Dear Friends,
Last Friday, I watched disappointed as liberals in Congress ended one of the foundations of our nation: coming together to meet and debate.
With one vote, progressive lawmakers changed the rules of the House to make attendance optional, striking at the very core of who we are as people, as a community.
Our Founding Fathers intended for legislating to be hard, but fair. By requiring attendance, they compelled the People’s House to assemble, to collaborate, to find a way forward.
This new reality will only make it harder to find consensus during times of disagreement.
Read my full op-ed in the Washington Examiner below.
House rule change undermines the Constitution
Washington Examiner
By Congressman French Hill
May 15, 2020
On Friday evening, the House voted on a fundamental change to how the U.S. House of Representatives votes and conducts business. I voted no because it would severely harm the House as an institution, in an affront to what the Founders of our nation intended.
I appreciate that these are unprecedented times, but liberal lawmakers are using the current crisis to undermine our Constitution by letting House members vote by proxy. Several weeks ago, progressives were rushing forward with a partisan approach on proxy voting. House Republicans convinced them to establish an ad hoc bipartisan committee to discuss these issues. But then, despite the establishment of this committee, we voted Friday on a change to House rules that has never been seen in our nation’s history. This rule change may have untold consequences for years to come.
Let’s start with the most preposterous part of this change — it allows for a quorum to be established by proxy. That’s as nonsensical as it is inane. A quorum is required to allow the proceedings to move forward. To establish a quorum is to have a certain number of members physically present in the chamber. To be marked as present, one must actually be present.
House Democrats disagree, and they point to their own past policy of proxy voting on committees as a precedent. But this argument fails. Even when proxy voting was allowed in committee, a physical quorum of members was required in order to conduct committee business. Proxies were only allowed to cast committee votes, not to establish a committee quorum.
There is a good reason why proxy voting, and especially proxy quorum voting, has never been allowed on the House floor. Article 1, Section 5, of the U.S. Constitution states:
“A Majority of each [chamber, House and Senate] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.”
The Constitution and two centuries of precedent require lawmakers’ physical presence to establish a quorum. Moreover, members are authorized to “compel the attendance of absent members.” This protects the rights of members and of the constituents subjected to the laws they pass. It ensures that the work of the House is being done with buy-in from, at a minimum, a majority of House members.
The Democrats’ rule change effectively makes attendance optional. It takes away the fundamental basis of our representative democracy, whereby elected individuals represent those who elected them in the House.
Our founders intended for legislating to be hard, but they put rules in place to ensure that it would be fair. I believe this rule change is unfair and will only make it harder to find consensus during times of disagreement. Through civil war, disasters, and depressions, the representatives of the people assembled in the Capitol to debate, deliberate, and decide on behalf of the nation. They need not do so any longer after today’s vote.
Republicans offered a realistic plan based on advice from health professionals and experts with parliamentary experience in the House. It included restructuring existing practices and procedures, employing a phased-in return for committee work, deploying technology slowly rather than all at once, and accelerating active risk mitigation practices.
The House has already proven it can do its work on behalf of the American people during this outbreak. We have debated and voted on the House floor, and we have participated in live and virtual committee activities.
I believe that when Congress decides to change the fundamentals on which the body was founded, it should be done in a bipartisan manner. After all, this affects all members and thus, all the people they represent. A change of this magnitude requires buy-in from all affected parties. But the body of government that is supposed to be closest to the people, the U.S. House of Representatives, is now harder to access and further from its foundational principles.
