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