H.Res.28 amends the internal rules of the House by deleting the phrase in House Resolution 5 that confined remote witness appearances at committee proceedings to the chair’s discretion. The change is surgical: it removes a specific gatekeeping clause rather than adding a new regime.
Why it matters: the deletion reduces an individual committee chair’s explicit, rule-based authority to block remote testimony. That alters the distribution of procedural control inside the House and creates immediate operational questions for committees — who will set the new default, how to authenticate and manage remote witnesses, and who will bear the logistical costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs a textual amendment to House Resolution 5 by removing the clause that made remote witness appearances contingent on the chair’s discretion. The resolution does not add rules governing how or when remote testimony must be accepted.
Who It Affects
Every House committee and subcommittee, committee chairs and staff, potential witnesses (including experts, constituents, and organization representatives), and House technology/security teams responsible for supporting remote participation.
Why It Matters
By stripping an explicit chair-only veto from the rulebook, the resolution tilts internal power away from individual chairs and toward committees or other House authorities to define remote-witness policies — all without specifying standards or funding for execution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution makes a narrow edit to the House’s internal operating rules. It deletes language that had tied a witness’s ability to appear remotely to the chair’s permission.
The measure does not concurrently create a new entitlement to testify remotely, nor does it instruct committees how to handle requests for remote appearances.
Practically, committees will face a changed starting point. Where previously the chair’s permission was written into the rules, the absence of that phrase leaves committees, the House Rules Committee, or other standing procedures to determine the default approach.
That means committees must decide whether to adopt permissive policies, rely on unanimous consent, set voting thresholds, or draft new procedural orders to govern remote witnesses.The resolution leaves operational issues unresolved. It contains no language about verifying witness identity, handling classified or protected information, maintaining an evidentiary record, time limits, cross-examination logistics, or technical standards.
IT and security offices that support committee operations will likely need to develop protocols and capacity if committees expand remote participation.Because the change is internal to House rules, it does not create rights enforceable under federal statute or confer obligations on non-House actors. Instead, it reshuffles internal rule language and pushes implementation choices to committees and House administrative bodies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill is H.Res.28 — the 'BRIDGE to Congress Resolution' — introduced January 9, 2025 by Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.
It targets a single sentence in House Resolution 5 (Section 3(i)(1)), striking the phrase that conditioned remote appearances on the chair’s discretion.
The resolution removes a chair-centric rule but does not require committees to accept remote witnesses nor establish any alternative decision rule or standard.
H.Res.28 contains no funding, technical specifications, or authentication procedures for remote participation; implementation details are left to committees and House administrative offices.
Because it amends House rules, the change affects internal committee procedure only — it does not alter any federal statute or create external legal entitlements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the resolution’s name: the 'Bringing Real Ideas, Data, and Genuine Experience to Congress Resolution' (BRIDGE to Congress Resolution). This is a formal label for internal and public reference and does not have legal force beyond identification.
Textual amendment to House Resolution 5
Instructs that the words in Section 3(i)(1) of House Resolution 5 that made remote witness appearances subject to the chair's discretion are to be removed. Mechanically, this is a clean deletion: the rule language that explicitly granted chairs that exclusivity is excised rather than replaced. The immediate practical effect is to eliminate a rule-based, chair-only veto written into the rules; it does not spell out what replaces that discretion in practice.
Applies across committees; internal rule change only
Because the amendment operates by altering House Resolution 5, its scope is institutional — it governs 'committees of the House of Representatives' generally rather than any single committee. It changes internal parliamentary procedure and thus is operationally meaningful to committee calendars and staff, but it does not create statutory rights or obligations outside the House.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Remote or mobility-limited witnesses (experts, constituents, small business owners): Removing a rule-based chair veto lowers a formal barrier to participating without traveling to Washington, increasing access for those who face geographic, financial, or health constraints.
- Subject-matter experts and national organizations: Easier remote access can broaden the pool of testimony and enable participation by experts who cannot commit to in-person travel for brief hearings.
- Members who prioritize constituent access or wider input: Representatives seeking broader testimony will find fewer procedural obstacles to inviting remote witnesses, allowing more flexible hearing formats.
Who Bears the Cost
- Committee chairs: The explicit rule-based control to block remote testimony is removed, reducing a chair’s unilateral procedural leverage and requiring them to negotiate or adopt alternative controls.
- Committee staff and House administrative units: Staff must draft new procedures, manage scheduling complexities, and support additional technical, security, and transcription workloads without guidance or funding from this resolution.
- House IT and security offices: The move increases demands for secure videoconferencing, authentication processes, and continuity planning; those offices will need to allocate resources to prevent disruptions and verify witness identities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between widening access to committee proceedings and preserving orderly, secure, and manageable hearings: making remote testimony easier promotes inclusion and broader expertise, but doing so without clear standards or resources transfers burden to committees and IT/security units and risks inconsistent or disorderly proceedings.
The resolution solves one narrow problem — a written, chair-only veto — but intentionally leaves open who decides the new default and how remote testimony should be managed. That gap creates real implementation risks.
Committees could adopt different standards, producing a patchwork of rules across the House; alternatively, absent committee action, administrative officers or the Rules Committee may step in, producing a top-down regime that some members may oppose.
Operationally, remote testimony raises authentication, recordkeeping, and security questions the resolution does not address. The absence of technical or funding guidance means committees that expand remote participation will likely rely on existing IT capacity or ad hoc solutions, increasing the chance of technical failures, disputed testimony authenticity, or inconsistent treatment of classified or sensitive material.
Finally, removing a chair’s explicit veto reduces a single-point control that can be used to manage decorum and focus, but it also removes a procedural safeguard that some argue is necessary to prevent harassment, frivolous witnesses, or logistics-driven disruption.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.