Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Rules Votes On 3T Economic Aid Remote Voting By Proxy 20240713

Bill providing an additional 3 trillion in coronavirus economic stimulus. We expect to see that bill on the floor tomorrow. Also to discuss promoting voting and Committee Work. And now back to the start of todays hearing, this is cspan3. [inaudible conversations] the rules committee will come to order. Before i give my Opening Statement i just want to read a guidance from the attending physician, doctor monahan. We asked him specifically about the use of face coverings during proceedings like these and while he has not mandated their use he did share that and i quote, my preferences that members retain their face coverings when speaking as an activity which can release virus particles. Especially if the speaking is of a highspirited nature. S ive never had a meeting in the rules committee that hasnt been of a highspirited nature so we will leave it up to individual members to decide but i think to be cautious here i will keep mine on and i hope that everybody else will be mindful of the reason why there is guidance on this issue. It has been roughly three months since the First Community transmission of covid19 was discovered in the United States. Since that time our world has changed dramatically. There are now more than ar1. 3 million confirmed cases across 50 states, washington dc and for territories. More than 81000 of our citizens have lost their lives to the cyrus and the number continues to rise each and every day. Communities have taken unprecedented steps to slow the spreadse for stayathome orders and travel restrictions. We dont know how long it will take to develop a treatment or vaccine to contain this virus or for life to return to normal. We do know that this house must continue legislating. We have to keep responding to this pandemic and provide oversight of the trillions of dollars in emergency spending passed by congress. All while completing our more routine business and we have to do so in a way that is safe for all those around us whether fellow travelers, staffne, the public were members of the media. The way we have done things will have to change, at least temporarily. That means physical distancing in means Wearing Masks and it means embracing technology during this pandemic so we can hold virtual hearings and markups remotely on the house floorra. Local governments and countries around the world have taken similar steps and it is time for this house to utilize 21st century technology. This resolution is a result of weeks of collaboration and has been repeatedly refined and contains Many Republican provisions and i dont suggest these steps lately and i am not looking to change the fabric of this institution. I believe the best ideas still come from working in person and sidebyside. We must adapt to this extraordinary circumstance and make temporary changes during this pandemic. They will help us get our work done today and prepare us for whatever may happen tomorrow. Experts are already telling us the second wave of this virus could be worse in the fall. It would be a dereliction of our responsibility to do nothing. Further delay is not an option either. We have released a report and formed a Bipartisan Task force and have hadad weeks and weeks f talks and it is time to act. I know there will be discussion today and a bulk of this conversation and invite all my colleagues to support this proposal because of the status quo will not cut it. Before i turn it to our Ranking Member mr. Cole, i want to wreck a nice his not just on this committee but on the Bipartisan Task force as well. He cares deeply about this institution and i know regardless on where we stand on this particular proposal we agree on making sure this house functions on behalf of the American People. Ive always appreciated his courtesy and hisis open mindedness. I just say finally, i regret very much that we are not coming here today with a proposal that both our leaderships embrace. I think all of us, i certainly did, want to see something come to the floor that received such overwhelming support that it would task my voice vote or by unanimous consent. But i think we have very different opinions about how we should proceed and i think some of us may have different opinions about the urgency of the moment we now find ourselves in. Having said that im happy to turn it over to the gentleman from oklahoma, my friend, mr. Cole for any remarks he wishes to make. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Le i will take my mask off only when i speak and i will speak in a controlled manner and if i get spirited i will put the mask back on. I appreciate your courtesy there and as a rule, you are wise to do as you suggest. Mr. Chairman, our original jurisdiction hearing today is on the most consequential change to the rules of the house of representatives in my tenure here. Indeed, this may be the most consequential change to the role since the establishment of the modern Committee System and the reorganization act of 1946. Today the majoritys proposing for the first time in our history94 the system of proxy voting on the floor of the house of representatives and at the same time the proposed rules and changes would also authorize committees to perform remote proceedings, including markups. It also allows for the adoption of totallync remote voting upon the certification of one member of congress. Though the changes are purportedly limited to the present covid19 pandemic sidelined the tempered change wv make to the rules today becomes the president to be followed tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, three weeks ago Speaker Pelosi did an extraordinary wise thing, rather than pushing through a partisan proxy voting rules similar to the one weng are considering toy she instead formed a working group of six members to consider these challenges. This working group consisted of majority leader, republican leader mccarthy, chairperson lofgren and raking member davis of the House Administration committee and of course, you and i as a chair and Ranking Memberh of the rules committee. Over the past three weeks this working group has been wrestling with the question of whether and if so, how, congress can continue to operate during this pandemic. I particularly want to commend you, mr. Chairman, for the thoughtful and productive way in which you approach these discussions. Rest assured my dissatisfaction with todays resolution is no criticism of you personally but quite they opposite, i thought you were tarred and bridged the gaps betweenu us and made meaningful concessions in the course of our discussions. Frankly, i commend every member of the committee because i think they all worked that way and tried to find common ground. In this case, we simply did not get there. Last monday republican leader mccarthy, Ranking Member davis and i posted an article in the medium that laid out the four strategies for reopening the house of representatives and the strategies were designed to strike the Necessary Balance between health and institutional concerns that allowed the house to begin to move forward in a safe and healthy way. Before i continue our unanimous consent to insert a copy of that article into the record. Without objection. Thank you. The four strategies we highlighted were as follows, first modifying existing practices and structures to utilize existing house rules and current practices, second, employing a phased return with committees or in other words, bringing back individual committees to work on the essential and needed legislation in the safe, socially distant format. Third, deploying technology and a crawl, walk, run progression and forth, continuing to excel active Risk Mitigation practices. These four principles will allow congress to safely begin to return to cc to return to work. It would allow committees to come back and to conduct hearings and in person markups and to draft new legislation to combat this crisis and provide relief to the American People. It would limit the risk of using Unproven Technology that may or may not be secure from wrongdoers such as hackers and foreign governments. It would have ensured that congress continue to meet as a congress, literally, a meeting between delegates. Above all else republicans believe that any change to the centuries old rules of the house should only be done in a bipartisan way that achieves consensus. We believeon the proposal we outlined would achieve that goal. Instead, this proposed rules package fundamentally changes to key rules of the house, first for the first time in history of the chamber we are being asked to approve a system of proxy voting for members on the house floor. That rules change also holds open the possibility of moving forward with totally remote voting once the chairperson of the House Administration committee certifies the technology for that use. Second, again, for the first time in our history we are being asked to approve the measure that will allow committees to operate remotely and approve legislation remotely. While i have no doubt the majoritys intention are good when it comes to proposing these two changes i believe they will fundamentally alter the nature of the institution and not for the better. I cannot support them. First andn foremost, im deeply concerned about the president has set for the institution. Even a temporary measure to deal with the Current Crisis would be used to establish precedence for Something Else down the line and when it comes to the fundamental way that the house does business, face to face with members building relationships and hashing out differences, im reluctant to set a new precedent that erodes our normal practice. Second, i have real concerns about whether or not any system e. Of remote voting proxy votings a constitutional and the language of the constitution clearly contemplates members being physically present in the chamber to conduct business. Move to any other kind of procedure that involves members not being physically present in the chamber to vote and to make a quorum will put the legislation at those risk of Court Challenges but the legislation that we will likely pass, by these methods, in the nearha term will probably be billed along lines of the cares act. Bipartisan measures that deal with the coronavirus pandemics and result in economic distress. It does not make sense to me to put such important legislation at risk of a Court Challenge because we failed to comply with constitutional requirements. Aiird, im not completely convinced that moving to a proxy Voting System or remote Voting System is necessary at this time. There are other methods of operating that comply with our existing rules. By far the best option is to operate with bipartisan agreement and unanimous consent which would not require members to return to washington during this crisis if there are travel concerns. In the event and in the event that is not possible we have already proven our ability to assemble and vote in person twice during this pandemic tomorrow we will do so for the third time. I personally am deeply concerned about the proposed remote voting rules change even if it is not imposed right away. The rules change we are considering today will allow for remote voting to take effect without an additional bow toch e house and only upon certification of technology by one member, chairperson lofgren. This is exceeding the rules committee and denies the entire house deliberation on the technology and vote on making such a consequential change. At the very least i think the entire house should have an opportunity to evaluate and vote upon any remote Voting System before such a change takes effect. On the second piece of your resolution which would allow your committees too operate remotely i have similar concerns and im most concerned about what it means for the institution. Our present Committee Structure has meant that for decades the members of the house meet together to discuss new pieces of legislation. Though we may not agree with each other and sometimes may not even particularly like one another all present Company Excluded of course, the Committee System has forced us asxc members of the house of representatives sit down in a room and Work Together and it has forced us to get to know one to learn from each others perspectives and sometimes learn we have more in common with each other than we previously recognized. If the mother passes that will no longer be the case and no longer will members be required to sit together in a room but instead we will lose that fundamental piece of our institutions character and and thats a great loss for us as members in the country and thats what im deeply concerned that how remote the Committee Action will work and with such an untested and unproven procedure there will undoubtedly be in significant hiccups moving forward. When markups happen how will we ensure the chairs must recognize members for timely emotions and how will we ensure that minority members will receive fair and equal time and fair and equal opportunity for recognition and how sure are we that the technology we intend to use is secure and protected from wrongdoers whether hackers or foreign nation. Todays rules is silent on these matters leaving specifics to be determined later by you, mr. Chairman, we need to do better. Im disappointed that our bipartisan discussions on how to make Congress Work during this time of National Emergency did not result in consensus, although i be the First Technology certainly made progress and it was certainly a sincere effort. It is even more disappointing to understand how these rule changes, in my opinion, will begin to erode the very fabric of the house. With that, mr. Chairman, i thank you and yield back. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and want to also thank him for keeping his tone below a highspirited nature. I appreciate that as well. I want to ask unanimous consent to cement into the record a letter from debra perlstein, constitutional law professor from [inaudible] school of law and its a letter i strongly recommend to all my colleagues that they read in full. She writes, i believe adopting procedures to allow for remote voting under these exurban areas circumstances not only lawful but essentials to the maintenae of our constitutional democracy. The constitution contains no specific requirement of physical presence for members to vote and what the constitution does, instead is repeatedly recognizes leave it up to each house of congress to determine the rules of its proceedings. Indeed, it is just such constitutional books ability that has enabled congress to embrace the various Informal Solutions that it is adopted over the years to do business, including relying on members to givehe unanimous consent to a ve even if something less than an actual majority member is physically present on the house floor. Finally, the temporary remote voting procedures bear an entirely reasonable relation to the goal you aim to achieve, namely, ensuring the congress preserves the ability to vote in a way they maintain its institutions are presented character and protects the transparency of its operations and fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American People. I also want to say and again, is that a lot has changed since the first congress. None of us arrived by horse and buggies today and the story of the peoples house is a story of change and adaptation to meet the needs of the times and as i said, the house use to conduct every vote by roll call and today the house uses electronic voting charge and computer tallies the votes. The process of unanimous consent that is allowing bills to pass with just two members in the chamber was developed in response to the spanish flu pandemic despite the constitution requiring a majority of members to conduct business and in both the house and the senate you see, to this day, weve created and disbanded committees to feed the need of our nation and it changed how to count a quorum and changed out of vote and we are here today, once again, to change and to meet the challenge that we face and so anyway, i point that out because i think we need to put this in perspective and i want to say i agree with my Ranking Member, i do not want to change the character of this institution, i dont like the idea that we have to be here today to even talk about this. I do value our in person interaction and i dont want to go down a slippery slope and i think we all need to be clear on that but i do think we find ourselves in an extraordinary moment for our yield to the gentleman. Es thank you very much, thank you for your kind remarks and i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article by the distinguished congressional scholar, mark strand, entitled voting present by proxies unconstitutional shoxymoron. Without objection. For the first panel im happy to welcome the distinguished minority leader, mr. Hoyer and the Ranking Member of House Administration committee, mr. Davis, both were on the Bipartisan Task force that we talked about these issues and im delighted both of you are here and we will begin with the distinguished majority [inaudible] a rose by any other name ass thank you very much, mr. Chairman did thank you mr. Cole and members of this committee. I want to thank ronnie davis and tom cole and my friend kevin mccarthy, we sat together the first time with one of our members participating virtually, no audit was in california and we met virtually the other two times that we met. I think we had open, substanti substantive, thoughtful discussions and i think all the participants in that. We did not t reach consensus ani think the two letters that were just introduced apparently reflect the basic defense of that voting virtually is somehow inconsistent with the constitution. On i do not believe that is the case but let me start, mr. Chairman, with a quote, the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think on new and act on new. We must disown call ourselves and then we shall save our country. Abraham lincoln, december 1, 1862. I have served in this body starting may 19 for 40 years and im in my 41st year. Never have i experienced an environment that exists today. Nor do i believe anybody alive in america has experienced such a circumstance. And so as our case is new we must act and think a new as Abraham Lincoln said. The constitutional framers expressed intended for the house to be closest to the American People and be their chief representative in government. I, Speaker Pelosi, leader mccarthy and leader mcconnell all believe there is no substitute for meeting together personally, individually, collectively, in committee in the house of representatives. However, if that is not possible, either because planes wont fly because theres been an attack on the satellite than the air Traffic Control system or because of a Natural Disaster that destroys much of the country or because of a National Security attack as we had on 911 butts on 911 we did not shut down america and we were not permitted from meeting but we came together that night and stood on the steps of the senate saying god bless america. But we have voluntarily shut down the country in many respects because Health Experts say it is essential to defeat this virus. And so, we are meeting in an unnatural way in a very Large Committee room relatively Small Committee separated by at least 6 feet. We are doing that to accommodate the crisis that confronts us. The framers established this house in the very first article of the constitution and gave it the power to legislate and conductan oversight of the executive branch. Never are those responsibilities more critical than during times of crisis. We are now in such crisis with cova 19 infections and still is surging across the country and its Economic Impacts having led to more than 33 million americans being unemployed. We need to be about the peoples business. The American People need to representatives to perform a full measure of their duties under our constitution which included committees Holding Hearings and markups and members debating andti voting on the floor. Because of social and physical distancing measures currently in place to save lives that prevent the spread of covid19 it is unsafe for members to travel back and forth to washington from theirsa districts and risk exposing potential thousands of people while in transit. It is also unsafe to require thousands of housestaff and capitol hill employees to commute to work while infections have not even reached their peak in the washington metropolitan area. That is why we must adopt a kind of virtual practices authorized by this resolution and as the chairman pointed out at the beginning of course the founders did not contemplate the technology that is now available to us which allows us to meet virtually. To see one another, to hear one another, to respond to one and not in thely same room but in the same box we call an ipad or computer or some other device that allows us to communicate in real time essentially in personer virtual. These include video and teleconference technologies currently used safely and effectively by millions of americans, including the senate and the Supreme Court. Our ironically you saw yesterday a virtual hearing held by the United States senate and the chairman was not present. The witnesses were not present and doctor county in particular, rand paul was in the room somewhat like a hybrid hearing that was discussed by the minority leader and we provided for that in this rule. Including the Supreme Court of the United States only nine people who are conducting hearings and arguments virtual virtually. The Supreme Court of the United States the final word of what the law is in america. This is not a radical idea and not an idea that undermines thea constitution in any way or the character of this body, the character of this body is individual numbers elected and the only way you can get here by their constituents and what their constituents want is not necessarily in this chair or that chair but they want them is to raise their voice. And to protect their interests and to reflect their views. We live in an age where that can be done virtually without exposing others to risk or without exposing the members to risk or the press to risk or the witnesses to risk. That is what happened to the United States senate yesterday. That is what the Supreme Court of the United States is trying to preclude. A new and radical change for the Supreme Court of the United States in one sense but in another sense, exactly the same thing they do, they hear arguments and they ask questions and they decide. Nothing radical about that. It is simply the medium rather than the horse or a train to get to the objective. This resolution as has been pointed out would authorize committees to markup legislation remotely so we can prepare bil bills, that is what our duty is. We can hold hearings and we can do oversight and we can question witnesses on behalf of the 750,000 that each of us represent, give or take. For those members who cannot safely return to washington at this time it allows proxy voti voting. Now, some of you have heard of my comments i think that is one way to do it and i think there are other ways to do in this role provides to look at that and i will tell you as long as the majority leader will do that in discussion because i think we had six people of goodwill in the room trying to figure out how we do this. For those members who cannot get we will do their proxy voting. First step that authorizes the house to begin working on a remote Voting System, such a system would only be used during emergencies like this one. Let me stress that. In the 40 years i have been here there has not an instance where think this would be justified. Until now. We see it in the white house where the covid virus came in and we are not fundamentally changing the way the house works. Let me be clear, we are not changing, there is no advantage to democrats, no disadvantage to republicans, by using virtual technology, none, zero, zip. All the rules that apply for the minority protections apply. And they should. This is not about getting advantage but about allowing the peoples house and the peoples representatives in committee to work and work productively, what agent raz 955 does is enable the house to meet this moment and do its job in full all we do our part to help sent the spread of covid19. And this will ensure the safety ofev those who serve and work he on capitol hill. While i was disappointed that we were unable to reach a bipartisan agreement on adopting virtual tools for the house it was not for lack of trying on the part of democrats and republicans and i want youus to know, mr. Chairman, the time when it was obvious we could not Reach Agreement i called mr. Mccarthy and we had a very civ conversation. I said to him, kevin, we cannot Reach Agreement. I dont believe frankly, kevin, what you are asking for for concurrence you would give to nancy closely if she were the minority leader. I want you to think about that. Whether you would give nancy pelosi the ability to veto your ability to act and i want you to honestly think about that. We cannot agree on that but it is not because we do not want to Reach Agreement. I wish republicans would have joined usse in this effort and i hope they will join us on the floor in voting for this resolution. A in closing, mr. Chairman, i have a list of about eight, nine things that mr. Cole and the staff and other republicans suggested they were good suggestions and youve included them in this rule. That was the right thing to do and this should not be about partisanship but about do we want this institution to have the capacity to meet, at times of crisis and frankly, we did not get there after 911. This ought to be impetus for us to get there and we ought to all be committed that we would only use it in extraordinary circumstances and i dont believe theres been such a circumstance in the United States of america since excuse me, 1918. Over 100 years ago and this may be once in a century experience for our country. Lets pray it doesnt happen again. Let us also pray that when it does as Abraham Lincoln said, we will think anew and act anew so that we can do our job. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Davis. Thank you to the Ranking Member cole for allowing me to testify. Its great to be here with my good friend, majority leader mr. Hoyer and the rest of my colleagues on this committee. This is an unprecedented proposal and it will fundamentally change the way the house of representatives can craft, consider and vote on legislation. The process that led to this hearing is unacceptable to me. After a previous failed attempt to bring similar rules, change package to the floor last month we on our side were hopeful and leadertic just like hoyer was that the work of a Bipartisan Task force to get house back to work would result in a genuine willingness toward bipartisan agreements. We republicans on the task force offered realistic framework and a plan to make responsible measured thorough reforms to get the entire house working again to perform our essential functions on behalf of the American People who elected us to represent them and thank you for including somef of our lesuggestions in that proposal. As a leader hoyer mentioned there were others that we put forth in this framework and our suggestions and i would argue, mr. Leader, we wouldnt have to minorityaker pelosi or leader pelosi and your example concurrence because we would not bring this proposal to the house and we would do it much differently our plane was dismissed out of hand by the democratic majority with no alternative and it was not until yesterday, yesterday morning with the release of hr 955 house rez that we saw any semblance of a plan and in no way was that a product of a bipartisanship for greater member inputs. This resolution would dramatically overhaul the Committee Process which is fundamental to producing legislation to now only allow for minimal endpoint and consultation with the Minority Party. Lets callo it what it is and we are talking about a member of Congress Giving their voting privilege to someone else and through legitimate constitutional certainty with what has been proposed and could call into question the validity of any legislation in the proxy voting is used for pit im sure many of our peers are reviewing the proposed rules changes with the idea in mind that desperate intimes call for desperate measures. Its important to note that this not the person congress has had to work through national emergencies, the civil war, spanish flu pandemic, two world wars and after september 11 this body continue to operate. In fact, after 911 there was an exhaustive effort for years that would make sure the house rules had a mechanism that would allow the house to continue to function during catastrophic times and that effort took three years to implement. I like to remind members that as we sit here and contemplate change 200 years of years of voting and president we already have a product of those three years of bipartisan work. We have rule 20 clause five which the speaker could exercise and was crafted to allow the house to operate when impacted by Natural Disaster and attack contagion or similar calamity and rendering them incapable of attending the procedures of the house. The changes to house foreign Committee Process is being proposed in this resolution are heavily dependent on the click of the houses and house according studios in the house resources abilityou to execute d support these dramatic process machanges. I have confidence in the clerk cao and professionals on the team but however it is unfair to them to put the institution at risk by not first listening to them and mitigating risks in testing the process extensively. These steps have been skipped and to that point i submit today a letter for the record to you, mr. Chair, outlining important technical questions and concernr that must be addressed before the official virtual proceedings are conducted. Without objection. The house is on the receiving end of 1. 6 billion unauthorized scans, probes and malicious attempted Network Connections every month. After broadcasting to the world are intended to allow members to delegate their votes via email and moving Committee Activity to virtual platforms i would expect that number to increase. I want to be clear im not opposed to exploring and leader hoyer and everyone on the task force can tell you i and the others are not opposed to exploring commonsense reforms for the way the house operates. In fact, you will find a better advocate in congress in making improvements and that is why i asked to serve on House Administration committee and thats why ive invested countless hoursfi on modernizatn to move the ball forward. Its also why was excited to work on crafting this bipartisan Emergency Response proposal on a Bipartisan Task force. Disappointed, as you know but for weeks we put forward roadmaps and solutions to open house in a way that prioritizes member and staff safety as well as institutional legitimacy. They were dismissed out of hand and i ask you mr. Chairman, to send your comments earlier what has changed since just a few short weeks ago when the committee on rules released a report on march 23 that could be viewed as the antithesis of what is being put forth today and i agreed with the statements you made and i believe that they have no less weight on may 14 donated only seven weeks ago on march 23. In closing i want to encourage all of us to take a step back in the mire our institution, our strength, agility and the ability to be closest to the very people we represent. Even during difficult times and i want to remind us how fragile it is in our rules are easy to change and a break and president can unravel generational reforms and norms. Remember bob walker who served for 20 years in the chamber and was one of the chief architects in the Institutional Reforms implemented after the 1994 election recently issued the warning to me that president creates process what we are considering today and in the process through which it has been drafted is being considered is unprecedented. We are not here debating rule changes but we are here debating what kind of institution we want to be and the example we want to set for the American People and the rest of the world. If we approve h rez 965 we are changing the processes forever, threatened legitimacy of member votes and open a pandoras box of unnecessary constitutional risks. Tragically this time should event an area of bipartisanship like it was previously times we come together. In the last few weeks instead we are debating a member management proposal for folks who have a fundamental view of the role of response abilities and congress that has muchh different than mine and many of us have ever envisioned. Thank you, mr. Chair. I yield back. Thank you very much. I would simply say that again, i regret that we could not come together on this. We are looking at the current moment very differently. Again, we saw your proposal that was to the press that we read about when we first found out about it that way but it doesnt address the challenges we face right now. This is a rules committee. We are one of the smallest committees in congress and here we are taking up the entire ways and means Committee Room which is one of the biggest Committee Rooms in congress. What to do with the Transportation Committee and the appropriationsbi committee . They are significantly larger. Some have suggested that maybe they can meet in the auditorium or maybe on the house floor and one at a time and we have a huge amount of work to do and there are in addition to responding to this crisis and trying to figure out how to get the economy on its feet again we must pass bills that we must get on or Defense Authorization or appropriation bills and the fact that we cannot function in our Committee Process literally cannot function the way it should if we will follow cdc guidelines and that is problematic so what do we do . We dont meet . We dont address certain issues that need to be addressed . Number one. Number two, look, i dont think some of my friends on the republican side believe as we do that the situation right now is such that some members cannot come back. There are transportation challenges and some members represent districts that are hotspots and then there is the whole issue of we could be a symptomatic carriers of the disease and we could come back here and mingling with staff, Counsel Police or people who maintain this and all those considered andbe at the end of our process the two suggestions that the distinguished minority leader put forward is one that he wanted concurrence on whether or not that we could implement a process of operating remotely and so i said, okay, would you give us or would you concur in his response was no. So, although we are talking aboutu here, by the way, which s a response is not just to democratic members, mr. Davis, but in response to republican members who reached out to us that somehow we need to figure out a way to deal and to operate during pandemics and basically with the minority leader wanted was the ability to veto something and he would use that veto to make sure we dont proceed forward. That is alternative which i think incorporates some of the things that are in the press release that you released was that we should operate like the white house and we should all get tested. We should all w move to the frot of the line and we are all special enough that even though our constituents and those who work in hospitals and First Responders and people who are working in food pantries and homeless shelters and who quite frankly should get tested that congress and the way we manage this and come back and every time we get tested and i dont know what the reaction would be in the minority leaders district but in my district people think that is tone deaf and think it is wrong. That we are not super special and that we should move to the front of the line and those or that was, that was a long and short of it and again, i dont take this lightly at all. I wish we were not having this discussion. I wisht we were meeting as usual and able to fight with each other as usual and high spirited conversations as usual and be able to move bills forward as usual but we just cant. I hope that is shortlived and this ends really quickly and maybe it will end it so quickly we dont even have to utilize any of this. But then if you listen to the head of the cdc and listen to other medical experts they are warning about the fall and so what happens if things get worse and much worse than they are right now, what do we do . Conduct business in the same fashion that we always conduct business . Ignored the advice of medical experts . I appreciate this issue of president s. Believe me, a we have talked to constitutional experts and people that have studied institutions and im very reluctant to do or to make changes that i dont think are totally warranted but the gentleman referred to the change that was implemented after 911 when the republicans were in charge of the house and in 2005 you changed the rules for provisional quorum which would allow, in the extreme, to members to constitute a quorum. The constitution defines a quorum as the majority of the membership but under the rules change that was done back then, i mean, you literally could have two members constitute a quorum. I dont think that is constitutional but nonetheless that was the plan put forward. [audio difficulties] [audio difficulties] we are living in it right now and we all hope and pray that it is winding down and that it will stay wound down but if we are wrong and this comes back and we are not prepared then a shame on us because we dont know what to do. By the way, we have come together in a bipartisan way on a number of packages that become now law and literally we could appropriate the house and a bipartisan way in the senate in a bipartisan way is appropriating chileans of dollars to help us on to this crisis and to help try to protect our economy but we need to do oversight and make sure the money is being spent the way we want it to be spent. That is one of our jobs and if committees cannot meet because of this pandemic and they have to wait their turn because we dont have rooms big enough here to meet and follow cdc guidelines as a dereliction of our duty. I appreciate all your concerns and let me just i want to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record a letter from [inaudible] the renowned constitutional expert and dean of the Berkeley School of law and discussing the view that the remote process would be constitutional and in his letter the dean states the constitution of her toes on each house of Congress Broad discretion to determine the ruleses of its proceedings and this authority is expansive and would accord the ability to promote proxy voting for it nothing and constitution specifies otherwise. Moreover, if thisin were ischallenged in court its very likely the case would be dismissed as a political question. The Supreme Court hasco ruled tt challenges to the internal operation of congress are not justice in the federal courts and indeed, i written the quote as held by congressional judgments pertaining to its internal government should not be reviewed by the federal judiciary and i ask unanimous consent to submit to the record may 5 opinion piece published in the hill from [inaudible] a constitutional law professor from the university of virginia and former clerk to the Supreme Court Justice Justice scalia in his piece, [inaudible] said and i quote, the more general point is that if legislators are monitoring procedures online and can vote vote molly they are in attendance and be present for quorum spread what is good for the president is the main court must be good for congress. I asked that his b part of our record and i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and your opening remarks for the tone that you continue to set. I very much appreciate the two witnesses here. Ha ive had the great pleasure of working on the Ad Hoc Committee that the speaker appointed and i very much agree with what the majority leader had to say. It was a good exercise and one that was good good giveandtake. We would not get as far as we wouldve liked but there were areas of agreement and i think if we take it seriously by everyone. Mr. Leader, my first question to you is i see two changes the republicans requeste as part of our task force negotiations and closeddoorion on executive sessions and the limitation on a number of proxies for any other members but i dont see other changes, could you tell us when and how those would be incorporated . Committees required to Software Platforms that the chief Administrative Officer recommends which is, i think, suggested that you made that i think, mr. Davis made. Committees will not be allowed toe a close executive sessions, as you know, if you close executive session you have to recess and proceed only with present members who are not virtually present but present. Committees have the opportunities to hold hybrid hearings which is an they require two virtual hearings remember members to test the software and that was something that was agreed to but you are concerned about, not you personally butto on your side, would it work and that is one thing we think that was a good suggestion and we have tried to incorporate. Twentyfour hours notice before any final passage votes during this time to give members time to secure proxiesn. If they have not designated one yet. Im notem sure that was specifically a republican proposal but. [audio difficulties] some chair does not schedule inadequate meaning in disadvantage those on the west coast who would have to come in the day beforee or that was a suggestion that was made. Committees would provide a list of individuals with participatory access to the virtual hearing platform to the Ranking Member 24 hours prior to the hearing to the extent practical. Lastly, the rules committee will issue uniform regulations on enforcing decorum in a virtual setting. Where we disagreed we think was and i think heat you expressed it at the beginning of the two constitutional scholars differed substantively and i think frankly, that is where we have a substantive difference. I believe that being virtually present and present is essentially the same thing in the constitutional consequences of that presence because i can vote i hear and i can vote i a thousand miles away. It has the same representation of my constituents. Its just transmitted in a different way. It was somewhat controversial when we went from standing on the floor and saying i or nee which is very dramatic presentation but to the electronic voting but one thing we happened with electronic voting since ive been here and i dont know but electronic voting machine broke down so we had to go back to the yes and no inand it took a long time and te next day the machine was fixed and we went back to that. When we frankly went to television it was members were nervous about that and it was a real change and wouldnt change the character of house and when we speak longer and take political positions as opposed to substantive position so they were substantive changes. I think, we disagree. I want to say this strongly and i think my repetition on my side of the aisle as i try to be fair to both sides but i do not believe this changes in any way the rights of the minority, nor do i believe it in any way enhances the rights of the majority. I think it is a even Playing Field on both sides, no rules. Let me give you a rules change you guys made not in this body and both sides made this change because they were frustrated. Mr. Reid initially made a change so that it would not take 60 votes to approve judges. However, those judges were not the final say and mr. Mcconnell changed the rule and the republicansho which substantialy disadvantaged the democrats and a bipartisan choice of Supreme Court justices. P. This could be made on a partisan level 51 votes. That was a very substantive change and it was made. It did in fact change the influence and ability of the minority, in this case, 47 votes minority to impact the outcome. This changed, mr. Cole, and i have high respect for you and we have a great relationship and we both served on the Appropriations Committee so we have a lot in common and i thank you are a thoughtful voice on your side of the aisle and in congress that i dont think this changes your rights and privileges at all. If it does i would be the first to say no, we have to make sure it does not. Either in cross examining witnesses, calling witnesses, voting that you will have the same number of votes and some people may be absent but some are absent when youre physically present and as you have now. Thise is not intent. What is is intended to do solely is to assure that the congress is not sidelined because of an event that neither one of us are responsible for, there is no fault here and it is a circumstance we confront and thisis is an attempt to confrond so the congress is not sidelined. Now, let me point out that we have come here, as you pointed out, three times. We have come here because we need to do the peoples business and we are going to do the peoples business and we will do the peoples business tomorrow. Some of us will agree its a good way and some will say no thats not the way we want to go and that is the process. We will come here but why when we have the technology that allows us to do it virtually do we put lives at risk . Not only here but you go back to oklahoma and at some point in time and you will deal with the folks in oklahoma and you will come from a hotspot and hopefully you will not have anything to transmit but we know that that is possible and if we have the ability to do something virtually, which does not in any way denigrate our democracy or institution or the rights of the Minority Party or enhance the rights of the majority party, why dont we do it and that is why i am a proponent of this use of technology. Thank you, majority leader but let me make two points quickly in response. Number one, a lot of the measures you mentioned that are incorporated are nota in the resolution could ide assume they will come in the guidance and i certainly trust my chairman of that but i wanted to get that on the record. Many of those points arent in the resolution yet for it hopefully, they will be in the guidance and we have not seen that. If the gentleman would yield. I certainly yield. I pledge to the judgment we will have that guidance available to him before this comes to the floor and we will consult with him before he submitted. Obviously, the only think that would not be in the guidance is what future technologies might exist and might be applicable in dealing with the situation but a lot of the stuff the gentleman has referred to will be here but we will have a consultation. I appreciate that. Majority leader. Let me Say Something, on our side of the aisle sometimes were frustrated with your chairman. We get frustrated with your chairmanship and thats apparently told them we give you this, that or the other but they said jim, we got to get this done but no, we have to be fair. You got a chairman of the committee who on our side is proceeding as leaning over backwards to make sure that he and his committee is perceived as fair. I want you to know mr. Cole that as we go through adopting this technology and using this technology, if in fact we get there as the german side, i will ngassure you i will be the first one that i want to hear from you this is not fair to republicans to say that lets make it fair. I say this facetiously obviously but theres another thing we agree on. We both tear the danish caucus and we both occasionally getet frustrated with chairman mcgovern. [laughter] theres bipartisanship right there. You like frustration, yes, sir. [laughter] let me make another point if i may and i appreciate very much what you said, mr. Chairman could i work i look forward working collectively with you. I dont have any doubt about your concern about trying to be fair here and trying to not disadvantage anybody individually or in a partisan sense. I accept that without reservation. Just so you know and so i am clear my bigger concerns are about the nature of the institution itself. I know you share many of those concerns so i do not want you to have the impression that i thought you were trying to tilt the table one way or the other to your advantage. I dont. I just worry very much about the way this place works and i worry very much about members being in bubbles back in their own districts where they basically talk to people just like them and a lot of people only talk to people with different political opinions when they are here and they have to because a person has a vote and has a say and i think thats a good thing about the institution and i think they also develop a lot of personal relationships a that provide the manner and bipartisanship t sometimes regional alliances, things like bats, which are hard to do remotely and i know you share those concerns but just so you know if that is what i would consider bread and a question, if i may. Resolution the forest today allows for the use of remote voting upon the certification of the chairwoman and this was something we never talked about in our meetings. Us renote vo remote voting. And this was brought up before task force before and could you explain why you felt the need to include this and i do think that this is a lot of power in one persons hands and i dont think that is the sbind and i haveint lot of trust for the member in question. But would you consider once she comes to a decision maybe opening up and having the whole house have a look at that so that we didnt move forward technologically really on the basis of just one person, that there were other sets of eyes on it if you will . Let me say that i know that the speaker, and she indicated that, when mr. Mccarthy said that i may be open to proxies but not now and she withdrew the proposal the last time we met. She set up a task force to discuss it. And t i thinko there are better ways o have a direct conversation with that camera. We no longer use them in the house. This was a good decision the republicans made. When i first came here, the chairman of mike kennedy was on odo committees sometimes have ten, 12, 15 proxies. Its the persons opinion of the chair man or somebody else a usg a large number. At the limit as you know we share that view. We couldnt go too low because you might have to have somebody with a lot of proxies under the circumstances. But i assure you any change we omake will have to do with discussions on serious consideration we have a sense that the technology work. I wrote an article youve probably read it where i said my first initial recommendation to the chair man was its use face time because you put the camera up, you see my face. Its not somebody else, i do it. I happen to think that personally it is preferable but think what the rules committee suggested is an interim step which is now being used in the senate by committees and i think will reflect because theyve carefully witnessed so you have to have specific instructions. The person has to announce first im casting my vote for tom cole then they casto the vote and it is as if he were present for the answer to your question is certainly i can speak for the speaker that we intend to make any of these changes and i know this is the chair nancy r. As well as the discussion and careful and thoughtful bipartisan discussion with the institution. Thank you very much. If i can i will go to mr. Davis. In the task force that we are all on, we had a roundtable discussion about the broad issue of remote voting in those conversations the clerk highlighted the need to be able to certify proxies validity. Hahave your kennedy had any conversations on exactly how they would do that . Not that i am aware of. So we are sort of t moving forward on how we would verify the proxy. I mentioned we need to take into consideration the professional house staff who are going to be tasked with implementing these plans and proposals. One other thing i would like to mention theres a difference between proxy voting and remote voting and kind of equating them all together is something i dont think we should do in this institution. They all have very different rules and aspects and potential problems thatme can be in the house. I know the intention here is to make sure the proxies are narrowly used and i think that is the right thing s to do. Do you have any suggestions that would make sure it was cast in the manner it was attended because i appreciateke the sentiment that the majority express that they want to narrowly curtailed so we dont have what we had at the level the leader referred to in the past, but as people literally casting votes without any consultation with the member whose vote that actually is. I have a problem with the proxy process as a whole because the process being corrupted over almost 40 years of oneparty rule in the house and frankly after speaking to the former members like bob walker that helped institute at the Committee Level he even joked about how the former chairs now Ranking Members laughed because the new republican chairs took away their power and it was a process that they could not believe the new majority wouldo give up but i think it was the right thing to do and as mr. Walker said, this is a new precedent and while i appreciate the work of the chair man and the leader and chairperson in trying to limit the process, i think it is a process that has been showing the institution corrupt in the past and it may be years from now. It may not be this or next congress but it could be three or 4liter we go back toa that same process and i dont think that its our job to allow this tos move forward when we know t is going to be used in the past. Theres the proxy voting of the past which we would all agree is a good standard and i think the good majority could do the right thing because the way that it worked back then is the chair would have a bunch of proxies. That isnt what we are talking about. What youre talking about i we f you want to give me your proxy, you have to indicate and writing how you want me to vote on every single vote and how you voted on the house floor and jim mcgovern voted contrary to the way you wanted to come it would be announced and it would be a period of time if i somehow erused my power for it to be corrected. So the reason we suggested this is because it is the approach that i think can be transparent that we kno know the members of votes can be cast away. The problem with issues like face time and other stuff weve been on calls where people freeze. You cant get through. The technology out there may be such that we can go that direction. We need to test these things and make sure we are moving in a way that makes sense and is foolproof as anything can be so to compare what we are trying to do, that isnt accurate in any way, shape or form. The safeguards that are being built into this, unless a member isnt paying attention, its just cant happeit justcant has that comparison because that isnt what it is. The gentleman knows, and weve talked about this time and time again. We have a process with integrity and where there can be as few as possible in bringing this forward and again as we learn more of there may be better ways to a do it. We also have multiple conversations with the clerk we feel confident this process can move forward. Is there a better way to do tht the Resolution Says lets look at it but in the meantime idea of dragging it out forever and ever in the middle of a pandemic doesnt make a lot of sense and i thank the gentleman for his indulgence. Certainly my privilege, mr. Chairman. If you look at the resolution, it is pretty specific about sliding but not voting so thats an area that again i dont doubt that is an area we need to look at very carefully. I appreciate the work that was put together in a bipartisan way in the task force. Im glad youve incorporated the suggestions and i dont see them as much as i see in the forms that should have been in anyones proposal. The proxy process being instituted in the midst of a pandemic has the potential to be abused once again. With all due respect, i worry less about the process being corrupted once the vote is in the hands of your proxy and more so how did it get to that person in the first place, what are the discussions before it is offered and why is that person even offering the proxy and code that process be abused. You and i both know it could be. But there is a difference between proxy voting and remote voting and alsoo remote hearing. In our plan that was submitted for the record is laid out a common sense approach that gets us to the point where congress can work. My wife is a nurse. She gets up, goes to work at the facility that is training patients in the building right next to her office, shes in and out of the building, she has to quarantine herself when she gets home every night, she comes from knowing she followed the protocol and guidelines to make sure she mitigated the risk of her picking up the virus. Weve shown here we can adapt in a very bipartisan way to do that and we offeredve the opportunity to implement hearings, lets test it as you said mr. Chairmans testen the proce. Lets not kid ourselves what you are proposing today does leave the minority health. It gives unprecedented power to you as the chair of the committee when determining how and when, to determine all regulations for all proceedings it comes directly from you it doesnt say you have to consult with the Ranking Members of your committee. You have the authority to do this, mr. Chair and that takes away our authority and frankly any rankandfile member on the party doesnt have the authority to work with you. This is something you would be in charge of adapting the proceedings to the future virtual platform it would be the largest change to the modern history. I think that they do deserve to have our voices heard and it also gives unprecedented power to just the chairperson of the housee administration. It doesnt d say she has to consult with me the Ranking Member when determining what pithlachascotee to choose and implement before putting forth with a remote voting. Its different than proxy voting. Why allow somebody to sit at home and cast their vote and yes there is technology, mr. Chair, that could allow that to happen, but inme the end why do we have one person in the party determining what technology to use. But they finish real quick and i will yield back. Think about this in the modern congressional history, weve had majorities switch a lot more often than 40 years up untilde 1994, 95. Now when this switch is if im the chair of the House Administration, do i unilaterally to change the process. To provide certification and determination to offer technology that exists to conduct. What you stated was incorrect. I certainly hope its taken into consideration a lot more so than the consultation that we provided in a very bipartisan and public way on the task force that is taken into consideration. And ii think that you need to be very careful about this process. There needs to be strict y. Hiedures for the minority rights. Consultation, yes i may have misspoke on consultation. I would certainly like to have written in this rule and in this package a much more precise process of how the technology is chosen. You know that based upon what is written there. Again, i appreciate it the efforts that were made. Again, i dont question the gentlemans motives. Welltaff work very together. The end result may not be what you want, but sometimes it will be and that is the nature of this business. But at the end of the day we want to get this right. We understand the importance of this moment. But again, the idea to basically have the ability to say we want power over anything and we will use the veto powers that you cant move forward i think kind of defeats the whole purpose of why we are having this conversation to begin with. We have members that have approached us to say that during this moment we need to figure out alternative ways to be able to meet. We are come folding with others in we are being as transparent as possible. Reclaiming my type time, i have no doubt that they will consult in good faith and i look forward to continuing working. To my friend mr. Davis, you actually answered in your exchange with the chairman the question i was going to ask what is a concern about the consultation or not, a single a singlemember basically making a decision about thee remote votig and the amendment process we may provide the opportunity for the majority to reconsider that. And i would just urge you to again i think in the end you are the majority and have the ability to make the decision. You might want to consider expanding that also it has the legitimacy of the entire house. I have enormous respect for the individual we are talking about. I just think there ought to be our fingerprints on this particular decision ive asked my friend to consider that Going Forward in some form or fashion. Thank you for your generosity with the time. Think you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for convening the hearing today. I know that you have stayathome orders that you are not in compliance by being called here, so in many ways i consider you the heroes of the u. S. Capitol. I fully support this measure and i want to thank both of you for helping members of congress convened meetings through whatever means possible that we have been able to do this to ensure that we continue. In this resistance as it has come down to having two duties. I reallyre like that platform of platforms come and go. Computer programs come and go and i certainly dont want to be stuck with an old system c thats that it hasnt progressed with the times. So, this resolution is what is meant to address the issues of today. At the end of this congress we may not have the need to do this and we may have another opportunity to do something. Hopefully we will beat this virus and we can go back to our more comfortable way of doing. I do want to say that just because i support having an opportunity to be able to have another member vote for me to cast my vote on the floor for me doesnt mean that im committed to doing that. When i got on the plane yesterday i was scared to death. There were people in the screening area of the process that were much too close for my own comfort and ive made a commitment to my staff and family that if it was more than 70 occupied. We should be asking our staff that risk their lives simply because we are afraid of the system of working under extreme conditions. This isnt normal. This isnt something that one party or another. This is our republican pandemic. Public health issue. 80 plus thousand people have died. 80 plus thousand that we know of. There are many others that have died as a result of the publications of this disease that are not on record simply because we did not test them. I dont want a test when my 5yearold grandson who had been sick couldnt even get a test. When a very popular pastor in my community died because he a test. Get not because he lacked insurance simply because the tests have not been available in my community on behalf of constituents on the floor and not simply because they are si sick. To relinquish their vote and to be that voice of their communi community. So with that i want to yield back and thank you both forth being here and risking your se self. Thank you mr. Charan for convening this. I didnt have the privilege of serving on the bipartisan group, and i appreciate the shared agreement on both sides of the aisle and folks put in a lot of very serious work and couldnt come to the conclusion to be fair. We have an opportunity to do some small bipartisan things. We are choosing to bring the whole package together at one. Because they dont serve on the Bipartisan Committee i serve on the rules committee, i am thinking about clause five, the chambers three years between september 11 and the 2001 and january 4, 2005, talking about what to do lots of unanticipated, but the reading from rule 20 specifically the inability of the house to establish the core that is attributable to the catastrophic circumstances involving Natural Disaster tax cut contagion and similar calamity. We anticipated again three years of collaborative work went into that decision. What is the inadequacy of the work that we did in the bipartisan way that time the next we didnt have conclusion. Have we come to a conclusion, and let me back up the reason we didnt come to the conclusion, the reality of the house shutting down did not occur. The 9 11 veterans did not shut down our economy. It shut down airplanes from about three or four days so that there wasnt the compulsion of the reality being unable in this case because of a pandemic to come together and as a result the difficulty of getting toli that point even though they took three years. It will preclude her from being affected. Let us all pray that that is true of all of us but the reason they didnt get to an agreement wasnt as stark as it is today. They were not afraid if they sat in the middle seat they were going to get the proximity that would cause. We wouldnt be having this discussion because we would have such a way for the congress to meet virtually and in addition to that you and i both know in the last 20 or 17 years with extraordinary difference we have with respect to technology and the way to aggregate ourselves in a technological way rather than a physical way. Had they had the technology they may have been able to pursue it. The compassion of reaching a virtual opportunity that isnt where this revolution takes us. But they did reach the conclusion which is why it is in the house rules today that the business must be long. Cant get here because of contagion we are not going to let the access of these members of congress and inability to establish more prevent the house from doing business. That was a radical change to say less than the majority would be the majority. And frankly what it did provide for is either your voice or my voicema being heard so that our constituents would have been voiceless. It doesnt provide for them. Im not sure that answers the question. About having the voice heard i have read the documentation. Let me make this point i thought i made it before but let me make it again each shall constitute a quorum under the change the republicans put into place, i thought there were serious constitutional questions. You could have two people constitutedo a quorum. The point they are trying to respond to. How do we function during a pandemic when we all want to participate and do our Committee Work and move things forward. How do wein do that, can we do that remotely and is there a way to do it. It was pretty controversial and im not sure how many people can defend. I want to point that out what we are doing here we do believe the majority of the membership should be where the koran. To my charans point, i have no doubt that his concerns are sincere Speaker Pelosi has been elected since the rules were put into place if they had questions about the nature of the house rules i have no doubt whatever changes they made. It would have repealed this section as well. We probably should have thought about that. I think the gentleman has raised a good point we need to take a look at it because i dont think it should be defined by potentially two people. We should be talking about how we can take a look at that. In the spirit of the house creating its own rules, we often have two people on the floor of the house under unanimous consent the constitution is no less adamant to conduct business and yet they conductct business regularly so i recognize the concern. To deal with everything that he can do that they just dont thini just dontthink that is wn people would like to see happen and isent dont think that its constitutional. But the gentleman ithe gentlemad take another look at it because we need to be planning for the future. I think that he reflects the constituents concerns they do not represent an act of deliberative body nor do 45 people on the house floor. We could all participate virtually. Thee bottom line as was pointed out in the beginning we can talk to each other and can participate virtually. We want everybody to participate. Those who can be here should be here and thosee who cant. The Supreme Court is taking arguments right now so there is a big difference here. Ive had this cough for three years. Its allergies. [laughter] but you do seem a little more suspicious now. Why didnt they get to a resolution. If you ask mr. Orenstein or mr. Bayard from washington state, he would say they failed. Why did they fail . The threat at the time was concept chewable. Let me suggest one of the problems we have today is that although people conceptually raised the pandemic that happened in 1918 could happen again. It was conceptual and as a result, we were not prepared. Here it is actual and we were distancing as the chairman pointed out. It is here. Its not conceptual or theoretical. If there is the entire air traffic system because people wouldnt have been able to get here. The fears are shared by millions of americans. In your community and mine about a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. The entire world has been impacted and for the first time in my lifetime i am older than everybody in this room. The economy of the United States was shut down purposely not because we had a recession or depression, but because we decided that it was so important to stop this pandemic in its tracks which we havent done yet and 33 Million People in depression like levels so that doesnt conceptual. It is here and we have to deal with it in the context where we do not seek the congress off the field. This is an opportunity in my view. Its much different than my talking to them on the phone. I see them but frankly when they uare on tv, they like it a lot more. It is a different experience than talking onm, the phone. In the proxy voting we completed these hearings not showing up there are issues we can deal with irresponsible collaborative ways as the committee tried to do. The chairman agrees this is an interim step. But in a world in which we live, you could be in tokyo and i could be in washington, d. C. And you and i could call ourselves on face time and see one another in real time. Its a little different time on the clock but in realtime i think that is the better way but i agree and i going to vote for this role theyve proposed interim way of getting there using something that we have used through history. It is a technology that is referred to simpler. Im proposing that we take a baby step and go with a lowtech approach with the members of the house there are some we are trying to deal with a situation in a way that is comfortable and as people get more comfortable, we can then look at other s things. But the point of the matter is we want to move it to a way everybody feels they can participate, not just those that may bmaybe have more experienceh technology than others. And again, that is the reason behind this. But also, the bottom line is weve experienced this reality and it may be coming back in the fall and so if it does, we can learn from what works well and how we can do things better but we need to be prepared. Its a lot of praise. The resolution is very specific when it comes to my designating my proxy. If he couldnt be here on a particular day specifically recording the presence of another member of the designated proxy under this resolution shall castn such vote per second to the exact instruction received from the other members. When his name is called and im holding his proxy and i speak out and vote bought everything can be counseled that with, what is the procedure . Dot letter of the rule that is being proposed is if you dont conduct of proxy. I did receive instruction but im going against them just like in the Electoral College where e folks have received instructions to vote for president trump, but they dont. What is my recourse as a member of an solemn responsibility we have as members is voting on the house floor. It is my recourse . You cast my vote incorrectly. You can email, text, call. There are so many different methods of technology. We have had conversations about this inn my own view and i will tell you honestly it is that the best way for me to convey my vote is to look to my phone and say i vote yes or no. I personally dont believe it is a security question. It is an honest mistake. He cast it the wrong way. You would hear he voted yes or no. They would deliberately try to take the vote and use it you will have the opportunity to be able to correct it so hopefully if you are participating remotely, you will follow what is going on in here how you voted and so it is a question of privilege and you have the right to be able to change it in that way. As the chairman knows even in the short time that ive been here, weve had motions to reconsider votes brought to the floor of the house. We had votes that have been held open for hours as the leadership on both sides of the aisle to we twist arms one by one to try to move the vote in a different direction and i promise you it is going to be easier to move the vote as on the house floor. I recognize in the Public Domain we have more opportunities than ever before to correct it to be certain in the vast digital presence he will tell all of his constituents they voted the wrong way for him but the law of the land will have changed because i voted proxy byway instead of his way. There is no mechanism for the reconsideration as i read the resolution day in and day out how do we anticipate correcting not the understanding of someones constituents, but the direction of Public Policy for the greatest country the world has ever known . I suggested that is one of the reasons that it provides for alternatives, and we ought to be talking about what those are. Both of us believe it gives us a self of confidence. This is a first step and an incredible step into something that has been used and is used in the continuing see that you raise it is certainly possible. Its certainly possible that any contingency might have technological glitches as we move forward. It is a legitimate point of something that we look at as we implement the rule. Let me call your attention back to the time. I would do the same in this instance because the chairmans role receives that your intention is carried out if somebody votes differently than you instructed them to, that is a violation of the rule and question of the privilege and has to be corrected. I will tell you he worked very hard to build goodwill in this committee for which i am not just grateful that i am the beneficiary. It is the consensus opinion that it got started in a bipartisan way that they ar but we are nott things that were never discussed in the committee that might come forward and we have denied consultation as being guidance that is going to come out tomorrow and the Ranking Members still havent seen any of it yet and so i hope the chairman and understand this. We dont get to put this genie back in the bottle. Harry reid was wrong and i think Mitch Mcconnell was wrong to do what he did in the senate we are never going to get any of those things back and what youre doing today ithey aredoing todag that is going to last for the life of this pandemic. Its something that will last for the life of this institution and i hopeas the chairman takes the concern on our side of the aisle not remotely as a i dont trust the leader or the speaker or the chair man, but as i have the trust of generations of the American People that i have to be accountable for in moving this dramatically and this quickly gives us great pause. You had a wonderful Bipartisan Committee i refuse to accept that there wasnt a pathway forward even more than the majority would like to see that there wasnt a pathway forward dot could have been done with complete support as opposed to this division. I think the gentleman for his comment. I made a reference to the Supreme Court and the District Courts and Circuit Court appointments. I agreed with the conclusion which was a mistake. What i disagree with though is that it doesnt change on both sides republicans, democrats doesnt change the rights of the minority. I dont think somebody could make a mistake subject to frankly being removed from the house in my opinion, somebody intentionally diluted the vote differently. But this doesnt change the right of the minority or of the consequences of the votes. Ito doesnt change as those Supreme Court decisions did. And it is intended simply to empower the congress to be able to meet its responsibilities to the American People. Right now the committee if its members either cant get transportation or they are sick themselves, whatever it is, but they are fully c able to hold to instruct somebody, let me Say Something that maybe i shouldnt say. There are four people sitting in the aisle with a lot of people going around. I said rodney, and i told him how to vote, he does not. Technically that is a violation. It just so happens im using his hand rather than my hand. But yesterday i told him to do. What the American People want is the ability of congress at a time like this, and you cannot name another time like this in your lifetime. I cant and i am a lot older than you. There is no analogy except perhaps the spanish flu where they did have two people on the floor and they passed legislation but not much. It was a century ago. So this is a century happening if you will and it is in that context we are acting quickly. Some people believe the experts but it may regenerate itself in september. We may have a flattening but frankly until we get a vaccine or therapeutic but substantially minimizes the consequences. If it raises its head in september, we ought to be ready because september is going to be a very busy month for us. Now is the time to move quickly because we need to anticipate. Ifif it doesnt, we need to be ready to make sure congress is in the power to act on behalf of the American People and conduct oversight. The extraordinary funds that the appropriate as we intended. This is a crisis with one ive ever seen before but i guess with you on septembe sept1 and if we never imagined that we would go another 18 years and not. Have another attack on this capital. We expected itit to come again e next day in the month of october, 30 days later when they came to capitol hill and folks were afraid to open up their mail the paper getting from their constituents. We expected there to be deaths on capitol hill because the capital was targeted. I remember the talks of families. Again i dont want to see us justify with this crisis something that we would not otherwise do as the caretakers of this institution. I appreciate your commitment to undermine the rights. This resolution is silent on the notice requirements for virtual hearings. Im sure that would be included in the guidance. But as we sit here today is silent on whether or not we can have the words taken. Can i make the motion. It is silent on those as we sit here today, and i am concerned about what the guidance is going to look like, but i am comforted by your commitment that you know it would be wrong to undermine the rights and you have no intention of pursuing that. Let me if i can they are silent on those rights which are currently in the rules and it isnt the intention of this rule to change that currently exists. There is no need to tell them because we do not change those rules. In the requirements, cross examination requirements, tim you are entitled to use during the committee hearings. This is not about party or faction or philosophy. This is adult ensuring that the congress of the United States could act even if it wasnt dismembered into a particular wrong including the house chamber. My friends wont believe me im trying desperately to close but the leader keeps bringing up topics. Let me tell you why i thought they were prefiling. Members would have but you still have secondary amendments. And i think that is pretty easy to solve. You put up on the screen and everybody sees it in their computermi at home this is the amendment and they read it but i thought a filinfelt prefiling we protection for every member that they would no what the amendments are. After all, i am the trial lawy lawyer. But frankly there is a discovery process in the law because its to be about surprises and substance. But the germans i dont think that the republicans will feel the despair so we wont do it. My understanding is they didnt put it in. I appreciate, while i didnt agree with him i said if that is what you think and i want to be fair to you think that the republicans will not think thats fair fine, leave it out. I was overlooked and denied my rights as a member of the institution because the parliamentarian could not see me to direct the chair. It troubles me that as we move towards adopting a brandnew process conducting our business that there would not be cognizant. I appreciate the chairmans opinion. Hopefully my colleagues will share those concerns as a leader. I yield back thanks, mr. Chair. This is all about the continuity of government, period. Bar none, thats it. Congress in representing the entire nation must be able to exercise certain inherent powers to deal with the present circumstances which could threaten the continuity of its operations and safety of the nation. Another famous scholar said onea of the most important duties of the congress is to ensure continuing representation and congressional operation during times of crisis. Mr. Hoyer to think you explained it perfectly, and in the nostalgia that he projects and the need to be able to meet in closed groups and visit which as i said, we had a virtual hearing a month or so again on this and i said to the gentleman from oklahoma accent time that is what i love about the ability with a mr. Davis, play some cath and discuss a particular issue or sit down over a beer and try to hash out a particular problem that is what is great about this place. Butc on the other hand, we are n a very different time that doesnt allow for that type of relationship. The relationship is by phone or by this time or zoom or webx. Thats what it is. Or other public Health Experts at home are that the public Health Experts here in dc say you . It together. Because you could drag the disease from denver to dc break and take the disease from dc back to denver. M that is the last thing that i want to do pretty im not worried about my own health and mr. Jordan and i, have this conversation last time we met in this room. It is about being the vector, that could affected so many others and to demand of our staff, when there are betty boys to do this. Let me ask you a couple of questions. The rule as i understand it says chosen sworn and living and does not require the presence. Am i wrong and that. Coram, those who are chosen, a virtual coram, not presence. The constitution says that we should assemble in dc, and asked once a year. And i would assume that we met that requirement. We did but i would like to comment on that. The founders could have no conception that you could assemble virtually in that box that i talked about. That computer that ipad or whatever. Rep. but even if we didus we have physically assembled this year at least in washington dc. Yes. Rep. and i am sending you that, i mean, to mr. Mr. Mcgovern, i dont think this rule goes far enough. In my friends, fairly think it goes tooh. Far. If, i guess the real problem here is that when the role was amended as mr. Wendell talked about, 15 or 16 years ago, 2005, 2006, discussed contingent but not really go into contagion. It would into capacity. People if they have to stay someplace else, at home, when they got shelter in place orders. Or they can come here and we have to be 6 feet apart and most of the committees will be in different rooms. They cannot be handled. They are not next to each other. They are not in the same place. They will have to work virtually anyway. It is my opinion and this is where you were going and back and 2005 and 2006, the committee did not, the change to the rules did not go far enough because with contagion you have a different set of circumstances. Different than what we face today. There was no attack is over and i have figure out what to do next. This contagion exists today. We were told that washington is a hot spot. In denver, we can see the surge having reduced. But not here. So i said a month ago, to my friends, that would be legislative malpractice if we did not address this subject. In a month later, it is still would be legislative now practice. Now mr. Hoyer, i understand that this rule terminates at some slint. This is a temporary rule. For the life of the congress in 45 days in the sense of an has to be recertified that the cause of the roles being implemented was still credit present. Rep. right, for the rule to be called upon, has to be the sergeant at arms of the attending physician and the speaker. Then it for 45 days at least. The proxy voting in the Different Things call for it. And the rule itself is temporary. Change becausedi it is at the ed of this congress. Well, 45 days potentially after but i think an incident sit with the end of this congress. That is why it is temporary. The woman said to mr. Davison to mr. Cole and mr. Woodall, that if yall were to take a majority, you would revise this rule as use would so choose. If it into the three be better, i would say the effort here to not address this issue, in any meaningful way, is to bring the congress to a halt. I know that is not your intention. But that in fact what happens if we dont deal with this thing given this contagion. Th this miserable disease that has killed tens of thousands of people. Address this and we should have addressed this two months ago. We better take care of it now. And with that i yield back to the chair. Thank you. I asked for unanimous consent to submit the following to the record. Letter from Ranking Member of the committee on Homeland Security mike rogers, the Ad Hoc Working Group detailing a number of rule violations with regards to the recent committee on Homeland Security hearings. An owner from Ranking Member of the committee on natural resources, mr. Bishop of utah. And the chairman ofmm the committee on natural resources, and detailing theta committees issues of unofficial and highly partisan roundtable discussions this point of hearings on the committee official website. A letter from a republican leader, the speaker, ms. Pelosi detailing her this plan to reopen congress. And finally, a letter from all committee Ranking Members to the majority leader, mr. Hoyer detailing the number of issues with the respective partisan changes proposed b. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you. It is good to see both of you. I am going to oppose this resolution for a number of reasons. Many have been stated already. There is a lot of Unanswered Questions i think. But it wont go into that. Mr. Davis, lets say there is a committee that we are going to do some major legislation. The states impeachment. The singer is more impeachment. Give a concern that there will be things filed because the co question of constitutionality is not clear as evidenced by the different unanimous consent. You have one constitutional lawyer saying that is constitutional and another one since it is not constitutional. If you have concerns about that. Rep. i do have concerns about that. And thank you for the question. In your example, youre referring to the Impeachment Committee hearing, for example. You would assume that Remote Technology within be used during the markup process. If you look at the plan that was submitted. And givent to the bipartisan tak force during our first meeting. Everything was laid out during that first meeting. And mr. Cole and leader mccarthy and i sent we have some concerns about the markup process specifically number one because of this constitutionality disclaim is that we may have with others in his room and others that may be in the legal profession. Thank you and mr. Davis do you have any other comments you would like to make in relation to any previous comments are in it. Rep. thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and communicate our issues and our concerns with this trade lets be clear, this is a process that will fundamentally change the house. I do b appreciate chairman whenever, and later in all of the members of this committee. Everybody is here to solve problems. We have a fundamental disagreement on this process. And how it should move forward. We do not oppose as republicans and you can see the plan, thats been submitted for the record, we do not oppose remarked hearings. We do not oppose utilizing technology. We just would like to see it done in a fair way. In the list of concerns coming from our Ranking Members on how i may already have been abused pretty unintentionally. The unintended consequences. I knowlr everybody here and here at the stable would likely be offended by the abuses that are Ranking Members have witness already with Remote Technology and that is why we laid out clear concise path to implementing technology for hearings so that we dont see the abuse. I would like us to be taken into consideration. I know this is a hearing, i know youre going to have a rules Committee Process where amendments to this piece of legislation are going to come forth. I certainly hope you take into consideration the debate and discussion we had here today. It is the amendments into each and every one of you, lets Work Together to make this role better predict youreen going to pass a because you are in the majority. You are goings to that and we t that. Let us have our voice throughout the rest of thet day in this room. Lets see some amendments that will be offered by the minority put into this room to make it better. And to make it more fair. I do want to clarify some things. Yes, the United States senate does have a proxy process. Unlike the rules of being debated today does not ever allow a proxy vote on the house or on the senate floor. That is something that this role will allow for today. That is why we have some constitutional concerns. That is why i think you are going to see any piece of legislation forward. Going to have to go through the courts. Somebody, somewhere will follow a lawsuit and it will go through the court system. But thats also remind the American People today that congress has not stopped working. This congress a few short weeks ago had 300 members and came out here. I do understand and i i share te concerns and my colleagues in this room about staff which is why we work in a bipartisan way before the spices to get equipment, to every office so that every office is ready in case they need to tell them and they did and its working great. If we want to protect the state step in the debate on testing is not just about testing members, it is about setting up a process in a bipartisan way we can assure the safety of our staff and the people who work in this facility and we are not here. I certainly hope that is something that we can debate and discuss as we move forward and as we see testing capabilities increase in this country every single day. Lets protect the people who protect this house. But lets continue to work in a way that we show the American People just a few weeks ago, ank a month ago, when we put for the cares act and the updated cares act. Thats what we should see here today. And our task force did not come up with a bipartisan agreement and i o certainly dont begrudge the people who are on that test for stephen chairman mcgovern who offends me by the not wearing the patriots mast. [laughter]. I would be more offended if it was a broncos mask. Rep. but in the end, we m wanted to come up with an agreement. Today is not an agreement pretty and is not bipartisan. I am certainly regretful of that. I certainly wish we couldve gotten Something Like that in place. But in the end, we have had our voice for today in this hearing room. H we appreciate the opportunityay and i reiterate that the voices of my fellow republicans that are going to come off the emendments behind me, i certainly hope you take their suggestions into consideration and make this bipartisan before it gets to the floor. Thank you ms. Lesko, for your questions and i yield back. Just for clarification here. The constitutionality in the committees was a question as. Why would that be a constitutional question. Actually certify could speak. It was just unconstitutionality. This and other impeachment goes on is about on the floor. But in terms of committees gracious of the constitution i think there is a distinction. Statement the patriots are not playing. The broncos, are not playing. The nationals, are not playing. The yankees and red sox are playing. Where the duct plane. Because they have determined to bring people together in large numbers and is dangerous. That is all this role recognizes. I think we can Work Together. This is not about Party Perfection for philosophy. This is about how we can safely exercise our duties with incompetence than it is in fact somebodys opinion this not i was elected just like the rest of you. You want us to reflect our opinion. Were just talking talking about what kind of technology, whether it is in running is an example what i am using is that i am putting it in and i am using your arm. Thats what proxy voting is rated i get that. But is no different in terms of character. And that is why, i agreed and i used this my graduations speech which im giving on the 22nd about, we have a young man and boy in my district, the great garden america. He did not get to play the big ten finals. Or in the four pretty he was a senior. Millionsid of people who have a lot of money at risk decided it is t not safe and we want to kep people healthy and safe. Not just us. He is going to go back to denver, and i tell you, as passionately as i can. I dont want in any way the use of this technology to diminish the rights of theas minority anymore than i want to enhance the rights of the majority. This is not about democrats and republicans. It is a better institution and having it on the field at a critical time in our history. For givingery much me this opportunity. Rep. a mr. Chairman, thank you very much and i want to think the majority leader for a very thoughtful comments and also my friend mr. Davis, for what he has said today. I actually want to take up with something that mr. Davis said. He said the role threatens a fundamental change of congress institution. I think it is the coronavirus that is already fundamentally changed this institution and congress. It has fundamentally change the government of the United States, ngsociety, culture, economics. Itwe have 82000 of our fellow citizens who have died already. We have tens of82 millions who have been thrown out of work. We have seen massive shutdowns in the economy. So it is the coronavirus that is transporting everything. We need to respond is my friend from colorado, says that it is all about the continuity of government. When we supposed to been doing. It is also devon one sentence. In the preamble of the constitution. With people in order to perform a more Perfect Union establish justice and domestic tranquility to provide for the common defense promote the general welfare and present for ourselves and our prosperity of the blessings of liberty rated do hereby ordain and establish a constitution. And in the very next, all legislative powers belong to the congress of the United States. The sovereign power the people to great the constitution of the government, immediately to us rated and congress. They gave us the power to fix the roles of our own proceedings. Consistent with particular constitutional parameters. Taking the eyes and the days. There is nothing in this roles that violates. Consistent with the quorum requirement theres nothing in this role then offends the constitutional requirements. Some people object to the use of the proxy. Let me say this first about the proxy rule. Because i went up on all of the way the technological rule but the proxy rule is perfectly constitutional. And again the conversation etween mr. Cole and the majority leader lawyer, uplifting about the process and the substance because they agreed that there was a real effort to try to arrive. In a bipartisan judgment and sometimes it just doesnt work in this what we a have voting. The framers of the constitution understood that. If we had been head butting on the Supreme Court. In the final analysis, if youot cant agree and unanimously you vote party is how we do it in democracy. So the process was one of them is a goodfaith effort on the part of democrats and also on the republicans. But the majority felt that we need to put a role in place in emergency rule to deal with this terrible crisis that the countries that. And on the substance come i also a them ofn the great that this s a role that is not benefit the expense. It is just a rule that allows congress to continue to meet and function. About. What it is all for me, and i was asked about it but the members of the staff and by the german, i saw it in moving towards a technological voting by distanced technology. I said the proxy voting is fine so long as the person who is the proxy, exercises no discretion and no judgment. Theyre acting like the letter carrier. They are delivering a letter. That is all. I have a personal that stood interest in that because i was 25 minutes away from the capital. These days is more like 18 minutes for it and members of that. So not only doing that. Ive already been called by members saying that if itth coms to this, would you be willing, and these are members as expressed some of distinguished colleague from california, is the expressive people who have members ofis their family who ae medically vulnerable. I tell you, and i believe that every member of this body who adapted to be at the proxy rest and under 100 percent good faith with their it is a republican or democrat or independent. I think you might have of those now. Everyone lacked in strict accordance with the instruction of the person who asked them to cast their vote for them. Not only that, we are probably reminder that is a matter of public record. Everybody will be able to watch it. Its a perfect transparent process. If theres any, the vote that will be miscast, they will be able to get it cant change and i cannot believe that anybody in this body would think it is not a violation of rule one of our code of official conduct to deliberately miscast thevi boat. We just is coming member shall behave at all times a manner that is the reflex credibly on the house. When anybody think the reflex credibly in the house to deliberately miscast a boost in the proxy rule adopted. I hope today. Eddont think so. Having said that, my reluctance is being a vocal member and being and knowing that im thinking about romeo and juliet and how one of the major themes that in shakespeares failed communication. The whole plot in romeo and juliet turns on the failure of prior lawrence get prior john to deliver the message to romeo the julia has just taken a sleeping potion. She is not really dead. Remember. At but never did the letter get delivered because he was stuck inside because of a pandemic and could not get the message to romeo. So he finds juliet and he thinks that she is dead and he commits suicide. And then she commits suicide. Things go wrong. Things go wrong with technology to. I understand that but i do think that committees will operate very well under this role i think over the last several weeks by necessity, the congress that the rest of the country has a lot of practice on how to use zoom and all of these different technologies. They are transparent. In their open and public. Es people know if there is funny business afoot. I do think that is the direction ultimately we have to get to and if i am called upon to be a proxy, i will do my very best to get here in time. To be here and to act consistent with the absolutely consistently with the instructions that i have been given. My real fear is people notth making it for some reason. And that is my only hesitation about it. But we are living in a dramatically imperfect world right now. Im very happy to sit support this role. I think the constitution demands it. K the constitution is not a suicide path. We dont have to go down the drain together. We can make the constitution work theres a wonderful passage from jefferson where he said that he deplores the Santa Monicas reference which withom some people regard the way things work back when the constitution was written. Not all of t us, have the same potential wisdom and knowledge but we have something they dont have with which is the experience of living in our own times. And we have to address our practices and our policies and our institutions to the requirements of our own time. This plan very happy to support this resolution. Just thinking of them saying they can always do what is in the practices of the path. And the women would it be here. That are inherent and we were here three weeks ago here today to see that these rules change that would allow to do the business while complying with medical advice and working remotely. In three weeks have passed and somethings have not not changed. Colace across the aisle and still post it. It would allow the house while reducing the risk to members of the congress on our sacrament the capital police, our families, and the communities that we serve when we go home. The other thing that hasnt changes we still dont have enough texting, ppe or vaccines to be able to control this pandemic. Some things have changed in the three weeks since we were here last. Discussing the same thing. In the three counties that i represent, in southeastern pennsylvania, the covid19 infections have swelled to over 36000 infections. In the number of deaths has doubled. We are now approaching 2000 covid19 deaths in those three counties friday that we know of. We know that is greater because no one suspected deaths that cannot be confirmed because we do not have testing. Ive been in daily contact with our Healthcare Providers in that region. And they are hopeful that infections have begun to decline. But they stress that will only continue if we maintain our vigilance, maintain social distancing and implement a comprehensive testing program. Ernie see, infections have not yet begun to decline. And it is dangerous to express members of staff and communities to a virus that is so insidious, it has even invaded the white house. Despite the extraordinary testing and precautions them and put in place in our place. It is numerals. Congress has provided the administration with the money and the authority and development in from of the comprehensive testing and federal guidance that americans are begging for. We cannot force the president to use those resources anymore than we can force them to a mask read but if the president wanted the responsible thing and they did by example, congress can. We can wear masks. We can lead by example. And we can follow the advice of medical experts. We dont have time to waste on process arguments while lives are in the balance. We can work remotely and so we must read i strongly support this role change as i have for the past several weeks. I look forward to voting on it. Rep. thank you b mr. Chairman. I will repeat some of what my colleagues have said, i think its important. And you want to take a moment to sort of make some comments about what we have proposed to do here. You want to thank you for your extraordinary work on this. As all matters before this committee, you will project with incredible incredible professionalism and fairness. I appreciate whatn you do and m. Cole and mr. Davis. When we did have a conversation. One remotely this committee and express some reservations in that conversation freedom expressed reservations publicly and privately about changes significant changes to the legislative process. Unacknowledged that im a traditionalist. Although this is my personal term in the house, i have a background in legislative bodies at the county state and other federal level. Disorders way about that character of the legislative work has been discussed by others here that much of what we do in the conversations that we have, our conversations like this together, and that does inform our work and has a Significant Impact on the work we do. I also have concerns about the president setting major of what we do. Whether or not the precedents we said, in some way impacted in a negative with the work that we do and i also expressed my concern about the security of the technology. But at the end of the day for me, theres really two sort of essential questions written in the first is the nature of the challenge we face. If this were a small challenge, if it were an inconvenience and obviously, i would be rightly think concerned about significant changes. In the second question is if the challenges we face are so significant that it affects our ability to view our jobs of than the question in the second question to me is what is the nature of the resolution to correct or to address those challenges in that problem. As a relates to first go up obviously this is undeniable. All of my colleagues has expressed this as well. 84000 deaths from covid19 just in the United States. Millions infected and we continue to face challenges from a Public Health perspective and we face challenges in terms of commerce and our economy. Unemployment numbers, may reach 25 percent of americans. 36 million americans will apply for Unemployment Insurance and to the majority leaders appoint coming with things, as be clear, major sports and Major Business in the 90s has completely gone to a halt. So Many Industries have. So this is undeniable. There are no challenges we face in their lifetimes that come challengesose to the that the spaces. It is a Community Congress must respond to it. I also think its common sense what would they oppose with two sort of questions. Do they decide that they insist on the status quo and not have a function of the or code you use Available Technology to respond inappropriate way. I think all of us would agree that if you could achieve the second, it would when coverwhelmingly inappropriate y they can respond to this crisis. Some have constitutional problems in a statement many do not have address the state of oklahoma. The state of pennsylvania, and state of south dakota, that wisconsin and vermont and new jersey. Even my home, the state of new york and i often used to say, no disrespect to the members year but the state assembly is the oldest longestserving democratic collective body in the world. They make changes despite the long history. In some ways, here now two months income i would not call this a precipitous Response Rate in some ways, you might argue that i guess you could look at it as we have taken our time to prudently think about this for any state might say that is too slow. People on this panel might believe that. In my mind, answering the first part of that is clearly a challenge of the nature. Does the resolution before us meet at least in my mind the question of appropriateness and is it in effect a proportional response. And i just want to just if you will permit me first of all affected this is a temporary rule does not permanently change the rules in house. I think it is an important distinction to make. In the decision to make to move ahead that does not hold any future congress to the role we impose here. And i think that it is appropriate. It will be judge whether or not this rule bears a permanent role into the house. But we dont make that room today. We make it with the rule for the ability to looke. Back. To make that determination, i think thats entirely appropriate. Secondly and i think the chair for this. I think them very much. In the majority leader as well. It is very narrow and very specific read it is a Public Health emergency into a novel coronavirus. Thats about his narrow and specific as you can t possibly. I think you put covid19, and the year which that virus was found. This is where in 2020, you cant and this is only temporary rule that applies to this epidemic. I think its entirely appropriate as well. The process to trigger it. The consultation with the attending physician and the sergeant of arms, and the minority leader, may designate a period, and is a 45 day increments which again seems to be entirely provided. The role and at some point the sergeant of arm income consists of consultation with a attending physician that a minute epidemic no longer a system of the role or process terminates. And again i think that is very narrow and thoughtful and even to the degree that i appreciate all these comments made by my good friend from georgia, relative to how a member shall cast a vote. In page six, lines six 11. A member casting the boat, while recording the presence of another member is a designated proxy shall cast a vote or record such presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from then under member under paragraph one. It is as it may cast, asian independent judgment because someone is designated you trust enough to doo it though i hope that is the case. They shall cast, notgn may cast shall cast. Thats the rule we are living under and i would hesitate to live in a Single Member of this house duly elected whatever violate that role the house by casting a vote that is not an exact instruction received from the member who has designated them as a proxy. What i would do if i were designated proxy as i would tell the majority leader in advance to a designated make sure that the majority know how i intended to cancel spots. And as true questions come up, they will be given ample time for those instructions to be delayed. But that would allow the majority leader to make sure this bodes are cast in accordance with the rope. I go back to my earlier point which is i dont believe any member of the cells whatever violate the rule of the house not cast the instructions is been given the exact instructions and that is with the rules suggest. Why you are funneling that line of questioning any raise an interesting point about unexpected votes. If i was doing proxy with an unexpected boat and came up, does members will trust me and i would cast my vote. I would anticipate. Rep. i will do for, but dont believe thats how it works. You need written instructions, exact instructions given by the member was given the proxy pretty severe my proxy, and i would certainly trust you. If there emotion came on the floor, a motion to recommit or some of the m motion that was nt anticipated, youd have to be required im sure the house would allow enough time for this to happen. You would be allowed me to do the exactt instructions on how that boat should cast i would differ to the majority leader or the chair. I think the rule is specifically coming up in sports and every vote. Its not that i would trust you to know what i want to do, lifted cab in writing, electronically, some communication with her send your text or email, was but i would cast, not what you think that might cast but what vote i would cast. Specific and exact instructions on how to vote. This is your voting, the example i gave his his hands in the slot which is technically of course not allowed but it is my vote. Not somebody elses. We would contemplate only acting if youve got specific instructions if you do not get instructions, you could not cast a proxy. Rep. and he overr there, announcing the instructions immediately casting vote. And over shall seek recognition from the chair to announce the intended voter reported presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the other member under paragraph one. It is pretty clear, this is intended as i understand and appropriate. Not intended to give a license to the designated proxy to cast a vote as he or she is appropriate. Its as though the member was there physically, there is no, not give anyone license to do anything for the use their judgment in place of your spirit of an assumed but people can correct me if i am unavailable to get that exact instruction, and i will not be casting about in any member who cast the vote would be violating the role of the house and suffer the sanctions or consequences of having violated the ruleses or y rule of this house. Will conclude with this. I do think the resolution before essence measured. I think it is proportional and think it leverages appropriate and Available Technology of the gametes by concerns over security. I think it is narrow. I think and this is been repeated right and i firmly believe this but i do not believe advantages, either side in terms ofly a partisan divided simile allows those members to do what is right. So this creates a method to move us forward and protect on the prerogatives under article one predict and prerogatives are one are important. But the duties and obligations that we have on the article one of the constitution and therefore i will support the resolution. I appreciate all of the incredible work done by all of my colleagues on both sides. And again printing i think the chair for his great work as wellha as the majority leaders. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate the quality of the discussion that is taking place. And i have deep respect for this institution and for its leaders. This virus is vicious. Most are states are opening up without meeting the cdc guidelines. Nothing is winding down. And those of us who have had to go through airports, can describe them as scary. We have two responsibilities here. The first is to do the peoples business. And the second is to save lives. We have a responsibility to continue to do the peoples business and we are responsible for the lives of people who work here rated this proposal is minimalist as far as i can tell. So that we can do our job and we must do our job in my state, 2 Million People have applied for unemployment. Less than half have received it. We have a legacy system that was designed tomp say no and our por new governor is trying to fix it predict thousands of really Small Businesses applied for ppe in my district. And very few got it predict oversight, we need oversight on Unemployment Insurance and empty it. At the minimum. Some virtual oversight hearings are critical reading on the trillions of a Bipartisan Congress approved. It i can be just as tough with the mask on as without a mask. My personality does not change if i have to look at a screen. My second responsibility to save lives in my community, with all of you in every community. I will not put my hardworking staff for the others who serve and protect us here, at risk. So if i had to choose between a mask and a screen, i choose the screen. Thank you mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you very much. Let me think Ranking Member davis for being here and all of this time and and for his work on the task force. Let me just say as strongly as i can mr. Davis, that i strongly disagree with the upgraded on the new england patriots. My late father would say, you hate toio or hate the sin and le the sinner. We will work things out. Appreciate you being here. Determined i just want to say that i think the congress is blessed by having someone as m chair of the rules committee who is as fair as any of our members. He wants to make sure that the processes they are obviously he wants the results. But he wants to make sure and i agree with it that the process of getting to a decision is everybody a fair shot. One make sure that the congress may in fact act at a great time of crisis. Rep. my fellow colleagues, thank you again. I would like to remind the committee, following us today, will be members of all Party Offering eminent. I suddenly hope you take into consideration our debate tonight. It and also they are amendments to make this role much more of bipartisan that it is now. So with that, thank you. I still do not like your mask of the patriots. Get used to it. [laughter]. Now i would like to call up our next panel. Mr. Bruggeman, mr. Bishop, mr. Brown, mr. Jordan. Mr. Pence. To maintain health and safety, please take a chair in the second row. [silence]. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Marelli discussion reminded me of something i meant to put into the record. We discussed that at the Virtual Conference that we had a month ago, National Conference of state legislature has compiled i think 14 states that allow for some type of promote voting. I believe the template for this current role is similar to that that is being done in pennsylvania. If i would also like to have the record reflect that virtually every democracy around the world is now allowing for some type of virtual voting because of the novel coronavirus. Iq. Rep. i know you are all probably gathering the rules to limit the five minute rule committee. [laughter]. Me, i dont know if theres a preference to go first. Welcome. Are we doing alphabetically or by age. [laughter]. Thank you mr. Chairman. In the rules committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I believe that the American People want to hear this dialogue. I want to be brief. I am not a lawyer, i am not a constitutional scholar, i am just a marine. Over 50 years ago, i swore an oath to its important to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That oath never expires. Honor courage and commitment. Does not marine corps buzzwords. Theyre part of a belief system designed to instill confidence, and achieve results at all times. And especially in stressful times. Lifethreatening times. Just a fact, 35 years ago today, and 35 months ago by days, the 14th of june, several of us said, were scrambling for our lives on a baseball field in alexandria. We are not worried about a lot that day other than making sure that we did the right thing for the right reason. It was instinctive. In the actions that we take in the decisions that we make is that 116th congress. We reviewed and debated and discussed by future generations. When those of us privileged enough, the be empowered by our constituents to vote, on these important issues. They reflect back, will we see that the actions that we took built trust, build confidence or diminished it. And that trust, is given to us or granted to us if you will, by the American People. Either they trust us when they dont. Are we as the house of representatives, leading by example, are we inspiring others. We will adapt. The heard suggestions over the past few hours how we can change this set up of the Committee Room. Some of us are used to setting up foreign operations around the world and contended areas. We are used to adjusting to the challenges and the threats of the day. I know we are better than what i have seen recently in the media. But it really we as a body can come together and showe the American People, show them that we can be socially distance. That wedy can be personally responsible that we can conduct our business here in washington dc and a an appropriate safe manner but with the American People want to see and need to see, they need to see us, agreeing to disagree and being passionate about what we believe in. But in the end, coming to a consensus ifhe you will. And making a decision and Going Forward. I oppose a proxy voting. We will adjust technologically tnd we can do it safely. But we must doing aggressively with the thought of actually what we have been chartered to do by the people who have sent us here. And with that i yield back. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Is been a fascinating express to listen to your proceedings today. No many members here and question witnesses, i have great experience, long experience in congress. No one is more rankandfile than me. Elected last september, a member of the minority. I learned a great deal in the comments made well but one thing that kept ringing in my ears is that mr. Woodall, something that you said in response are in agreement with mr. Feuer that this is an unprecedented experience. And is not. Notice for your age but in 1968 or 69, was a hong kong flu pandemic the guild 100,000 americans. In a Million People worldwide. In a population of 200 million in the nation according to the Market Institute of economic research, and might be turned 50000 person death. If you extrapolated. I heard a lot of sent by mr. Hollier and other members and members of the committee, the will voice the fears that will experience but i think what is different about this situation is the way in which we are reacting to fear. Because it is not an unprecedented situation. 1968 and 69, is not even clear that there are any alterations in the proceedings of the congress. Es 1919, the congress was not dissolved. Unfortunately, with this bill represents is a failure of leadership when leadership is desperately needed. Out loss of nerve when courage is called for read contrary, tim the point, this institution has always met in times of crisis. This house has remained open in the aftermath of the attacks on 911. And in 1861, was a confederate army. A few miles away. By refusing to let members get back to the work we were elected to do, Speaker Pelosi and the democratic leadership seek to enforce a vision of the house completely adenoids with the vision of the framers of the constitution. And in the process to find the will of the people with the will of the liberal elite. Given that it is no surprise that instead of a bipartisan recovery package, supporting efforts of states to reopen laterth today, this committee wl consider a bill that amounts to a socialist wish list masquerading as a relief package. The failure of leadership which this one exacerbates, reflects the simple truth that members cannot represent their constituents without being here in washington to debate, negotiate, and work with her colleagues. Instead of considering commonsense proposals to allow all members to perform responsibly the work we were elected to do, this proceeds with radical change to has procedure i would have been hundred years of presence and irreparably damaged this institution. Socalled proxy voting. The achievements and dilutes that peoples constitutional right to have their voice heard, voices heard in this nations capital. I am here ready to work with all of my colleagues and i will keep coming back to washington every week. As safely as possible the confronting risk if necessary. To upholdba the oath i took whei was sworn into this office. Inc. You for your patience and i yield back. It. Thank you mr. Chairman. It is good to bee back. The last two hours and reminded me of all of the fun of them are memories i have of being part of this committee. I am testifying on hr 95. They all have a responsibility to defend the constitution in this institution. Members throughout the halls, hundreds of years beforell we he arrived. God willing, they will continue to do so hundreds of years after we are gone. The truth is, we are mayor custodians of this building, of this institution and the awesome powers and responsibilities founders they down for us. As Benjamin Franklin has sent to a famously reported, this is a republic and if he can keep it. Republics have that are vanished in the path greeted the Roman Republic vanished when the legislator body the roman senate simply advocated his legislative responsibility and let men, actually acted as dictators and then later emperors. It took over. Today it is my strong belief that this committee will transmit a rule change to the house is not only unconstitutional, but will damage the institution of the house for years to come. I came back early to tell you that this is a grave mistake and to ask you to projected. The constitution of the United States article one, section five, makes it pretty clear that he tells show constitute the majority shall constitute to do business. But a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and maybe authorized to compel the attendance of absent members. Why would they want to have the power to compel unless they intended to include physical presence of members. We have further proo proof of t. This was a positive meet and inmate on march 4th 17 and 9 in new york. One of the members there by the way with james madison. Probably the most important person of the constitutional wconvention. They cannot conduct business because they can achieve form in fact he met for day after day after day until april the first, 1789, when they finally got enough people there physically to constitute that it required. Mr. Madison did it raises hand is a we didnt require that. He sat there patiently waiting for it to arrive. That congress, created this department of state and created the attorney generals office. He ever had which was not to free the enslaved people of the United States, but to put them on boats and recall amongst africa. Thankfully we didnt follow what he wanted to do. This goes to show even great men can have bad ideas. As you heard over and over again,o congress met in the war of 1812 civi 1812 civil war, twd wars and by my account, three serious pandemics. In fact during the 1890s was the hottest spot highgate fever for typhoid fever. Washington was subject to recurrent bouts of malaria so congress have met here for centuries in the face of disease and figured out a way to make it work without having to change the rules and i did check to make sure we never changed the rules and we didnt. I do not need to make light of the issue with some members face in getting to washing in dc. Now its back to some members may be simply unable to attend or face Serious Health risks if they do. However the framers provided for this. They didnt say we cannot transact business unless all are present they were clear all with surprise. They probably arrived and it would be astounding to the forebears. To travel weeks or months to make it through the session to read certainly they would probably never have imagined that even on an inconsequential vote is not uncommon. We already provide a mechanism to enter into the record how they wouldve had they been present. Yet the majority feels comfortable today effectively lowering to near 22 members. I know many will say they come to washington right now and they will say its dangerous and at risthatrisk to others. Let me say this, ive interacted with in my district over the last couple of months people whove been forced to go to work day after day after day. Healthcare workers, people in the Agricultural Industry that produce food tod the people that process, the people that stock and check us out. People d that work in pharmacies from the people that work in utilities. I could go on and on. They show up every day. They show up like they do and do our job. Remember it was the abuse of power that did in the republic. At the constitutional a conven convention. Remarking that it would allow a small number of members to make the law. The weve already spent over 11 of the gdp in the last three months under this process. Now we are about to lay upon the house another bill that accounts for 70 growth last years entire federal budget under the same manner. We are living in a house where the product is coming in from the very toph and being thrown upon the rest of us and we are advocating our responsibility to legislate. If we are honest with ourselves no one will challenge me when i say the rights and individual prerogatives of the members of the house have been steadily shrinking for decades. It was true when the chairman hemade this point when he was te Ranking Member of the committee and its just as true today. Too much power has been taken away from individual members and committees and jurisdictions and transfers. The proposal today reinforces is a complete transfer of the the speaker. O so is the presence even bother onto come and vote. Your proposals is to members its already been decided. Ten days later the battle of fredericksburg occurred 50 miles from here. There were 18,000 casualties that was a decisive victory for general lee and the confederacy. The. Perhaps they had an understanding of the obligations as members different from ours. I take it seriously and precautions that i am not afraid of this disease any more than those people i talked about who show up day after day and do their job so important to us. Anymore thaany more than they ao not show up for work. If i can make one last point. There are times when im in conversations here in washington with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If we are not together, we are not going to have those opportunities as a practical matter. We will lose that opportunity and we will lose the ability to have the sort of deliberative process that makes better policy. When we got the second coronavirus bill that dealt with paid leave complete sick leave it showed up without any Committee Work which is the committee of jurisdiction. We were given less than an hour to look at it and vote at 1 00 in the morning and then we found out there were so many problems with it they had to pass a 90 page technical corrections bill. Perhaps if it had gone through the regular process and we have done our job, that bill would have been right the first time it came before us. Withri that i will yield. Thank you mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member. In a critically important memorandum agenda with the united is said the constitution is not suspended during a crisis. Guess who agreed . Just last month the speaker of the house of representatives said there is a constitutional requirement we vote in person. Today we are changing that. We are not following the iconstitution in fact i think e are trying to suspend the constitution by allowing proxies to establish the for him. The power of the house arises. You have to have a majority ofpresent. You cant phone it in. Cannot mail it in. Presence means present. Youve got to be there to conduct the business of the American People didnt understand what is in the proposal. One member can have ten proxies. 22 members with proxies can conduct the business of the American People. 5 of the house of representatives can conduct a business representing all 330 million . You cant phone it in or mail it in. We are supposed to be present to do the business of the American People. Article one, section four must assemble p at least once a year. We do this the start of every congress. It requires to physically change where we sit so we can come together. Article one section five requires a vot the vote at the e of one fifth present. The we do this every vote we take on the house floor. How can that take, how can you even have that . Article one section six protects members from arrest durin during travel in their respective housing. Why would the constitution so you have to be protected, come to vote. It makes no sense. All these provisions physically traveling and being present in the federal government to do the business of the American People. Butal they are going to change l of that. The constitution leaves no room for what they are trying to do. Grocers are stocking shelves, Law Enforcement are busting their tail every day doing their job but somehow, congress cant. We are going to mail it in and ask a coworker to do our job. This is a dangerous place we are having and Everybody Knows that the majority is going to go ahead and a give it. Proxy voting, house party hearings, remote depositions. The example is wrong and i think even the majority knows it. But they are going to pass it anyway. Lets get here and do like we are doing today. To fight for an hour in this room just three weeks ago, testifying here keeping the appropriate distance, giving it the way we are supposed to do that, it isnt going to be easy but doing things the right way is never easy. The hard way is usually the right way. Lets do it the way weve been doing for 200 plus years instead of mailing it in. I would like to remind the panel is the discussion becomes especially highspirited in nature we should wear a mask because we release virus particles onto the microphone. It should be highspirited, mr. Chairman. Holy cow. The gentleman is heard. Mr. Pence. Chairman mcgovern, thank you for allowing me to testify on the House Democrats proposal to authorize remote voting by proxy and Remote Committee proceedin proceedings. Mr. Chairman, for both nations history, the house of representatives has cast their votes here under all circumstances. Tomorrow we will consider a the position that represents one ofh the largest power grabs by a select few were one in the history of congress. This was written without participation of more than half of the countrys representativ representatives. I know that the coronavirus pandemic continues to pose a threat to our health, but these concerns do not supersede the responsibility we have and i have two my constituents. I believe it is wrong to pass my go to someone that never stepped foot in my district. This voting card does not belong to me. It is not mine to proxy to my peers. This belongs to the sixth Congressional District of indiana i will represent those that sent me to washington, d. C. To cast my vote on their behalf. Im here to stand with Healthcare Providers, farmers and essential workers, the marines, sailors,ca soldiers, airmen and all the other heroes who are still showing up every single day on behalf of their communities in this country. Mr. Chairman, i respect some of my peers fo have concern about their own health and personal safety, but that does not absolve congresss responsibility online. The definition of congress is, and i quote, a National Legislative body especially that of the United States that meets at the capitol in washington, d. C. The Trump Administration is working here, the senate is working here and the United States house of representatives should lead by example and come to work here. Thank you and i will yield. Sometimes i get the impression, im listening to some of the testimony that i dontt think reflects some of te concerns that were raised during this hearing but let me begi win by reminding everybody here that over a month ago, democrats and republicans are asking for input on how we might deal with this. A handful of people responded well to recall anybody here sending the rules Committee Guidance or advice be that as it made at the idea that somehow nobody wanted to hear what anybody else to stay just isnt rightw. Not justju from democrats but ie heard from republicans. Some of your colleagues on the side expressed frustration with the fact we didnt do some of the last time that we were here. We asked whether they would have voted with us and they said probably not. But nonetheless, they wanted us to do something because it was the right p thing to do. Let me say for the record that this isnt w about courage are protecting members of congress. I am reminded of that great philosopher who said only the good die young. What i am worried about our staff and the Capitol Police and the people that maintain this campus. This is a serious pandemic. I have heard reference to the pandemic of 1918 how congress continued. C. It really didnt. In fact it was so dysfunctional that a bill to provide additional doctors to these rural areas couldnt get past because people couldnt get here. That is an example of failure that i dont want to see reported now. Clearly we do not want to do anything. I think that is my concern that was in fact violate the constitution but i would remind you, and ive never heard anybody object to this is when my friends were in charge and changed the rules you came up with a scheme that would allow two people to constitute a quorum in the house of representatives. I think the constitution is very clear. The i didnt say that the Republican Party tried to destroy the constitution. I think that that was born out of a legitimate concern of how we would function in the face of a catastrophe we are here because already it is may get 85,000 people are dead of this virus. I hope the president is right that it would go away forever. If he is wrong and we are already close to 100,000 we are being told things might be much worse in the fall, i want to make sure we function. I want to make sure we can do hearings and its safe for people to come here not just members of congress but they all could be carriers and be noasymptomatic. By interacting with people on the staff or here we could be in the db2 spreading this disease. I want there to be deliberation and oversight to. Its getting to the people that need it. That is an important obligation that we have. And i want to make sure that we also, in addition to responding to this emergency that we are doing our appropriations work and keeping the government running and passing the Defense Authorization bill. And im her the proposal we are putting t forward a may be some good meat on the house floor ift we are not just three committees to a. We have a job to do. We have this debate and move forward. Implication. What they are trying t we are ts respond to the bipartisan and concerns that have been expressed by members of the house of. I want to show im willing to show up no matter what. This is also about common sense tnd protecting the people that we come in contact with every single day, not just us but everybody around us. So i appreciate you being here. You are members of this body into so i just want to know inec your opinion is it constitutional to allow members of congress to vote on matters before the full house without them being physically present in the chamber. I think number in the spindles feel strongly about the constitution. The. I dont believe the people that hold the other point of view either. They think literally the bowl we are about to pass assuming that we do and we probably will tomorrow ispa unconstitutional. Maybe what we did in 2004, 2005, you cant get mad at members when they are expressing their opinions about the constitutional obligation under the those that they swore to. With that i will yield back. I was struck by your opening that sometimes we talk past each other because i think absolutely you are right in the highspirited response to the witnesses is that congress has a job to do and weve got to get back to it. It done. O get but i didnt hear anybody say congress should abdicate their responsibility. I thought i heard everybody say get back aboutto their business and i i was so disappointed that they couldnt reach a bipartisan consensus that chairman said he resent the implications of something very is going on and i resent the implication that we dont know the institution enough collectively to find a bipartisan solution to get about our work. Generally if i could start with you and go across, the chairman says weve got to get this place back to work. Thats what i thought i understood you to say if i understand correctly. Weve got to get back to work. Thats what the American People expect us to do and we can do it safely. I loved geometry when i was in high school. Ive done the geometry of all of these rooms based on committees size how we can do it and think the American People proud of us. They sent us here to debate, to go out and issue fromic all sid. We need to be the example. You want to talk about the reopening of the economy, lets talk about reopening of the house of representatives in its functional daily business. Youve spoken against the underlining chain for or against getting the house back to work. Im spending my weeks here because we must andus we can return here. You are visiting the folks were getting back to work every day. T the chairman is right we need to get the house of representatives back to work. The United States house of representatives every single one of us is essential to the functioning of the nation. Some need to come here and do our job as we have done it for over 200 years. This committee has been trying to get back to work. The congress has to get back to work and we have to find ato pathway forward that you have geoken against this rule change. The chairman mentioned this is a Small Committee and we are taking a big portion of this large hearing room. But there are other facilities and this is a Smaller Committee but practical concerns and the scheduling concerns shouldnt dictate a deviation from the constitution requires. Lets schedule this room around the clock for committees that can be here and the auditorium around the clock for committees and maintain the appropriate distance. That is just a scheduling practical concern that instead we are saying though. Members can give their vote to some other member and conceivably under the legislation 22 members can conduct the business of the American People. That is certainly not what was envisioned in any way by the constitution. So, lets not make a scheduling and practical concern. A very real chairman is right, but lets no not think that the reason we are s going to change the constitution and not follow it. Ir lets get back to work and do it in the right way. We do have to get congress back to work but youve spoken out against the rule change. I came sunday because i felt so strongly about being out here as i mentioned earlier. Constituents kept asking is Congress Going to get back to work. In their mind, back to work is right out here. I dont go through that exercise for a fact. I think you genuinely are looking for bipartisan cooperation to get congress back to work and i believe you share the disappointment that they couldnt find it. But i can tell you this is a perfect crosssection of the conference and every single one tmof them is concerned about the underlining resolution. But absolutely shares the passion to get backou to work. I know that if we can have more time this is a september problem worried aboutt what happens in and around the two that we can find that crosssection. We dont have to doe this in a way that divides us. We can do it in a way that brings the institution together and they kno i know that is what to do. I cant speak for all of you but ive been working during this time and talking to Committee Chairs dealing with my constituents. Some of us have been working on this and i would also say that i guess where we disagree is you said you think the only way we can do our job is being here in one spot whereas some of us believe we can operate remotely in some cases in a hybrid fashion but heres the good news for everybody that wants to come back what we are doing here today basically allows for the end of thatt is where you feel mostst comfortable in the Committee Room, you are more than welcome to a do that. So nothing in any way, shape or form would undercut it. Thanks, mr. Chair. Mr. Jordan, youve invited agree last time you were here and we do not agree today. Thats really surprising for the two of us. But i kind of like math, too. I did some math. Mr. Bishop, im looking at the hong kong flu. 100,000 by over three years. We have 84,000 in two months. If i do the math, it is a teen times 84,000, that puts us at 1. 5 million. They are not the same thing. This is more like a the spanish flu which ultimately resulted in us coming up with the unanimous consent where two people haveulo agree and passh legislation. The thing is that it was the second wave that was worse than the first and we have to watch out for that. Today it is 2,000 at a so the math is much different. Hes here to represent the 750,000 or so folks from his district. I assume you represent about that many of the. By just doing the math you said the last 35 were not present. We have two members of the committee one of whom you served with hes representing the 750,000 people and i wish he were here because his voice is so strong and powerful and i wanted to be able to participate and provide his experience and logic whether it is virtual or by casting the vote by proxy and we have two pieces to this rule creates you all have been talking about the vote but we also have the ability of the committees also may be imperfect to continue to meet and allow for individuals to make decisions and take votes on behalf of americans and that is the bottom line is the continuity and i appreciate everybodys opinion that this is unconstitutional which i absolutely dispute. This is about representing people. Weve asked most of america to work remotely, to avoid precisely what happened with the hong kong flu andnd spanish flu. This administration was caught flatfooted when the virus came on our shores and we didnt have enough protective gear. We didnt have enough ventilators. We didnt have enough beds and thank goodness americans, those who provide essential services, and i was in everyone of you is going to vote for the bill tomorrow thank goodness americans said we are goin wereo take the advice of the cbc to suppress the surge so the Healthcare System isnt overwhelmed and so god forbid there are other outbreak there will be sufficient protective gear. Now, i served with your brother, outstanding legislator to make him is he in quarantine him if he felt isolated . I dont speak on behalf of my brother. I know im just asking lets not talk about him. Lets talk about the 39 members of the house most of whom went39 into warren team after we broke on march 14. Those members have had to go in some of them. Though. The. I forgot my friend mr. Cole was in quarantine for some time. I disagree with him sometimes and i agree sometimes but i always appreciate his perspective. So, we are in a pandemic that is much worse than hong kong flu based on the numbers. The concern i have is whether i dould agree with mike pence, jim jordan or bradley byrne. It was at an improbable time then we are in right now. There is a continuity of the safety of the nation. We are asking a lot of people to work remotely a rule that has been fashioned hi fashion is ved expires at the end of this year. The notion that this is changing the house is just wrong so i would yield to mr. Bishop to criticize my map. It isnt the point of the math. Its not a question it doesnt become serious once it crosses a magical wine. The. They need not act as if it is. I would say to the gentleman you wanted me to yield to you . I would say the rule that is before us is very proportional to come here every week, do your thing, sit in that chair but it also would allow Alcee Hastings to offer his perspective on behalf of the people. I think it is fundamentally flawed and ultimately leaves a lot of people which is the whole point of the government. With that i will yield back. Let me add my praise to what you just heard during the time after this year it was probably the best conference two men i served with and we honor their service here. We miss him but we are glad hes wherheis where he is today so pe convey that. Me i i dont know who to address this, probably mr. Jordan or mr. Burns as i read the rules we are considering today. It seems to me to be counter to the. There is no check on the. Its up to the speaker. More importantly it does great damage to the institution of the house. I agree with my colleague and thank them for raising the point. The commissioners of the state dictating policies and the General Assembly and those respective states dont get to weigh in and now they follow a similar pattern that is scary stuff. S i have the utmost respect for their name is not on the ballot. They are not constitutionally elected. When you Start Playing these kind of games. This is so scary where we are heading. And i appreciate the fact that some members cant be here today that we wish were. I appreciate you for raising that point. I think that its important we be seeing a ball of these weeks we have remained home and birthplace of service it was never meant to be this passive. We are having a bill tomorrow none of us have anything to do with and we are supposed to acceptpt a. S it was supposed to be the most active. Its done by people whose things were not on the ballot. Thank you. And again, that is why we should pass this bill because they could then we can have no excuse why we are not meeting on a regular basis no matter where anybody might be from. The alternative is to rely on the republican standing rule. Many supported it. I didnt at the time but that is the standing rule at the time that my friends passed post9 11 this idea that we should they emphasize the importance of medical device. Many of them have no medical degree. Thereve been some of the suggestions put forth by the president that leave your head spinning but quite frankly the advice that he should follow in all of us should follow is by the experts, those who know what are talking about when it comes to how you deal with a virus like this. Thank youou for your dedicated d impressive leadership and i also want to salute mr. Cole. To convert that the proposed rule here is unconstitutional and each one of you repeated and volunteered at the current rule adopted by the Republican Congress is unconstitutional which would allow the two members to constitute. All five of you but you also agree the current rule is nconstitutional and perhaps i could start you . I do not know enough about the answer. Pe they were expressing this proposal that th the but the cue would allow two people my answer i want to be clear about a couple of things and i agree with the chairman it is healthy and safety first and for any member to feel they shouldnt come here or they cannot come here, i completely understand and i support. Ii am an individual that voluntarily joined the marine corps andun volunteered to go ia hot situation and i volunteered to run fora this position. My constituents have told me that i should be here. That is my answer to you. M we always had a problem with that. Is that right . You presumably still agree. To be consistent you have to follow what the constitution requires and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you believe the current rule is unconstitutional . Those that have been made on the point are persuasive probably is unconstitutional. I would like to make reference to the short answer is yes but the understanding that the commanders command, leaders lead, advisers advise it on the advice of my attorneys here to the right, i take his advice because that is a his job. My job as a commander as the leader is that you get the results you were mentioned to give. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you and i think youve done a great job of explaining your stance. I agree with you thank you for your testimony. They took us at the risk of it occurs to me that the testimony suggests we live in a binary state here on or off the two choices. On or off, yes or no, black or white, work or not work. I think the beauty of this resolution into the wonder of technology has given us an opportunity to continue to work even as we respect the guidance of the housese physician and the science and technology and guidance of individuals and prior pandemics. I would say ive worked harder in the last two months probably sitting in my home office than i may have been the previous year. I assume this is true of everybody not only on the panel that the members of our committee that weth are all working incredibly hard to represent the constituents in communities that are under significant stress, so we are no longer in this binary box where its work or not. I appreciate your view of the constitution and frankly if we can get to the point where the question off constitutionality awaits to be c heard we could go in front of the court and make the judgment that i think it is pretty clear they are the master of the house when it comes to the rule. I wants to point out i hate to disagree with mr. Jordan but you make it sound as though a member could gather up proxies like you might do on a committee back in your local town. The rules are explicit i dont know how the votes will be cast. This is and by the person that holds the proxy to the person that gives the proxy is to give exact instructions on every single motion or vote. Let me ask you if i might come in the rule of. Its the person given explicit instructions and repeated any number of instances of a. Its been a wa in a way that ist consistent with those instructions given its under the most difficult circumstances we have faced in our lifetime and the question whether the speaker would choose a speaker may upon the designation at the sergeant arms in consultation with the house position during this pandemic only may designate for 45 days. I will note though it i is the t indicated that it also suggests on page three even during the additional they received further notification with the position that the Public Health emergency due to the virus is no longer injected into the speaker shall terminate the cover period. It doesnt say may access shall. As i read the rule on may 1 we have a pandemic into the sergeant arms consultation to put this temporary rule in place and then two weeks later before it is terminated if you received a another certification on the sergeant arms that it no longer exists s it is terminated or shl terminate so it wouldnt even be 45 days at length with the point i want to make, and i appreciate the concern people have come up o with this is being somehow bequeath it with weakness or strength into the desire to meet through the technological means for the desire to conduct business by proxy is a sign somehow with weakness and i would just suggest right now they do not meet personally. The Vice President p said he wouldnt meet with the president for a period of time. I dont kno dont know if that s or what it will be that i suggested talking on the telephone and communicating on i an ongoing basis and they are conducting business and i dont think, i would never say and i dont believe the Vice President is weak in the appropriate distancing the Health Care Professionals have existed. The nature of thew resolution i dont think are compelling. Would the gentleman yield . The function of the executive and legislativ the legislative f government are fundamentally different. I wasnt suggesting that its the same. All im saying we have to legislate and under the constitution we legislate that it can actually force people to come where we meet. I also think that it is good policy p. Because as i said we get policy when we go through regular order, everybody is in the room, we pass it out, the majority wins, that is the way it goes. I dont think that you can eat quite whether the president or Vice President or in the same room with one another. You said something and i hope you didnt misunderstand me here i talked to plenty of my colleagues and we are doing everything we can take care of our constituents but under the constitution, part of our job is as legislating we have to do here. I would just respond and i appreciate what youre saying that the functions and i agree we do it withth different functions i would say i get the impression there is a weakness here and i was suggesting that i dont think the president or Vice President are acting in a weak manneweek manner by not meg together and certainly using technology to continue to do their jobs. I dont think the gentleman would disagree that it intended to make its own rules