I would suggest only under those circumstances anticipated by this resolution can we continue work on behalf of the american public. I yield back. There is no constitutional issues revolving around whether or not committees can meet virtually. But congress creates the committees so hopefully we can all agree on that. Mr. Chairman i want to make a comment on the suggestion the Public Health people are making policy. They are not the governors cares one mayors and policymakers seek advice during a crisis from experienced scientist and Public Health officials, they can take that advice are not. All over the country there isic evidence some people take the advice and some are not. But all scientist that i know and the Public Health people in this country and many of whom i have worked with for years are very careful not to be policymakers they are particularly careful to present the evidence and not substitute for the policymakers. This country which has invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the years in building one of the great Scientific Enterprises with the National Institutes of health, cdc and fda, thank god we have them now. I yield back. Thank you for being here and for your patience and you can go. [laughter] thank you any other members wish to testify . With the original jurisdiction hearing the measure before the Committee Without objection the resolution is considered as read open for amendment at any point the gentleman from georgia is recognized for his amendment. I appreciate that i have an amendment at the desk the clerk will. Report the amendment. Amendment number one offered by mr. Woodall from georgia. This has been an amendment to make sure this resolution does not go into effect until the house has certified there is a system inio place for those designations. The majority has done everything in its power to move expeditiously as possible. I realize we have constitutional disagreements about this novel process and who should be the decisionmakers you will recall as part of the around Table Discussions she mentioned the most important rule here in the house as it relates to remote voting would be to authenticate. She said that over and over so the person is who they say they are to recognize the distinction between remote and reproxy voting but it seems to be a small step in the right direction since we all have an interestma to make sure while novel none of us wanted to be fraudulent i ask we add to the amendment that we shall not move forward without the affirmative certification from the clerk that the house has in place a system to securely receive those proxy validations. Ive been in contact with the Clerks Office we feel confident we will have a system in place that adheres to all principles we care about in the way of bureaucracy i dont think that makes sense. Its been over a month but on the cares act you said is not only important thater congress be competent but look competent Going Forward i dont think a 2 trilliondollar bill should be a practice run on a new form of remote voting. I know how concerned you are i know you dont want to move forward if the clerk says im not ready. What is the harm to have the office ofm the house that is in charge of voting integrity we have voting integrity before we move forward . I understand the harm i appreciate being corrected. I trust my staff are working on this and i feel teconfident we are in good measure. All those in favor . Those opposed . Rollcall please. [roll call] the amendment is not agreed to. Four six. The amendment at the desk. We ask the reading be suspended. The House Resolution 965. I will be quick about this but my amendment simply word change resolution the proxy voting cannot be authorizedd without the minority leader. I know there is some concern and it is legitimate that we live and the majority institution and i respect that but this is an extraordinaryry measure for extraordinary times. When we had our discussion , the minority leader showed a great deal of flexibility and was sensitive to the fact this was a power if used inappropriately would have him effectively deciding what came on the floor as the majority leader w. So he said what we have t given up for a month at a time or time. An that under the circumstances this matrix should again. This is an t extraordinary moment. Weve never done this before. The minority leader has shown he would be willing on most occasions to be respectful in the use of this. I think the gentle man. My response is we obviously think this is necessary at this moment and when we ask the minority leader specifically if he would concur he said no so if we agree to this we are basically killing this for now so i would urge a no vote the vote for the gentle man for oklahoma all those in favor . Those opposed . Know has it. [roll call] the agreement on amendment is not agreed to miss gammon is not here she is presiding over the close floor she will be back shortly. Thank you mr. Chairman my amendment on the desk. Amendment number three House Resolution 96565 offered from mr. Cole fromm oklahoma. Basically this says lets try this for 45 days. Lets give this extraordinary power to the speaker which we have never done before in the history of this institution. If it works well we can extend it but it will require two thirds for with some bipartisan buyin give it a trial run and come backns to see if we can have bipartisan consensus. You have mentioned a number of times you have talked to some members that probably are supportive i think if they saw it work 45 days that might encourage them to vote in that direction and again we could bring what you want to do with a bipartisan vote as opposed to what would happen with partyline votes thats for your consideration all those in favor . Those opposed . Know has it. [roll call] miss gammon is not recorded. The amendment is not agreed to. The clerk report the amendment. House resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. You heard most of the concern of constitutionality of the requirement of a quorum simply to move forward with there other issues but lets not have proxy voting as a part there is no doubt litigation would be involved it matters not the last crisis quorum language was passed by democratic and republican majorities in a bipartisan way it was to be subject to Constitutional Review of utilized you dont just anticipate it might be you believe it will be. It ask that we remove the most obvious of those hurdles so its not distracting from the other work we agree needs to be done. We have consulted with many constitutional scholars that what we are proposing is constitutional whatever we do some people will challenge it but i feel confident this will withstand any challenge i urge a no vote. Can i have our word on that motion . Something fascinating has emerged which is we seem to have a strong bipartisan consensus among those republican witnesses the current rule adopted is unconstitutional because it allows for two members to constitute a quorum and then dramatically expand the number of people required so it is a dramatic improvement over the current rule which is now reportedly unconstitutional according to those who have spoken aboutno it so this moves us in the right direction because it says a quorum is inthat a majority of the people who are participating are casting votes and pretending to participate as opposed to the current rule that to people alone can constitute a quorum. So just to dispel that, its not a republican rules change it was enacted first by a Republican Congress in 2005 then democratic in 2007 democratic 2009 then when i was elected 2011 it is a shared priority. How to get congress back to work in the event of a catastrophe. Have a quorum call open 72 hours to allow every member to get there but if you cant get a real quorum have another 24 hours and let that number count in this catastrophic situation is a new quorum so if only two of us survived the massu casualty yes that provision would allow the only two surviving members to conduct business not because he thought that was the best answer but best we could do. But to suggest having to people run the house is unconstitutional but having 22 people runle it does constitute a quorum is laughable either the house is able to change the rules in both cases or change the definition of quorum in either case but this very discussion shows as a topic of legal conversation what we do over the next 60 or 90 days with the biggest problem is. And with the Supreme Court considers aa question and that it is up to the house of representatives. Thats why this existing rule adopted under a Republican Congress and that stays on the books despite the fact and more outrage of the proposal but nonetheless it flows to any rule governing outside of their interpretation of what a quorum requirement is. There is a big qualitative difference of what we are doing and the existing rule that two people could constitute a quorum with the entire house of representatives which is totally antithetical so we are saying is a majority could be constituted if they call up and give the proxy to another member i understand if they say it has to be physical voting we cross that bridge with electronic voting and they said no it has to be a spoken vote but we went to electronic voting. The critical point is the intent of the member to cast his or her legislative will is indicated by the system we have adopted in our role rule it is a dramatic improvement to people can constitute a quorum if you say just emergency then you are conceding emergencies circumstances can change congresses treatment of the quorum we are changing it in a much more mild and modest way than allowing to members to speak for the entire body. Again thesese were mash one mass casualty events. If i am dead the quorum requirement declines it is not hypothetical but if 433 of us are dead, then two of us can constitute a quorum. That is an outrageous outcome but this was the best we could do with what we had to work wit with. I thank you may be mischaracterizing and 2005 a little bit because it doesnt make you dead to be a diminished quorum it could be a number of rays on reasons. At 433 of us are dead. But he raises a good point to that sometimes the standing rules are passed on from congress to congress but enough people in a bipartisan way have raised issues and we will take a good look at it before we pass the next set of rules. All those in favor . Those opposed . The nos have it. The vote is not agreed to. Given the committees reluctance i have an amendment at the desk. Number five housest resolution 965. I recognize you have consulted with legal scholars and most of the Supreme Court decisions are five four so legal scholars can disagree. What my amendment was suggest since the house general counsel is the one to represent that the counsel present the theory for defending proxy voting in court to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and explain what that rationale is here we are the committee of jurisdiction we didnt have a single constitutional scholar. We didnt have that opportunity i know everyone shares this concern is not a partisan issue but this amendment would simply require the Advisory Group be presented with that legal theoryo as those of jurisdiction so all members can move forward with confidence in policy decisions will be respected by the courts. I oppose the amendment. I think every legal scholar we have talked to have not seen any constitutional issues my colleagues submitted a letter from mr. Strand. So with those congressional scholars let me introduce unanimous consent and in terms of legal scholars or experts so i would urge a no vote on the gentlemens amendment. No substantive legal argument. If there was a challenge probably would not negate that challenge. I look at this as a delay than anything else i urge a no vote. All those in favor . Know . The clerk will call the role. [roll call] four it eight. It is not agreed to put into the record some statements submitted and mr. Thompson of california. Sanchez. Further amendment. Are you saying the current house rules allow for the participation even though there are not present today . I am asking the statements be put into the record like we do all the time. Im just looking at how effectiveou the rules are to solve those issues. I have an amendment at the desk. Number six House Resolution. Suspend the reading. This is simply requiring the House Administration to issue a yearly report on voting integrity that describes the errors of proxy voting will know the law of unintended consequences. This is a good oversight check on what we are enacting with this rule. I urge a yes vote. I guess that is accepted. Good enough. [laughter] the best oversight we can do including the rules committee are to do hearings in the way we have intended. Hopefully the president is right this virus will mysteriously disappear but in the meantime i urge a no vote. All those in favor . All those opposed . The clerk will call the role. [roll call] the amendment is not agreed to. We are dealing with a lot of the legislation and things we have talked about today. And limit the use of proxy voting two things literally related to the Coronavirus Crisis plan to proceed that is the same language that my democratic colleagues included so all were asking to do is your position three weeks ago. With that i yield back. I oppose thellrepoee amendmeh the initial draft of the rule for a couple of reasons. We are in a pandemic and the consultation with the doctor and sergeant at arms. Covid20 in which case weve still got a problem so i felt the approach that was taken in the earlier draft was unreasonably. Something that we are g to do it again, going to do this for this emergency this is what we are going to be focusing on for the most part but again i think this limits if we are jut asking you to be where you were three weeks ago and if you cant be there as a majority, i just wouldve played out for the record it does suggest as a slippery slope danger because we moved from where the majority of uwas to a different position today so three weeks from now another movement. I was going to oppose it at that point. Ive spoken to a number of members. I think we were not there. Maybe you should have accepted it back then. But i think a couple of others at least would have opposed it so i yield back and urge a no. We didnt have the ability to accept it was in the purview and this is where you were three weeks ago. You move to someplace else and i would make that point to suggest once you left this particular could go a lot of Different Directions quitting once you didnt expect three weeks ago. During thee last three weeks there were members on both sides of the aisle we heard from the members and the consensus on our side is we have a lot of workrko do. Its not just coronavirus related. May i make one additional comment . It seems the question of constitutionality which we dont agree on but it would still be in play it doesnt beget more because you identify only thinge related to coded 19 so from our perspective it rises or falls but not with what kind of legislation. With all due respect it needed more constitutional in this whole course regardless but it does make it more limited in the traditional and one of the things pointed out in the course of the day and you in particular this is very limited. This is just another limitation. Its just another limitation. All those in favor . Opposed in the opinion of the chair of the f knowhow that dad could noes have it. [roll call] before we go to the next one i want to show unanimous consent a record for theex progressive caucus in favor of the underlying bill today. Further amendments. I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number eight or 965. Mr. Chairman, this amendment respects with mr. Perlmutter had to say. Chthere is work that has to hapn and if we are going to go down this path, we should be getting those highest priority items dot. For those that are not high priority the suspension bills thatr are bought related that we shouldnt use proxy voting whether we are back for a day in the month of june or a week in the month of june we can do those suspension bills in pers person. For those that are not extensive but the most numerous in the congressional workload. [roll call] the amendment is not agreed to. This is a Pretty Simple though. Im surprised it wasnt in the tech is. No proxy votes on the bills that havent had a committee during the markup in other words things ought to be able to go through the committee particularly if we adopted the rule as it is written as we continue to send the markup process on the amendment all of those in favor say aye. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. [roll call] further amendments . I have an amendment to the task. Amendment number ten to House Resolution offered by arizona. This ensures the unconstitutional use of theo proxy votes are not employed should the house considered impeachment resolutions or contempt citations and i want to be clear that i dont like anything in this bill so my amendment is only offered because maybe itke will make ita little bit better. Certainly impeachment in the contempt citations are three extraordinary actions reserved for the greatest of times and i would certainly hope that we tiwould want all members here to consider and with that i would encourage the vote and yield back. Its like throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this and i do not see a reason to do this. [roll call] [roll call] ne amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments. Thank you mr. Chairman. I have an amendment athabasca. House resolution 965 offered by arizona. I want to offer an amendment my colleagues representative mike from louisiana and i worked on together. Mr. Johnson is also going to be introducing the amendment as a standalone bill. This demand is simply states that should a member choose to proxy vote, the total members representation of allowing will be reduced by the amount you would take for them to travel to the house under normal circumstances to vote for the 2020 travel expense formula. This is an official document all of the offices have access to from the House Administrations. It would be returned to the treasury. Members should be able to use funds that were meant for travel and other things. That isnt what the constituents want