Skip to content
Congressional leaders are actively exploring ways to continue the work of Congress as the COVID-19 crisis continues to unfold.  Currently, Congress is not able to have live, in-person hearings, which are the primary tool for conducting oversight of both the private sector and the executive branch.  With existing oversight investigations still underway—and the recent establishment of both a House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis and a COVID-focused Congressional Oversight Commission—leaders in both chambers are testing new procedures to obtain witness testimony outside of traditional in-person hearings.  Already, however, these efforts have begun to run up against existing rules governing hearing procedures.

In recent days, at least two Senate committees have held so-called “paper hearings” through which the committees obtained witness testimony entirely in writing.  Paper hearings began in late March in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.  The Committees are undertaking slightly different methods for obtaining witness testimony.  Under the procedures outlined by the Armed Services Committee, Members submit opening statements and witnesses submit written testimony prior to the hearing date.  These statements and testimony are made available on the Committee’s website on the date of the hearing, with the Committee then publishing Member questions and witness responses within a week thereafter.  The Commerce Committee’s paper hearing process is a little different.  After posting opening statements and written testimony online, Commerce Committee Members must submit questions to witnesses by the close of business, with witnesses then given 96-business-hours to respond.  All questions and responses are later published on the Committee’s website.

Even though these Committees have already begun utilizing these procedures for paper hearings, the Senate Rules Committee has now advised that such procedures are not official hearings under the Standing Rules of the Senate.  Senate Rule XXVI describes a hearing as a public event that occurs at a specific time, date, and location with at least one Senator present to accept testimony from a witness.  Moreover, many Senate committees have in-person quorum requirements to take testimony, with any official action by a committee, including reporting out legislation, necessitating in-person voting.  Maybe not coincidentally, just last night, the Senate Armed Services Committee postponed a second “paper hearing” that was scheduled for today.

On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders face a similar challenge as they explore the limits of remote congressional action.  Late last month, several former Members of Congress and a former House Parliamentarian conducted a mock remote hearing via video conference to test the technical feasibility of conducting remote hearings.  As this trial run suggests, technologically speaking, existing commercial off-the-shelf technology is available to support virtual hearings.  Like in the Senate, however, the permissibility of such hearings under the House rules remains an open question.  House Rule XI requires each meeting of a committee or subcommittee to be open to the public, except when the majority of Members elect to move to a closed executive session, and imposes in-person quorum requirements.  Both of these rules complicate efforts to conduct committee business remotely.

Whether the House and other Senate committees will ultimately join the Senate Armed Services and Commerce Committees in embracing paper hearings, even if they are not official hearings, or possibly pursue more technologically advanced solutions, will have significant implications for oversight in both chambers.  Covington’s congressional investigations team continues to monitor these developments closely and advises clients on the impacts of any procedural changes on ongoing and future congressional oversight inquiries.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Angelle Smith Baugh Angelle Smith Baugh

Angelle Smith Baugh is of counsel in the firm’s Election and Political Law and White Collar Litigation practice groups. She has significant experience in broad-based crisis management, advising clients on legal and political matters presenting complex risks.

Angelle’s practice focuses on defending companies…

Angelle Smith Baugh is of counsel in the firm’s Election and Political Law and White Collar Litigation practice groups. She has significant experience in broad-based crisis management, advising clients on legal and political matters presenting complex risks.

Angelle’s practice focuses on defending companies and individuals in high-profile congressional investigations, as well as other criminal, civil, and internal investigations. She represents clients before House and Senate Committees, as well as in criminal and civil government investigations before the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission, and the Office of Congressional Ethics.

She assists companies and executives responding to formal and informal inquiries from Congress and executive branch agencies for documents, information, and testimony. She has experience preparing CEOs and other senior executives to testify before challenging congressional oversight hearings.

Angelle also has experience and expertise navigating federal and state ethics laws, and provides ongoing political law advice to companies, trade associations, PACs, and individuals.

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website. To exercise your right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for targeted advertising purposes, click “reject.” Privacy Policy