Initial Thoughts on the House’s Remote Deliberation Resolution

This morning, House Rules Committee Democrats introduced a resolution (H. Res 965) that would provide for some remote deliberations for House committees and on the floor. Accompanying that resolution was a Dear Colleague from the Rules Committee that explains how the resolution would work, a one-page explainer, and a statement from the Democratic members of the Virtual Task Force on the resolution.

In short, the resolution:

  • Provides for proxy voting on the House floor, which would be turned on, extended, and turned off at the direction of the House Speaker. Members would send a letter to the House Clerk to designate their proxy, and no such designee can cast more than 10 proxy votes. The Clerk would publish the proxy designation on its website. The proxy is revocable, and must provide specific direction as to how to vote. Members voting by proxy would count towards a quorum.
  • Provides a mechanism for the Chair of the House Administration Committee (in consultation with the RM) to advise on whether secure technology is available to allow for remote voting on the floor. The Chair of the House Rules Committee would then promulgate regulations to put it into effect (to be published in the Congressional Record), and the Speaker would notify the House that remote voting is now possible. Presumably, the Speaker would be able to choose whether to provide this notice.
  • Provides for remote deliberations for hearings and markups for committees. Many of the details of how this would work have been pushed to the Rules Committee, whose chair (in consultation with the RM) would issue regulations on remote deliberations that would be published in the Congressional Record. To conduct business meetings (which presumably means markups), a majority of Members of the Committee would have to certify they will follow the regulations and that the committee is ready for remote deliberations.

I am still thinking through the implications of this resolution, which will be considered on Thursday before the House Rules Committee and on Friday on the House floor. Generally speaking, it is a welcome step towards restoring the functionality of the House of Representatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The choice is stark: a remote House or no House, and this belated move will begin to restore the power of the legislative branch, at least in the people’s House.

I have to applaud the Members of the Virtual House Task Force, Reps. Hoyer, McGovern, and Lofgren, who worked hard to find a solution that met the dire circumstances and made efforts to protect minority rights. I am concerned that Republican members of the Task Force (McCarthy, Cole, and Davis) did not support the final product — and I remain concerned about protecting the ability of the minority to be heard — but given the political circumstances, the position of the minority is not surprising. Hopefully additional accommodations can be made to meet the needs of the majority and the minority, leadership and rank-and-file, as regulations to implement this are promulgated.

I have some reactions to the resolution that are worth sharing. I haven’t fully thought this though, but here are some initial reactions:

(1) A lot of eggs are being put in the basket of the regulations that McGovern will promulgate. The strength and weaknesses of those regulations will go a long way to determining whether this is a workable and fair solution.

(2) The resolution does not yet turn on remote committee markups. Rather, they’re pending both McGovern regulations and certification from the committees. I wonder how long this will take and how many committees are ready to act. It seems like some of them are ready to lead.

(3) The power to go to remote proceedings on the floor and in the committees is placed solely in Pelosi’s hands. She can declare, she can extend. Members of the House are non-entities for this purpose. It would have been preferable for the House to have a role in voting to confirm, extend, and cancel these proceedings.

(4) After House Admin issues report on feasibility of remote voting on the floor, McGovern would issue new regulations on how it works, but Pelosi still has to give notice to the House to turn it on. Power is put in the Speaker’s hands (and not shared with the House).

(5) I don’t see anything beyond remote voting and counting for quorum on the House floor. Specifically, I don’t see anything about how members can participate in debate remotely. Is this an omission? An oversight? Something else? What about the ability to make motions, to object, etc.?

(6) There’s no requirements for transparency, which will be issued by McGovern later. This is a big deal, as it has to do with how public and press can see what’s going on. It makes me nervous to turn off the House Committee’s transparency requirements with a TBD in their place.

(7) Committees cannot hold executive session remotely (except for Ethics committee). Will the NDAA be a more open process? What about Intel oversight?

(8) To turn on remote voting on the House floor, it requires: (1) House admin study + certification that operable and secure tech exists; (2) Rules Cmte Chair submitting regulations, published in the congressional record, that provide for implementation of remote voting; (3) Speaker must provide notice to the House before it’s turned on.

9) There’s lots of interesting technology changes/ improvements, some of which are long overdue.

  • Publication of list of proxy voting designees by the Clerk on the website
  • Committee reports may be delivered to the Clerk in electronic form, including views of minority
  • Electronic motions, amendments, measures, and documents is good enough — don’t need it to be printed
  • Don’t need recorded vote records to be available in committee offices
  • Oath can be given remotely
  • Subpoenas can be signed by electronic signature and attested by the Clerk by electronic signature
  • Can do subpoenas both for hearings and for depositions

There’s a lot more the House should and could be doing from a technology perspective. Unfortunately, the HEROES Act (i.e., CARES 2.0) does not provide for technological modernization in the legislative branch, and it’s likely that there will be no money available through the legislative branch appropriations process. This is a huge missed opportunity that could undermine the ability of the House to modernize in the way that’s necessary to meet this challenge.