Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Rules Votes On 3T Economic Aid Remote Voting By Proxy 20240713

Okay, the rules committee will come to order. Before i give my opening statement, i just want to read a guidance from the attending physician. And we asked him specifically about the use of face coverings during proceedings like these. And while he is not mandated their use, he did share that, and i quote, my preference is that members retain their face covers when speaking as speaking is an activity which can release virus particles, especially if the speaking is of high spirited nature. And ive never had a meeting in the rules committee that hasnt been of a high spirited nature. So were going to leave it up to individual members to decide. But i think i will to be cautious here, im going to keep mine on. Others 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 1. 3 million confirmed cases across 50 states, washington, d. C. , and four territories. More than 81,000 of our citizens have lost their lives to this virus. And the number continues to rise each and every day. And communities have taken precedented steps to slow the spread through stay the at home orders and travel restrictions. We dont know how long it will take to develop a treatment or vaccine to contain this virus or for lives to return to normal. But we do know that this house must continue legislating. We have to keep responding to the 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 its fellow travelers, staff, the public or members of the media. The way we have done things will have to change, at least temporarily. That means physical distancing, it means Wearing Masks, it means embracing technology during this pandemic so that we can hold virtual hearings and markups and vote remotely on the house floor. Local governments and countries around the world have taken similar steps. It is time for this house to utilize 21st Century Technology too. This resolution is a result of weeks of collaboration. It has been repeatedly refined and contains Many Republican provisions. I dont suggest these steps lightly. And i am not looking to change the fabric of this institution. I believe the best ideas still come from working in person and side by side. But we must adapt to the circumstance and make temporary changes during the pandemic. They will help us get our work done to take. The second wave of this virus could be worse in the fall. It will be a dereliction of our responsibility to do nothing. Further delay is not an option either. We have released a report and formed a task force and had weeks and weeks of talks. It is time to act. I know there will be a lot of discussion today. I welcome this conversation. I also invite all my colleagues to support this proposal because the status quo is not going to cut it. Before i turn it over to our Ranking Member, i want to recognize mr. Coles leadership on this committee and on the Bipartisan Task force as well. He cares deeply about this institution. And i know regardless wrf of wh where he stand on this proposal, we agree on making sure this house functions on behalf of the American People. I always appreciated his courtesy and open mindedness. And i just say, finally, that i regret very much that were not coming here today with a proposal that both our leaderships embrace. And, you know, i think all of us, i certainly did, wanted to see something come to the floor that received such overwhelming support that it would pass by voice vote or unanimous consent. But i think we have very different opinions of about how should proceed. Some of us have different opinions about the urgency of the moment we now find ourselves in. So having said that, im happy to turn it over to the gentleman from oklahoma for any remarks he wishes to make. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. For the record, im going to take my mask off only while eye speak. If i get spirited, ill put the mask back on. I appreciate your courtesy there. I think as a rule youre 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 most consequential change to the establishmentst modern Committee System and the reorganization act of 1946. Today the majoritys proposing for the first time in our history a system of proxy voting on the floor of the house of representatives. At the same time, the proposed rules change was also authorize committees to perform remote proceedings including markups. And it also allows for the adoption of totally remote voting upon the certification of one member of congress. Though the changes are purportedly limited to the present covid19 pandemic time line, temporary change we make to the rules today becomes the precedent we follow tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, three weeks ago Speaker Pelosi did an extraordinarily wise thing. Rather than pushing through a partisan proxy voting rules similar to the one were considering today, she formed a working group of six members to consider the challenges. This working group consisted of majority leader hoyer, republican leader mccarthy and chairperson and Ranking Member davis of the House Administration committee and, of course, you and i as chair and Ranking Member 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 comment you, mr. Chairman, for the thoughtful and productive way in which you approach these discussions. And rest assured my dissatisfaction with todays resolution is no criticism of you personally. Quite the opposite. I thought you really worked hard to bridge the gaps between us and made some meaningful concessions in the course of our discussions. Frankly commend every member of the committee. They all work that way and try to find common ground. We didnt get there. Last monday republican leader mccarthy, Ranking Member davis and i posted an article on the medium that laid out four strategies for reopening the house of representatives. These strategies were designed to strike the Necessary Balance between health and institutional concerns that allow the house to begin to move forward in a safe and healthy way. Before i continue i request unanimous consent to insert a copy of that article into the record. Without objection. Thank you very much. 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 essential and needed legislation in a safe, socially distant format. Third, deploying technology in a crawl, walk, run progression and, fourth, continuing to accelerate active Risk Mitigation practices. These four principles would allow congress to safely begin to return to d. C. To continue our work. It would allow committees to come back, to conduct hearings and in person markups, draft new legislation to combat this crisis and provide relief for the American People. It would have limited the risk of using Unproven Technology that may or may not be secure from wrong doers such as hackers and foreign governments. And it would have ensured that Congress Continues to meet as a congress, literally a physical meeting between delegates. Above all else, republicans believe that any change to the centurys old rules of the house should only be done in a bipartisan way that achieves consensus. We believe the proposal we outline would achieve that goal. Instead, this proposed rules package fundamentally change twoz key rules of the house. First, for the first time in history of the chamber, were 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, were being asked to approve a measure that would allow committees to operate remotely and approve legislation remotely. While i have no doubt that the majoritys intentions are good proposing the two changes, i believe they will fund. Ally alter the nature of the institution and not for the better. And i cannot support them. First and foremost, im deeply concerned about the precedent this sets for the institution. Even a temporary measure to dealideal with the Current Crisis could be used down the line. When it comes to the fundamental way the house does business, facetoface with members building relationships and hashing out differences, im very reluctant to set a new precedent that erodes our normal practice. Second, i have real concerns about whether or not any system of remote voting or proxy voting is constitutional. The language of the constitution clearly contemplates members being physically present in the chamber to conduct business. A 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 them at risk of Court Challenges. The legislation that we will likely pass by these methods in the near term will probably be bills along the lines of the c. A. R. E. S. Act, they deal with the coronavirus pandemic and resulting 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 the constitutional requirements. Third, 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 in the event that is not possible, we have already proven our ability to assemble and vote twice during this pandemic, tomorrow well do so for a third time. Im personally 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 vote of the house and instead only upon certification of technology by one member, chairperson. This is seeding the authority of the rules committee and it denies the entire house deliberation on the technology and a 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 the resolution which allows committees to operate remotely, i have similar concerns. 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 forced us as members of the house of representatives to sit down in a room and Work Together. It is forced us to get to know one another, to learn from each others perspective and sometimes learn that we have more in common with eefrp othac than we recognized. If this measure passes that, will no longer be the case number longer will members be required to sit together in a room. Instead, well lose that fundamental piece of our institutions character. I think thats a grave loss for us as members and for the country. Im also deeply concerned with how Remote Committee action will actually work. With such an untested and unproven procedure, there will be significant hiccups moving forward. When markups happen, how well he ensure that chairs must recognize members for timely motions . How will we ensure that minority members will receive fair and equal time and fair and equal opportunity for recognition . How sure are we that the technology we intend to use is secure and protected from wrong doers whether hackers or foreign nations . The days rule is silent on these matters leaving most of the 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 ill be the first to acknowledge we certainly made progress and it was certainly a sincere effort. But its 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 yield back. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to also thank him for keeping his keeping his tone below a high spirited nature. I appreciate that as well. And i want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter from Deborah Pearlstein from school of law in her letter which i strongly recommend to all my colleagues that they read in full. Professor writes, i believe adopting procedures to allow for remote voting under the extraordinary circumstances is not only lawful but essential to the maintenance of our constitutional democracy. The constitution contains no specific requirement of physical presence for members to vote. What the constitution does instead is a course of repeatedly rouse is leave it up to each house of congress to determine the rules of its proceedings. Indeed, it is just such constitutional flexibility that is enabled congress to embrace various Informal Solutions its adopted over the years to do business including relying on members to give unanimous consent to a vote even if something less than an actual majority of members 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 that congress preserves the ability to vote in a way that maintains the institutions representative character, protects the transparency of the operations in fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American People. And i just also want to say and, again, is that, you know, a lot has changed since first congress. None of us arrived by horse and buggy today. And the story of the peoples house is the story of change and adaptation to meet the needs of the times. And as i said, the house used to conduct every vote every vote i role call. Today the house uses electronic voting cards and computer talleys the votes. St the process of unanimous consent 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 both the house and senate you see to this day, weve created an disbanded committees to fit the needs of our nation. We changed how to count a quorum and how we vote and were here today once again to change, to meet the challenge to meet the challenges that we face. And so i point that out because i think we need to put this in perspective. I want to say, i want to 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 slipper why i slope. And i think we all need to be clear on that. But i do think we find ourselves in an extraordinary moment. The gentleman, i yield to the gentleman. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your kind remarks. I just would ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article by the distinguished scholar mark strand titled voting present by proxies and unconstitutional oxymoron. All right. Without objection. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. For our first panel, im happy to welcome the distinguished minority leader mr. Hoyer and the Ranking Member of the House Administration committee mr. Davis. Both who are on the Bipartisan Task force to talk about these issues. Im delighted both of you are here. Well begin with the distinguished majority leader. What did i say . A rose by any other name. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Cole, members of this committee. I want to thank rodney davis and tom cole and my friend kevin mccarthy. We sat together the first time with one of our members participating virtually. So he was in california. And we met virtually the other two times that we met. I think we had open, substantive, thoughtful discussions. And i thank all of the participants. We did not reach consensus. I think the two letters that were just introduced apparently reflect the basic difference of opinion that voting virtually is somehow inconsistent with the constitution. 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 presence. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country. Abraham lincoln, december 1, 1862. Ive served in this body starting may 19th for 40 years and will be in my 41st year. Never have i experienced an environment that exists today. Nor do i believe that anybody alive in america has experienced such a circumstance. And so as our case is new, we must act and think anew as Abraham Lincoln said. The constitutional framers expressly 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 and air Traffic Control system is down, or because of a Natural Disaster that destroys much of the country, or because of a National Security attack has we had on 9 11. But on 9 11, we did not shut down america. We were not precluded from meetings. We came that night and we sang God Bless America on the steps. But we have voluntarily shut down the country in many respects because Health Experts say it is essential to defeat this virus. And so were meeting in an unnatural way in a very Large Committee room for relatively Small Committee separated by at least six feet. Were doing that to accommodate the crisis that confronts us. Framers established this house and the very first article of the constitution and gave it the power to legislate and conduct oversight of the executive branch. Never are those responsibilities more critical than during times of crisis. Were now in such a crisis with covid19 infections still 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 their representatives to be able to perform the full measure of their duties under our constitution. Which included committees Holding Hearings and markups and members debating and voting on the floor. Because of social and physical distancing, measures currently in place to save lives and prevent the spread of covid19, it is unsafe for members to travel back and forth to washington from their districts and risk exposing potentially thousands of people while in transit. It is also unsafe to require thousands of house staff and capitol hill employees to commute to work while infections have not even reached the peak in the washington metropolitan area. Thats why we must adopt the kind of virtual practices authorized by this resolution. 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 another virtually. Not in the same room but in the same box. That we call an ipad or a computer or some other device that allows us to communicate in real time, essentially in person virtually. These include video and teleconference technologies used safely and effectively by millions of americans including the senate and the Supreme Court. Ironically, you saw yesterday a virtual hearing held by the United States senate. The chairman was not present. The witnesses were not present. Dr. Fauci in particular. Ron paul was in the room, somewhat like a hybrid hearing that was discussed by the minority leader. We provided for that in this rule. Including the Supreme Court of the United States only nine people who are conducting hearings and arguments virtually. The Supreme Court court of the United States, the final word of what the law is in america. So that this is not a radical idea. This is not an idea that undermines the constitution anyway or the character of this body. The character of this body is the individual members elected. The only way you can get here by their constituents. And what their constituents want is not necessarily that theyre in this chair or that chair, what they want them is to raise their voice. To protect their interest. To reflect their views. And 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. Thats what happened in the United States senate yesterday. And thats 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 and in another sense, exactly the same thing they do. They hear arguments, they ask questions, and they decide. Nothing radical about that. It is simply the medium rather than a horse, a car, rather than a horse, a plane. Rather than a horse, a train. To get to the objective. This resolution has been pointed out would authorize committees to mark up legislation remotely so we can prepare bills. Thats what our duty is. We can hold hearings. We can do oversight. We can question witnesses on behalf of the 750,000 that each of us represents give or take. For those members who cannot safely return to washington at this time, it allows proxy voting. Some of you heard my comments. Thats one way to do it. I think there are other ways to do it and this rule provides to look at that. And i will tell you as long as im majority leader well do that in discussion. Because i think we had six people of good will in the room. Trying to figure out how do we do this . For the members that cannot get, theyll do the proxy voting. First step in authorizing the house to begin work 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 is not an instance where i think this will be justified. Until now. And we see it in the white house. Where the covid19 came in. Were 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 ivirtual technology. All the rules that apply for the minority protections apply. And they should. This is not about getting advantage. This is about allowing the peoples house and the peoples representatives in committee to work and work productively. What this bill does is enable the house to meet this moment and do its job in full while we do our part to help prevent the spread of covid19. And ensure the safety of those who serve and work here 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 you to know, mr. Chairman, the time when it was obvious we could not reach agreement, i called mr. Mccarthy. We had a very civil, quiet conversation. I said to him, kevin, we cannot reach agreement. I dont believe, frankly, kevin, what youre asking for for concurrence you would give to nancy pelosi if she were the minority leader. I want you to think about that. Whether you would have given nancy pelosi the ability to veto your ability to act. I want you to honestly think about that. So we could not agree on that. But it is not because we didnt want to reach agreement. I wish republicans would have joined us in this effort. I hope they will join us on the floor in voting for this resolution. So in closing, mr. Chairman, i ha have a list of eight or 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. This should not been partisanship. Do we want this institution to have the capacity to meet at times of crisis . Frankly, we didnt get there after 9 11. 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. I dont believe there has been such a circumstance in the United States of america since 1918. Over 100 years ago. This may be once in a century experience for our country. Lets pray that it doesnt happen again. But let us also pray that when it does, as Abraham Lincoln said, well think anew and act anew so that we can do our job. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Dave sn mr. Dave snis. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Its always great to be here with my friend and the rest of my colleagues on this the committee. This is an unprecedented proposal. And its going to fundamentally change the way that house of representatives can craft, consider, and vote on legislation. The process is 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 hide were hopeful and optimistic just like leader hoyer was that the work of a Bipartisan Task force to get the house back to work would result in a genuine willingness toward bipartisan agreement. We republicans an that task force offered a plan to make thorough reforms to get the entire houseworking again to perform our central functions on behalf of the American People who elected us to represent them. And thank you for including some of our suggestions in that proposal. Leader hoyer mentioned, there were others that we put forth in this framework in our suggestions. I would argue, mr. Leader, we wouldnt have to offer speaker pe lo pelosi because we wouldnt bring this to the house. Our plan was dismissed out of hand with no alternative. It was no the until yesterday, yesterday morning with the release of hr 965 that we saw any semblance of a plan and no way was it a product of bipartisan or greater member input. This would dramatically overhaul the Committee Process which is fundamental to producing legislation to not only allow for minimal input and consultation with minority party. Lets call it what it s were talking about a member of Congress Giving their voting privilege to someone else. There is lidge submit constitutional uncertainty with what is proposed and call into quegs the validity infoof any legislation. They have the idea in it mind the december pra the times call for desperate measures. Its important to note that this is not the First Time Congress has had to work through national emergencies. Be it the civil war, spanish flu pandemic, two world wars, and after september 11th this body continued to operate. In fact, after 9 11, there was an exhaustive effort for years that would make sure that the house rules had a mechanism that would allow the house to continue to function during catastrophic times. That effort took three years to implement. And id like to remind members as we sit here and contemplate changing 200 plus years of voting and committee precedent, 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, attack, con taj contagion. The changes to house floor and Committee Process being proposed in this resolution are heavily dependent on the clerk of the house, house recording studios, and the house information resources ability to execute and support the dramatic process changes. I have confidence in the clerk, cao and the professionals on their teams. However, it is unfair to them and puts the institution at risk by not first listening to them. Mitigating risks and testing the process extensively. These steps have been skipped. To that point, i submit today a letter for the record to you, mr. Chairman, outlining an important technical questions and concerns 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 scams, probes, and malicious attempted Network Connections per month. After broadcasting to the world our ene. Intention to allow members to delegate votes via email and moving committee 5 00 ittist 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 is not opposed to adopting reforms. Youll find no better advocate. Thats why i asked to serve on the House Administration committee. Thats have invested countless hours working on the km the com. Also why i was excited to craft on this Emergency Response proposal on the Bipartisan Task force. Disappointed, as you know, for weeks we put forward road maps and solutions to open the house in a way that pry orderizes member and staff safety as well as institutional legitimacy. But they were dismissed out of hand. I ask you, mr. Chairman, based on your comments earlier, what changed since just a few short weeks ago when the committee on rules released a report on march 23rd that could be viewed as the antithesis of what is being put forth today. I agree with each of the statements that you made. And i believe that they hold no less weight on may 14th than they did only seven weeks ago on march 23rd n closing, i want to encourage all of us to take a step back and admire our institution. For the strength, agility, and ability to be closest to the very people we represent. Even during difficult times. I also want to remind us how fragile it is. Our rules are easy to change. A break in precedent can unravel generation of Institutional Reforms and institutional norms. Former member bob walker who served for 20 years in this chamber and one of the chief architects in the Institutional Reforms implemented after the 1994 election issued warning to me that precedent creates process. What were considering today in the process through which it has been drafted is being considered is unprecedented. Were not here debating rule changes. Were 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 this bill, were creating a new precedent that will forever change the house processes, threaten legitimacy of members votes and open a pandoras box of unnecessary risks. This should have been an era of bipartisan like it was the few times we came together. Just in the last few weeks. Instead, were debating a member management proposal for folks who have a fundamental view of the role of responsibilities of congress that is much different than mine and many of us have ever envisioned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you very much. And i would simply say that, again, that i regret that we couldnt come together on this. But were looking at the current moment very differently. And, again, we saw your proposal released to the press that we read about, we first found out about it that way. It doesnt address the challenges that we face right now. This is the rules committee, right . 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 do you do with the Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee . Which, you know, significantly larger. Some have suggested that maybe they can meet in the auditorium. Or maybe in the house floor. One at a time. We have a huge amount of work to do. There are in addition to responding to this crisis and trying to figure out how to get the economy back on its feet again, you know, we have bills we need to get done. Defense authorization bills, appropriations bills, i mean, and the fact that we cannot function, our Committee Process cant function the way it should if were going to follow cdc guidelines, that is problematic. So what do we do . We dont meet . We dont address certain issues that need to be addressed . 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. I mean there are transportation challenges. Some members represent districts that are hot spots. Then there is the whole issue of, you know, we could be asymptomatic carriers of the disease and back here and mingling with our staff, capitol police, people who maintain this campus. The i mean all those issues need to be considered. And at the end of our process, i mean, the two suggestions that the distinguished minority leader put forward was one that he wanted concurrence on whether or not we could implement a process of operating remotely. And so i said okay. Well, would you give would you concur . And his response was no. So all that were talking about here, by the way, which is a response to not just democratic members, mr. Davis, its also a response to republican members who reached out to us. You know, that somehow we need to figure out a way to deal and to operate during pandemics. Basically, what the minority leader wanted was the ability to veto something and he would use that veto to make sure we dont proceed forward. And then his alternative which i think incorporates the things that are in the press release that you released was that, you know, we should operate like the white house and we all should get tested. We all should move to the front of the line. Were all special enough that even though our constituents cant get tests, people who work in hospitals, first responders, people who are in working in food pantries and homeless shelters who quite frankly should be tested, that congress the way we can manage this is all come back and every time we come into session we get tested. I dont know what the reaction would be and the minority leaders district. But my people think its tone deaf and think its wrong. Were not super special. Am that we should move to the front of the line. And so those were that was the long and short of it. And, again, i dont take this lightly at all. I mean, i wish we were not having this discussion. I wish, you know, i wish we were meeting as usual and we were able to fight with each other as usual and be able to have high spirited conversations as usual and be able to move bills forward as usual. But we just cant. Now i hope that is short lived. I hope that this ends real quickly. Maybe it will end so quickly that we dont have to utilize any of this. But then if you listen to the head of the cdc, you listen to other medical experts, theyre warning about the fall. And so what happens if things get worse . I mean, much worse than they are right now. What do we do . Conduct business in the same fashion that we always conduct business . Ignore the advice of medical experts . You know, i appreciate, you know, this issue of precedent. I believe me, we have talked to constitutional experts. Ive talked to people who have studied the institution and, you know, im very reluctant to do to make changes that i dont think are totally warranted. But the gentleman referred to the change that was done that was implemented after 9 11 when the republicans were in charge of the house. But you changed the rules that would allow two members to sconce du constitute a quorum. The constitution confines it as majority of the membership, but under the rule change, you could have two members constitute a quor quorum. But none the less that was the plan put forward. And i dont really think that it was a very good plan. Were living it right now and we all hope and pray that it is winding down and that it is stay wound down. But if were wrong, and this comes back and we are not prepared, then shame on us. We have appropriated the house in a bipartisan way, the senate, trillions of dollars to help respond to this health crisis. And to help try to protect our economy. We need to do oversight. We need to 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, they have to wait their turn because we dont have rooms big enough to follow cdc guide lines, that is a dare riereliction of our d. So i appreciate your concerns. And i want to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record a letter from the renowned constitutional expert from the Berkeley School of Law Enforcement discussing the view that the remote voting process would be considered constitutional. And he states that it bestows in each house of Congress Broad disstregs di discretion to determine the rufls and it would include proxy is voting. Nothing in the constitution specifies otherwise. And if it were challenged in court, it is very likely that the case would be dismissed as a political question. The stream court ruupreme courtt it is not justified. And i will submit a letter from a koconstitutional law professo and he said that the more general point is that if legislators are monitoring proceedings online and can vote remote lirkts they a remotely, they are in attendance. And what is good for the Supreme Court must be good for congress. And we yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you very much. I want to thank you for your opening remarks and the tenor that you have set. Same thing with the two witnesses here. I have had the great pleasure of working with on the Ad Hoc Committee that the speaker appointed and i very much appreciate the good give and take. There were certainly ayers area and i think that it was taken seriously by everybody. I see two changes that republicans requested as part of our task force negotiations. Prohibition on closed or executive sefgsive sefgssessioa dont see other changes. And there is a suggestion thati dont see other changes. And there is a suggestion that i think mr. Cavdavis made. Committees are not be allowed to have closed executive sessions. You had to proceed with only present members. Not virtually present. And committees have the option to hold hybrid hearings which is one of the first suggestions that mr. Mccarthy made. And there will be two virtual hearings to test the software. We think that that is a good suggestion. And 24 hours notice before any final passage votes during this period to give members time to secure proxies if any havent designated one yet. Im not sure that it was specifically a republican proposal, but be cognizant of time zones so you dont schedule a 9 00 meeting and disadvantage the people on the west coast. That was a suggestion that was made. And providing documents to the committee 24 hours prior to the hearing. And uniform regulations with decorum in a virtual setting. Where we disagreed we think was and i think that you expressed it at the beginning, the two scholars differed. And i think frankly that that is where we have a substantive difference. Because i believe that being virtually present and being present is the same thing in the constitutional consequences of that presence. Because i can vote aye here and i can vote aye 1,000 miles away. And it has the same representation of my constituents. It is just transmitted in a different way. It was somewhat controversial when we went from standing on the floor when we went from saying aye or nay to the electronic voting. Now, one thing that happened since ive been here, the electronic voting machine broke down. And so we had to go back to the aye and nay. And it took a long time. And the 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. It was a real change and is it going to change the character of the house, will we speak longer, are we going to take political positions as opposed to substantive positions. So there were substantive changes. And where i think we disagree, and i want to say this strongly and i think i try to be fair to both sides. And i do not believe this changes in any way the rights of the minority. Nor do i believe that this in any way enhances the rights of the majority. I think that it is an even Playing Field on both sides. No rules changes. There could be a rule change that your side made, not in in body, and both sides made this change, because they were frufs trai frustrated. Mr. Reed initially made a change that it wouldnt take 60 votes to approve judges. Mr. Reed inite that it wouldnt take 60 votes to approve judges. However those judges were not the final say. Mr. Knell chang mr. Mcconnell changed the rule. And it could be made on a part is an level, 51 votes. That was a very substantive change. It was made. And it did impact the minority to impact the outcome. And this change though, and i have Great Respect and we have a great relationship and we both served on the Appropriations Committee. So we have a lot in common and i really think that you are a thoughtful voice on your side of the aisle and in the konlg. I dont think that this changes your rights and privileges at all. Congress. I dont think that this changes your rights and privileges at all. \. I dont think that this changes your rights and privileges at all. If it does, id be the first to say no, we have to make sure that it does not. You will have the same number of vote votes as you have now. What it is intended to do solely is to assure that congress is not side line of scrimmaglined event that neither one of us is responsible for, there is no fault here, but a circumstance that we confront. And this is an attempt to confront it so the congress is not sidelined. Now, bllet me point out that we have come here three times. And because we need to do the peoples business. And we are going to do the peoples business and well do the peoples business tomorrow. Some of us will agree that it is a good way or some of us will say, no, that is not the way we want to go. That is the process. But well 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, you will go back to oklahoma at some point in time and you will deal with the folks in oklahoma. And you will come from a hot spot. Now, hopefully you will not have anything to transmit but we know that that is possible. If we have the ability to do something virtually which does not denny denigrate the democracy, why dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. Eny denigrat, why dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. Ny denigrate why dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. Y denigrate why dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. Denigrate t why dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. Denigrate thy dont we do it. And this is why im a proponent of this technology. And a lot of measures that you incorporated are not in the resolution. I assume that they will come in the guidance and i certainly trust my chairman to do that. But i wanted to get that on the record. Hopefully they will be in the guidance. We havent seen that. And i pledge that we will have that guidance available before this comes to the floor. Only thing that might not be in the xwguidance is future technologies. But we will have a consultation. And i appreciate that. And mr. Chairman, on our side of the aisle, sometimes we get frustrated with your chairman. We have to get it done, no, we have to be fair. So you have a chairman of the committee who on our side is perceived as leaning over backwards to make shure that he and his committee are per receivered as fair. And i want you to know as we go through adopting this technology if we get there, i want to hear from you if this is not fair to the republicans. And there is another thing that we agree on. We cochair the danish caucus and we both occasionally get frustrated with chairman mcgovern. So there is bipartisan right there. Let me make another point, if i may. And i appreciate very much what you said, mr. Chairman. I look forward to working correctllectively with you. And i dont doubt your desire to be fair here. I accept that without reservation. Just so you know and so im clear, my bigger concerns are about the nature of the institution itself i know you share many of those concerns. So i dont think that you are trying to timt tlt the table. But i worry about members being in bubbles back in their own districts where they talk to people just like them, only talking with different political opinions when they are here and they have to because the people have a vote. And i think that is a good thing about the institution and i think that they also develop a lot of personal relationships that sort of provide the manner and bipartisan sometimes regional alliance, things like that which are hard to do rye motely. And i know you share those concerns. But that is what i consider. Rem. And i know you share those concerns. But that is what i consider. The resolution before us today allows us renote vo remote voti. 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 to your specific question, i think that is largely at my instance. And the reason is because i think there are better ways to have a direct conversation with that camera. Me. Noti not rodney davis who i would give my proxy to. We know longer use proxies in the house which i think is a good decision. And when i first came in, chairman of my committee sometimes had 10 or 12, 15 proxies in his pocket. And this is a very specific you vote aye or nay and it is clearly the persons opinion, it is not the chairman or somebody else using a large number of proxies. The limit, we shared the viewer. You couldnt go too long because you might have to have somebody withr. You couldnt go too long because you might have to have somebody with. You couldnt go too long because you might have to have somebody with a lot of proxies. I assure you that any change that we make we will do with discussion, serious and fair consideration. And i think that we all have to have a sense that the technology works. For instance, let me give you my example, which i wrote an article as well as you know and you probably red ebbably read i said my first initial recommendation was lets use facetime. I put the camera up, you see my face, and you see me say aye or nay. It is not somebody else. It is not anned idea of somebody. I do it. I happen to think that that personally is preferable. But what the rules committee has suggested is that an interim step which is now being used in the senate by committees and that i think will reflect because they have carefully written it so you have to have specific instructions. The person has to announce first i casting my vote tom cole and then they cast their vote and it is as if tom cole is present. Because you voted aye or nay. So the answer to your question, i think that i can speak for the speaker that we intend to make any of these changes i know this is the chairmans view as well after discussion and careful and thoughtful and bipartisan discussion for the institution. Not for either party, but for the snulg the institution. And ill go to mr. Davis. In the task force, we had a round table discussion. Office of the clerk and parliamentaryian about a broader issue of remote voting. And the clerk consistently highlighted the need to be able to certify proxies validity. Has your committee had any conversations with the dleclerk office on how they would do that . Not that im aware of. And is were moving forward that is why i mentioned that we need to take into consideration the professional house staff who are going to be tasked with inch 34mplementing w plans. And i think there is a big difference between proxy voting and remote voting and remote hearings. And i think equating them all together is something that i dont think that we should do. I think that they all have different rules and aspects and potential problems that could be played in the house. I know that the chairmans intention is as to make sure that proxies are very nor rarro used and i think that it right. Do you have any of suggestions to make sure that that proxy was actually cast by who it was attended and used in the manner that it was intended . Again, appreciate that they want it narrowly curtail this. We dont want people casting votes without any consultation. And i have a problem with the proxy process as a whole because of the process being corrupted under almost 40 years of one party rule in the house. And frankly, after speaking to former members like bob walker who helped institute the reformers that got rid of the proxy process at the committee level, you know, he even joked about how the stormformer chair laughed because the new republican chairs took arm their own power. And it was a process that they could not believe that but i think that it was a right thing to do. But this is a new precedence. And while i appreciate the work of compare mhair govern an mcgo but it may the years from now, it may not be this congress or next congress, but three, four congresses later, we go back to the same corrupted process. And i dont think that it is our job to allow this to move forward when we know that it has been abused in the past. There is proxy voting of the past which we agree is not a good standard and i think that the republican majority did the right thing because the way it worked back then was that the chair would have a bunch of proxies in his or her pocket and vote however the chair you saw fit without consulting. That is not the way that this should work. Were talking about that if you want to give me your proxy, that you have to indicate in writing how you want me to vote on every single vote. And then it will be announced publicly how you voted on the house floor. And if jim mcgovern had davis proxy and i votet ted contrary, would be announced and there would be a period of time if i somehow abused my power for it to be corrected. So the reason why we suggested this is because it is the approach that i think, you know, is the lets say that it is a low tech approach that cant be screwed around with, that could be trance prnts thsparent and t could be cast the way they wanted to be. And the problem is that weve all been on calls where people freeze. You cant get through. The technology out there, you know, may be such is that we can actually go in a direction that mr. Hoyer wants us to go. That is fine. But we need to test these things. Make sure that were moving in a way that makes sense and thatiss foolproof. So to compare what were trying to do to the old days is not accurate in any way shape or form. And the idea that somehow the process could be corrupted, the safe guards that are being built into this, unless a member is not paying attention, it just cant happen. So i reject that comparison to the old days. We have talk theed with it time time again. A process where there could be as few errors as possible in bringing this forward. Am and as we learn more, there may be better ways to do it. And we also have multiple conversations with the clerk, our staff hats, and i feel that the clerk i think that we feel confident that the process can move forward. So if there are better ways, lets look at it. But in the meantime, the idea of just dragging this out forever and over in the middle of a pandemic doesnt make any sense. And i will say again that if you actually look at the resolution, it is pretty specific about not very specific about voting. And so that is an area that that again, i dont doubt my friends intent but that is an area that we noto need to look. Can i respond . Certainly. I appreciate the work that was put together in a bipartisan way on our task force. Im glad that you incorporated some of our suggestions. I think spethey are common sens. The proxy process being instituted in the midst of a pandemic or anywhere else has the potential to be abused. I worry less about the process being corrupted once the vote is in the hands of your proxy. And more so how did that proxy get to that person in the first plate, what are the discussions before that approximaproxy is o. And could it be abused. And we know that it could be. But there is a big difference between proxy voting and remote voting and remote hearings. And i believe we laid out a common sense approach that gets us to a point where we can work every day. My wife is a nurse. She goes to work at a facility that is treating Covid Patients in a building next to her office she doesnt quarantine herself every night. She comes home knowing that she followed the proper guidelines to make sure that she mitigated the risk of her picking up the virus. Weve shown here that we have adapt in a very bipartisan what i to do that and we offered the opportunity to implement hearings, remote hearings, hybrid hearings. Lets test it as understand, lets test the process. But dont kid ourselves what you are proposing today does leave the minority out. It gives unprecedented power to you as chair of this committee when determining how and when determine all regulations for all the house remote proceedings. It comes directly from you. It doesnt say that you have to consult with the Ranking Member of your committee. You solely have the authority do this, mr. Chair. And that takes away our ability as minority members anld frankl any rang and member on either party does not have the authority to work with you. This is something that you will be in charge of adapting Committee Proceedings to a swrirnlg a virtual platform. And i think that we deserve our voices to be heard. And it gives unprecedented power to just the chairperson of House Administration. It doesnt say that she has to consult with me, the Ranking Member, when determining what type of technology to choose and implement. Remote voting is different than proxy voting. That allows somebody to sit at home and cast a vote. And, yes, there is technology that could allow that to happen. But in the end, why do very with one person in the Majority Party determining what technology to use . We dont have let me finish real quick and ill yeield back be. But in more than congressionder history, weve had majorities switch a lot more often than 40 years up until 1994, 95. When this switches, if im the chair of House Administration, do i then unilaterally get to change the process that was selected by your majority . You can suggescan sultd suggesc page 11 says that the chair in consultation with the ranking minority member shall study the feasibility of remote voting. So what you stated is incorrect. Well, i certainly hope that consulting i certainly hope that the consulting is taken in consideration more so than the consultation that we provided in a vebipartisan and public way. And i think that you need very careful about this process. There needs to be stricter procedures for minority rights. Yes, i may have misspoke on consultation, but i would like have written in this rule and in this package a much more precise process of how this it can knowledge is chosen. The chair does not have to listen to any advice and you know that based upon what is written there. So i would expect much more precision to see the biggest change in house procedures in my career. And that spans also 16 other years working for another member of this institution. And mr. Chairman, i would grant you anytime that you would want to respond. Again, i mean, read the bill. Again, you know, i appreciated the efforts that were made. But i point out what my friends were asking for, is to give the minority leader veto power over the ability to implement the temporary procedures. And the minority leader when i asked him would he concur and allow us to move forward said no, he wouldnt. So he would have vetoed that. So i appreciate that. And again, i dont question the gentlemans motives. And i respect that the gentleman from oklahoma and believe me, we will consult. The end result may not be what you want, but sometimes it will be. That is the nature of this business. But we want to get it right. And we understand the importance of this moment. And but again, the idea to basically give the minority to say that we want veto power, i think it defeats the whole purpose of the conversation to begin with. We are members democrats and purchases who approached to us say that during this moment, we need to figure out alternative ways to be able to meet. And to be able to do our business. And that is what were doing here. And if my friends dont think we should do this, if a that rk,. We just have a differ of opinion. But well do our best under the regulations that we are consulting with mr. Cole oig an others and being transparent. And two points. Number one, i have no doubt that you will consult in good faith, mr. Chairman. You have all the way through the process and i look forward to working together. And to my friend mr. Davis, you answered about the concerns about consultation or not, a i think is gel member basically making a difference about remote voting. And that in the amendment process we may provide the opportunity for the majority to reconsider that. And you are the majority and you have the decision to make the decision. And you might want to consider expanding that out so it has the legitimacy of the entire house. And i know this is not the intent and again, i want to state for the record i have enormous respect for the individual were talking about. I dont have any doubt about her professionalism and personal integrity. That is not it. I just thank there should be more fingerprints on this particular decision and i would ask my friends in the majority to consider that Going Forward. With that, i yield back. Thank you for your jgenerosity. And mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this meeting. And thank you to our panelists for being here. Most of all, i want to take this opportunity to thank all of the staff that is here and that made this meeting possible. I know that you are not in compliance with stayathome orders by being called here. So in many ways, i consider you the heros of the u. S. Capitol because you are here working for the people. I fully support this measure. And i thank both of you for convening meets through whatever means possible that we have been able to do to ensure that we continue representing a hearing the voices in our communities, and their requests for assistance as it has come down to having to do these, whether there the teams 234network that participated with you, steny hoyer, i really like that platform. But platforms come and go. Executer programs come and go. And i certainly dont want to be stuck, you know, with an old system that hasnt, you nknow, progressed with the times. So this resolution future congresses may not need this. And so if i have somebody cast their vote for me on the floor, it doesnt mean that im committed to doing that. I have a preexisting condition and when i got on the plane yesterday, i was scared to death. There were people in the screening area that were too close. And i made a commitment to my family that if there were people stepping over each other, that i would immediately get off because im not willing to risk my life for this. And i dont think that we should be asking our staffs to risk their lives simply over this issue. And 80,000 plus have died. That we know of. There are many others that have died as a result of the complications of this disease that are not on record simply because we did not test them. W xro wai dont want a test wheny 5yearold grandson who had been sick could not even get a test. When a very popular pastor in my community died because he could not get a test. Not because he lacked insurance. But simply because the tests have not been available in my community. Like be food is not necessarily available in pantries in my community. This gives people an opportunity to vote on behalf of their constituents on the floor. And not simply because they are si sick. They should not have to relinquish their vote to be that voice of their community. This gives everyone an opportunity to do that. So with that, i want to yields back and thank you both for risking ourselves to bringing more accountability. Thank you very much. Mr. Woodall. Thank you very much. And thank you for convening us on this. I didnt have the 3rprivilege o serving on the Bipartisan Group and i appreciate the shared agreement on both sides of the aisle that folks put in a lot of serious work there and couldnt come to conclusion. To be fair, that work took place over a short period of time and conclusions are often stalled or they take longer. And we have an opportunity to do some small bipartisan things. Were choosing to bring the whole package together at once. I wanted to ask you, mr. Leader, because i dont serve on the Bipartisan Committee, i do serve on the rules committee, im thinking about rule 20 clause 5, this chamber spent three years between september 11 thet 201 ad 200015 talking with hthe rule 2 and specifically anticipating a contagi contagion. So what is the inadequacy of the work that we did in a bipartisan way at that time. Ultimately we didnt come to a coffin collusion. Conclusion. Had we come to a let me back up. The reason we did not come to a conclusion the reality of house shul shutting down did not occur. 9 11 did not shut down our economy. It shut down wn airplanes for at three or four days. So there was not the com shull schon of the reality of being unable in this case of a pandemic to come together. About they did ta 9 11 before know that they did take some stipula steps. And as she pointed out, she is fearful. And she is hopeful that Wearing Masks and keeping our distances will keep her from being infected. But the reason they didnt get to an agreement is because the reality was not as stark as it is today. Nobody was Wearing Masks, not flying because of the middle seat. If we had gotten to that, we would have come to a conclusion. And we know that what have a ordinary ditch that we have with respect to technology and the way to communicate and the way to grdoing a grto to aggregate. So maybe they would have tried to pursue it more had they had that technology. But that is not where that resolution takes us today. But daifd in the event that yet because of contagion, we wont let the absence of these members of Congress Prevent the house from doing business. Well have a quarter rcorko you who ask come back and as those become unable to travel, the quorum will adjust. And that was a radical change to say that less than a majority would be a majority. And frankly, what it did not provide for is either your voice or my voice being heard if we were not physically present so that our constituents would have been voiceless. It does not provide for that. Im not sure that answers my question about why as opposed to rushing forward with changes that were not utilizing the changes that we spent three years on and have never used. But let me go to that point about having our voice heard. I have read the documentation mr. Woodall, again, the constitution is clear. Majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business. I didnt vote for the change at the time because i thought that there were kons tufgs tuconstit questions. I dont know how committees would function. But the point that were trying to respond to is that how do where he function during a pandemic when we all want to participate and do our committee work, we want to move things forward. How do we do that remotely. And the rule change that the gentleman is referring to, i would call it a collaborative effort. There were hearings. But it was pretty controversial at the time and again, im not sure how many people can defend, you know, having the house of representatives potentially consist of two people calling all the shots. But i wanted to point that out. And we want to follow the contusion. We believe a majority of member ship should be counted toward a quorum, not just a couple people. And to my chairchairmans poi have no doubt that his concerns are sink secere, but speaker pe has been elected three times since the rules were put into place. If the majority had serious questions about the house rules, i have no doubt that the majority would have repeal this had section as we would. With all to be honest, we probably should have thought about it. We never used it and but i think that the gentleman has raised a good point, we should take another look at it because i dont think that quorum should be two people. But the gentleman raises a good point anktsd whd when we get th this, maybe we should be talking about how we can take another look at that. And in the spirit of the house creating its own rules, we often have two people on the floor of the house under unanimous concept agreement. The constitution is no lessed adamant that quorum be 3re7b9s. A present. And if they have to represent the majority with maybe two people on the floor, then you can do that but i dont think that that is what the American People would like to see happen. And i dont think that that is constitutional. So we should take another look at it. And i appreciate the gentleman. I think that he reflects the concerns that two people on the house floor do not represent and deliberative body. More do 45 people on the house floor. The difference here is that we could all participate virtually. So the bottom line is, as 34r hoyer pointed out, we had our calls through various platforms hoyer pointed out, we had our calls through various platforms. We could participate virtually. And so we want everybody to be able to participate. Those who can be here should be here. And those who cant can participate virtually. The Supreme Court is taking arguments right now, you know, swrirn virtually. I dont know why we cant. And the flip side of that, the United States senate is meeting consistently right now and i dont know why we cant. But they are having a virtual hearing. In a hybrid way. Which the minority leader said that he would like to be a part of. Mr. Leader, please. Excuse my. I have had this cough for three years. It is allergies. But you feel a little more suspicious now. Thats right. Why didnt they get to a resolution . If you ask, they will say they failed. W did they fail . Because the threat was concept all. And let me suggest to you one of the problems that we have today is that although people conce conceptually raise the pandemic that it happened in 1918 could happen again, it was concept all and as a result we were not prepared. Ual and as a result we were not prepared. Here this is actual. That is why were sitting here with a mask, im sitting with a mask. Were in a large room where a small room would have chave accommodated the committee. It is here. It is not theoretical. If 9 11 had knocked out the entire air traffic smt, ystem, would have been actual. This is actual. These fears are shared by mill i dont knows of americans in my community and my community about a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Where the entire world has been impacted. Where for the first time in my lifetime, and im older than anybody in this room, the economy of the United States was shut down purposefully. 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 have not yet done. That we would shut down the economy and 33 Million People are unemployed. Depressionlike levels. So this is here and we have to deal with it and we have to deal with it in a context where we do not take congress off the field. And this is an opportunity in my view and i use i talked to a newspaper reporter today. I do this with my grandchildren all the time and it is much different than me talking to them on the phone. I see them frankly, children dont like to talk very long. But frankly, when they are on tv, they like it a lot more. They feel like i can see him, he sees me. And it is different. I dont know about the rest of you, i feel it is a different experience than talking on the phone. I believe that you are making mr. Davis point, that it hasnt been three minutes here and weve conflate d virtual voting with proxy voting. Weve conflated hybrid hearings with not showing up on the house floor to vote tlp are. There are a lot of issues that we can deal with. But that experience with your grand child, you didnt phone that 234rks y in, you didnt designate the ability to having count as seenk your im laughing because you and i probably agree more than the chairman. Im laughing becaus i probably agree more than the chairman. Your im laughing because you and i probably agree more than the chairman. This is an interim step. You could be in tokyo and i can be in washington, d. C. And we came call each other on face im oig and see each other real time. A little different on the clock, but we see one another. And that is where i would go to because i think that is the better way. But this is an interim way of getting there using that we have used through history. He understand in the house we eliminated it, but the senate is still using it, so it is a technology i think the chairman referred to it as simpler if you would yield, im proposing that we take a baby step. That we go with a low tech approach first and as we feel more comfortable, we can yi vofl. Evolve. And some members of the house still have flip phones. Some members who are more technologically comfortable than others. Some think that bifocals are a radical idea. So the bottom line, we are trying to deal with the situation in a way that we feel that there is a Comfort Level and as people get more comfortable, we can then look at other things. But the point is we want to move it away where everybody feels that they can participate. We all need to be prepared because it may be coming back in the fall. So if it does, we can learn from what works really well and how we can do things better. But we need to be prepared. And that is what this is all the with. But i think that the gentleman for yielding. And since the leader has focused on this much more than i have, again that Bipartisan Group that is the source of a lot of praise, the resolution is specific when it comes to mind designate being my proxy. Mr. Davis and i agree on a lot, we disagree on a little. I would hope that he would trust me with his proxy if he couldnt be here on a particular day. And it says that member cast being a vote or presence of another shall kansas cicast suc pursuant to the exact instruction received from the other member. When mr. Davis member is call and im holding his proxy and i speak in a way contrary to the daf davis instruction, because things come up on the fly and not everything can be consulted with, what is the procedure for resolving that . The theory not the theory, but theletter of the r50u8, if you did not get instructions, you cannot vote. And i did sif instructions and im voting against tgainst. What is my rekoircourse as a mi be . Madame clerk, he cast my vote incorrect incorrectly. You can email, text, call. There are so many different measures. And my own view i will tell you honestly is the best way to rewhat i my vor relay my vote is to just say aye or nay. This meeting is public. The tv is watching me what i do. No have any secrets. And so as i mentioned before, if you gave mr. Your approximat city and he cast it differently, there would be a period of time to correct it. If you are trying to assert that mr. Notice e hoyer would tie tor vote and use it in a bad way tharkts is, that is a question of privilege and you could have a period to try to protest it. , that is a question of privilege and you could have a period to try to protest it. Even in the short time ive been here, weve had motions brought to the floor and they have to be brought in real time. We have had votes held open for hours as leadership on both sides of the aisle try to move a vote in a different direction. And i promise you that it will be easier to move at votes of one of my nonproxies that im voting for an mothan move my vo on the house floor. And i recognize that we have more opportunities than ever before to correct errors. The ho. And i recognize that we have more opportunities than ever before to correct errors. Davis presence, he will tell all of his constituents that i voted the wrong way for him. But the law of the land will have changed because i voted the proxy my way instead of his way. There is no mechanism for reconsideration as i read the resolution. We do have votes that hinge on a onevote margin 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 . Can i suggest that that is one of the reasons the rule provides for alternatives and we ought to be talking about what those alternatives are that both of us believe give us a sense of confidence . This is a first step. I think its a credible step. Its something that has been used and is used. The contingency you raise is possible. I think we all have to recognize that. Its certainly possible that any contingency might have technological glitches as we move forward. We will have to consider making accommodations for that that we otherwise might not have thought of. You raise a legitimate point not against the rule but a legitimate point of something that we ought to look at as we implement the rule. The gentleman shares my concern this may change the direction of Public Policy but will support the rule and we will sort these problems out on the fly . Mr. Woodall, let me call your attention back to a time when the republicans who are managing forgot to ask for a recorded vote on an issue. Do you recall that i stepped forward and said we will reconsider so we would be fair . I would do the same in this instance. The chairmans rule perceives that your intention is carried out. Theres no discretion. If somebody votes differently than you instructed them to do, that is a violation of the rules, a question of the privileges of the house and it has to be corrected. I wont bow labelabor this a longer, mr. Chairman. I will tell you that you work very hard to build a lot of good will in this committee for which i am not just grateful but i am the beneficiary. It is the consensus opinion that this is an unprecedented change. It is the consensus opinion that it got started in a bipartisan way but were now talking about things that were never discussed in the Bipartisan Committee that might come forward. And we have defined consultation as being guidance is going to come out tomorrow and the Ranking Member still hasnt seen any of it yet. So i hope the chairman understands for institutionalists. I want to stipulate what the leader said to begin with, that he has a reputation of being an institutionalist and a fair minded bipartisan negotiator. We dont get to put this back in the bottle. Harry reid was wrong to do what he did in the senate. 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. What we are doing today is not something thats going to last for the life of this pandemic. Its something thats going to last for the life of this institution. And i hope the chairman takes the concerns on our side of the aisle not remotely as i dont trust the leader or the speaker or the chairman, but as i have the trust of generations of the American People that i have to be accountable for in moving this dra the matically, this qu gives us great pause. You had a wonderful Bipartisan Committee. And i refuse to accept that there was not a pathway forward, even if more incremental than the majority would like to see. That there was not a pathway forward that could have been done with the complete support as opposed to this division. Mr. Leader. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Unlike the reference i made a reference to the Supreme Court and the u. S. District courts and Circuit Court appointments. I agree with the gentlemans conclusion that that was a mistake. What i disagree with is though that this rule does not change as that rule changed on both sides, republicans, democrats, does not change the rights of the minority, does not change the outcome. I dont mean somebody couldnt make a mistake or lets say intentionally which would have been a subject of being removed from the house, in my opinion, somebody intentionally voted somebodys vote differently. But this rule does not change the rights of the minority, does not change the consequences of votes. It doesnt change as those Supreme Court decisions did. And it is intended simply to empower the congress to be able to meet and meet its responsibilities to the American People. Right now, a committee that if its members are cant get on transportation or are sick themselves, whatever it is, but are fully able to their mental faculties are whole to instruct somebody to vote. Let me Say Something that maybe i shouldnt say. There are four people in the aisle. There are a lot of people coming around. I said, will you put this in the slot . He does. I tell him how to vote. He does that. Technically, thats a violation. But its not in violation. Im there. Im voting. It just so happens im using i had hand rather than my hand. But he is doing what i told him to do. What the American People want is the ability of the congress at a time like this you cannot name another time like this in your lifetime. I cant. And im a lot older than you. Theres no analogy. Except perhaps the spanish flu where they did have two people on the floor and they passed legislation, but not much. They didnt do much during the spanish flu. That was a century ago. So this is a century happening, if you will. Its main that context we are acting quickly. Why are we acting quickly . Because the experts tell us, and some believe the experts, that this may regenerate itself in september. We may have a flattening. But until we get a vaccine or a therapeutic that very substantially minimizes the consequences of covid19, were going to have a problem. If it raises genieagain its ugld in september, we ought to be ready. Because september will be a busy month. Election year. We will be off in october. So now is the time. You say we move quickly. We did move quickly because we need to anticipate we all hope this gets better. We all hope we get a vaccine. We all hope we get a therapeutic. If it doesnt, we need to be ready to make sure that congress is empowered to act on behalf of the American People and to conduct oversight. The extraordinary funds that were appropriating are used in a way as we intended. I stip ulate this is a crisi of a magnitude i have never seen before. But i was here with you on september 11th. We never imagined that we would go another 18 years and not have another attack on this capitol. We expected it to come again the next day. In the month of october, 30 days later, when anthrax came to capitol hill and folks became afraid to open up their mail that they were getting from constituents, we expected there to be deaths on capitol hill because the capitol was targeted. The d. C. Sniper, i represent, was it worth running for congress again because washington was becoming a life and death decision. I dont want to see us justify with a crisis something that we would not otherwise do as caretakers of this institution. I appreciate your commitment not to undermine minority rights. This resolution is silent on notice requirements for virtual hearings. Im sure that will be included in the guidance. But it is silent as we sit here today. Its silent on whether or not i can still have a members words taken down. Will i be able to protect detore um. Can i make a motion to adjourn . Its silent on those issues as we sit here today. I am concerned about what the guidance is going to look like. But im comforted by your commitment that you know it would be wrong to undermine minority rights and you have if i can, they are silent on those rights. Cl a which are in the rules and not changed. We dont change those rules. We want to you have notice requirement, amendments requirement, crossexamination requirement, time that you are entitled to use during Committee Hearings. This is not to this is not about a party. This is not about faction. This is about ensuring that the congress of the United States can act even if it cant get its members into a particular room, including the house chamber. My friends wont believe me, im trying to close. The leader keeps bringing up new topics as i conclude. There are prefiling prekwierments prekwiermen requirements in here. Theres no opportunity to offer secondary amendments i want prefiling for amendments. Mr. Mcgovern did not want to have that in there. As far as i know, it is not in there. They are talking about it. As i read and i had a discussion with mr. Mcgovern, i thought there ought to be prefiling. Let me tell you why. Because if you werent in one room together it would be hard to hand it out. If you got it out before, members would have you would still have secondary amendments. I think thats pretty easy to solve. Every committee almost has a screen. You put up on the screen and everybody sees it and their computer at home, this is the amendment. They read it. I thought prefiling was a protection for every member that they would know what the amendments are. After all, this is im a trial lawyer. You like to sort of spring something surprise. Its our perry mason thing. Wow. Isnt that something . Frankly, we have a discovery process in the law. The reason for discovery it ought not to be about surprised. It ought to be about substance. Thats why the chairman said, i dont think the republicans will feel thats fair. So we wont do it. My understand, mr. Chairman, that we didnt put it in. We did not. I appreciate i agreed i didnt agree with him. I said, if thats what you think, i want to be fair to the republicans and you think the republicans s will not think i fair, leave it out. I was on my floor yelling and screaming for a recorded vote on ame measure the short time ago. I wasnt at the microphone. I was on the back aisle. I was overlooked. I was denied my rights as a member of this institution because the parliamentarian could not see me to direct the chair. It troubles me that as we adopt as we move towards adopting a brandnew process of conducting our business that there wouldcognisant. If we not proceeding with the understanding that the rights could be denied, i have no doubt they will be trampled on that path. I appreciate the chairmans indulgence in letting me make it clear i have those concerns. Hopefully, my colleagues will share the concerns as the leader does. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Pearlmutter. Thanks, mr. Chair. This is all about the continuity of government. Period. Bar none. Thats it. Joseph story, a couple hundred years ago, said congress in representing the entire nation must be able to exercise certain inherent powers to deal with unforeseen circumstances which could threaten the continuity of its operations and the safety of the nation. Another famous scholar, david dryer, said, one of the most important dooud duties of the cs is continuing representation and congressional operations for the American People during times of crisis. Mr. Hoyer, i think you explained it perfectly. Mr. Cole has heard me reject the nostalgia that he projects and the need to be able to meet in closed groups and visit, which is, as i said, we had a virtual hearing a month ago on this. I said to the gentleman from oklahoma at that time, thats what i love about the congress is the ability to with mr. Davis, play some catch and discuss a particular issue or sit down over a beer and try to hash out a particular problem. Thats what is great about this place. On the other hand, were in a very different time that doesnt allow for that kind of relationship. The relationship is by phone or it is by facetime or zoom or web x or whatever. Thats what it is. I would love to come over and sit next to mr. Cole and visit about this rule and say, where could we make some changes that would satisfy you all. But we cannot have government come to a grinding halt. A pandemic where our own attending physician or our public Health Experts at home or the public Health Experts here in d. C. Say, you guys shouldnt get together because you could drag the disease from denver to d. C. Or you could take the disease from d. C. Back to denver. Thats the last thing i want to do. Im not worried about my own health. Mr. Jordan and i had this conversation the last time we met in this room. Its about being the vector that could affect so many others and to demand of our staff when there are better ways to do this. So mr. Hoyer, let me ask you a couple questions. The rule, as i understand it for a quorum says chosen, sworn and living but does not require presence. Am i wrong . Repeat. Quorum, those who are chosen, sworn and living. Not presence. The constitution says we should assemble in d. C. At least once a year. I would assume we have met that requirement. We did. But i would like to comment on that. Sure. The founders could have no conception that you could assembly virtually in that box that i talked about. That computer or that ipad or whatever. I guess im just saying, even if they did, we have actually physically assembled this year at least once in washington, d. C. Yes. And ive said to you and i said to mr. Mcgovern, i dont think this rule goes far enough. My friends, mr. Cole, mr. Davis, mr. Woodall think it goes too far. I guess the real problem is that when the rule was amended, as mr. Woodall talked about 15, 16 years ago, 2005, 2006, it discussed contagion but didnt go into contagion. It went into incapacity. People, if they have to stay someplace else, at home because they have shelter in place orders, or come here and we have to be six feet apart and most of the committees are going to be in different rooms, because they cant be handled. Theyre not next to each other. Theyre not in the same place. Theyre going to have to work virtually anyway. Its my opinion that the this is where you were going, mr. Hoyer, in 2005 and 2006, the change to the rules didnt go far enough. With contagion, you have a different set of circumstances that we face today. It isnt like there was an attack and it was over and you now figure out what to do next. This contagion exists today. We were told that washington is a hot spot. Denver, we can see the surge having reduced. But not here. So i said a month ago to my friends that it would be legislative malpractice if we didnt address this subject. A month later, it still would be legislative malpractice. Mr. Hoyer, i understand that this rule terminates. This is a temporary rule. Is it not . For the life of the congress and 45 days in the sense of it has to be recertified that the cause of the rules being implemented was still present. Right. For the rule to be called upon, it has to be the sergeant at arms, attending physician and the speaker. Then it lasts for 45 days, at least the proxy voting and the Different Things called for in the rule. The rule itself is temporary. The change, because it ends at the end of this congress. 45 days potentially after i guess. But i think it ends with the end of this congress. Thats why its temporary. I would say to my friend mr. Davis and to mr. Cole and mr. Woodall that if you all were to make the majority next year, you could revise this rule as you so choose. I dont think you are going to take the majority next year. But you certainly could. If i didnt know the three of you 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 isnt your intention. But thats, in fact, what happens if we dont deal with this thing given this contagion, this miserable disease that has killed tens of thousands of people. We have to address this. We should have addressed this two months ago. We better take care of it now. With that, i yield back to the chair. Thank you. Let me just yield to mr. Cole for unanimous consent request. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I ask for unanimous consent to submit the following for the record. A letter from Ranking Member of the committee on Homeland Security mike rogers to the Ad Hoc Working Group derailing rule violation with regard to the recent security on Homeland Security hearings, a letter from Ranking Member of the committee on Natural Resources mr. Bishop of utah to the chairman of the committee on Natural Resources, mr. Ralhalva detailing use of unofficial and highly partisan roundtable discussions displayed at hearings on the website, a letter from the republican leader mr. Mccarthy to the speaker miss pelosi derailing plan to establish a clear, safe and effective path to reopen congress and finally, mr. Chairman, a letter from all committee Ranking Members to the majority leader mr. Hoyer detailing a number of issues with respect to partisan changes proposed by h res consent. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to see both of you. Im going to oppose this resolution for a number of reasons, many have been stated already. Theres a lot of unanswered questions, i think. But i wont go into that. Mr. Davis, lets say its impeachment. Lets say there is more impeachment. Do you have a concern that there will be lawsuits filed because the question of constitutionality is not clear as evidenced by the unanimous conse consent. You have one constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional and another one saying its not constitutional. Do you have concerns about that . I do have concerns. Thank you for the question. In your example, what are referring to with an Impeachment Committee hearing, maybe judiciary committee, for example, you would assume that that Remote Technology then would be used during that markup process. If you look at the plan that was submitted and given to the Bipartisan Task force during our first meeting, everything that was laid out in that plan was laid out during that first meeting. Mr. Cole and leader mccarthy and i specifically say, we have some concerns about that markup process specifically number one, because of the constitutionality disagreements we may have with others in this room and others that may be in the legal profession. Thank you. Mr. Davis, do you have any other comments you would like to make in relation to any of the previous comments . Thank you. Thank you, everyone for the opportunity to be here and communicate our issues and our concerns with this. Lets be clear. This is a process that will fundamentally change the house. I do appreciate chairman mcgovern, leader hoyer and 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 you can see in the plan submitted for the record. We do not support remote hearings. We do not oppose utilizing technology. We would like to see it done in a fair way. The list of concerns coming from our Ranking Members of how it may already have been abused, unintended consequences. I know everybody in that this t would likely be offended by the abuses that our Ranking Members have witnessed with Remote Technology. Thats why we laid out a clear and concise path to implementing technology for hearings so we dont see the abuse. I would like those to be taken into consideration. I know this is a hearing, mr. Chairman. I know you are going to have a rules Committee Process where amendments to this piece of legislation are going to come forward. I certainly hope you take into consideration the debate and discussion we had here today. As those amendments come to every one of you and lets Work Together to make this rule better. You are going to pass this rule because you are in the majority. You are going to implement this. We get that. Let us have our voice throughout the rest of the day in this room and lets see some amendments that are going to be authored by the minority put into this rule 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. That proxy process unlike the rule being debated today does not ever allow a proxy vote on the house on the senate floor. Thats something that this rule will allow for today. Thats why we have some constitutional concerns. Thats why i think you are going to see any piece of legislation move forward going to have to go through the courts. Somebody somewhere will file a lawsuit. It will go through the court system. Lets also remind the American People today in closing that this congress has not stopped working. This Congress Just a few shorts weeks ago had 300 members that came out here. I do understand and i share the concerns of my colleagues in this room about staff, which is why we worked in a bipartisan way before this crisis to get equipment to every office so that every office was ready in case they needed to telework, and they did. Its working great. We want to protect the staff. The debate on testing is not just about testing members. Its about setting up a process in a bipartisan way that we ensure the safety of our staff and the people who work in this facility when we are not here. I hope that manage 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. Lets continue to work in a way that we showed the American People when we put forth a c. A. R. E. S. Act. Thats what we should see here today. Unfortunately, our task force did not come up with a bipartisan agreement. I dont begrudge the people who are on that task force. Even chairman mcgovern who offends me by wearing that patriots mask. You know . Although, you know im a raiders fan, i would be more offended if it was a bronco mask. In the end, we wanted to come up with agreement. Today is not an agreement. Its not bipartisan. Im certainly regretful of that. I certainly wish we could have gotten Something Like that in place. But in the end, we have had our voice heard today in this hearing room. I appreciate that opportunity. Again, i reiterate the voices of my fellow republicans that are going to come off for amendments behind me, i hope you take their suggestions into consideration and make this bipartisan before it gets to the floor. Thank you for your questions. I yield back. Let me just for clarification here, the question she asked was about the constitutionality of committees. Why would that be a constitutional question . Sir, my question if i could speak. It was just on constitutionality. Lets say another impeachment goes on and its a vote on the floor. Is that votes on the floor are one thing. In terms of committees, they are creations of congress. They are not creations of the constitution. I think theres a distinction. Put your mike on. That would be better. The patriots are not playing. The broncos are not playing. The nationals are not playing. The yankees and red sox are not playing. Why are they not playing . Because they have determined to bring people together in large numbers is dangerous. Thats all this rule recognizes. I think we can Work Together. This is not about party or faction or philosophy. This is about how we can safely exercise our duties with a confidence that it is, in fact, opinion reflected, not somebody elses opinion. I was elected by 750,000 like the rest of you. They want us to reflect their opinion. We are just talking about what kind of technology, whether its when i use that example, you know what happens. We see it on the floor. What i am using is im putting it in. Im using your arm. You stick it in but you do what i say. Thats what proxy voting is. Maybe 1,000 mile long arm. I get that. Its no difference in terms of character. Thats why i use this in my graduation speech which im giving on the 22nd. We have a young man who lives in my district. One of the great guards in america. He didnt get to play in the big 10 finals. He didnt get to play in the final hofour. He wont get that opportunity. Because millions of people who have a lot of money at risk decided it is not safe. We want to keep people healthy and safe. Not just us. As mr. Pearlmutter said, he will go back to denver. As passionately as i can, i dont want the use of this technology to diminish the rights of the minority any more than toen hans t enhance the ri the majority. Its about our institution and having it on the field at a critical time in our history. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. Thank you. Let me yield to a constitutional scholar, mr. Raskin from maryland. Thank you very much. I want to thank the majority leader for his thoughtful comments and mr. Davis for what he said today. I want to pick up with something mr. Davis said where he said the rule threatens a fundamental change of congress and institution. I think its the coronavirus that is already fundamentally changed this institution and congress. It has changed the government of the United States, society, culture, economics. We have 82,000 of our fellow citizens who have died already. We have tens of millions who have been thrown out of work. We have seen massive shutdowns in the economy. Its the coronavirus thats transforming everything. We need to respond as my friend from colorado, mr. Pearlmutter says, this is all about the continuity of government. What are we supposed to be doing . Well, its summed up in one sentence in the preamble of the constitution. We the people in order to form a more Perfect Union establish justice, ensured domestic tranquillity, provide for common defense, promote general welfare and preserve to ourselves the blessings of liberty do establish the constitution. The very next line says that all legislative powers belong to the congress of the United States. The sovereign power the people to create the constitution flow immediately to us in congress. Gave us the power to fix the rules of our own proceedings. Consistent with constitutional parameters. Taking the aye and ney. Theres nothing in this rule that violates the constitutional requirements of that. Consistent with the quorum requirement. Some people object to the use of the proxy. Let me say this first about the proxy rule. Because i would have gone all the way with a technological rule. The proxy rule is perfectly constitutional. I found the conversation between mr. Cole and majority leader hoyer uplifting on both the process and the substance. They agreed that there was a real effort to try to arrive at a bipartisan judgment. Sometimes it just doesnt work. Thats why we have voting. Framers of the constitution understood that. We even have voting on the Supreme Court where they are interpreting particular language. In the final analysis, if you cant agree unanimously, you vote. Thats how we do it in democracy. So the process was one where there was a good faith effort on the part of democrats, a good faith effort on the part of republicans. The majority felt that we need to put a rule if place, an emergency rule to deal with this terrible crisis that the country is in. On the substance i think i also heard them both agree that this is a rule that doesnt benefit the d at the expense of the r or the r at the expense of the d. It is a rule that allows congress to meet and function. Thats what it is all about. For me i was asked about it by members of the staff and by the chairman. Although i favored moving towards a technological voting by Distance Technology solution, i said that the proxy voting is fine so long as the person who is the proxy exercises no discretion and no judgment. They are acting like a letter carrier. They are delivering a letter. Thats all. I have both the constitutional vested interest in that and i have a personal vested interest in that because i live 25 minutes away from the capitol. These days its more like 18 minutes. Members know that. Not only do i know i will be called, i have already been called by members saying, if it comes to this and we pass this, would you be willing. These are members who have expressed some of the fears that our distinguished colleague from california has expressed. Its people who have members of their family who are medically vulnerable. People who are not sure the transportation will be working for them. I tell you i believe that every member of this body who is asked to be a proxy will act in utter 100 good faith, whether its a republican or a democrat or an independent. Think we might have a couple of those now. Everyone will act in strict accordance with the instructions of the person who asked them to cast their vote for them. Not only that, mr. Hoyer probably reminds us that its a matter of public record. Everybody is going to be able to watch it. Its a transparent process. If theres any departure from it, the member whose vote is miscast will know immediately and we bill able to call and protest and get it changed. I cannot believe that anybody in this body would think its not a violation of rule one of our code of official conduct to deliberately miscast a vote, which it says that a member shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibly on the house. Would anybody think that it reflects kr s credibly on the h to miscast a vote . I dont think so. Having said that, my reluctance is being a local member and knowing that i think about romeo and juliette and how one of the major themes is failed communication. The whole plot in romeo and juliette turns on the failure of lawrence to get john to deliver the message to romeo that juliette has taken a sleeping potion. Shes not really dead. Remember . John never delivered the letter. Why . Because he was stuck inside because of a plague, because of a pandemic. He couldnt get the message to romeo. He finds juliette. He thinks she is dead. He commits suicide. Then she commits suicide. Things go wrong. Things go wrong with technology, too. I understand that. But i do think that the committees will be able to operate very well under this rule. I think over the last several weeks, by necessity, the congress of the United States like the rest of the country has gotten a lot of practice on how to use zoom and teams and all of these different technologies. Again, those are open. Those are public. They are transparent. People know if theres funny business afoot. I do think thats the direction ultimately we have to get to. If i am called upon to be a proxy, i will do my very best to get here on time, to be here and to act consistent with the absolutely consistently with the instructions i have been given. My rule fear is just people not making it for some reason. Thats my only hesitation about it. Were living in an imperfect world. Im happy to support this rule. I think that the constitution demands it. The constitution is not a suicide pact. We dont have to go down the drain together. We can make the constitution work. Theres a wonderful passage from jefferson where he said he deployed the reverence with which some people regard the way things were when the constitution was written. He said that all of us have the same potential wisdom and knowledge of the founders but we have something they dont have, which is the experience of living in our own times. We have to adjust our practices, our policies and our institutions to the requirements of our own time. Thats why im very happy to support this resolution. I yield back. Thank you. Miss scanlon. Thinking of mr. Raskin saying we cant be wedded to the practices of the past. When the constitution was written, we wouldnt be here. Congress must change with the times. We were here three weeks ago today to debate this rules change that would allow the house to do the peoples business while complying with medical advice and working remotely. Three weeks have passed. Some things havent changed. Our colleagues across the aisle are still opposed to a rules change that will allow the house to do its job while reducing the risk to members of congress, our staff, the capitol police, our families and the communities that we serve when we go home. The other thing that hasnt changed is we still dont have enough testing, 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 i represent, in southeastern pennsylvania, the covid19 infections have swelled to over 26,000 infections. The number of deaths has doubled. Were now approaching 2,000 covid deaths in those three counties that we know of. We know that its greater because there are suspected deaths that cant be confirmed because we didnt have testing. Ive been in daily contact with our Health Care Providers in that region. They are hopeful infections have begun to decline. But they stress that we will only continue if we maintain our vigilance, maintain social distancing and implement a comprehensive testing program. Here in d. C. , infections have not yet befwgun to decline. Its dangerous to expose member, staff, families and communities to a virus that is so insidious, it even invaded the white house despite the extraordinary testing and precautions put in place in that workplace if nowhere else. Congress has provided the administration with the funding and authority to develop and implement the comprehensive testing and federal guidance that americans are begging for. We cant force the president to use those resources more than we can force him to wear a mask. If the president wont do the responsible thing and lead by example, congress can. We can wear masks. We can lead by example. We can follow the advice of medical experts. We dont have time to waste on trumped up process arguments while lives are in the balance. We can work remotely and so we must. I strongly support this rule change as i have for the past several weeks. I look forward to voting ton. I yield back. Thank you. I apologize for repeating some of what my colleagues have said. This is an important subject. I want to take a moment to just sort of make some comments about what we propose to do here. I want to thank you for your extraordinary work on this as on all matters before this committee you approach it with incredible professionalism and bipartisanship and fairness. I appreciate what you do and mr. Cole. I appreciate the majority leader and mr. Davis being with here this afternoon. We did have a conversation. We have had one remotely on this committee. I expressed reservations in that conversation. I expressed reservations publically and privately about changes significant changes to a legislative process. I acknowledge im a traditionalist. Although, this is my first full term in the house, i have a background in legislative bodies at the county, state and now the federal level. I worry about whats the character of the legislative work. Its been discussed by others here that much of what we do and the conversations we have are conversations like this together. That does inform our work and does have a Significant Impact on the work we do. I also have concerns about the precedent setting nature of what we do and whether or not the precedent we set in some way impact in a negative way the work we do. I also express my concern about the security of the technology. At the end of the day for me, theres two sort of central questions. The first is, whats the nature of the challenge we face . If this were a small challenge, if it were an inconvenience obviously, i would be rightly, i think, concerned about significant changes. The second question is if the challenges we face are so significant that it affects our ability to do our job, then the question the second question to me is, whats the nature of the resolution to correct or to address those challenges and that problem . As it relates to the first, this is obviously undeniable. All of my colleagues have expressed as well, 84,000 deaths from covid19 just in the United States. Millions infected. We continue to face challenges from a Public Health perspective. We face challenges in terms of commerce and our economy. Unemployment numbers may reach 25 of americans. 36 million americans have applied for Unemployment Insurance. To the majority leaders point, even things lets be clear. Major sports is Major Business in the United States. Its completely ground to a halt as so Many Industries have. This is undeniable. There are no challenges that we have faced in our lifetime that come close to the challenges this faces. It does occur that Congress Must respond to it. I think its common sense, what would people i represent what would they say if posed with two sort of questions. First, do they decide that we insist on the status quo and not have a functioning government . Or can we use available means and Available Technology to respond to the crisis in an appropriate way . I think all of us would probably agree that if you could achieve the second, the second option would win overwhelmingly by the american public. They would want us to use available means in an appropriate way to respond to this crisis. I do note that a number of states have moved to remote voting. Some have constitutional problems. But many that do not have addressed this. Oklahoma, pennsylvania, south dakota, vermont, new jersey, my home, new york i often used to say, no disrespect to the members here, but the new York State Assembly is the oldest, longest serving democratically elected legislative body in the world. It predates the house of representatives. They made changes despite long traditions in history that allow them to vote remotely. Were not alone. In some ways, we are two months into this. I wouldnt call this a precipitous response. In some ways you might argue we have you could look at it as we have taken our time to prudently think about this. Others might say that it is too slow. People on this panel might believe that. In my mind, answering the first question that this is clearly a challenge of unprecedented nature. The question then is, does the resolution before us meet at least in my mind the question of appropriateness and is it a proportional response . I want to just if you will permit me, how i view this. The fact that this is a temporary rule and does not permanently change the rules of the house, i think is an important distinction to make and an important decision thats been made to move ahead. That does not hold any future congress to the rule we impose here. I think thats appropriate. We will be able to judge whether or not this rule bears being put into the permanent rules of the house. Thats not a decision we make today. We make it with the ability to look back having watched what happens and what unfolds over the ensuing several months of this congress to make that determination. I think thats appropriate. Secondly, i thank the chair for this, very much, and the members and the majority leader. Its very narrow and very specific. Its a Public Health emergency due to a Novel Coronavirus. Thats about as narrow and specific as you could the only other thing is covid19, the specific year in which that virus was found. Since were in 2020 and you cant this is only a temporary rule, it applies to this epidemic, which i think is entirely appropriate as well. The process to trigger it, notification by the sergeant at arms in consultation with the attending physician. The speaker many consultation with the minority leader may designate a period. These are 45 day increments which seems to me appropriate. T designate a period. These are 45 day increments which seems to me appropriate. The sergeant at arms with the attending physician contends an emergency no longer exists, the rule terminates or the process terminates. I think this is very narrow. Its very thoughtful. Even to the degree i appreciate always the comments made by my good friend from georgia relative to how a member shall cast a vote. I think on page 6, line 6 through 11, its clear, following instructions, a member casting a vote or recording the presence of another member as a designated proxy under this resolution shall cast vote or record such presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the other member under p r paragraph one. It doesnt say may. You use your judgement because someone who designated you trusts you enough to do it. I hope thats the case. Shall cast. Not may cast. Shall cast. Thats the rule that were living under. I would hesitate to believe that any Single Member of the house duly elected, would violate the rule of the house by casting a vote that is not in exact instruction received from the member designated them as a proxy and what i would do i would certainly ask the majority leader if he wants to comment. What i would do if i designated a approximate yieproxy, i would majority leader who i did and make sure he knew how i intended to cast. Motions come up. But they will be time to be relayed. That would allow the majority leader to make sure the votes are cast in accordance with the rule. I dont believe any member of this house would violate the rule of the house and would not cast instructions given the exact instructions. Thats what the rule suggests. Would my friend from new york yield . Yes, sir. While you are following that line of questioning, you raise an interesting point about unexpected votes. It had been my assumption if i was carrying proxies and an unexpected vote came up, those members would trust me and i would cast the vote as i would anticipate they would want it cast. I will defer to the majority leader or the chair. I think what will work is you need written instructions exact instructions given by the member who has given the proxy. If you were my proxy and i would trust you to carry my proxy, mr. Woodall i wouldnt. If there were a motion that came on the floor to recommit or some other motion before the house that was not anticipated, you would have to be required im sure the house would allow enough time for this to happen. You would be allowed there would be enough time to allow me to give you exact instructions on how that vote should be cast before the vote is cast, which will slow down the process. I dont think theres any question about that. We want to get this right. I would defer to the majority leader or chair. I believe thats whats anticipated. I think the rule that mr. Mcgovern put forward is specifically you have to instruct on every vote. Its not that i would trust you to know what i want to do. You have to have either in writing or electronically in some communication, whether a text, whether i send an email, what vote i would cast, not what you think i might cast, but what vote i would cast. Thats why its specific exact instructions of how to vote. Because we dont want this is you voting. This is not this example i gave, his hand is putting that my card because were all jammed up in the slot, which is technically not allowed. Its my vote. Not somebody elses. We would contemplate only acting if you got specific instructions. If you didnt get instructions, you could not cast a proxy. To go further, i believe in the rules announcing instructions immediately prior to casting the vote or recording the presence of another member as a designated proxy under this resolution, the member shall seek recognition to announce the intended presence pursuant to the instruction received from the other member. Its clear that there is no this isnt intended, as i i think this is appropriate. Its not intended to give license to the designated proxy to cast as he thinks is appropriate. Its to do physically what the member who has designated them wants to be done as though they were there physically. Theres no you are not giving anyone license to do anything or to use their judgment in place of yours. I assume people can correct me. If im not available to give that exact instruction, then i would not be casting a vote. Any member who cast a vote without any exact instruction would be violating the rule of the house. I think would suffer the sanctions and the consequences of having violated the rules or any rule of this house. Is that right, mr. Majority leader . That is correct. I will conclude this way. I appreciate the indulgence of the chair. I do think the resolution before us is measured. I think its proportional. I think it leverages appropriate and Available Technology. I think it meets my concerns over security. I think it is narrow. I think this has been repeated. I firmly believe this. I do not believe it advantages either side in terms of a partisan divide. It allows those members to do whats right. This creates a method to move forward and protects not only the prerogatives under article 1 they are important. But the duties and obligations and responsibilities that we have under article 1 of the constitution. I will support the resolution. I appreciate all the work done by all my colleagues on both sides. I do want to again particularly thank the chair for his great work as well as the majority leader. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Miss shalala . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the quality of the discussion that has taken place. I have deep respect for this institution and for its leaders. This virus is vicious. Most of our states are opening up without meeting the cdc guidelines. Nothing is winding down. Those of us that had to go through airports can describe them as scary. We have two responsibilities here. The first is to do the peoples business. The second is to save lives. We have a responsibility to continue to do the peoples business and were responsible for the lives of people who work here. This proposal is minimalist as far as i can tell so that we can do our jobs and we must do our jobs. In my state, 2 Million People have applied for unemployment. Less than half have received it. We have a legacy system that was designed to say no. Our poor new governor is trying to fix it. Thousands of really Small Businesses applied for ppp in my district. Very few got it. Oversight, we need oversight on Unemployment Insurance and the sba at the minimum. Virtual oversight hearings are critical on the trillions that a Bipartisan Congress approved. Mr. Chairman, i can be just as tough with a mask on as without a mask. My personality doesnt 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 and i will not put my hard working staff or the others that serve and protect us here at risk. If i have to choose between a mask and a screen, i choose the screen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you very much. Any questions . Seeing none, let me thank the distinguished majority leader for being here and for his work on the task force. Let me thank mr. Davis for being here all this time. For his work on the task force. Let me just say as strongly as i can, mr. Davis, that i strongly disagree with you. Emphatically disagree with you on the new england patriots. Its my late father who say, hate the sin, love the sinner. We will work things out. But i appreciate you being here. I dont know if anyone has any final things to add. Mr. Chairman, i just want to say i think the congress is blessed by having someone as chair of the rules committee who is as fair as any of our members who wants to make sure the process is fair. Obviously, he wants the results that he wants. But he wants to make sure and i agree with him that the process of getting to a decision gives everybody a fair shot and we want to do that in this process, with you we want to make sure the congress can, in fact, act at a time of great crisis. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, leader, my fellow colleague, thank you again. Id like to remind the Committee Following us today will be members of our Party Offering amendments. I certainly hope you take into consideration our debate today. I certainly hope you take into consideration their amendments to make this rule much more bipartisan than it is right now. With that, thank you, mr. Chairman, i still dont like your mask of the patriots. But, anyway, nice to see you. You are dismissed. Now, id like to call up our next panel, mr. Bergman, mr. Bishop, mr. Burn. Mr. Jordan and mr. Pence. And to maintain health and safety. They can share in the second row. Staff will eskort you to your chairs, right . Give me a second. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Hold on. Mr. Thank you, mr. Morellas discussion reminded me something i meant to put into the record and we discussed it at the Virtual Conference we had a month ago, National Conference of state legislatures has compiled i think 14 states that allow for some type of remote voting and i believe the template for this current rule is similar to that thats being done in pennsylvania. Id also like to have the record reflect virtually every democracy around the world is now allowing for virtual voting because of the Novel Coronavirus. I know you are all probably gathering support to limit the five moveminute rule in the rules committee. But let me i dont know whether anyone has a preference to go first. Mr. Bergman and. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think your mic is not on. There you go. Welcome. Are we doing this alphabetically or by age . You are first. Well, number one, thank you, mr. Chairman. And the rules committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I believe the American People want to hear this dialogue. I want to be brief. Im not a lawyer. Im not a constitutional scholar, im just a marine. Over 50 years ago, i swore an oath to quote support and 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 are not marine corps buzz words. They are a part of a belief system designed to instill confidence and achieve results at all times, especially in stressful times, lifethreatening times. As a, just a fact, 35 years ago today by days, 35 months ago by days, 14th of june several of us said we were scrambling for our lives on a baseball field in alexandria. So, we were not worried about a lot that day other than making sure we did the right thing for the right reason and it was instinctive. The actions that we take, the decisions that we make, as the 116th congress. Reviewed, reviewed, debated and discussed by future generations. When those of us privileged enough to be empowered by our constituents, to vote on these important issues, reflect back, will we see that the actions that we took built trust built confidence or diminished it. And that trust is from given to us, granted to us, if you will, by the American People. Either they trust us or they dont. Are we as the house of representatives leading by example . Are we inspiring others . You know, we will adapt. I heard as i listened here for the last couple of hours, suggestions about how we can change the setup with the Committee Room. Some of us are used to setting up Forward Operations around the world in the contended areas, are used to adjusting to the challenges in the threats of the day. I know that were bet egg eer than what i have seen recently in the media, but i believe we as a body can come together and show the American People, show them that we can be socially distant, that we can be personally responsible and that we can conduct our business here in washington, d. C. In an appropriate, safe manner but what the American People want to see and need to see, they need to see us, agreeing to disagree. Being passionate about what we believe in but in the end, coming to a consensus, if you will, and making a decision and Going Forward so i oppose the proxy voting. We will adjust technologically and we can do it savory, but we must do it aggressively with the thought of actually what we have been chartered to do by the people who sent us here. And with that, i yield back. Thank you very much, mr. Bishop. Thank you, chairman mcgovern, Ranking Member cole for the opportunity to testify, members of the committee, its been a fascinating experience to listen to your proceedings today because there are many members here and, of course, your witness versus great experience, long experience in congress. No one is more rank and file than me elected last september member of the minority. And i learned a great deal in the comment made by all but one thing that kept ringing, that this is an unprecedented experience and its not now it is, mr. Rudolph for your age, because you were born in 1970. But in 196869, there was the hong kong flu pandemic that killed 100,000 americans and a Million People worldwide and as the population then of 200 million in the nation if you extrapolate it according to institute of economic research, it might be a 250 thousand person death and current if you extrapolate it. And i heard a lot said by mr. Hoyer and members of the committee that have well voiced the fears that we all 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. In 19 skating69, it is fought clear there are alterations in the proceedings of the congress. In 1918, the congress wasnt dissolved. Unfortunately, what this bill represents is a failure of leadership when leadership is desperately needed. A loss of nerve when courage is called for. Contrary, well, to mr. Hoyers point, this institution has always met in times of crisis. This house has remained opened in the after math of the attacks on 9 11 and in 1861 with the 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 at oddings with the vision of the framers of the constitution and in the process supplant the will of the people with the will of a liberal elite, given that it is no surprise that instead of a bipartisan recovery package, supporting efforts of states to reopen, later today, this committee will consider a bill masquerading as a relief package. That failure of leadership, with i this one exacerbates reflects the simple truth that members cannot represent their constituents without being here in washington to debate, negotiate around work with their colleagues. Instead of considering common sense proposals to allow all members perform the work we were elected to do, this proceeds with a radical change to house procedure that would upend 200 years of resident and irreparably damage this institution. Socalled proxy voting cheapens and dilutes the peoples constitutional right to have their voice heard, voices heard in this nations capitol. Im here ready to work with all my colleagues and i will keep coming back to washington every week as safely as possible but confronting risk, if necessary, to uphold the oath i took when i was sworn into this office. Thank you for your patience. I yield back. Thank you very much. A former colleague, mr. Burn, welcome back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to be back. The last few hours reminded me all the fond members i have of this committee. Im here today testifying regarding hr 985. We all have a responsibility to defend the constitution and this institution. Members walked these halls hundreds of years, and god willing they will continue to do as to 100 years after we are gone. The truth is we are mirror custodians and the awesome powers and responsibilities the founders laid down for us, Benjamin Franklin is said to have famously retorted. This is a republic, if we can keep it. Republic versus vanished in the past. The ro pan public vanished when the legislative body, the roman senate, advocated its responsibility and let men who acted as dictators and emperors. Are. It will damage the institution of the house for years to come i came back early to tell you i think it is a great mistake and i ask you to reject it. The constitution of the United States article 1 section 5 makes it pretty clear each house in each house a majority may con city tute a car rum. A smaller number may adjourn and be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members. Now, why would they want to have that power to compel absent members unless they intended for a quorum to include the physical presence of members . Now, we have further proof of this and the very first congress, which was supposed to meet and did meet on watch 4th, 1789, in new york, one member there by the way was James Madison, probably the most important person in the constitution of the convention. They met but couldnt conduct business because they couldnt achieve a quorum. In fact, they met day after day until april 1st, fine 89, when they finally got enough miami there physically to cons stoous substitute the quorum the constitution required. Mr. Madison didnt raise his hand and say we didnt require that. He sat there patiently day after day after day waiting for that car rum to arrive. That was pretty important commerce. That commerce created the department of treasury, created the department of state, created the department of war, created the attorney generals office. Sent the bill of rights to the states for their ratification. If that congress with people like James Madison in it could wait for the forum to get there surely, we can get our quorum today. Now, listen to the majority leader talked about the quiet dogmas of the past quoting president lynnson. The constitution of the United States is not quiet and it is not dogma. It is the fundamental law of the United States. By the way, president lincoln used those words in his annual report to Congress December 1, 1862, when he proposed one of the worst ideas he ever had which was not to free then enslave people of the United States but to round them up, put them on boats and recolonize them to africa. Thankfully, we didnt follow what he wanted to do it goes to show even great man can have bad ideas. As you have heard over and over again, congress met foreign invasions since 1812, two civil wars, two world wars. By my count three serious pandemics. In fact, during the 1890s and early 1,900s, washington was the hottest spot in america for tyfoid fever. Walk was set to a current balance of malaria. So congresses have met here for centuries in the face of disease and figured out a way for making it work, without changing the rules. I did check with crs to make sure we didnt change our rules in light of those diseases and we didnt. I do not need to make light of serious issues some members face in getting to washington, d. C. Now the fact that some members may be simply faced to attend orifice health risks. However, the framers did not transact for this they did not say all were present. They were clear majority present would suffice. The fact that most of us are here and arrived via air travel would be astounding. Many traveled weeks or months to make it to a session. Certainly the framers never would imagine it is uncommon for 95 or more of the house to be present in voting. Despite the challenges we are facing with covid only 35 members missed a role call vote two weeks ago. It contemplates 18 of us being able to make it. We already provide a mechanism to enter how they would vote had they been present. Yet the majority feels comfortable effectively lowering the forum to too members. Only two democrats to command the house to pass or do whatever you want. I know it is unfair for many to demand me to come to washington right now. They will say its dangerous or a health risk to others. Let me say this, i have interacted with in my district over the last couple months, people who have been forced to go to work day after day after day. Healthcare workers, people in the agricultural industry. The people that transport our food and stock it on the shelf and check us out. People who work in pharmacies, in utilities. I can go on and on and on. And they show up every day without nearly the protections that we all have here today and they do their job and they have a right to suspect the house of representatives will show up like they do and do our job. The truth is, the car rum requirement and the car rum point of order is an important check on abuse of power. Remember, it was abuse of power that did in the roman republic. At the constitutional convention, no Less Authority than george mason called it the thought of a less than majority car rum to be dangerous, remarking that it quote would allow a small number of members to make law, closed quote. What would george mason say about the Congress Today . In the last three months, some of the most monumental pieces of legislation passed in decades. They appeared err from the speakers office. No markup, we already spent over 11 of our gdp over the last three months in this process. Now were about to lay upon the house another bill that lace 77 of last years entire federal budget under the same manner. Were living in the house where the work product is coming from the very top and thrown upon the rest of us. And were abdicateing our responsibility to legislate. If we are honest with ourselves, i believe no one would challenge me when i say the rights and individual prerogatives of the members of the house have been steadily shrinking for check dazed. It was true when the chairman eloquently made this point when he was the Ranking Member of this committee and its just as true today too much power has been taken away from committees and transferred to the office of the speaker. With all due respect, this proposal today reenforces what is fast becoming a complete transfer of the power of the institution to the speaker. If the committee and amendment process is unnecessary to make flaw, so is the presence of members to even bother to come and vote. Your proposal says to member, dont come to washington. Its already been decided. That address from mr. Lincoln to the congress, as i say, occurred on december 1, 1862. We were in the middle of a civil war. Ten days later, the battle of fredericksburg occurred 50 miles from here. There were 18,000 casualties in that battle. It was a decisive victory for general lee and the confederacy and there were many members of congress that were worried that general lee would march that same army up here and take the capital of the United States. Yet, the congress continued to meet here in washington, d. C. Perhaps these prior congresses were just made of sterner stuff. Or perhaps they had an understanding of their obligation as members different from ours. I am concerned about this disease. I take it seriously and i take precautions. But im not afraid of this disease any more than those people i talked about who show up day after day after day and do their jobs that are so important to us. Any more than they are afraid to not show up to work. If they can show up for work and do their job, mr. Chairman, i think we can show up for work and do our job. If i can make one last point. Mr. Cole said something that i hadnt thought about. Hes right, there are times when im in conversations here in washington with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they tell me things that change my mind. And if were not together, were not going to have those opportunities as a practical matter. Well lose that opportunity and well lose the ability to have the deliberative policy. When we got the second coronavirus bill that dealt with paid leave. Paid sick leave. It showed up with no committee work, the committee i sit, the committee of jurisdiction, we would sit for less than an hour and vote on it at 1 00 in the morning. Then 20 found there were so many problems with it, they had to pass a 90image technical correction built. Perhaps if it had gone through the regular process and we had done our job, that that bill would have been right the first time it came before us instead of being shoved down our throat. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back and i appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ranking member, three weeks ago, the attorney of the United States said the constitution is not spend suspended during a crisis. Amen to that guess who agreed with him . Guess who agreed with him just last month . The speaker of the United States house of representatives said this, there is a constitutional requirement we vote in person. Today we are changing that today were not following the constitution. In fact, i think were trying to suspend the constitution by allowing proxies to establish a quorum. The Supreme Court was very clear they said this members have to be present. Constitution requires the presence of a majority. When that majority is present, the power of the house arises. Youve got to have a majority present. You cant, you cant phone it in. You cant mail it in. Present means present. You got to be there. Frankly, you got here here. In order to conduct the business of the American People and understand whats in that proposal. One member can have ten protections. You know what that means . Two members with ten probleprox their back pocket can carry the people. 5 can conduct the business of the American People representing all 330 million . You cant phone it in. You cant mail it is in. We are supposed to be present to do the business of the person people. Article 1, section 4. Mandates that the congress quote must assemble every year. Article 1 section 5 requires congress to physically congregate to change with it sits. If we change where we sit, we got to come together, frankly, what you are doing tomorrow. Article 1 section 5 requires a recorded vote on any question at the desire of onefifth present. This is where the people four recorded votes stand up on the floor. We do this every vote we take on the house floor. How can that happen . How can you even have that article 1 section 6 says this it protections members from their respective house. Golly, if you can mail in your vote, why would the constitution say have you to be arrested coming to vote. You can mail it in . That makes no sense. All these provisions envision people being present to do the business of the American People. We will change all that. The constitution leaves no room for what we can trying to do here. Its so wrong. Farmers are playing cops, truckers are moving goods, grocers are stocking she was. Front care Health Workers havent missed a day. They are busting their tails every day to do their job. Somehow congress cant. No no were going to phone it in. Were going to maim it n. Were going to ask a coworker to do our job and vote for us. This is a very, this is a dangerous place we are heading and Everybody Knows it but the majority is going to go ahead and do it. And that is what ticks me off. Web ex, quasihearing, remote deposition, remote depositions. The example this sends the precedent the sets is wrong and i think even the majority knows it. But theyre going to pass it anyway. Thats why the country gets to ticked with this place. Lets just get here and do what we do today. I testified for an hour three weeks ago in this room. We are testifying, keeping our appropriate distance, doing at this time way were supposed to do it. It isnt easy, doing things the right way is never easy, the hard way is the right way. Lets do it the hard way, the right way, the way we have been doing it for 200 plus years instead of phoning it in and mailing it n. I yield back. Thank you very much. I just would like to remind the panel at the advice of dr. Monaghan that if the discussion becomes especially high spirited in nature, that we should wear masks, because the, we release virus particles onto the microphone. Changing the constitution shouldnt be high spirited, mr. Chairman, not changing, not adhering to it. All right. The gentleman has been heard. Mr. Pence. Chairman mcgovern and Ranking Member cole, thank you for allowing me to testify on the House Democrats proposal to thoshz remote voting by proxy and Remote Committee proceedings. Mr. Chairman, throughout our nations history, the house of representatives has cast their vote here under all sessions. Tomorrow, we will consider legislation that represents one of the largest power grabs by a select few or one in the history of this of congress. This legislation was written without participation for more than half of the countrys representatives. I know that the coronavirus pandemic continues to pose a real threat no our health, but these concerns do not supersede the responsibility we have and i have to my constituents. I believe it is very wrong to pass my vote to someone who has never stepped foot in my district. This voting karld does not belong to me. It is not mine to blocksy proxy peers. This voting card belongs to the 6th congress ional district of indiana. Today i am here to uphold the oath i took when i said and i quote, i will well and faithfully represent the hoosiers that sent me to washington, d. C. To cast my vote on their behalf. Im here to stand with the healthcare providers, truckers, farmers and essential workers. The marines, sailorsomes, airmen, coasties and all the other heroes who are still showing up every single day on behalf of their communities and this country. Mr. Chairman, i respect that some of my peers are concerned about their own health and personal safety, but that does not absolve congresss responsibility or mine. The definition of congress is and i quote a National Legislative body, especially that of the United States which meet at the capital in washington, d. C. The Trump Administration is working here. The senate is working here. The United States house of representatives should lead by example and come to work here, too. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you. Any testify . Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here. Let my state a couple remarks. I dont want to go too long here. Sometimes i get the impression that we just talk past each other in this chamber and im listening to some of the testimony that doesnt reflect some of the concerns that were raised, at least accurately, during this hearing. Let me begin by reminding everybody here, i over a month ago, i actually sent colleagues, everyone here, democrats, republicans, asking for input on how we might deal with. This. A hand. Of people responded. I dont recall anybody here sending me the rules Committee Guidance orred a vice be that as it may, but the idea that somehow nobody wanted to hear what anybody else had to say is just not right. We heard, by the way, weve heard not just from democrats, but i get calls from a lot of republicans. In fact, some of your colleagues, on the republican side, expressed frustration with the fact that we didnt do something the last time we were here. And i asked whether they would have voted with us. They said, probably not. But nonetheless, they wanted us to do something. Because that was the right thing to do. Let me just state froerd, this is not about courage or about protecting members of congress. Im reminded of that great philosophy billy joel who said only the good die young. Im not worried about the members of congress. What im worried about are staff. Im worried about the capital police. Im worried about the people who maintain this campus. This is a serious, serious pandemic. Ive heard in reference to the pandemic of 1918 how congress continued to function. It really didnt. In fact, it was so dysfunctional that a bill to provide additional doctors to rural areas get passed because people couldnt get here. I mean, thats an exam of failure that i dont want to see repeated now. Yeah, i understand all the constitutional questions. Believe me, we have been talking to constitutional scholars, maybe have you as well, clearly, we do not want to do anything, a bipartisan concern to violate the constitution. I remind you. Ive not heard anybody reject to this. When my friends were in charge and they changed the rules post9 11, you came up with a scheme that would allow literally two people to constitute a quorum here in the house of representatives. I this the constitution is clear about what a quorum is. The idea that you could basically say two people can just run everything, you know, i dont know, i voted against na when that came up. But that was something my friend did when they were in charge. Im not sure, i dont know if any of you were here at the time, but that was the response. I think that to me, there were constitutional questions. But having said that i didnt say that the Republican Party tried to destroy the constitution. I think that was borne out of a legitimate concern about how we would function in the face of a catastrophe, a major terrorist attack. I think it was the wrong approach. I voted against it. I didnt question the motives of what people were doing. I agree with mr. Burn, i dont like the idea that we are passing major pieces of legislation without Committee Hearings or markups. Thats one of the things that is try to address. I remind you that we are here because already its may and 85,000 people are dead of this virus. I hope the president is right that, you know, that this is going to go away forever soon. I hope hes right. Then well not have to do any of this stuff. But if hes wrong, and we are already close to 100,000, and we probably get to 100,000 before the end of june and were being told that things might be much worse in the fall, i want to be prepared. I want to make sure we function. I mean, i want to make sure that we could do hearings and that it is safe for people to come here. Not just members of congress. We all could be carriers and be asymptomatic and you know by interacting with the people on our staffs or here, we could be inadvertently spreading this disease this is, you know, i get all, and maybe this is, you know, maybe this is about something maybe were you know again i dont want to question anybodys motivations here. Im simply saying i think the status quo is unacceptable. I want there to be hearings. I want there to be deliberation. I want there to be oversight. I want to make sure that the money that all of us in a bipartisan way, at least most of us in a bipartisan way passed that its getting to the people that need it. That an important obligation that we have. And i want to make sure is that we also, in addition to responding to this emergency, that we are doing our appropriations work. That were keeping the government running, that were passing a Defense Authorization bill. And under the proposal that we are putting forward, if you want to come here, you can come here. Let me just say from a practical logistical point of view. Were the rules committee. Were one of the smallest committees in the congress. Here we are taking up the entire ways and committees room which is the biggest Committee Room in the house of representatives. Now, assemblists could maybe meet in the auditorium i guess if you are the Transportation Committee. Maybe some can meet on the house floor, whatever. Were not just three committees. We have lots of committees. They all feel they are doing important work around they are doing important work. Veterans committees, resources committees. All the appropriations subcommittees. I can go down the list of all the committees we have here. So, i mean, you know, we have a job to do. And, look, you know, we have a Bipartisan Task force to try to look at some this stuff. I mean, we agree on some stuff. Some stuff we didnt agree on. You know, sometimes that happens. You cant get to an agreement and well have this debate and well move forward. But i just really i resent the implication that somehow our motivations are suspect here. When, in fact, what we are trying to do is respond to the bipartisan calls and concerns that have been expressed by members of this house. You know i can drive here from massachusetts. Thats what i have been doing. And ill come here, you know, for committee meetings. You know, and i will try to follow all the rules and regulations, but you know in this case one glove doesnt fit all. And so i dont think this is a test of ones courage or you know i want to, you know, i want to show that, you know, im willing to show up no matter what. This is also about common sense. And about protecting the people that we come in contact every single day. Not just us. But everybody around us. So i appreciate you being here. You know, we will have a vigorous mr. Burn. One last thing. I believe that the rule change in 2005 is also unconstitutional. I appreciate that. I dont want to seem inconsistent on that. We look at it. I appreciate it. Mr. Cole. Thank you, very much, mr. Chairman. And thank all of our witnesses. I just actually have one question, i would ask all of them, if i may. And i recognize constitutional scholars disagree on this. I recognize all of you arent lawyers, so but you are members of this body. And so, i just want to know, in your opinion, personally, if you have one, is it constitutional to allow members of congress to vote on matters before the full house without them being physically present in the chamber . And ill start, if i may, with you, general and just move across. No. No, by virtue of the basic office definition of the word present. No, sir. No, but the it is very much against what my constituents have told me where they want me to be. Thank you. That was an incredibly brief set of answers. I thank you all for that i asked the question, mr. Chairman, just to make the point. I think every member in this particular panel feels strongly about this constitutionally. I dont think theyre here to question anybodys motives or courage and i dont believe that for a minute and i dont believe that of people that hold the other point of view either. I just think, you know, if take an oath and this is the way you understand your oath to apply in this circumstance, thats an important thing for the record to show. That the members are all here in this particular panel, because they think, literally, the rule we are about to pass, assuming we do, and we probably will tomorrow is unconstitutional. The rule, this is my friend, mr. Burn said maybe what we did in 2004 or 5, whatever that, too, so, you cant get mad at members when theyre expressing their opinions about their constitutional obligation under an oath that they all swore to. So, with that i yield back. Thank you. Ms. Toesrres. I have no questions. Mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was struck by your opening that sometimes we talk past each other because i think are you absolutely right. You are high spirited response to our witnesses was that congress has a job to do. And weve got to get back it to. And folks just need to get on board. We need to get it done. When i was listening to the testimony, i didnt hear anybody say congress should abdicate their responsibility. I thought i heard everybody say Congress Needs to get back about their business. And i say that, because i was so disappointed that the Bipartisan Group couldnt reach bipartisan consensus. The chairman says he reached a consensus something nefarious is going on here. I reached the consensus that we dont love this solution selectively to fet about our work. I know we can. General if i can start with you as mr. Cole did, the chairman says we got to get the place back to work. That is what i thought i understood you to say, did i understand you correctly . That is correct. Weve got to get back to work. Thats what the American People expect us to do. And we can do it safely. I mean, i have already done i love geometry when i was in high school. I have done the gentleman only try of all of geometry of all of these rooms based on the size, make the American People proud of us. They september us here to debate, to go at an issue from all sides and we can do it. And we need to be the example of how to, if you will, you want to talk about the bigger reopening of the xi, lets talk about reopening of the house of representatives in its functional daily business. Mr. Bishop, you have spoken out against the underlying rules change, but for against getting the house back to work . So much for it, mr. Woodall, that im coming every week. Im spending my weeks here because we must and we can return to our duty here. Mr. Burn, you are visiting with folks who are getting back to work every day. The chairman is right, we need to get the house of representatives back to work. Youve spoke out against the underlying rules change. The United States house of representatives every single one of us is essential to the functioning of this nation. Every other essential worker in america is at work. Every member of the house of representatives that can be here and there are some of us that cant be here need to come here and do our job as we have done it for over 230 years. Mr. Jordan, this is twice youve come to testify before this committee and this committee has been trying to get back to work and again the chairman is right the congress has to get back to work. We have to find a pathway forward. But youve spoken out against this rule change . Yeah, i mean you heard my comments earlier, congressman. The chairman mentioned this is a Small Committee and were taking up a good portion of this large hearing room. But there are other facilities and you mentioned there is lots of committees. This is a smaller committee. But practical concerns and scheduling concerns shouldnt dictate a deviation from what the constitution requires. Lets schedule this room around the clock for committees that can meet here. Lets schedule the auditorium in the hbc around the clock for committees that can meet there and maintain the distance. Thats a scheduling practical concern. Instead, we are saying, no, no, no, members can give their vote to some other member and conceivably under this legislation 22 members could conduct the business of the American People that is certainly not what was invisioned in anyway by the constitution. So, lets not make a scheduling and practical concern, very real. The chairman is right, very real. Lets not make that the reason we will change the constitution and not follow the constitution,. Lets get back to work around do it in the right way. Just like this committee is doing as we speak. Mr. Pence, you traveled back to washington for this Committee Hearing today. Again we do have to get congress back to work. But you have spoken out against this rules change. Yes, sir, i actually came sunday as i felt so strongly about being out here as i mentioned earlier, my constituents kept asking me whens Congress Going to get back to work . In their mind, back to work is right out here. Mr. Chairman, i dont go through that exercise for effect. I think you general e genuinely are looking for bipartisan cooperation to get back to work. I think you and mr. Cole share disappointment the committee couldnt find that i can tell you this is a per spect Cross Section of the republican conference and every single one of them is concerned about the underlying resolution. But absolutely shares the passion to get back to work. I know that if we commit more time to it as we talked about. This is a september problem. Worried about what happens in round two that we can find that bipartisan Cross Section. We dont have to do this in a way that divides us. We can do this in a way brings this institution together and i know you want to do. With that i will yield back. I cant speak for all of you, but i have been working very hard during this time talking to committee chairs, weighing in on my priorities and some of the bills, dealing with my constituents. Some of us have been working and i would also say that i guess where we disagree is that you said you think the only way we can do our job is all being here in one spot. Whereas some of us believe we can operate remotely in some cases or in a hybrid fashion. But heres the good news, for everybody who wants to come back, i mean, what were dock here today, basically allows for that and if thats where you feel most comfortable in the Committee Room, you are more than welcome to do that. So nothing anyway shape or form will undercut that. Mr. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Mr. Jordan, you and i didnt agree last time you were here. We dont agree today. Thats really surprising for the two of us. But i do general i kind of like math, too. I did some math. Mr. Bishop, im looking at a hong kong flu. Hong kong flu 100,000 died over three years. We have 84,000 in two months. So if i do the math, the math is 18 times 84,000 puts us as a million, 512. If it continues for three years. So, theyre not the same thing. There is more like that. This is more like the spanish flu. Which ultimately resulted in us coming up with the uc, unanimous consent, where two people have to agree and you pass legislation. The thing that the hong kong flu may be like this is that it was the second wave that was worse than the first to. And we have to watch out for that. At that time it was considered to be an epidemic and im looking at the sidebar where there were 650 deaths a week in america. Today its 2,000 a day. So the math much different. Mr. Burn, i did some math for you. And it was brought to my attention because of mr. Pence. Hes here to represent the 750,000 or so folks from his district. I assume you represent about that many, too. In my district, were up to 850. Just doing the math. You said, last vote 35 were not present. 35 times 750,000. I think is about 11 million,250,000. Thats how many people they represented. Thats how many people were disenfranchised by their not being here because of present. We have at least two members of this committee. One of whom you served with, mr. Hastings, who has been told in no uncertain terms, he cannot travel because of his condition. But he certainly is capable of making decisions and representing the 750,000 people and i wish he were here. Because his voice is so strong and powerful and i want him to be able to participate and provide his experience and his logic whether its virtually or by casting a vote by proxy and we have two pieces to this particular rule. You all have been talking more about the floor vote and the proxy vote. But we also have the ability of committees, although, maybe imperfect, to continue to meet and allow for individuals to make decisions and make votes on behalf of americans. And thats the bottom line here, is the continuity of government and i appreciate everybodys legal opinion that this is unconstitutional, which i absolutely dispute every way to sunday. This is about representing people. We have asked most of america to work remotely, to avoid precisely what happened with the hong kong flu and the spanish flu and have another big outbreak. Weve asked that because this administration was caught flat footed when this 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 god bless them. I assume every one of you will vote for the bill tomorrow because it has hazard pay for those people. But thank goodness americans said, you know what, were going to take the advice of the cdc and people to suppress this surge, so that our Healthcare System isnt overwhelmed and so that there are, you know, god forbid or other outbreaks, there will be spisht protective gear and beds and ventilators and of the like. Now, mr. Pence, and i appreciate, i served with your brother, outstanding legislator. And we know, tell me, is he in quarantine now . Is he self isolated . I dont speak on behalf of my brother. Im here. I know, im just asking. As a representative today. All right. Lets not talk about him. Lets talk about the 39 members of the house, most of whom went into quarantine in that furs week after we broke on march 14th. Those 39 members have had to go into quarantine him some of them very im. There were nine senators, Lamar Alexander is still in quarantine. And weve had and i didnt even realize this, i forgot my friend mr. Coles is in quarantine for some time. And i disagree with him sometimes, i agree with him sometimes, but i always appreciate his perspective. And so we are in a pandemic that is much worse than hong kong flu based on the numbers it is, three years 100,000 and i think i just read the same story you did out of the wall street journal. And i the id the math. I extrapolated it from twoandahalf months to three years, which is what they were saying. Would the gentleman yield . Let me finish with mr. Pence and ill yield to the gentleman. But the purpose and the concern i have is whether i would agree with a mike pence or a jim jordan or a bradley burn. I respect their opinions. And i want those people to be able to represent the 750,000 folks back in their districts. And in an imperfect and in fact an improbable time like we are in right now, we have to take as just the story, we must be able to exercise certain inherent powers to deal one foreseen circumstances, which could threaten the continue if youty of its operations and the safety of the nation. We are asking a lot of people to work remotely, we are asking a lot of essential workers to present themselves. The rule that has been fashioned is very narrow, it expires at the end of this year. Its limited to 45 day increments based on the speaker in consultation with the minority leader, the house physician and the sergeant at arms. And i think its something that enfranchises the Elsie Hastings, the tom coalles when he is in quarantine and the notion that this is fundamentally changing the operations of the house or the notion that this is unconstitutional is just wrong. So, i would yield to mr. Bishop for him to criticize my math. It isnt the point of your math. In other words, its not a question, the pandemic doesnt become serious once it crosses a magic line. Although, i made the point the number of deaths it extrapolateed from that pandemic in the United States would be 250,000. A measure we have not reached. The point is, and it was made well, i think by mr. Burns comments that we have faced this is not an unprecedented danger. And it is not the spanish flu of 1918 in which 50 million died world wide, in a much smaller world population. This is a serious, serious risk, but it is not defining and our response to it need not act as if it is. And i would just say to the gentleman, mr. Morella, you wanted me to yield to you . Okay. I would say to the gentleman that the rule that is before us is very proportional in terms of, it would allow you, if you so chose, to come here every week, do your thing, sit in that chair, but it also would allow Elsie Hastings to offer his perspective and his knowledge on behalf of the people he represents. And for all of you to suggest that he shouldnt be given that opportunity in this pandemic, which is very serious. You admit that. I think its just fundamentally flawed and ultimately leaves a lot of people without representation, which is the whole point of our government. And with that, i yield back. Dr. Burgess. Do you have questions . Thank you. Thanks, to our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Pence, let me just add my praise to what you just heard your brother during his time of service here, he was probably the best conference chairman that ive served with. And we honor his service here and we miss him, but were glad hes where he is today so please convey that. We like this mr. Pence, too. We do. May i i really dont know to whom to address this. Probably mr. Jordan or mr. Burn. As i read the rules that were considering today, yes, theres a time limit on the denotation that this is an emergency and all of this is triggered, but there is an extension available and that extension is arrived at by the speaker in consultation with the sergeant at arms, attending physician, you know, two individuals that i hold in very high regard, but translator not constitutional officers, so, were putting some power in the hands of some people that are really not accountable to the people and this being the peoples house that seems to me to be counter to what we should be about. Do either of you have a thought on that . Well, i think you said it correctly. The rules were operating in this house right now will all go out january 3rd when the new Congress Comes in. But between now and then, there could be this perpetual running 45day extension of this all the way up until the very end and there is no check on that. I mean, its up to the speaker. And one person and i know the speaker is in an important position of the house. But one person can get this thing roll over and over to the end of congress. And i do think thats unconstitutional. More importantly, i think it does great damage to the institution of the house. I agree with my colleague and for the gentleman for raising the point. I am nervous about people whose names never go on the policy and dictate policy and the general assemblysh those respective states dont get to weigh in, now the u. S. Congress is going to follow a similar pattern . That is scary stuff. And unlike you, i have the utmost respect for these people. Butter that names not on the bat lot. Theyre not constitutionally elected. Again when you start thesemath,h and extrapolation but the math in the bill he didnt talk about. The math in the bill is real simple. A memo can have ten approximaties in their pocket which means 22 people on the house floor can make policy for the country and then it gets reapproved and we want to continue to do this for three people that you talked about, two of them are unelected. How does how is that government by the people, for the people and we the people being being served . This is so scary where we are heading, so darn scary, and i appreciate the fact that some members cant be here today who we wish were. I appreciate that, but the constitution is the foundational document that weve got to the follow. So you are so right, dr. Burgess, and i appreciate you for raising that point. Thank you. Let me just say i appreciate the fact that were having this hearing today. I think its important that we be seen as being on the job. It has been extremely uncomfortable, all of these weeks, many weeks that weve remained home and out of our place of service which is here in the capitol of the United States. I just cannot shake the notion that the peoples house was never meant to be this passive, and, unfortunately, that seems to be what has devolved. Were having a bill tomorrow on the floor that none of us had anything to do with, and were just supposed to accept it and rubber stamp it. Thats not why we were elected. Thats not we ran for office. It cant be why we ran for office. Yes, sir. Not only was the house not supposed to be this passive, it was supposed to be the most active. When the founders put this experiment together we call america, it was supposed tonight most engaged, the most active. Again, this is scary this unelected i mean, we have seen this the last couple of weeks with information thats come public about certain investigations and things being done, done by people whose names were not on a ballot. That is scary stuff again, i appreciate the time. I think ill yield back. Thank you, and, again, thats why i think we should pass this bill because we can then, you know, remove any excuse why we cant be meeting on a regular basis no matter where anybody might be from. Let me just say that the alternative to this is to rely on the republican standing rule which is you can literally redefine a quorum as two people, and, again, i mean, that is my friends here, many of them supported it. I did not at the time, but that is what that is what the standing rule is right now that my friends passed post 9 11, and i think that that is unacceptable. What were proposing here you feel comfortable coming back, if you can come back and you dont represent a hot spot, then you can come back. By the way, this idea that we should deemphasize the importance of medical advice, that somehow they were unelected firmsor officials and, therefore, they are not as important as the elected official. Ive got to be honest with you. I want to make decisions on how we combat this virus based on the best medical advice that exists. I want to have it it be made by people who know what they are talking about, not by politicians who have no many of them who have no medical degrees. We have heard some of the suggestions that have been put forward by the president that, you know, leave your head spinning, but quite frankly the advice that he should follow, the advice that all of us should follow is by the experts, those who know what they are talking about when it comes to how you deal with a virus like this. Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your really dedicated and impressive leadership through this tough time, and i also want to support mr. Cole can. Ive got to tell you, mr. Cole. I spoke to greenel college. And they wanted me to send their very best to you and said they are proud of you. Mr. Cole posed an interesting question to the panel about whether all of you concurred that you think that the proposed rule here is unconstitutional, and each one of you repeated the idea that you thought it was unconstitutional. Mr. Burn has candidly volunteered that the current rule adopted by a Republican Congress is unconstitutional which would allow two members to constitute a quorum. Do all five of you agree that the current rule sun constitutional. Perhaps i can start with you, mr. Pence. Im afraid i dont know about that to answer. Well, you were expressing your outrage about this proposal, but the current rule would allow my answer i want to be clear about a couple of things. One, is and i agree with the chairman, you know, its health and safety first, and for many members that feel that they shouldnt come here or cant come here, i i completely understand, and i support. Im an individual that volunteered to join the marine corps, volunteered to go ashore in a hot situation and i volunteered to run for this position, okay, and my constituents have told me that i should be here. Thats my answer to you. Okay. Ill come back to you about volunteering because you make a very interesting point. What about you, do you agree the current rules are as the gentleman knows my members in the Freedom Caucus have objected to unanimous consent to pass a certain bill. We always had a problem with that. Yes or no question, do you agree with mr. Burn its unconstitutional in. I dont like the rule. Weve been very clear about that. Do you agree its unconstitutional, is that right . Okay. Mr. Burn, you presumably still agree that its unconstitutional . Yes, sir, if youre going to be consistent you have to be consistent in what the constitution allows. Do you believe the current rules as adopted by the republicans are unconstitutionalle . I find mr. Burns comments and those by the chairman to be persuasive. Its probably unconstitutional. Okay. And do you agree as well . I would like to reference the short answer is theres the yes but understanding that commanders command and leaders lead and advisers advise and on the advise of my attorney off here to my right i take his advice because thats his job. My job as a commander, as a leader you get the results that you were missed to give. Okay. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Miss lesko. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you. I think you did a great job of explaining your stance. I i agree with you totally hand not to belabor this, im just going to yield back. Thank you. Mr. Morelli . Yeah, thank you, mr. Chairman. Just briefly, and i thank the gentlemen for their testimony. Mr. Perlmutter took us through a math lesson. At the risk of boring people with a math lesson it occurs to me that the testimony by each of the members suggests that we live in a binary state here. Its either on or off, binary being two choices, on or off, yes or no, black or white, work or not work, and i think the beauty of this resolution and the wonder of technology has given us an opportunity to continue to work even as we respect the guidance of the house position, the guidance of science and technology, guidance of other individuals. In prior pandemics and prior crises perhaps those were binary choices, work or not work, come to washington, not come to washington. I would say parenthetically ive worked harder in the last two months probably sitting in my home office than i may have in the previous year. This has been and i assume this is true of everybody, not only on panel, but members of our committee, that were all working incredibly hard to represent constituents and communities that are under significant stress, so we are no longer in this binary box where its work or not work. I appreciate mr. Burns view on the constitution and frankly if we get to a point where the question of constitutionality needs to be heard that would go in front of the courts they would make that judgment. But article i suggests that the congress is the master of its houses when it comes to the rules. I hate to disagree with you, mr. Jordan, but you make it sound as though under the proposed rule that had a member could gather up proxies like you might do in a committee fight back in your hometown and cast them however you choose to do. The rules are very explicit on how the votes will be cast. This is not by the person who holds the proxy. Its the person who gives the proxy. They have to give exact instructions on every single motion or vote in front of them, so, you know, i appreciate what youre suggesting. I just dont think its borne out. Will the gentleman yield . I will. So then theres a motion made on the floor, what happens . During that what happens . They get to vote for the ten proxies in their pocket . They cannot. 22 members then could be making law. They could decide. Let me answer if i might. In the rule, and the majority leader testified to this as well, that if a motion comes forward each member who has designated proxy must communicate to that proxy holder what his or her view is on motion in front. House, so its not the holder of the proxy who uses independent judgment, it is the person who is given the proxy that gives explicit instructions and its repeated in a number of different instances in the proposed rule so its not the 22 People Holding the proxies, and i appreciate what youre saying about the fact that you can hold up to ten, but they may not exercise independent judgment. We had this conversation earlier. It would be a violation of the rule and a member would be subject to sanctions by the house should they vote in a way that was not consistent with the instructions they had been given, so i just make that point only to suggest that this is not an attempt to concentrate power. Its an attempt to continue to conduct business under the most difficult circumstances we have faced in our lifetime, and i would also suggest that at question of whether the speaker would choose. The speaker may upon the designation by the sergeantatarms in consultation with the house physician during this pandemic only, during a coronavirus, Novel Coronavirus in this congress only, may designate for 45 days. I will note though that 45 days is the is the amount indicated, but it also suggests on page 3 that even during any whether its the original 45day or an additional 45 days, its the covered period, the speaker or the designee seefz further notification that the Public Health emergency of the coronavirus is no longer in effect. The speaker shall terminate said period. It doesnt say may. It says shall. As i read the rule the speaker says on may 1st we have a pandemic. Ive been individuals by the sarmgz in consultation with the attending physician to put this temporary rule in place, and then two weeks late remember before the 45 days has terminated, if you receive if the speaker receives another certification or notification from the sergeantatarms that the emergency no longer exists, it is terminated, shall terminated, so it wouldnt even be 45 days in length. The point i want to make, and i appreciate the concern that people have. This is not i fear at times this is being somehow equated with weakness or strength, that our desire to meet through technological means or our desire to conduct business by proxy is a sign somehow of weakness, and just, you know, i would suggest that the Vice President of the United States and the president right now dont meet personally. Its been, im not making it up. I dont have inside information but i dont read the newspaper. The Vice President said he wont meet with the president for a period of time. I dont know if its 14 days or what it will be, but i suggest to you but i suspect they are talking on the telephone and are communicating in an ongoing basis and they are conducting business, and i would never say and i dont believe that the Vice President is weak. I dont think that the president is weak. I dont think they are fear. If i think they are just, you know, exhibiting the appropriate distancing that that Health Care Professionals have suggested, so i i appreciate what people have said. I have expressed my concerns about precedent, but i think narrow nature of this resolution in terms of the arguments made i dont think are compelling. Would the gentleman yield . Yes. Thank you. The function of the executive and the function of the legislative branch of government are fundamentally different. I wasnt suggesting that its the same all im saying is we have to legislate and under the constitution the intent is we ledge late while were physically present. Thats why they have the command in there, that less than a quorum can actually force people to come where we meet. I also think thats good policy because as i said earlier i think we get better policy when we go through regular order, everybody is in the room. We hash it out. Majority wins. Thats the way it goes. I get that. I dont think you can equate whether the Vice President and Vice President are physically in the same room is like what our job is because our job is fundamentally different. I want to say one thing. I hope you didnt misunderstood me. I know were working hard back in our district. I talk to plenty of my colleagues. Were doing everything we can to take care of our constituents, but under the constitution the part of our job that is legislating, we have to do here. Well, i would just respond, and i appreciate what youre saying about our different functions and i agree with you. We do have different functions, but i feel as though and maybe this hasnt been said directly but i will say i get the impression that theres sort of a suggestion that theres some weakness here and i was simply suggesting that i dont think that the president and Vice President are acting in a weak manner by not meeting together and they are certainly using technology to continue to do their job, and, i mean, i dont think that the gentleman would disagree that clear lit constitution intended for the congress to make its own rules, and even the question of the quorum under emergencies has been suggested could be smaller, so i just think the point that i wanted to make is i think that its not a decision of yes, we come to work and even under your definition, even even if you take the view that work doesnt mean work but work in terms of congress means that were