Is not we dont need to be captives or hostage to the idea that in an earlier age there was no physical way, there was no technological way for us to come together and i would suggest that only under the very narrow circumstances anticipated by this resolution could we continue to work on behalf of the american public. I appreciate and yield back you also raised are the point. I dont think theres any constitutional issues revolving revolving around whether or not committees can meet virtually. I mean, the constitution the commit constitution creates the committees. We all agree on that. Miss shalala. Mr. Chairman, i want to make a comment about the suggestion that scientists and Public Health people are making policy in this country. They are not. Were the policymakers. The governors, the mayors are the policymakers. They seek advice during a crisis like this one with a vicious virus from experienced scientists and Public Health officials, and they can take that advice or not take that vicious and all across the country theres evidence that some people are taking the advice and some people arent taking the advice, but all of the scientists i know and the Public Health people in this country and many of them ive worked with for years are very careful not to be policymakers. They are particularly careful just to present the evidence and not to substitute for the policymakers, and i think that this country which has invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the years in building one of the great scientific enterprises, the National Institute of health, the cdc and the fda, thank god we have them now. I yield back. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank all of you for being here and thank you for your patience. Always wonderful to see you, and you can go. Thank you. And so does any other members wish to testify on hr965 . Seeing none, this closes the original hearing on hres965. Without resolution the motion is considered as read and can be the gentleman from georgia is recognized for his amendment. I very much appreciate that, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number i to hres 926 by mr. Udall of georgia. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. This is an amendment to make sure that this resolution does not go into effect until the clerk of the house has certified that theres a system in place that securely receives and validates a proxy designation. The majority has done everything in its power to move as expeditiously as possible in this direction, and i recognize we have constitutional disagreements about this novel process and we had disagreements about who should be the decisionmakers as we move forward in this process. You will recall as a part of our roundtable discussion with the clerk and the parliamentarian, one thing that the clerk consistently mentioned was that her most Important Role here in the house as it relates to remote voting would be to authenticate. She said it over and over again, authenticate, authenticate, authenticate to ensure that the person is who they say they are. I recognize the distinction between remote investigate and proxy voting, but it seems to be a small step in the right direction. Since we all have an interest in making sure that this system is while it may be novel, certainly none of us want it to be fraudulent. I would ask that we add the amendment that says we shall not move forward without an affirmative certification from the clerk that the house has in place a system to securely receive and validate these proxy designations. Thank you. You heard gentlemans amendment. Any questions or comments . I would urge a no vote. Weve been in contact with the clerks office. We feel confident that we will have a system in place that adheres to all the principles that we all care about. Adding another layer of bureaucracy i dont think makes a lot of sense. Mr. Chairman . Yes. I know it is its been over a month, but when you were interviewed on the cares act, i know you recall, you said i think its not only important that congress be competent but we should also look competent going forward, and i dont think a 2 trillion 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 yet. What is the harm in having the office of the house that is in charge of voting integrity certified that we have voting integrity before we move forward . I just i dont understand the harm, and if there is a army would appreciate being corrected. I trust that my staff who have been working on this, and i feel confident that were in good measure so the vote is now all those in favor said aye. Opposed, no. No. The chair that is. Can i have a roll cole. Mr. Hastings, mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Per mullet. No. Mr. Raskin . No. Miss scanlon . Mr. Morrelle, no, miss shalala, no. Miss mats wei. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Cole aye. Mr. Udall . Aye. Mr. Burgees . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Four yays and six nas. Further amendments. Mr. Cole. Amendment at the desk . The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. I would ask that the gentlemen be recognized. I will do this quick because i think the fate of this will be quick as well. My amendment says that i think theres a very legitimate concern on the part of the majority. We live in a majoritaran society and i understand that but this is an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. I think the minority leader showed a great deal of flexibility. He was very sensitive to the fact that this was a power that if it was used inappropriately, you know, would would have him effectively deciding what came on the floor as the majority leader appropriately does. Its not something he wanted to do. He asked and said, look, wed give it up for a month at a time or a time period or if you guys can find a set of matrix that under these circumstances, you know, it would sort of automatically kick in. So i would just say that i think that i dont expect my friends to agree with this. This is an extraordinary moment. We ought to do it. The minority leader has shown hed be willing on most occasions, again, to be extraordinarily respectful in the use of this. So with that i would urge passage of the amendment. I thank the gentleman, and, again, you know, i i guess my response to this was that, you know, when we obviously think that this is necessary at this moment, and when i asked the majority the minority leader specifically whether he would concur he said no so basically if we were to agree with this were basically killing this for now so i would urge a no vote. The vote now is on the amendment from the gentleman from oklahoma. All those in favor said kaye. Aye. Opposed no. The knows have it. Roll call. Mr. Hasteings . Mrs. Trader joes. No. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Perlmutter no . Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Scanlon . Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Udall . Yay. Mr. Burgess. Aye. Mrs. Lesko. Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Four yays and seven nays. Let me just say for the record. Miss scanlon is not here right now because shes providing over the house floor so she will be back shortly. Further mmd ants. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Second bite at the apple may be not so difficult. My amendment well,ed amendment at the desk. The clerk will report amendment. Amendment number three, the House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Koval oklahoma. I would ask to suspend for the reading of the amendment. Thank you very much. Basically this says lets try this for 45 days and lets give this extraordinary power to the speaker which weve never done before in this institution and if we want to extend we need a twothirds vote, in other words, bipartisan buyin. Give it it a twothirds run and come back and see if we can find bipartisan consistence. I know, plumber, you said youve talked to some of our members that are probably supportive. I think if they saw it work for 45 days, that might encourage them to vote in that direction, and, again, i think that way we would bring what you want to do about with with a bipartisan vote as opposed to what is probably going to happen tomorrow a partyline vote so i throw that out for your consideration. I appreciate it. You heard the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say aye . Aye. Those oppose odd. No. Thes no have it. Roll call. Mr. Hasteings . Mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin, no. Miss scanlon . Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Udall . Aye. Mr. Burgess. Aye. Mrs. Lesko . No. How is miss scanlon reported . No. The clerk will report the total. Four yeahs and eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment four to House Resolution 965 offered by mmr mr. Uwoodall of georgia. You heard most of the concern of constitutional reflected on constitutionally of a quorum. My amendment would say and move forward with the other issues that you want to move forward with but lets not have proxy voting as as a part of declaring a quorum theres no doubt that litigation would be involved. It matters not that our last crisis quorum language was passed by a republican majority, Susan Macdonald in a bipartisan way it still would have been subject of a bipartisan review had it been utilized. You dont anticipate that this might be utilized. You believe that it will be utilized. I ask that we remove the most obvious of the constitutional hurdles so its not distracting from the other work that we both agree needs to be done. Mr. Chairman . I take the gentleman for his amendment. We have consulted with many constitutional scholars who feel in fact what we are proposing is constitutional. I think whatever we do somebody will challenge it, but i feel confident that this will withstand any challenge, and so i would urge a no vet. Mr. Chairman . Yeah. Mr. Raskin . Could i speak a word on the motion . Yes. I think something fascinating has owe merged from todays proceedings which is that we seem to have a pretty strong bipartisan consensus or at least among the republican witness whose came to testify that the current rule adopted under republican majority is unconstitutional because it allows for two members to constitute a quorum. By enacting this rule were going to dramatically expand the number of people who are required to create a quorum so its a dramatic improvement over the current rule which is now reputedly unconstitutional according to most of the people who have spoken about it today so at least this is moving us in the right direction because it says a quorum is exactly that, its a quorum, its a majority of the people, a majority of the people who are participating, who are cast considering their votes and who win tending to participate in the proceedings as opposed to the current rule which says that two people alone, excluding the other 433, can constitute a quorum so i rise in opposition to that amendment. Thank you. Just to dispel that because its become a common narrative. Number up, its not a republican rules change. It was enacted first by a Republican Congress in 2005. It was enacted next by a Democratic Congress in 2007 and next by a Democratic Congress in 2009 and then by the congress i was elected in in 2011 so its been a shared priority. Just as this is a shared priority, how to get congress back to work in the unthinkable event africa taft if i, and what it said is have a quorum call thats open for 72 hours and allow every member possible to get there, and then if you cant get a real quorum then, have a house open for another 24 hours for a qualmium call and let that number, however many people can get there in 96 hours, let that count in this unthinkable catastrophic situation as your new quorum, so to suggest that only two of us survived a mass casualty accident, as unthinkable as that is, yes, that pro vision would allow the only two surviving members of the United States house of representatives to conduct business, not because we thought that was the best answer, but that was the best we could do in those times. I wasnt elected at that the time but to suggest that having two people in your example runt house of representatives is unconstitutional but having 22 people run it does constitute a quorum. Thats just thats laughable. Either the house is able to change the rules in both cases, or the house is able to change the definition of quorum in neither case, but the this very discussion demonstrates that its going tonight topic of legal conversation. I would posit that the work that we do together over the next 660 to 80 days is going to be incredibly consequential work for the nation, and i just dont know why if this is where weve laser focused on where the biggest problem is we would we would put our constituents and our policies at that risk. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. Mr. Chairman, could i respond to mr. Woodall on that . The first point that weve got to make is this is what the Supreme Court considers a political question. It would invoke the political question doctrine meaning its up to the house of representatives. Its our rule. Thats why this existing rule adopt asked under a Republican Congress and succeeding congress of republican and democratic character have stayed on the books despite the fact that we have the testimony of the outraged witnesses that this is unconstitutional. They were more outraged by the proposal than the current rule but nonetheless their outrage currently flows to any rule governing outside of their interpretation of what a quorum requirement is. Now heres why i think there is a big qualitative difference between what were doing and what the existing rule is which has been fine with most of the people because people havent focused on it. That rule says that two people could end up constituting a quorum of the entire house of representatives which is totally antithetical to the majority quorum requirement whereas what were saying is a majority can be constituted of people who call up and directly give their proxy to another member. So i understand those who are saying its got to be physical voting . I think we already crossed that bridge when we went to electronic investigate. There were people at that time who were saying it was unconstitutional toll have electric voting. No, it calls for the ayes and the nays where it has to be a spoken vote or written vote and we went to electronic investigate and the republic hasnt collapsed. The critical point is the intent of the member to cast his or her legislative will is vindicated by the system weve adrop theed in our rule and the current proposed rule is a dramatic improvement over the two people can constitute a quorum. If what youre saying thats just in emergency circumstances then youre conceding that emergency circumstances can change congress treatment of the quorum, and were changing our treatment of it in a much more mild and modest way than allow two members to speak for the entire body. I yield back, mr. Chairman. To be fair, mr. Chairman. Again, these were mass casualty events that we were responding to. The if im dead, the quorum requirement for the house declines. Its not hypothetical. Its actual, and that is what this language, as sober as that is, is anticipate f. 433 of yourselves are dead, then two of us can constitute a quorum. Thats an outrageous outcome for the United States of america, an unthinkable outcome but this was the best we could do with what we had to work with. Im just will the gentleman yield . I think he may be mischaracterizing what happened in 2005 a little bit because it doesnt say that everybody has to be dead for there to be a diminished quorum. It could be for a whole number of reasons, including contagion. The chairman misunderstood me, if 433 people are dead two people does in fact constitute a quorum. He raises a good point and sometimes, you know, the standing rules get passed on from congress to congress, but i think enough people in a bipartisan way have raised issues about this that whoever the next chairman of the rules committee is ought to take a look at it before we pass the next set of rules, all right . Youve heard the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say ay sneh. Aye. Opposed no. No. Thes no have it. The gentleman want a roll call . Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mrs. Torres no. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin no. Miss scanlon . No. Miss scanlon no. Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats w . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall. Aye. Mr. Burgees . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Mrs. Lesko aye. Mr. Chairman. No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will recall the total. Four nays and eight yays. Further amendments . Mr. Woodall . Mr. Chairman, given the committees reluctant to accept that last amendment i have a amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment . Amendment number five to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. I recognize that you have consulted with legal scholars on this. I also recognize that most of the Supreme Court decisions i read are 53 so legal scholars can disagree and it matters who has the five and who has the four. What my amendment would suggest is that since the house general counsel is the one that will be representing the house in these legal contests that run doubtedly to follow, that the house general counsel present its theory for defending proxy investigate 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 with the privileged exception of mr. Raskin come and testify before the committee today. We didnt have that opportunity. I know everyone shares this concern. Its not a partisan issue. Its a houses bullishwill issu this amendment would require the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group be presented with that legal theory as would the committees of jurisdiction so that all members can move forward with confidence that our policy decisions will be respected by the courts. Yeah. I oppose the amendment. I think that there is i mean, we every legal scholar we have talked to has not seen any constitutional issues with regard to what were trying to do. I think that my colleague submitted a letter from some guy mr. Strand who i dont think is a legal scholar. I think hes a lawyer mr. Chairman, if every lawyer you talked to had the same opinion, im very suspicious of