it is just, oh, we are bringing a bill to the 
floor, people vote their conscience. I mean, bottom line is, I 
have never seen a perfect piece of legislation.
    Mr. Kiley. Yeah.
    Mr. McGovern. And the bottom line is that, you know, 
Members--by the way, not just Democrats. I mean, we are 
disproportionately cut out of offering amendments. But, you 
know, a majority of Republican amendments have been banned, 
have been denied.
    And, again, you know, I am looking at the record here, and 
you have voted basically to all your fellow Republicans that 
they can't offer amendments either. I think there is just 
something--I think we are getting too comfortable in that 
habit, and we need to open things up.
    Mr. Kiley. If I may personally just express agreement. I 
agree with you on that. I think that we should have more open 
rules. I think there should be more opportunities for 
amendment. We are in agreement with that 100 percent.
    Mr. McGovern. Yeah. But your votes don't agree with that. 
But anyway, that is another story.
    Mr. Kiley. I disagree. I mean, I think----
    Mr. McGovern. 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 participation by Democrats and Republicans--
--
    Mr. Kiley. Well, Mr. Ranking Member, 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 would, of course, 
vote for the open rule.
    Mr. McGovern. The alternative is you vote down a rule, and 
then you come back and you create a better rule where there can 
be more debate. That is all.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure. All right. If people can come together, I 
would love to because I would love to see more open rules. So 
let's talk more about that.
    Mr. McGovern. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Just thank you for coming to testify. Mr. 
Cleaver, your points about providing more opportunities for 
people to work through legislation in a bipartisan manner in 
advance and to get more effective legislation forward are very 
well taken. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. And I thank you both for coming. And 
hearing no further questions, you are excused.
    Mr. Cleaner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairwoman. Without objection, I would like to submit 
written statements from Mr. Womack for the record.
    [The statements follow:]

             Prepared Statements of Hon. Stephen A. Womack

    Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of 
the Committee: Thank you for your consideration of my proposals 
and for allowing an opportunity for Members to present our 
ideas on improving the operation of this body. As former 
Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Joint Select 
Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, as well 
as a current member of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, I continue 
to explore bipartisan solutions to address our fiscal state and 
welcome your input. We must come together as a Congress to find 
solutions for the pressing matters before us.
    As you are all aware, our nation recently surpassed $40 
trillion in national debt. This is uncharted territory for us 
as lawmakers, and if we do not act expeditiously as a Congress, 
we will propel our nation into a fiscal crisis with 
catastrophic outcomes for our constituents.
    The House of Representatives does not have the luxury of 
routinely enacting legislation that increases mandatory 
spending at a time when such spending currently accounts for a 
majority of annual outlays. In response, I propose guardrails 
to enforce already-existing mandatory spending controls.
    Congress reinstituted a ``Cut-As-You-Go'' rule within the 
rules package adopted for the 118th Congress and retained it 
for the 119th Congress, intending to restore fiscal 
responsibility and prevent future Congresses from having to 
address the catastrophic implications stemming from fiscal 
irresponsibility. Unfortunately, not long after adoption, the 
rule was waived and has continued to be waived with regularity.
    I propose a new clause to be inserted into the rules of the 
House for the 120th Congress that requires no less than 9/13 of 
the Rules Committees' members, including one member of the 
minority party in the House of Representatives, voting in the 
affirmative to report out a resolution, rule, or order of 
business that supersedes, suspends, or otherwise bypasses House 
Rule XXI, clause 10, the Cut-As-You-Go point of order. For 
reference, Rule XXI, Clause 10 states:
    ``Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) it shall not 
be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or 
amendment thereto or a conference report thereon if the 
provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing 
mandatory spending for the period of either--(a) the current 
year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years that following 
budget year; or (b) the current year, the budget year, and the 
nine fiscal years following that budget year.''
    The rules should clearly state that it shall not be in 
order to consider in the House a resolution, rule, or order of 
business reported by the Committee on Rules in violation of 
this paragraph unless the aforementioned threshold is met.
    By instituting this rule, the House will exercise restraint 
and consider the implications of new mandatory spending within 
our current fiscal climate. The purpose is not to prohibit new 
mandatory spending, but to require the House to carefblly weigh 
the economic, social, and moral implications of doing so.
    Considering the national debt is over $40 trillion, 
Congress must explore solutions to rein in our mandatory 
spending before it is too late. Thank you for your time and 
consideration of my proposals.
                                ------                                

    Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of 
the Committee: Thank you for your consideration of my proposals 
and for allowing an opportunity for Members to present our 
ideas on improving the operation of this body. As former 
Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Joint Select 
Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, as well 
as a current member of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, I continue 
to explore bipartisan solutions to address our fiscal state and 
welcome your input. We must come together as a Congress to find 
solutions for the pressing matters before us.
    Regardless of which party controls the House of 
Representatives, we are far too often asked to vote on 
legislation without being given the time to understand the 
fiscal ramifications. Long-past are the days when this body 
could haphazardly vote on legislation without worrying about 
the long-term fiscal impact of doing so. Going forward, the 
House must take into consideration the fiscal state of our 
nation when evaluating each and every piece of legislation that 
comes before us.
    It is a disservice to our constituents and counterintuitive 
to the intent of this body when we are expected to vote on 
something without understanding its broader fiscal impacts, or 
the more personal impacts felt across our districts. In 
response, I propose the creation of a ``No Score, No Vote'' 
point of order in the rules of the House of Representatives for 
the 120th Congress.
    To do this, we must create a point of order that may be 
raised to prohibit the House of Representatives from beginning 
debate, or calling for a vote on legislation unless said 
legislation has received a comprehensive estimate from either 
the Congressional Budget once (CBO) or the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (JCT). The comprehensive estimate must clearly include 
the legislation's fiscal impact and clearly document the 
estimated effects on the outlays, revenues, and annual deficit 
of the federal government over a 5-year or 10-year budget 
window.
    One frustration shared by all Members of the House is the 
lack of time we are given to evaluate pieces of legislation 
before it is considered on the floor. To address this, it shall 
not be in order to consider a covered measure until a 
comprehensive estimate performed by CBO or JCT that satisfies 
these conditions has been available to Members, Delegates, and 
the Resident Commissioner for at least 24 hours.
    To ensure that we do not hamstring ourselves or prevent 
swift action in response to national emergencies, a provision 
should be included to ensure that this shall not apply to a 
bill or joint resolution continuing appropriations for a fiscal 
year, legislation reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
providing new budget authority for a fiscal year, or containing 
an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2) or section 
252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
of 1985.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of my proposals.
    The Chairwoman. Anyone else seeking to testify on today's 
agenda?
    Seeing none, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                  [all]