Ranking Member Cole: "Proxy voting and remote committee procedures have changed the nature of the institution"

Hearing

As delivered during today's Member Day hearing on proxy voting and remote committee proceedings as established by H. Res. 965 of the 116th Congress:

We are here today to hold a Member Day hearing on proxy voting and remote committee procedures.

In May 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House took unprecedented action and created a system of proxy voting on the floor and a system for remote committee procedures. At the time, I noted that this was the most consequential change to the Rules since the establishment of the modern committee system in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. I believe our experience over the last two years has borne that out. This action was indeed consequential. Unfortunately, in my view, the results have not been as positive as we all would have wanted.

Sadly, as I feared, the introduction of proxy voting on the floor and remote committee procedures have changed the nature of the institution, and not for the better. Although some temporary form of procedural change in response to the pandemic was likely necessary, particularly for members who physically could not get to Washington, D.C. in the early days, I believe that both proxy voting and remote committee procedures have long since outlived their usefulness. Continuing these in their present form will undoubtedly lead to significant, long-term damage to the culture of this body and to our ability to continue functioning as a Congress.

We must never forget that the word "Congress" literally means "a physical meeting between delegates." Over the past two years, we have rarely met this definition. Instead, two years on, members often use proxy voting and remote committee procedures to avoid traveling to Washington, and consequently, never spend time in the same room as their colleagues.

The failure to congregate, in person, has had serious consequences for the culture of this institution. Over the past two years, I personally have observed a decline in civility. I think this can be directly linked to the inability of members to get to know one another face-to-face, which is in turn a direct consequence of these "emergency" remote procedures.

The author Margaret Wheatley once noted that "you can't hate someone whose story you know." In failing to routinely come together, in person, we are losing our ability to learn each other's stories. That has helped contribute to rising animosity on both sides of the aisle. Relationships, both between members and with staff, are important, and it is important to have all members physically present in Washington to ensure that these relationships are both created and maintained.

In addition, continuing to utilize proxy voting and remote committee procedures has negative consequences for legislating. When members are not present in Washington, that lessens the ability of the institution to achieve consensus. Without the ability to discuss matters in person, face to face, members aren't able to fully consider legislation and propose alternatives, often leading to a top down "take it or leave it" approach. This is hardly the way to ensure all members' voices are heard or to ensure a productive legislative process that leads to consensus.

The use of proxy voting has also resulted in a failure to maintain a productive and efficient legislative process on the floor. With proxy voting, individual votes are sometimes held open for long periods of time, frequently extending up to 45 minutes or longer. With such long vote times, the Majority has limited votes to no more than a handful each day. This has meant that we instead are avoiding votes altogether, which is especially apparent on legislation with a large number of amendments.

Rather than doing individual votes on each amendment, the Majority is instead liberally embracing large "en bloc" amendment packages, which makes it very difficult for individual members to know what they are voting on, and likewise makes it more difficult for an amendment to be adopted. This contributes to the same "take it or leave it" legislative approach and contributes to a weighting of voting procedures in such a way that frequently benefits the Majority at the expense of the Minority.

I would also note that while technology has created the ability for committees to hold remote hearings, such technology is not foolproof. We have seen a myriad of problems emerge from these technologies over the past two years, ranging from members unable to enter virtual hearing rooms to technical glitches and low bandwidth preventing members from speaking or appearing on camera. None of these problems exist with in-person committee hearings.

Mr. Chairman, I grant that it may have made sense to experiment with some alternative procedures at the beginning of the pandemic. But today, we are moving steadily toward a broad re-opening of society. The CDC is no longer recommending broad mask mandates, and indeed, the House eliminated its own mask mandate two weeks ago. Vaccines and boosters are widely available to anyone who wants them. Testing is widespread and reliable. And the nation, as a whole, is ready to get back to work and, quite frankly, back to normal.

This should include the House of Representatives. It is now time for members to return to Washington to conduct the business of the nation. We can do this safely in person, and we should do so at our earliest opportunity. Indeed, there is no reason for us not to.

Before I conclude, I want to welcome all members of the House who will be appearing before us today. Member Day hearings are an important tradition in the House. It gives us the chance to hear perspectives from members who do not sit on the committee, and it allows us to hear and incorporate new ideas. I have often found these hearings to be invaluable, and I'm delighted to be hearing from my friends and colleagues today, particularly on a topic that is so important to the future of the House as an institution.

Source