Is not we dont need to be captives or hostage to the idea that in an earlier age there was no physical way, there was no technological way for us to come together and i would suggest that only under the very narrow circumstances anticipated by this resolution could we continue to work on behalf of the american public. I appreciate and yield back you also raised are the point. I dont think theres any constitutional issues revolving revolving around whether or not committees can meet virtually. I mean, the constitution the commit constitution creates the committees. We all agree on that. Miss shalala. Mr. Chairman, i want to make a comment about the suggestion that scientists and Public Health people are making policy in this country. They are not. Were the policymakers. The governors, the mayors are the policymakers. They seek advice during a crisis like this one with a vicious virus from experienced scientists and Public Health officials, and they can take that advice or not take that vicious and all across the country theres evidence that some people are taking the advice and some people arent taking the advice, but all of the scientists i know and the Public Health people in this country and many of them ive worked with for years are very careful not to be policymakers. They are particularly careful just to present the evidence and not to substitute for the policymakers, and i think that this country which has invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the years in building one of the great scientific enterprises, the National Institute of health, the cdc and the fda, thank god we have them now. I yield back. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank all of you for being here and thank you for your patience. Always wonderful to see you, and you can go. Thank you. And so does any other members wish to testify on hr965 . Seeing none, this closes the original hearing on hres965. Without resolution the motion is considered as read and can be the gentleman from georgia is recognized for his amendment. I very much appreciate that, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number i to hres 926 by mr. Udall of georgia. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. This is an amendment to make sure that this resolution does not go into effect until the clerk of the house has certified that theres a system in place that securely receives and validates a proxy designation. The majority has done everything in its power to move as expeditiously as possible in this direction, and i recognize we have constitutional disagreements about this novel process and we had disagreements about who should be the decisionmakers as we move forward in this process. You will recall as a part of our roundtable discussion with the clerk and the parliamentarian, one thing that the clerk consistently mentioned was that her most Important Role here in the house as it relates to remote voting would be to authenticate. She said it over and over again, authenticate, authenticate, authenticate to ensure that the person is who they say they are. I recognize the distinction between remote investigate and proxy voting, but it seems to be a small step in the right direction. Since we all have an interest in making sure that this system is while it may be novel, certainly none of us want it to be fraudulent. I would ask that we add the amendment that says we shall not move forward without an affirmative certification from the clerk that the house has in place a system to securely receive and validate these proxy designations. Thank you. You heard gentlemans amendment. Any questions or comments . I would urge a no vote. Weve been in contact with the clerks office. We feel confident that we will have a system in place that adheres to all the principles that we all care about. Adding another layer of bureaucracy i dont think makes a lot of sense. Mr. Chairman . Yes. I know it is its been over a month, but when you were interviewed on the cares act, i know you recall, you said i think its not only important that congress be competent but we should also look competent going forward, and i dont think a 2 trillion bill should be a practice run on a new form of remote voting. I know how concerned you are. I know you dont want to move forward if the clerk says im not ready yet. What is the harm in having the office of the house that is in charge of voting integrity certified that we have voting integrity before we move forward . I just i dont understand the harm, and if there is a army would appreciate being corrected. I trust that my staff who have been working on this, and i feel confident that were in good measure so the vote is now all those in favor said aye. Opposed, no. No. The chair that is. Can i have a roll cole. Mr. Hastings, mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Per mullet. No. Mr. Raskin . No. Miss scanlon . Mr. Morrelle, no, miss shalala, no. Miss mats wei. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Cole aye. Mr. Udall . Aye. Mr. Burgees . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Four yays and six nas. Further amendments. Mr. Cole. Amendment at the desk . The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. I would ask that the gentlemen be recognized. I will do this quick because i think the fate of this will be quick as well. My amendment says that i think theres a very legitimate concern on the part of the majority. We live in a majoritaran society and i understand that but this is an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. I think the minority leader showed a great deal of flexibility. He was very sensitive to the fact that this was a power that if it was used inappropriately, you know, would would have him effectively deciding what came on the floor as the majority leader appropriately does. Its not something he wanted to do. He asked and said, look, wed give it up for a month at a time or a time period or if you guys can find a set of matrix that under these circumstances, you know, it would sort of automatically kick in. So i would just say that i think that i dont expect my friends to agree with this. This is an extraordinary moment. We ought to do it. The minority leader has shown hed be willing on most occasions, again, to be extraordinarily respectful in the use of this. So with that i would urge passage of the amendment. I thank the gentleman, and, again, you know, i i guess my response to this was that, you know, when we obviously think that this is necessary at this moment, and when i asked the majority the minority leader specifically whether he would concur he said no so basically if we were to agree with this were basically killing this for now so i would urge a no vote. The vote now is on the amendment from the gentleman from oklahoma. All those in favor said kaye. Aye. Opposed no. The knows have it. Roll call. Mr. Hasteings . Mrs. Trader joes. No. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Perlmutter no . Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Scanlon . Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Udall . Yay. Mr. Burgess. Aye. Mrs. Lesko. Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Four yays and seven nays. Let me just say for the record. Miss scanlon is not here right now because shes providing over the house floor so she will be back shortly. Further mmd ants. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Second bite at the apple may be not so difficult. My amendment well,ed amendment at the desk. The clerk will report amendment. Amendment number three, the House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Koval oklahoma. I would ask to suspend for the reading of the amendment. Thank you very much. Basically this says lets try this for 45 days and lets give this extraordinary power to the speaker which weve never done before in this institution and if we want to extend we need a twothirds vote, in other words, bipartisan buyin. Give it it a twothirds run and come back and see if we can find bipartisan consistence. I know, plumber, you said youve talked to some of our members that are probably supportive. I think if they saw it work for 45 days, that might encourage them to vote in that direction, and, again, i think that way we would bring what you want to do about with with a bipartisan vote as opposed to what is probably going to happen tomorrow a partyline vote so i throw that out for your consideration. I appreciate it. You heard the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say aye . Aye. Those oppose odd. No. Thes no have it. Roll call. Mr. Hasteings . Mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin, no. Miss scanlon . Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Udall . Aye. Mr. Burgess. Aye. Mrs. Lesko . No. How is miss scanlon reported . No. The clerk will report the total. Four yeahs and eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment four to House Resolution 965 offered by mmr mr. Uwoodall of georgia. You heard most of the concern of constitutional reflected on constitutionally of a quorum. My amendment would say and move forward with the other issues that you want to move forward with but lets not have proxy voting as as a part of declaring a quorum theres no doubt that litigation would be involved. It matters not that our last crisis quorum language was passed by a republican majority, Susan Macdonald in a bipartisan way it still would have been subject of a bipartisan review had it been utilized. You dont anticipate that this might be utilized. You believe that it will be utilized. I ask that we remove the most obvious of the constitutional hurdles so its not distracting from the other work that we both agree needs to be done. Mr. Chairman . I take the gentleman for his amendment. We have consulted with many constitutional scholars who feel in fact what we are proposing is constitutional. I think whatever we do somebody will challenge it, but i feel confident that this will withstand any challenge, and so i would urge a no vet. Mr. Chairman . Yeah. Mr. Raskin . Could i speak a word on the motion . Yes. I think something fascinating has owe merged from todays proceedings which is that we seem to have a pretty strong bipartisan consensus or at least among the republican witness whose came to testify that the current rule adopted under republican majority is unconstitutional because it allows for two members to constitute a quorum. By enacting this rule were going to dramatically expand the number of people who are required to create a quorum so its a dramatic improvement over the current rule which is now reputedly unconstitutional according to most of the people who have spoken about it today so at least this is moving us in the right direction because it says a quorum is exactly that, its a quorum, its a majority of the people, a majority of the people who are participating, who are cast considering their votes and who win tending to participate in the proceedings as opposed to the current rule which says that two people alone, excluding the other 433, can constitute a quorum so i rise in opposition to that amendment. Thank you. Just to dispel that because its become a common narrative. Number up, its not a republican rules change. It was enacted first by a Republican Congress in 2005. It was enacted next by a Democratic Congress in 2007 and next by a Democratic Congress in 2009 and then by the congress i was elected in in 2011 so its been a shared priority. Just as this is a shared priority, how to get congress back to work in the unthinkable event africa taft if i, and what it said is have a quorum call thats open for 72 hours and allow every member possible to get there, and then if you cant get a real quorum then, have a house open for another 24 hours for a qualmium call and let that number, however many people can get there in 96 hours, let that count in this unthinkable catastrophic situation as your new quorum, so to suggest that only two of us survived a mass casualty accident, as unthinkable as that is, yes, that pro vision would allow the only two surviving members of the United States house of representatives to conduct business, not because we thought that was the best answer, but that was the best we could do in those times. I wasnt elected at that the time but to suggest that having two people in your example runt house of representatives is unconstitutional but having 22 people run it does constitute a quorum. Thats just thats laughable. Either the house is able to change the rules in both cases, or the house is able to change the definition of quorum in neither case, but the this very discussion demonstrates that its going tonight topic of legal conversation. I would posit that the work that we do together over the next 660 to 80 days is going to be incredibly consequential work for the nation, and i just dont know why if this is where weve laser focused on where the biggest problem is we would we would put our constituents and our policies at that risk. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. Mr. Chairman, could i respond to mr. Woodall on that . The first point that weve got to make is this is what the Supreme Court considers a political question. It would invoke the political question doctrine meaning its up to the house of representatives. Its our rule. Thats why this existing rule adopt asked under a Republican Congress and succeeding congress of republican and democratic character have stayed on the books despite the fact that we have the testimony of the outraged witnesses that this is unconstitutional. They were more outraged by the proposal than the current rule but nonetheless their outrage currently flows to any rule governing outside of their interpretation of what a quorum requirement is. Now heres why i think there is a big qualitative difference between what were doing and what the existing rule is which has been fine with most of the people because people havent focused on it. That rule says that two people could end up constituting a quorum of the entire house of representatives which is totally antithetical to the majority quorum requirement whereas what were saying is a majority can be constituted of people who call up and directly give their proxy to another member. So i understand those who are saying its got to be physical voting . I think we already crossed that bridge when we went to electronic investigate. There were people at that time who were saying it was unconstitutional toll have electric voting. No, it calls for the ayes and the nays where it has to be a spoken vote or written vote and we went to electronic investigate and the republic hasnt collapsed. The critical point is the intent of the member to cast his or her legislative will is vindicated by the system weve adrop theed in our rule and the current proposed rule is a dramatic improvement over the two people can constitute a quorum. If what youre saying thats just in emergency circumstances then youre conceding that emergency circumstances can change congress treatment of the quorum, and were changing our treatment of it in a much more mild and modest way than allow two members to speak for the entire body. I yield back, mr. Chairman. To be fair, mr. Chairman. Again, these were mass casualty events that we were responding to. The if im dead, the quorum requirement for the house declines. Its not hypothetical. Its actual, and that is what this language, as sober as that is, is anticipate f. 433 of yourselves are dead, then two of us can constitute a quorum. Thats an outrageous outcome for the United States of america, an unthinkable outcome but this was the best we could do with what we had to work with. Im just will the gentleman yield . I think he may be mischaracterizing what happened in 2005 a little bit because it doesnt say that everybody has to be dead for there to be a diminished quorum. It could be for a whole number of reasons, including contagion. The chairman misunderstood me, if 433 people are dead two people does in fact constitute a quorum. He raises a good point and sometimes, you know, the standing rules get passed on from congress to congress, but i think enough people in a bipartisan way have raised issues about this that whoever the next chairman of the rules committee is ought to take a look at it before we pass the next set of rules, all right . Youve heard the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say ay sneh. Aye. Opposed no. No. Thes no have it. The gentleman want a roll call . Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mrs. Torres no. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin no. Miss scanlon . No. Miss scanlon no. Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Mats w . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall. Aye. Mr. Burgees . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Mrs. Lesko aye. Mr. Chairman. No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will recall the total. Four nays and eight yays. Further amendments . Mr. Woodall . Mr. Chairman, given the committees reluctant to accept that last amendment i have a amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment . Amendment number five to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. I recognize that you have consulted with legal scholars on this. I also recognize that most of the Supreme Court decisions i read are 53 so legal scholars can disagree and it matters who has the five and who has the four. What my amendment would suggest is that since the house general counsel is the one that will be representing the house in these legal contests that run doubtedly to follow, that the house general counsel present its theory for defending proxy investigate in court to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and explain what that rationale is. Here we are, the committee of jurisdiction. We didnt have a single constitutional scholar with the privileged exception of mr. Raskin come and testify before the committee today. We didnt have that opportunity. I know everyone shares this concern. Its not a partisan issue. Its a houses bullishwill issu this amendment would require the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group be presented with that legal theory as would the committees of jurisdiction so that all members can move forward with confidence that our policy decisions will be respected by the courts. Yeah. I oppose the amendment. I think that there is i mean, we every legal scholar we have talked to has not seen any constitutional issues with regard to what were trying to do. I think that my colleague submitted a letter from some guy mr. Strand who i dont think is a legal scholar. I think hes a lawyer mr. Chairman, if every lawyer you talked to had the same opinion, im very suspicious of what has happened. Since youre talking congressional scholars, let me also introduce and ask unanimous consent to include a statement of norm on strewn who we know is a congressional scholar but in terms of legal scholars and constitutional experts i think we feel very strongly were on solid ground so i would urge a no vote. My amendment only amendments says that you make no. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin no. Miss scanlon . No. Miss scanlon no. Mr. Morrelle. No. Miss shalal no . Miss mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodal . Aye. Mr. Burgess . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mr. Chairman no . No. The clerk will report the total. Four yays and eight nays . The amendment is not agreed to. I want to put in the record statements and letters submitteded in this report of this bill by mr. Jeffries, miss custer, mr. Langevin, mr. Peters, mr. Thompson of california, mr. Hand, mr. Perlmutter, cohen, lowenthal and lawrence, miss sanchez is and mr. Vega. Are you saying the current house rules allow for the participation of those members even though they are not physically present with us here today . Im asking that their statements be puppet into the record like we do all the time. Thank you, mr. Chairman . Does the member object be . I do not. Do you have another amendment . I do not. Mr. Burgees . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the gesk. The clerk will report the amendment . Amendment number six move to suspense without the reading. Its simply a Good Government amendment. This requires the committee on House Administration to issue a yearly report on voting integrity that describes any errors that we encounter with proxy voting. We all know about the law of unintended consequences. Things sometimes turn out differently than what we anticipated and, again, this is a Good Government check, an oversight check on what were enacting with this rule and i urge an aye vote. And i guess its accepted. Good enough. Let move on. You know, i mean, look, i think the best oversight we can do is the committees of jurisdiction including the rules committee ought to do hearings as this goes on to see whether its being implemented the way that weve intended, and, again, hopefully hopefully, again, the arent is right that this virus will mysteriously disappear and we wont have to worry about any of this stuff but in the meantime i would urge a no vet. On the burgess amendment . All those in favor aye. A. Those against . No. Thes no have it. Mrs. Remembers it . No. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin no miss scanlon . No. Mr. Morrell sneh. No. Miss shalala . No. Miss mats wei . No. Mitts mats wei . Mo cole. Aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye. Mr. Burgees . Aye. Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mrs. Lesko aye. Mr. Chairman . No. The clerk will report the total . Four yays and eight nays . The clerk will report the amendment . I would ask the reading be dispensed with . Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, well obviously be dealing with a lot of legislation next month and things weve talked about today. My amendment would limit the use of proxy voting to literally things that things related to the Coronavirus Crisis. We would create other legislation the way we normally would and proceed. This amendment is actually the same language that my democratic colleagues included in their first version of proxy voting three weeks ago, so all were asking here is to do what you were positioned to do at least three weeks ago. Well that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back . Thank you. Mr. Chair, i oppose the amendment by the gentleman. I opposed in the original draft of the rule for a couple of reasons. Up, were in a pandemic. Through the consultation with the doctor and the sergeantatarms. Two, it had all sorts of limiting factors, the previous did, but really the thing that concerned me is that there will be votes that have to be taken whether they were appropriations votes or ndaa or those kinds of votes that have to be taken and were still in the pandemic. That was the one reason that i disagreed with the rule as it was written a few weeks ago, and, two, we already know this virus mutates, and by the end of the year it could be covid20 in which case weve still got a problem so i felt the approach that was taken in the earlier draft was unreasonably limited. Its still very limited as mr. Morrelle pointed out as he talked about the Novel Coronavirus section in the beginning, but we have to conduct our business, and i think this this would undercut and needlessly limit it, and i dont want to disenfranchise all those people in this Representative Government on big issue, so i would urge a no vote on the gentlemans motion. Mr. Cole . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Just to my friend, hes perfectly right. Hes been consistent . His view on this but i would say wed be more than happy, number one, to just make it coronavirus in general so it was not confined if there was a particular mutation. Thats something were willing to do, and, again, going to do this for this emergency. This is actually what were going to be focusing on for the most part obviously, and i think well be doing it for some years, but i think, again. This limits it and asking you to be where you were three weeks ago and if you cant be there as a majority, i just point out for the record it sort of does suggest that this is a slippery slope danger here because weve already moved from where the majority was three weeks ago to a different position today, so three weeks from now you could add another movement. If i might respond. We didnt bring it up. I was going to oppose it at that point. Hi spoken to a number of members and seek to have it stricken, so i think we didnt we werent there. Maybe you guys should have accepted it back then, but i was going to oppose it, and i think a couple others at least would have opposed it, so i yield back. I urge a no vote on the gentlemans amendment. I dont think we have the ability to accept that this was in the majoritys purview and this is where you were three weeks ago. Youve moved some place else in three weeks. I just make that point to suggest once you let this particular, you know, rabbit out of the box, it it can run a lot of different directions, including ones with you didnt expect three weeks ago. I yield back. I would just say, you know, during these last three weeks weve listened to a lot of members on both sides of the weve taken some ideas from republicans and heard from our members and so, you know, the consensus on our side is we have a lot of work to do. Its not just coronavirusrelated, and so i would urge a no vote. The vote is now on the cole amendment. Those in favor say aye. Mr. Chairman, im sorry. May make one additional comment as it relates to it. It seems to me even if we adopted this amendment, the question of constitutionality which has been raised which we dont agree with you on, but constitutionality would be in play. This doesnt make it more constitutional because you identify things only related to code of 19 so i would add from our perspective it rises or falls on the question of of whether a pandemic and National Emergency exists but not with what kind of legislation were take up. The gentleman from oklahoma. With all due respect i didnt suggest it made it more constitutional. Everybody has constitutional doubts about this whole course regardless. Does make it more limited hand more traditional and, look, from an institutional standpoint think if youre going to do something one of the things, and i think appropriately that you have pointed out in the course of the debate, and you in particular, mr. Morrelle, is, look, this is very limited. 45day increments. Were trying to be this is just another limitation, so i dont think its you may disagree with it, but, again, it wouldnt advance the constitutional argument and its just another limb tampingts i yield back. The vote is no on the gentleman from oklahomas amendment. All those in favor aye . Those owe foesed, no. Thes no have it. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Miss scanlon . No. Miss sudan lon no. Mr. Morrelle . No. Miss shalala . No. Mitts mats wei . No. Miss mats wei no. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye. Mr. Burgess . Mrs. Lesko . Ai. Mr. Chairman. No. Mr. Chairman no. Report the total. Three yays and eight nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Before we go to the next amendment i want unanimous consent to insert into the record from the coach of the progressive caucus in favor of our underlying bill here. Further amendments . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Woodall . I have an aimedment at the gesk. The america will report the amendment. Amendment number 8 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia . Mr. Chairman, this amendment respects what mr. Pearl mutt her to say. There some mustdo work that has to happen in this institution, and if were going to go down this constitutionally perilous path we should be getting the highest priority items done. This would say for those bills not high priority, items, those suspension bills that are noncovidrelated that we should not use proxy voting then, whether were back for a day in the month of june or a week in the month of june or all of the month of june, we do those suspension bills in in person that are noncovidrelated. Again, thinking about legal challenges coming down the road for those bills that are not the most expansive but are the most numerous in our congressional workload, let us move those numerous bills through the traditional process. Heard the gentlemans amendment. Any discussion . Healing none the vote. Aye . Aye. No. View of the chair that the ace have it . Roll call. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Miss scanlon . Miss scanlon, no. Mr. Morrell sneh. No. Miss shalala . No. Miss shalala . No. Miss mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall. Aye. Mr. Burgees . Mrs. Lesko . Yay. Mr. Chairman . No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Three yays and eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Cole . Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. This is actually a pretty resimple bit. Im surprised it wasnt in the text. It simply excuse me, amendment. No problemsy votes on no covid bills that havent had a Committee Hearing or markup r. In other words, if were doing these extraordinary things because of covid, other things at least ought to be able to go through a committee, particularly if weve adopted the rule as written. I would hope we we continue to the Committee Process and markup process for things that are truly nonemergency and noncoronavirus related. I yield back. Yeah. I appreciate it. Being a part of what we what we require now is that the bills have hearings and rules unless we waive them and that will be the case here as well. Sometimes things are urgent that we have to move quickly, so i wouldnt want to tie our hands so i would urge a no vote. All those in favor say aye. No . No. Appears the knows have t. Roll colele . Mr. Haste hgs . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Were perlmutter no. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin, no. Miss scanlon . No. Miss scanlon no . Mr. Morrell sneh. No. Miss shalala . No. Miss mats wei . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Kohl aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye. Mr. Burgess . Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. The clerk will report the total. Three yays and eight nays. Further amendments. Miss lesko . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have and amendment at the desk. Amendment number so to House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. This amendment, members, ensures that the unconstitutional use of proxy votes are not employed should the house consider future impeachment resolutions, censure resolutions or contempt sigh tagsz, and i want to clear that i dont like conigliaro in this bill but my amendment is offered because i know the democrats will pass this bill and it will make it a little bit better. Certainly impeachment and censure and contempt citations are three extraordinary actions reserved for the gravest of times, and i would certainly hope that we would want all members here to consider that, and with that i encourage a yes vote and i yield back. Yeah, i would urge a no vote on this because this is like whats throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this the at this thing right now. I dont see any reason to do this. I would urge a no vote. The vote is on the lesko amendment. All those in favor aye. Aye. No . No. No. Thes no have it. The clerk will call the roll . Mr. Hasteings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Pearl mutter . No. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin no. Miss scanlon. No. Mr. Morrelle . No. Miss shalala . No. Miss mats wei . In. Miss mats wei . No. Mr. Cole. Aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye. Mr. Burgess . Mrs. Lesko . Aye. Mrs. Lesko. Aye. Mr. Chairman. No. Mr. Chairman, no. The clerk will report the total. Three yays and eight nays. Further amendments. Miss lesko . Thank, you mr. Chairman. I have and amendment at the desk. Amendment number 11 to House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. Thank, mr. Chairman. I want to offer an amendment that my colleague representative mike johnson from louisiana and i have worked on together. Mr. Johnson is also going to be introducing this amendment as a standalone bill. This amendment simply states that should a member choose to proxy vote, meaning not be here, their total members representational allowance constantly known hat mra will be reduced by the amount that it who take for them to travel to the house under normal circumstances to vote for the 2020 mra travel expense formula. This is an official document that all of our offices have access to from House Administration this. Money saved would be returned to the treasury. Members shouldnt be able to use funds that were meant for travel on other things. Thats not what our constituents want. At this point we need to give funds back to the American People, not use them for things we arent even utilizing. I believe this is a common sense amendment. If members choose not to travel, they shouldnt get the money to do so and we should return it to the treasury, and i ask for a yes vote. You heard the gentlewomans amendment. I would urge a no vet. First of all, some people have had to uncure more expenses from their districts because normal flights have been cancelled. I dont know what you do with your mra if theres any left over at end of the year, but i i think it usually goes back to the treasury anyway, but if members, you know, members can do whatever they want to do. If they are not spending the money they can make it public that they are not spending money on travel and they can give it back to the treasury if they want. Thats you know. Anyway, i would urge a no vote. Mr. Chairman . For folks who dont serve an House Administration they may not have studied that number but theres a formula in place this. Isnt about saving money. The formula says if you live further away. Right. You do in fact have higher travel expenses and so you get more money than everybody else. Mr. Raskin has the smallest mra sitting here at table because he lives he lives closest. If you have money left over in your mra, what do you do with if, write a check out towers . Youre absolutely right. I didnt think you could. If members choose to save it, its the equity issue that Charlie Norwood was a great fiscal conservative from the state of georgia. He spent every penny that he had every year. He said this is my constituents money, im going to spend every penny. The reason california members guest more money than east coast members do is because their travel is further and if they are not traveling they are just getting more money to sever their constituents than east coast members are getting to serve their constituents is the nature of the amendment. I i strongly object to this this is i mean, we have weve just appropriate rated trillions of dollars a trying to help people p. We should be doing oversight to make sure Small Businesses are getting what we intended them to get. We should make sure that hospitals have the ppe that they need that were funding testing it, so i just whatever. I mean mr. Chairman . Yes. Mr. So i i just would object to the gentle ladys amendment. I will say were spending more money, and at this point, certainly in my office doing telephone town halls to reach people because of so many questions about unemployment, so many questions about Small Business, so many questions about health, and and adding people like our Health Officers and somebody from the sba actually im finding that this is much more expensive and have hope that the House Administration and the Appropriations Committee will over us some additional money to cover all of the telephone town halls to communicate with the people that we represent, so i i object to the amendment and urge a no vote on it. Mr. Chair . Miss lesko . Can i respond . Yes, absolutely. Actually in the last bill every member was given extra money to do telephone town halls and to deal with the coronavirus so we already got a bunch of extra money. In fact, that constituent is complaining about it because they think it was used for our salaries or something which it was not meant to be. It was meant to be used tore tele town halls and to deal with the coronavirus, with like equipment that our staff may need to use to telecommute and those type of things. So we were given extra money. But my amendment deals specifically with reaction to the proxy bill. And the proxy bill says, okay. Members that dont basically want to come in to work can turn over their vote to someone else. Well, then theyre not traveling here. And we have a formula that is that is all the offices have. Its a setup formula. Its a certain amount of money per mile. And its based on how far away from the farthest part of your district you are to washington, d. C. And if youre not going to fly here, if youre not going to travel here, then why should you get the money . Thats all my bill does. So thank you. And i yield back. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Raskind. I understand and i would be delighted to be corrected if im wrong. But i understand from my chief of staff and a couple other chiefs of staff, there were no additional mra allowance given. That went for maintenance staff. So if somebody could clear this up definitively, that would be great. In any event, that kind of story contributes to the mythology about whats really going on here. And i want to say that it seems like theres so much outrage about such trivia being voiced today. And we hear so little about the 82,000 american citizens whove died in this process. Weve heard so little about the tens of millions of americans thrown out of work in this process. About spreading hunger and the sight of the people lined up at homeless shelters, lined up at food banks. And we get this kind of trivia. I dont really get it. Let me just say and thats a general statement. Let me say specifically about this amendment, what i would recommend to the gentlelady and i know shes offered this in all sincerity, is that she combine with those people who are saying that members who sleep in their offices should have to return part of their salary to the United States government because part of their salary undoubtedly is to cover the costs of their living in washington when theyre here. And they are certainly drawing on federal money when they live in their offices. Something which is actually contributing to the Public Health danger of being on capitol hill. So i dont think that her amendment is going to pass, but i think she should go back and combine forces with the people who are saying that members should pay back part of their salary if they live in their offices. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Not to belabor the point, but since it was brought up, i have information that 8. 8 million for mra was included in the bill and that is estimated to 20,000 for each office. So, thank you. Im being told it was for interns, but putting that aside, my suggestion is that maybe we should bring this up with host administration and go that way. So i would urge a no vote. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Chair opinion, the noes have it. Mr. Hastings. No. Mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Pearlmudder. No. Mr. Raskind. No. Ms. Scanlon. No. Mr. Morelly. No. Ms. Matsui. No. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mrs. Lest koe, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight neays. Mr. Burgess is also having a conflicting areaing and had to go. Im offering an amendment on his behalf. And just want the committee to understand why hes not here. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. This amendment says my amendment, its actually his amendment. Oh, sorry. Have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 13 to House Resolution ask the reading be dispensed without objection. Thank you very much. And you may well be dealing with this, mr. Chairman, in the guidance that youll be working on. So this may be an issue that we will be talking out at a later date. But this amendment would simply require that your guidance include three things when it comes to proxy voting. A 24hour notice requirement before any proxy vote could be taken. Specified minimum voting times. Especially for unanticipated votes. To ensure that all proxy votes may be cast. And a contingency plan for proxy voting in the event of technological limitations. I think those are all things that we ought to be considering anyway. And so we just like to get those as part of the base bill. And obviously your guidance would be determinetive in how we work through that. With that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentlelady from california. I know youre presenting on behalf of another member, but im just wondering if these amendment requests were brought up before the committee. And what was the date . I dont think we got it down to that level of detail. Theres going to be quite a bit of i understand she meant the task force. We think were actually heading into this without a lot of these basic things having been worked out or thought through. These are things we think when it comes to look. We should all know when proxy voting is being used. We should all know about, you know, how the time iing on them. I suspect these are going to be as he puts together guidance. Obviously hell make the decision himself, but hes been forthright in dealing with us openly in these things. These are just concerns we have with respect to proxy voting. Wed like to make sure our answer whatever the guidance is going to be. I know at a staff level, some of these issues were brought up in the committee. What i can say is i cant say that verbatim this will all be adopted, but i think the spirit of what has been offered here will be in the guidance. And we will share that with the gentleman, you know, certainly sooner rather than than later. Certainly before the vote. But anyway, youve heard the gentlemans amendment. The vote is now on the cole amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chairman, there was no. I will do the roll call. Sure. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Pearlmudder, no. Mr. Raskind. No. Ms. Scanlon. No. Mr. Morelly. No. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesco. No. Three yeas, eight nees. Amendment not agreed to. Thank you, i have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 14 to House Resolution 965 offered by ms. Lesco of arizona. This would limit the number of proxies that any one member could carry to two. And i think theres a legitimate reason for this. Again, i dont like the bill at all. Or the resolution, but its going to pass. So i might as well try to make it better. And, you know, i just from a practical point of view think about it. Lets say theres an mtr or a motion to adjourn or something unexpected and youre carrying ten proxies, i mean, how are you going to communicate with ten different people . I just think its going to cause a problem. So thats why i would advocate for a yes vote. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I will point out to her in our original proposal we had no limit to how many people how many proxies somebody could carry. Theres no question that voting will take a longer time. No matter how we do it. So i would i think weve moved as much as i think makes sense. And i will urge a no vote. The vote is now on the lesko amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those no, say no. No have it. Call the roll. Mr. Torres, no. Mr. Pearlmudder, no. Mr. Rankin, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk report the amendment. Amendment number 15 to House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike section 4 of the resolution related to Remote Committee operations. So just take out the entire section about remote voting for committees. I would urge a no vote on this. I dont think there are any constitutional questions around this. You know, anyway, weve had this discussion. The vote is now on the lesko amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Plst torres, no. Mr. Pearlmudder, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala. No. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Further amendments. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk report the amendment. Amendment number 16 to House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment would preclude the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence and the Ethics Committee from conducting remote operations. Currently none of the platforms that can be used to facilitate remote operations can handle classified information. Given that the work of hipsy fundamentally relies on access to classified information, they should be precluded from undertaking remote operations. Our National Security is too important to allow the Intelligence Committee to function remotely. The Ethics Committee handles serious and Sensitive Information about members of congress and staff constantly. When there is a public meeting, it is in relation to improper conduct. The sixth amendment provides for an accused person to by permitting Remote Committee operations, we fundamentally deny individuals this right. I hope that all members can support this amendment and i yield back. Thank you. I just pointed out, already we cant this prohibits classified briefings in remote format. We said if they can figure out a way to operate remotely, go forward. The idea that all ethics matters would be halted because of this, i mean, if it doesnt have to be then thats the thing. But this has to be a bipartisan vote in the Ethics Committee if they can figure out a way to operate remotely, they can do it. If they cant figure it out, they cant. Mr. Cole . Just quickly, mr. Chairman. I think this really is an important amendment because it gets to the point there are some things you cant do remotely. And the Intelligence Committee, you know, if its not talking about sensitive matters well, theyre not going to be able to operate. Well and the Ethics Committee, if it is truly a bipartisan committee, you can find a way to operate. And if you cant, then we dont do it. Well, well see. But this would make sure we didnt walk down that road. But with that, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I mean, this doesnt voting for my amendment doesnt preclude Ethics Committee from not doing their job. Its a Small Committee. They could certainly meet in person. And with that i yield back. We dont know what the future is going to hold. Thats the whole reason were doing this bill. I would urge a no vote. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Scanlon, no. Miss shlala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Ms. Lesko, no. Mr. Chairman, no. Three yeas, eight nays. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 17 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. Would ask that the reading be dispensed. Without objection. Thank you. Just strike the language to the greatest extent in section 4a2. Im sorry. Went to my next amendment. So ill go back and stay in order, mr. Chairman. I apologize for that. This would just simply prohibit proxy voting from counting towards a kquorum in committee. Weve had proxy votings in the past. Attempted to call up a privileged resolution but a point of order was raised because a quorum was not present. Again, i think we should be careful about this particular thing and we shouldnt allow proxy votes to be used toward quorum in a committee. I think weve talked about this already. So i would urge a no vote. The vote is now on the cole amendment. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, is a no. Opinion of the chair, noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk, report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Mr. Cole . Now back to where i was at. I have an amendment at the desk, mr. Chairman. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 18 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. I would ask the reading be dependen dispensed. We just change the language in 4a to the committees must require all members to have the ability to participate remotely. The idea is for more members to be able to participate. So i dont see how you would limit that. Every member on a committee ought to have the ability to participate. Its the responsibility of the institution to provide that. If were not going to call people back so they can participate here, seems to me we have to guarantee wherever theyre at during a remote location, we have a lot of members in states where this is going to be difficult on occasion just given the geography and the lack sometimes of broadband. That may mean setting up hot spots. It may mean moving something to some place else. It may inconvenience the committee. But there should never be a technical reason for excluding a member from actually participating in a Committee Hearing. So i would ask that that language be struck and we make sure that every member have the opportunity to participate from wherever theyre at. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Yield back. Yeah, i mean, the intention is what the gentleman says. But there are circumstances that could arise that, you know, i mean right now if your airplane is canceled for whatever reason, your Committee Hearing is not canceled. So i mean, i think the spirit is to do what you want but we need to build in a little bit of a safeguard here. I urge a no vote. All in favor say aye, aye. Opposed no, no. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmuther, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk, report the total. Amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments, ms. Lesko. Thank you. Amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 19 to House Resolution 965 offered by ms. Lesko of arizona. This amendment ensures there is guidance regarding a number of limitations within the resolution including addressing difficulties with difference in time zones. Theres a 22hour difference between American Samoa and guam, for instance. Technological limitations that preclude members from fully participating in remote sessions, decorum rules including attire, rules for how the chair should handle witnesses, and members going over their allotted time and how chairs plan to control platform access. I guess the bottom line is that theres really i mean, i know that you say youre going to somebodys going to provide guidance, but were voting on this big bill that changes u. S. History and we dont even know how were going to do it. And so with that, i encourage a yes vote. You said somebodys going to provide guidance. I would provide guidance. And many of these issues that you talked about will be addressed. So i will urge a in vote. Vote now those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk, report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Not agreed to. Further amendments, mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 20 to House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would ensure that during this period of Remote Committee work that no remote markups are held. I think its important that we take this in baby steps and we could see how it works without markups. I think obviously markups in voting and committee are very important and i would encourage a yes vote. I would oppose this. Im getting confused. Because a few minutes ago we were told we should be taking bills to the floor that didnt have markups. Now were saying we dont want to allow markups. So anyway, i would urge a no vote. Mr. Chairman . Yes. In case it affects your vote it wont, but go ahead. What were saying is we should be here doing our work in both cases is what that is. All right. The vote is on the lesko amendment. Opinion of the chair, noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk will report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Further amendments, mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 21 tho House Resolution 965 offered by mrs. Lesko of arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would ensure that during this period of Remote Committee work in proxy voting that no remote depositions are to occur. This is a simple amendment aimed to protect the right to kocouns. It is of the utmost importance that those being questioned have the right to counsel readily available and that becomes much more complicated in a remote setting. We must look to protect the right and due process during a deposition and it is hard to square that with the reality of a remote congress as committees conduct virtual business. In addition to this, given that some committees do not require a member to be present, this could also result in remote staff only depositions. I hope that all members can support this amendment and i yield back. I would strongly oppose it. I mean, in the real world, dpep depositions are conducted remotely and i dont think we should do anything to frustrate our constitutional opportunity. Mr. Perlmutter. Depositions have been taken remotely for 20 or 30 years at least. Evidence to our courts, remotely right now. State and federal. So im not sure what lawyers advising you on this one, but theyre wrong. I yield back. Heard the gentle ladys amendment. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Three yeas eight nays. Further amendments. Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 22 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. I ask the reading be dispensed. Thank you. This would simply create a point of order against consideration of legislation that violates house or committee rules. And it would prevent the committee on rules from waiving a point of order. All this would do which is ensure a point of order which is legal would reach the floor to be fully considered. So this is a protection since were we are obviously embarking into unknown territory with the new methods, new procedures that havent been used ever in this house before which simply allows members to bring their case if you will beyond the rules committee where a decision to be apt to the mull body to make a decision. Well, i would oppose this again. I mean, we waived the rules prophylactically all the time. As my friends did when they were in the majority. Again, i think these are attempts to obviously frustrate our ability to move forward on legislation and i would urge a no vote. Yeah . If i may, mr. Chairman. We were in the majority, we never embarked on anything like this. I also understand the circumstances are different even in this committee were violating the fiveminute rule. Well, weve routinely done that for a long time. I know, we have, but im saying i would be the first to agree with you on that. But in this case, this is an unchartered expansion rules. This is way beyond anything weve done before. Its simply make sure you still control the body. You control the rules committee, you control the poirnlts of order. But if someone feels like its flagrant violation, it allows them on the body. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelly, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk will report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments, mr. Cole. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 23 offered by mr. Cole. Thank you. This would require that the guidance include how Member Participation is authenticated. Obviously you havent made that decision yet. But we want to make sure its not in the bill. Or in the resolution. So we want to make sure this is one of the things you consider. That we actually get an authentic validation of Member Participation. Yeah, i mean, i will assure the gentleman the guidance will be language that will so because you can verify someone is who they say they are. It will be in the guidance. I would urge a no vote on this because were itll be in the guidance. Well, just and i know it will be, mr. Chairman. I just want to say that. Were just using this opportunity to point those things out to make sure that when we review the record of this hearing as i know you will thats why i value you so much. The vote is now on the cole amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perl mumutter, no. Mr. Raskin, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelli, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, no. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Further amendments. Mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 24 to House Resolution offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. This is an amendment to ensure that in the guidance that you provide that a members right to offer a motion to adjourn and a motion to postpone is preserved again. Its an unprecedented new process to draft the entire process. And so my hope is that you could tell me today whether or not the guidance does include that guarantee of each individual members offer to make the motion to adjourn and the motion to postpone as the rules today provide. Well, the rules are still the rules. And they will not be denied. So i dont this is not necessary. But the vote is on the mr. Chairman . Just because i asked the question in sincerity about whether or not you intended to include it in the guidance, the reason you saw everybody reaching over my shoulder there will be nothing in the guidance to prevent members from making motions to adjourn or any, you know, other motions that they have the ability to do as stipulated by the rules that are in place right now. And so when the implementing legislation says notwithstanding any other rules of the house, this is where were going. Thats the part that gives us pause. If what instead the legislation said is, maintaining all of the current rules of the house, this is where were going, i would have a completely different set of amendments. Yeah. I will just assure the gentleman that we are protecting minority rights, but if he wants a vote on this, to make an exclamation point, id be happy to. I would settle for the chairmans commitment. It says in section four im not you have my commitment. During any covered period and notwithstanding any rule of the house or its committees, here is this new process that the chairman will lay out in his sole discretion. I guess the issue is if you would like us to go on and restate every single thing a member can currently do, the chances of us leaving something out would probably be greater than that. I mean, whatever. If the gentleman lets have a vote on your amendment. Well, and ive got several. It sounds petty when you say it. I know youre not trying to demean the amendment. I wouldnt be, no. But these are the minority rights that we were talking with mr. Hoyer about and yes, having those in a process that is likely to suppress a minority having minority rights specifically i disagree with the gentlemans assessment of what were trying to do. But in any event, hes made his point. And i would urge a no vote. So the vote is now on the woodall amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Momorelli, no. Ms. Shashalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments, mr. Woodall. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 25 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to ensure the right of a member to have a members words be taken down be included to mr. Perlmutters point earlier. I know things have evolved since the last package was discussed, but in the last package it stipulated that all current house rules would be followed. This package specifically says notwithstanding any house rules. Were going to do things differently. I know the gentleman does not have a partisan goal, but i think it is not only appropriate but its the responsibility of the minority when the legislation has changed from we will protect all of house procedures to notwithstanding any house procedures that we try to provide some definition where definition is lacking. Again, i dont think its practicable to restate every single right in the rules. But i will assure the gentleman that if he and i are debating an issue and personally attack him or besmirch his character, he will have the right to take my words down. I know that circumstance would never happen, mr. Chairman. Were speaking hypothetically here. I would never do that. But the weve all experienced this on the video calls that were on. Folks are raising their hand, theyre trying to talk over each other. Its very difficult for the chairman to run a Virtual Committee meeting. As we found in our very Small Committee talking over one another. And in limited space. So i will concede that the chairmans absolutely right. We cannot possibly list every minority right. If the chairman would agree with me that well include these six that im mentioning, we could be done with it. I think if we include these six and dont include others, then we are basically making it possible for those others to be violated. Mr. Raskind. Zblifs going to make that point. The omission of other rights when youre enumerating rights implies the other ones are not included in the production thus the existence of the ninth amendment to the constitution and the bill of rights. I dont think we need to reenact the entire constitutional history of the United States here when we have a very simple delegation of power to operate consistent with all of the rules of the representatives. If thats what we had, you would be exactly right. Thats what we had three weeks a egg. Today we have the opposite. We have during any covered period and notwithstanding any rule of the house. We do not have a document that says, please comply with all the rules. We have a document that says you are empowered to ignore all of the rules. To the gentlemans point. Then were just reading that differently. That clause to my understanding means that we can go ahead and operate according to the new rules meaning at distance, technologically, which you couldnt otherwise do. The new rules being whatever chairman mcgovern decides to do. Are you telling me the import of our new rule would be essentially what donald trump thinks is the meaning of the article 2 that we can do whatever we want . Inconsistent with the rules of the house and the constitution . I dont take the gentlemans reference. I simply know from my very limited legal understanding that notwithstanding any rule of the house means notwithstanding any rule of the house. Im not trying to read anything into it. You changed the language from incorporating every rule of the house, to notwithstanding any rule of the house. I dont know why you did it. Im sure it wasnt nefarious. I just want to make sure that minority rights are not trampled upon and next congress when republicans are in control you will thank me for protecting minority rights in this way. Let me assure the gentleman that minority rights will be protected. And that i think we can lets just vote on the gentlemans amendment. Because i think were just talking in circles now. The vote is now on the woodall amendment. In favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelli, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Coal, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk, report the total. Three yeas, seven nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments. Mr. Woodall. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 26 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Again, i dont dispute the very generous way that you have led this committee, but the Ranking Member introduced letters from other committees Ranking Member who is have not had that same experience with their chairman which is why amendment number 26 says that the guidance should include the right to ensure a sevenday notice before the hearing and that the guidance should preserve the right to ensure 24hour availability of text. I dont know how chairmen will use their power. I know they use it differently than they did 30 years ago. Thats to the credit of this institution that thats true. But the remote nature of a Committee Hearing or a Committee Markup should not change the character of that. It could be argued that without being in the room with the committee staff, with personal office staff, or expert witnesses, that folks need even more time to prepare for hearings, not less. So this again provides those limited guarantees that many of our Ranking Members have already said have been denied to them. All right. First of all, we havent had any remote hearings yet. We have to change the rules in order to do that. So when people say that, you know, these hearing rules have been violated, we havent been able to do that yet. But i assure the gentleman all these rules will continue to be complied with. And chairs will have to follow them. Period. So vote now is on the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelli, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 27 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Again, mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure that the guidance includes the right to offer a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. I take mr. Raz kins point that if we list a number of powers and do not include others, that can be diminishings of others. I would be willing to add an amendment including but not limited to the following minority rights including the right to appeal the ruling of the chair. Its going to be very difficult to go through these parliamentary processes that are already difficult for members who are not parliamentary experts. So when we all sit together and are surrounded by talented staff trying to do this from your den without the likes of a kelly or a don sitting beside you is only going to make it harder. And thats why id like to make sure the guidance includes these items. Members will have the right to appeal the ruling of the chair. So i think this is unnecessary, but lets have a vote. The vote is on the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Pe arlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Mr. Morelli, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. Amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments. Mr. Woodall. Clerk, report the amendment. Amendment number 28 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Mr. Chairman, as you remember i misspoke earlier when i was talking to the majority leader and he corrected me. This amendment would respond to that conversation by ensuring that the guidance does not require the prefiling of amendments. And that the guidance will preserve the right to offer Second Degree amendments. We see it in this committee as much as any when where we have a chance to talk about something together, we could end up with a better solution than what we had to begin with. I dont want the stilted nature of a or even the expedited nature of a remote Committee Process to undermine either of these. As the majority leader stated and as i stated as well, there will be no prefiling requirement. I mean, some had suggested that because they thought it would actually make for more orderly hearings if they had to be done remotely. It probably would. But that will not be part of this. And thats that. So theres no need for this and i would urge a no vote. Mr. Chair . Yes, mr. Morelli. I just want to suggest because i think youre being too modest. I think these kinds of protections which you personally made sure exist i think ought to be acknowledged and i think to mr. Woodalls amendment, its in the spirit of what we have done. The chair has not only indicated that will be the case. But i want to acknowledge the in the same spirit of the same letter of the current rules. So i would just want to acknowledge your work. I appreciate that. And i let me just say, you know, i mean i think there will be some in this chamber not all but some who will try to find ways to intentionally make this process much more difficult than it needs to be. And so we need to get through this together. And again, we are not limiting your ability to do Second Degree amendments nor are we requiring that all amendments have to be prefiled. So, you know, we will get through this. But this is not necessary. But well vote on it anyway. If the chairman would yield, i dont disagree with a thing mr. Morelle said about the power of your leadership. But we had a choice and i say we loosely. You had a choice when you drafted this language. We could have decided on this guidance together. This is a matter of original jurisdiction, our committee gets to make these decisions. But instead the language you drafted says pass it first and then ill decide later how its going to work. We will i took no one i told mr. Cole earlier today that we will share with him the guidance before this is its going to be you know, before the vote. I understand that. And if the gentleman wants to now require that there be a prefiling amendment, we can entertain that as well. The gentleman has we have a committee that could have a minority voice as we crafted this. The very first step in creating Remote Committee jurisdiction is to say, in fact, the minority members wont be voting on any of these things. We wont as a committee sit on any of these things. Were going to delegate the entire process to the rules Committee Chairman. There is no better chairman than you to delegate that. Im not denigrating your leadership at all. What im saying is the first step out of the box is to say we wont do this collectively, were going to do it in the unified way as if weve given you all of our proxies and you have decided to write these rules. And this is the nature of our concern. Its not a faux concern. Its a very real concern and were living it out right now. Mr. Chair. The gentleman, you know, has asked that we not have a prefiling requirement. I would urge the gentleman to take yes for an answer. But everything i see whats happening here. You know, this is were going through this procedure here which is perfectly fine. And no matter if the answer is yes, its still not the answer that the gentleman wants. I yield to the gentleman from colorado. I guess whats bothering me here is that every one of these motions, every one of these amendments, every argument that was made by the five or six gentlemen that came in is almost ignoring the fact we are in a pandemic. We are not in a regular order system. And weve got to do the best we can. And the gentleman who has worked with you and worked with mr. Cole has said he will get these guidances and well visit with you and he keeps saying this. I mean, well be here all night. And thats fine. I dont care. But america is undergoing something it hasnt experienced in at least a hundred years. And the size of the economic fallout of this is beyond belief. And what were trying to do, mr. Woodall is to keep this government running in any kind of a way to address so many things that exist out there right now. Do you think i want to be wearing this neck gaiter and choking on some of my words . I dont like this. This is not regular order, what is happening in here. And the language, and mr. You know from your law school days as do i, you know, if you exclude something in one way and you dont exclude it in another way, the courts are going to draw conclusions from that. And what i just want to i want to have you you could bring up every single section of the rules because of his use of the word notwithstanding. And if we want to be here all night, i mean, it reminds me of narrow fiddling while rome is burning. Weve got work to do. This is a way to get this. I know mr. Cole wants to get on normal appropriations. There was a lot of work for us to have to conduct long before this damn virus hit us all. And we got to get this done. And i appreciate the minority wanting to, you know, make it as difficult as possible. And maybe run out the clock through the end of december. I dont think thats what you want to do, but ill tell you after 28 or 29 of these amendments, i can see that coming. And america will suffer for it. Thats all i can say. And i yield back. Mr. Chairman . Yes, mr. Woodall. Thank you, and i do appreciate your indulgence. I know my colleague from colorado is not saying my sincerity i know he was not questioning my sincerity in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Raskind went down that same line of i would argue policy shaming for folk who is arent focused on other issues. We all like to think that were a committee of jurisdiction, that were in charge of getting those Health Care Dollars out the door. But thats not our job. We like to think that were in charge of making sure that our First Responders have ppe, but that is not our job on this committee. We like to think that we get to go out and assist our First Responders with equipment. Thats not our job on this committee. Our job on this committee is the rules of the house. And what youre proposing today is changing the rules of the house in a profound way, a profound way. And for members who are concerned that folks are likely to use a crisis that we all agree is a crisis, likely to use human suffering which we all agree as human suffering, as an excuse to drive their will over the minority, show up for the rules Committee Hearing on may 14th when folks say those minority guys, theyre just trying to delay it. Those minority guys, their ideas arent even sincere. Those minority guys, theyre focused on the mie knew sha when they ought to be focused on the big picture. Were a process committee. We focus on the minutia right. Because if we dont, it falls apart. We dont even need a rules committee. We could operate this house without a rules committee at all. We have a rules committee to deal with the problems that the regular process doesnt solve. Perhaps creating a brand new way to hold Committee Hearings after 200 years, perhaps responding to a crisis of unprecedented proportions, perhaps that merits a conversation. And i think its wonderful that after the chairman crafts the guidance where the rules committee tells other committees how to conduct their business for, again, the first time because rules committees usually vote on their own rules will be telling those committees how to do their rules. I think its wonderful that chairman mcgovern is going to come and consult with mr. Cole after the fact. But theres not a Single Member on this committee who questions the value that mr. Cole provides here. Theres not a Single Member on this committee who questions mr. Coles wisdom as it comes to how we can operate in a collaborative bipartisan way. And so theres not a member on this committee who doesnt think its a waste of our collective resources to come to him after the fact when the cake is baked instead of before the fact when were mixing up the ingredients to begin with. Let me if i can respond just briefly. Let me just say one thing. I mean, i we dont agree on what were doing here. I mean, thats clear. You know, we but i will disagree with the gentleman on a couple of things. One is it is our job to make sure we get money to First Responders. It is our job to make sure we get Health Care Dollars out. Were the committee that brings the bills to the floor so, in fact, we can move this stuff forward. So lets not the idea its just not the process is policy as well. Secondly, i you know, we need to come to an agreement in the bipartisan committee. But i think that its not because we werent exchanging ideas or i wasnt listening to mr. Cole or he wasnt listening to me. Its just that we couldnt come to an agreement. And so the idea that somehow this is a big surprise that were here right now and that theres been no consultation and no back and forth, i respect mr. Cole. I disagree with his conclusion here today. I think we need to do this to be able to help our First Responders and help get Health Care Dollars out. But i mean, the implication that somehow we dont value i dont value his opinion or his guidance, i do. And on a lot of things, we do agree and we work things out. So i just want the record to reflect that. And that the work that this committee does is not just about, you know, crossing ts and putting dots on is. It is about making sure that this place functions in a way that we can get the moneys and the relief to people in this crisis who need it. And so i get it. And i dont question anybodys motives here. I think we need to move on. We have to deal with the our heroes package. We have to listen to that as well. So let us if we could, we could maybe kind of move on and take a vote. Mr. Cole . Just quickly first of all, i doubt the wisdom of consulting me all the time. I appreciate your kind words and my friends kind words. But also want to say a couple of things just in response to what you said. And number one, i thought the Ad Hoc Committee did really good work. And i thought we actually moved closer in the course of our discussions. You certainly accepted the number of the suggestions we made. I appreciate that. Others, yeah, we probably started out on our side where we were not in favor of remote hearings at all. We accepted them to everything other than the markup. We were not in favor of proxy votes at all. We eventually accepted them with the idea of concurrence and a lower number. You moved toward us on that number. So look, i think the whole exercise was a good one. And i think it actually eased the work here today. All were trying to do, we have a lot of questions our members want to ask. We want to defend this process to them. And i think thats what mr. Woodall is trying to do. Please dont think for a minute that any of us doubt your fairness, because we dont. Or that any of us think that you have not been forthright with us and inclusive, because you have. I appreciate that. I yield back. All right. The vote is on the woodall amendment. In favor say aye. Opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Would you like a roll call . Please, mr. Chairman. Mr. Hastings. Mrs. Torres, no. Mr. Perlmutter, no. Mr. Raskind, no. Ms. Scanlon, no. Mr. Morelle, no. Ms. Shalala, no. Ms. Matsui, no. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Woodall, aye. Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Lesko, aye. Mr. Chairman, no. Clerk, report the total. Three yeas, eight nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Before i go to the next amendment, let me ask to insert a statement to the record by representative steve cohen in favor. Further amendments . Mr. Who . I had an amendment that designated number 12, be chairman, but i was not going to offer that amendment. Withdraw it. Further amendments . If i could sure. Just so the committees clear, the we talked a lot about your consultation with the Ranking Member and my amendment was to codify that to say you would, in fact, consult with the Ranking Member because that was nowhere to be found. But based on your statements that you have been and you will be and you will continue to be to your point. Theres no need to vote on that because youve given us your word which gives me great confidence. Further amendments . Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. This again is a burgess amendment. Bear with me. I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment number 29 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Cole of oklahoma. I would ask that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection. Thank you very much. As i noted, mr. Chairman, this is an amendment by our esteemed colleague mr. Burgess simpling asking only cao authorized products be used with the operations of our committees when were operating remotely. I think thats something that you want to do as well. But were just trying to get it nailed down so that so we know source of any technology we need to use. Thats pretty important thing. And particularly given the number of times that people try to hack into various house proceedings as it is. Were going to basically its a very good idea, were going to end up taking this. Were going to change the words approved to certified. Thats more than generous, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. But were no on the amendment. Gee. Were giving you what you want. He wont look at it quite that way. Anyway. The vote is on the cole amendment. All those in favor say i. I. Opposed. Well leave it up to the voice vote on your assurances. Further amendment miss less co. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report the amendment. 965 offered by mrs. Less co of arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would require that within 24 hours of using the authority to Recess Committee operations for technical reasons. The chair must notify all members about the circumstances related to the recess we agree that the chair should have the right to recess for technical issues. There should be a mandatory followup promptly, clarifying the reason for the recess. And with that i yield back. Let us. Let us think about this. I dont im going to urge a no vote right now. But you want us to set aside while you look through it. And well go through the rest of them . Yeah, i we need to consult with a few other its going to take more than 10 seconds for us to go through this. Why dont we have a vote and if we could try to take care of this in the guidelines, we will, but we why dont we vote. I would urge a no vote so we could consult. But all those in favor of the less co amendment say aye . No . Mrs. Torres. No. Mr. Perlmutter. No. Mr. Askin. No. Miss scanlon. No. Mr. Mother ellie . No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Cole. Aye. Mr. Wood all. Aye. Mrs. Less co . Aye. Mr. Chairman . No. Further amendments. Mr. Woodall. On behalf of mr. Burgess the clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 31 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. All of the minority rights i discussed earlier that you assured me would be protected by the guidance go by the wayside if a member cant unmute their phone. We are not created technolodgically equal in our understanding and our use of technology. So this amendment by dr. Burgess would say that if were going to go down this road. Each Committee Chairman must ensure there is a dedicated cao support Team Available to each member of the committee in realtime because unlike our night life where an inability to communicate with your spouse is just an inconvenience. Inability to communicate with your chairman in the middle of a markup is exponential importance when it comes to doing the legislative business. Recognizing that we are not all equally skilled would go a long way to ensuring the comfort of members in this new process. We agree that members need to be given Technical Support to comply. I dont think we understand how that is done. I agree with this in spirit. But in real life, i would urge a no vote at this particular time. I dont know how individual committees pay for their support staff. But whats unique about the support staff, its a nonpartisan staff. When it comes to partisan concerns, are we suppressing the minority on whos getting the help, the Nonpartisan Office as opposed to the partisan offices. The idea of taking this like this, i would be reluctant to do so at this point. I would urge a no vote. To leave some of mr. Burgess concerns, having assured folks that we would make a pathway forward so all members could participate. This would increase participation. If we dont know what the ceos capacity is, if we dont know what individuals capacity is, how can we be confident going down this road. I would urge a know vote. I dont think theres anything i can do or say that would alleviate mr. Burgess concerns. Vote on the wouldallamendment. The nos have it. The clerk will call a role. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Miss scanlon . Miss scanlon . Miss scanlon . No. Mr. Morelli . No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye . Mr. Chairman . No. Clerk record the total . Three yays, eight nays. This is pretty simple. Any issues with remote operation should be included in the Committee Report on activities were marking again in the new area. This will give us a systematic way to know what the problems are and address them, and if theyre highlighted, i think that taking remedial action becomes a lot easier. I think its a practical thing to do. I yield back. Im sorry, i had an amendment at the desk. Clerk report the amendment. I would ask the reading be dismissed with. And i think i explained the amendments sufficiently. I dont think theres any requirement. All those in favor say aye . No. The nos have it . Roll call. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Mr. Askin . No. Miss scanlon . No. Mr. Morelli . No. Miss shalala . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Woodall . Aye. Mrs. Less co . No. Mr. Chairman . No. Three yays, eight nays. I would ask you consider this when youre putting together guidance. Thank you very much mr. Chair n chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair, an amendment at the desk on behalf of mr. Burgess. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment 963 thank you mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have expressed their side about ensuring that committees can meet safely following the recommendations of the cdc and attending physician. I agree with their concerns about ensuring they have a large capacity to meet. I offer this amendment which would require the committee on the House Administration to develop a plan that would allow committees to more fully use the capital complex for hearings and markups prior to permitting the use of remote operations. We have large significantly underutilized spaces that can be used for business. Emancipation hall, cdc training rooms. They could all be converted to allow congress to continue its work before implementing a solution that returns more than 200 years of precedent. With that, i urge my members to support this amendment and i yield back. All those in favor say aye . The nos have pp. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Mr. Askin . No. Miss scanlon . No. Mr. Morelli . No. Miss matsui . No. Mr. Cole . Aye. Mr. Burgess . Mrs. Less co . No. Report the total . Three ayes, eight nays. On behalf of dr. Burgess amendment number 34. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment number 34 to House Resolution 965 offered by mr. Woodall of georgia. Ive taken absolutely no pleasure in our proceedings today. The circumstances that bring us here are disturbing and painful, and the work we have to do here today changes a process that is near and dear to all of us and were doing it in the name of trying to get to a better ending. The anxieties you heard shared by all of the witnesses saved mr. Hoyer who testified today were anxieties that came from a place of partisanship that is rampant in this institution today. That concern that partisanship creeps in to everything that we do. Had we found a bipartisan solution to move forward, again incrementally or large scale, we would not be having this conversation today and the anxiety would still be present but in a much different way. Confidence that we were doing it in a collaborative way. This final amendment from dr. Burgess changes section 5 and changes it from a study in implementation of remote voting in the house to study of remote voting in the house. The most significant thing this resolution does today is provide for the certification of remote voting in the u. S. House of representatives on the floor of the house. That is the most consequential thing in this piece of legislation. Asking the House AdministrationCommittee Rather than to study it and certify lets do it, to study it and tell us were ready to do it, so we can have a vote on the house on it. It would. It would require us to be down the floor for one more role call vote. But no, you cannot do anything thats going to satisfy all the concerns of the minority. But you could do this one thing that would thwart the majorities goals not one iota, and give the American People a degree of confidence in the direction were going that is not contained in the underlying resolution i think dr. Berg us is spot on here. When the conclusion comes back from the House Administration committee to do this most consequential thing of voting on the floor of the house, lets come back and have a final vote not on that measure as part of a giant package. Not on that measure as part of a multirule bill but on that measure and that measure alone. All those in favor say aye . Aye. No . The nos have it. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . No. Mr. Perlmutter . No. Mr. Askin . No. Miss scanlon . No. Mr. Morelli . No. Miss shah lay lay . No. Miss matsui . No. Mr. Cole aye. Mrs. Lesko . No. Mr. Chairman . No. Further amendments . I want to thank you very much for the spirit in which you conducted the hearing, i know its a long hearing. Its a contentious topic we dont agree on everything. But youve been extraordinarily fair throughout this process. I appreciate that, i also want to for the record. Theres some frustration. We havent seen the guidance yet, and our members have a lot of concerns and they ask us collectively that was the spirit in which we operated. I know we will have good and extensive comments about the guidance. I want to address a point that our distinguished majority leader made or the concern he expressed. I want to reassure him as well. I know some of these are shared on your side are about changing the nature of the institution. Theyre really not about the relative power of the majority and the minority. The powers where it belongs. Its with the majority. I dont have any dispute. I dont think the majority leader or any member of our adhoc panel was trying in anyway shape or form to change that. Im much more profoundly worried and i know you know this. About the nature of the institution. Im worried that some of these changes will diminish the power of the individual member pretty dramatically and enhance the power of leadership. I also think the use or over use of this particular. Whether its remote voting, Virtual Committee meeting hearing. Will weaken us as a branch visavis the executive branch. Its in here actually operating. I also think there is a concern. You heard it from the members today. We are asking lots of other americans to do their work, to show up and do their work theyre heroes all. Doctors, nurses. The Unsung Heroes are those at Food Processing plants and driving trucks and stocking shelves. I know you feel that way too. Ive heard you express that sentiment on many occasions. I know my own hometown when i was there, i go to the same 7eleven every morning they were there every morning. They were strike there every morning making sure there was Food Supplies and gasoline. I think as our members we understand we need to change the way we operate. This very committee mitting and the way weve arranged ourselves is an admission of that, i think we all share that. But we do think broadly we ought to be here doing our work and that we run lots of risk and weaken the institution. And i think inhibit rather than maximize the chance for bipartisan cooperation by going down this road. We have great concerns about the rule and the changes that it proposes and our amendments suggest that tomorrow. Please dont think its because i have doubt about your motives, i dont. Or any other member of the majority on this open certainly the majority leader. I do have concerns about the judgment that have been made. You tried to work with us when i could. I appreciate that. We tried to work with you where we could. We didnt get all the way there, but we got more of the way there than perhaps this hearing might suggest. I hope we can continue to do that, i look forward to working with you as you work through the difficult issue of the guidance. And so with that. We may not agree on this one. But i always found you and your staff fair and congenial to work with, i know thats going to continue to go forward . I yield back. Let me say to the gentleman from oklahoma. I appreciate his kind words. I also appreciate the fact that on this issue which is contentious, but also a number of other issues weve somehow managed to get through it all in a way that seems to sometimes be the exception to the rule here in the house, which, you know, the fact that the rules committee seems to be more civil and more thoughtful. I dont say that in any disrespect to the chair. Were having hearings on medicare for all, impeachment, article i responsibilities and we have had some very thoughtful interactions here on this committee. Let me just say finally. None of us want to be in this moment where we have to confront these issues about members. I think that is the least of our concern. Its the safety of everybody that works up here. We have to be thinking of ways to operate remotely. We have never experienced anything like this pandemic in our lifetime. Lots of references were made to the 1918 pandemic. You look back on the history, congress didnt function. I gave an example of the fact we couldnt get together to approve more doctors to go to rural areas. Probably as a result of that more people died than should have. That is an example of how of failure. Were trying to come up with a package that hopefully is not only temporary, but very temporary. Thats not how we will manage to get through this. I think the one thing i have become convinced of is that the status quo. We need to figure out a way if members can come here, not everybody can. We also need to think about the safety of our staff and the people who work here. So i know were not going to agree on this, but i want to thank the gentleman of oklahoma for his incredible partnership up here. I want to thank all the members of the committee. All the work leading up to this hearing. This has been a long day, its nowhere near over yet. If there are no further amendments, all those in favor will say aye. No. Mr. Hastings . Mrs. Torres . Aye. Mr. Perlmutter . Aye. Mr. Askin . Aye. Miss scanlon . Aye. Miss shalala . Aye. Miss matsui . Aye. Mr. Cole . No. Mr. Woodall in. No. Mrs. Burgess . Aye. Eight yays, four nays. Okay. So now. Mr. Chairman . Yes. There were two little bits of misinformation that were floating around. I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to take a second to correct them now . You want to publicly correct the record . Yes, i would. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I understand from the House Committee on administration that in the c. A. R. E. S. Act there was 25 million appropriated to the house of representatives. It was stated in the discussion of one of the lesko amendments that went to the m. R. A. Accounts of individual members. It did not. That money went to contractors for the house of representatives in the cafeteria, in maintenance and technology, especially Technology Contractors who helped to set people up at home. As far as i know, there was no money allocated to m. R. A. s. The second thing i want to correct is one of the witnesses before took issue with i think we need to pause to start the next hearing. The rules committee will come to order. Were considering two measures. The first is hres. We just held an additional jurisdiction hearing and markup on this resolution. We heard a lot of feedback from both sides. Im not sure theres anything else to add to this. Weve been going since 11 00. I heard from members asking us to make these changes a reality for weeks now. We want to keep legislation in the safest way. We have discussed these ideas for weeks and now its time to act. The second measure is a bill to continue responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Im not surprised by much these days, but im shocked when i hear the president suggests that waiting a month or more before taking further action to combat the impacts of the virus are somehow okay. The unemployment right now stands at over 14 and continues to climb. More than a million americans have been diagnosed with this virus. Families are struggling to put food on the table and pay their bills. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are telling the American People to hurry up and wait. Are you kidding me . The congress is not waiting, were acting on this comprehensive bill that matches the scale of what we face. The heroes act provides pay for teachers, Health Care Workers and First Responders who keep us all safe. It provides additional Contact Tracing and testing of the virus. It establishes a heros fund for hazard pay. It also provides billions of dollars so the states can hold federal elections including early voting and vote by mail. Im especially proud that the legislation includes a 15 increase as well as bipartisan. As well as the bipartisan feed act. These provisions will help address the hunger crisis in this country. The scale of which weve not seen since the 1930s. I dont know what the Senate Majority leader or the president would do, and i know what they should do, get this bill signed into law. My constituents dont ask for more rubber stamping. They want more concrete solutions to the challenges they face because of this pandemic. Thats what this bill will provide, and its what all americans deserve. With that, let me turn it over to our Ranking Member for any comments he wishes to make. Ill turn to mr. Cole for any Opening Statements he would like to make. Todays legislative hearing is on hr6800. The majority is calling the heros act. Better described as a liberal pipe dream. Rather than attempting to work with republicans to advance bipartisan legislation. Speakers called us back here today to consider a bill that will cost 3 trillion and was assembled with only democratic input. I regret that. Weve had four supplementals in a row that were bipartisan. And no partisan division at all. Why we didnt proceed down that line which has worked in the past is a mystery to me. Indeed there are very few liberal policy ideas, the majority has not tried to squeeze into this bill whats most egregious is its an agenda ma masquerading as the coronavirus pandemic. The senate will not accept this bill, the president will not sign it into law. And why were going through this exercise is beyond my understanding. Whats even more surprising is how quickly the majority wants to move on a brill of this magnitude. Just six weeks ago the president signed into law the cares act, 2 trillion for Coronavirus Relief efforts. Just two weeks ago Congress Passed and the president signed a bill that provided an additional 500 million in relief. Much of the money included in those two bills isnt even out the door yet. Not content with having spent 2 1 2 trillion in six weeks, majorities now asking us to spend another 3 trillion this week. No matter that the nation has not absorbed the carries act yet. And the funds provided previously havent been all spent yet. Let me be clear about one thing, we stand ready to work hand in hand with democrats to pass another Coronavirus Relief bill if and when its needed. Today its not clear if we need another bill much less what should be in it. Perhaps thats why todays bill covers a lit thing of priorities. Just as we are being asked to vote on a democratic only measure to fundamentally change the nature of the institution of the house of representatives, the majority is asking us to pass a bill to fundamentally change and reshape the nature of our country. Consider just some of the provisions included in this bill, 3 trillion in spending, nearly 10,000 for every person in the United States. Complicated and controversial provisions allowing a bailout of pension plans. Forgiving student loan debt. And preventing any debt collection. Repealing a provision of the law requiring the auction, requiring same day Voter Registration and nationwide vote by mail. I could go on and on and on with this list. I think members get the picture. So much of what is in this bill has nothing to do with the crisis. Mr. Chairman, it doesnt make sense to me if the majority wants to help americans, there are plenty of bipartisan ways to do so. We should be focusing our efforts on legislation to combat this j pandemic, to allow peopl to get back to work and restore our economy. Instead weve been handed an 1800 page list of democratic priorities that they would be pursuing regardless of this pandemic. We can do better than that, and i hope in the coming weeks we will. I would ask the indulgence. At some point i need to go down and testify. I can do it from here or there . Whatever you feel comfortable. Given how difficult it is to space people, maybe i should stay where im at. All right. Thank you. Let me get back to you during questions, is that okay with you . I want to welcome our Witnesses Today to provide testimony on hr680, the heroes act. Chair woman nea lone were delighted youre here. Anything you brought in writing without objection will be put into the report. I recognize the gentle woman from new york, lonee. Mr. Chairman and members of the rules committee. More than 84,000 americans have died. More than 1. 4 million have become sick. More than 36 million have lost their jobs because of coronavirus. While congress has taken significant action to address urgent needs stemming from coronavirus we must do more. As jay powell told us yesterday. Additional fiscal support should be would be costly. But worth it, if it helps avoid long Term Economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery. The heros act takes that wisdom to heart. It is the bold and transformative step we need to make sure our nation achieves recovery from the economic recession. Much of the bill is in the jurisdiction of other committees. And my fellow Committee Chairs will tell you more how this bill meets the needs of the American People. By putting the money directly in the pockets of workers. Including our essential workers, supporting Small Businesses and nonprofits and further bolstering families, including their Health Security and workplace security. However, there is much in the appropriations division to address the health and economic crisis for the people. First and foremost, the bill delivers nearly 1 trillion to states and local governments so they can keep our heroes, First Responders, health workers, teachers and other Public Servants paid and working for us. Im incredibly proud that this bill will provide 67 billion to my home state new york. Which has been hit so hard. Second, we will only beat this disease with a robust strategy for testing, tracing and treatment. We build on the c. A. R. E. S. Act with an additional 100 billion for the Health Relief fund and 75 billion for a nationwide testing and Contact Tracing strategy. Third. We must meet the challenge that the economic effect of lockdowns and stay at home orders are having on families. As a mother and grandmother, i am deeply concerned about the effects of coronavirus on children and their education. We are including 100 billion to support k through 12 and higher education. These systems we hope will respond to this crisis. To address rising munger. This bill funds an expansion of snap benefits and other nutrition programs so that children and families have enough to eat. Working with the authorizing committees to prevent a housing crisis we are deploying new funds worth nearly 200 billion to help struggling families make rent or pay their mortgages. Finally, to stop this crisis from weakening our democracy, we have included funding to hold safe elections to carry out a fair and accurate census and to ensure that the Postal Service can continue safely delivering mail to american households. These are just a few of the highlights of this bill, and im so proud of the hard work of so many to ensure that includes the help that so many families, businesses communities need. Mr. Chairman the heroes act will meet the challenges this pandemic poses to our nation. I request an appropriate rule to bring it to the floor. Thank you. I yield back and i mr. Pollone. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im not going to talk much about the appropriations part, but rather the authorizing parts that relate to the energy and Commerce Committee which is health, Telecommunications Energy and environment. In terms of the Health Provisions of the bill as miss lowee said, the heros act continues our on going commitment to providing the Health Care Resources and support needed to combat the virus. Most important in my opinion is the way in the original cares act that we had pretesting. Were now expanding that to free treatment drugs and ultimately vaccine. No one should be afraid that if they seek treatment, drugs or the vaccine, ultimately, they will have to incur any out of pocket costs. I think thats the most significant thing. Second, we add 75 billion to the 25 billion that was ployed in the last bill, specifically for a National TestingContact Tracing and isolation plan. I think the responsibility has fallen mainly on the states. But i dont think that should be the case, in terms of providing a comprehensive testing plan and building out capacity, the federal government needs to do more to help the states. And so this basically not only adds money, but has specific plans and benchmarks with clear timetables to achieve Testing Capacity and make it significantly more robust. And at the same time provide for very specific ways to increase contact testing and isolation, particularly for those who cant isolate at home or perhaps because their apartment or home is not big enough for that. In addition to that, and i cant stress enough, we have built a supply chain with ill call it azar or someone whos clearly in charge of the supply chain. One of the faults of the of whats going on now, many times supplies were not delivered to help with treatment, ventilators, gowns, masks, youve heard the long list over the last few weeks or the last month and a half. We want to make sure there is a supply chain with someone in charge who we can go to with websites and portals to specifically indicate what supplies are needed. What supplies are going out and not only what supplies are being manufactured, more extensive use of the defense production act and manufacturing here in the United States. Not only for the personal protection equipment, but also for the drugs, also for the testing, also for building out capacity for all that, we need a much improved supply chain. We also as chair woman lowee said, we add another 100 billion to the Health Care Relief fund. Beyond the money again, because energy and commerce is the authorizing committee, we specifically say that this has to be for lost revenue linked to the covid virus. So far a lot of the money has been based on 2018, 2019 revenue losses that have absolutely nothing to do with the covid virus. And were saying that shouldnt be the case. It may be that a hospital, for example, cant do elective surgery, and, therefore, they can say that thats linked obviously to the covid virus. This money when it goes out through the Provider Relief Fund has to be linked to whats happening now in the last few months during this covid virus period not before. We also take the accelerated advanced Payment Program that many hospitals have used, borrowed money from, the Interest Rate is too high, its 10 , were reducing it to 1, were giving them an extra year to pay back. And were taking money from the general revenue so we dont deplete the Medicare Trust fund. We also have medicaid provisions. Additional increase to 2. 5 to support proportionate share hospitals. Increases by state that keeps patients at home and Community Based care, rather than going to Nursing Homes. Finally with regarded Health Provisions, i wanted to say one of the most important things and one of the biggest concerns we have, i know chash woman lowee has seen it in my state, the majority of the deaths are from Nursing Homes. We want to improve care at Nursing Homes, have a strike force that can be deployed for Nursing Homes. And also require Nursing Homes to provide information related to the covid19 cases. I wanted to mention also the telecommunications and energy and environment related provisions, with regard to telecommunications i cant stress enough, i know all of you know having the ability to access the internet and use the internet is so important during this covid period. We are including 1. 5 million billion for schools and libraries under the fcc program to facilitate Distance Learning during the emergency. An additional 4 million during the emergency that goes to the low income americans who perhap cannot pay their internet bills so they dont get cut off. Finally. A specific prohibition that providers cannot stop service to consumers unable to pay their telephone or their Broadband Service during the duration of the emergency. And last, but certainly not least with regard to utilities, very similar phenomenon. No shutoffs and the fund to a fund that gives a billion and a half dollars for new Water UtilityAssistance Program again for low income. Theres two other things i need to mention that are in this bill. One price gouging under the bill, we provide authority to pursue Civil Penalties to those engaged in price gouging. I know many on this committee have asked what were doing with regard to mental health. I know that miss lowee has added funding to samsa with regards to mental health. Also another authorizing provision for Health Care Workers facing those types of problems during the crisis. Again i have spoken too long, i cant express my enthusiasm for this bill. This really is the heroes act in the sense that its helping everyone, but particularly helping those who are the heroes, who are on the front line, our Health Care Workers our emt workers, weve got to do more. I know the chairperson said whats in this bill is not directly related to covid. In all honesty, as you can tell from the things i mentioned, these are all related directly to the crisis, these are not ideological provisions, these are practical ways of dealing with the crisis right now. And thats really what this bill is all about, and i want to stress that, mr. Chairman. Thank you, again. Its my privilege to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member of the rules committee, and member of the Appropriations Committee and member of all kinds of task forces and everything else, mr. Cole. You can imagine how much i regret that my good friend couldnt be here tonight. And i regret that, and i know she would have been here if she could in anyway. The pandemic we face is unlike anything weve experienced in modern history. So too has been our response. Im pleased with how congress has worked together and quickly to provide urgent aid to those on the front lines and those struggling with the Economic Impacts and the efforts to slow the spread. Each of the four bills that have been enacted up until now, was ultimately the product of cooperation and bipartisan support. So its very disappointing to me to come to you personally on this bill, which has been crafted behind closed doors and without any republican input whatsoever. This is not the spirit of cooperation that the American People expect from their leaders during difficult times. And because theres been no cooperation, this bill is ultimately going to become law. I know what can come from members working across the aisle together. Its what led to the creation of the Infectious DiseaseRapid Reserve fund that allowed the administration to respond to the emerging threat as we understood where resources were needed. I was proud to work with my counterpart, chair woman laurel on that fund. And even prouder to see it used so effectively. So knowing what we can achieve when we Work Together. Im very disappointed to be before you today to testify against the bill that has a 309 billion of funding in our subcommittees jurisdiction. But was created entirely without input or that of any republicans on the Appropriations Committee. I want to pause there for a minute. Normally the labor h subcommittee has a budget of between 180 to 90 billion. The four years i was privileged to be chairman, my Ranking Member worked with me in that process diligently. And voted for final passage each time. Last year when she was chairman, did exactly the same thing, we are used to collaborating together, i voted with her on her first bill, and its my hope when we get back to regular appropriations, mr. Chairman, i can do that again. To have a 309 billion labor h portion of this bill and not to have been consulted about it, asked a question about it, what are your priorities in it . Thats not how i know my chair woman works. She does all those things. That didnt happen because the speaker decided it wasnt going to happen. And that means this bill is not going to happen. It doesnt mean everything in the bill is bad. There are some great things in this bill. There are some other things that we dont think are great. But a bill that comes out of the house with no republican votes is not going to pass a Republican Senate and is not going to be signed by a republican president. I suspect this is a lot more about political messaging and political positioning than it is about rendering relief to the American People. And i regret that, because again, we Work Together for four bills in a row, and had almost unanimous support in the house. Each team on each side working together to maximize the vote for bills that we both knew were important. I think that spirit can be recaptured, its not going to be recaptured when we offer bills that have zero input from the other side. When the other side is not consulted, not included. Not asked. And when we put things in the bill that we know the other side cannot or will not accept. Thats whats going on here. With all due respect to my very good friend who i admire enormously, and who leads our committee with great professionalism and great bipartisanship, its my house that the house will reject this measure and go back to the cooperative nature thats been the hallmark of our governmental response to this pandemic. The American People deserve that. And to my good friend mr. Pollone, i disagree with you, not everything in this bill has to do with coronavirus. You can hold a different opinion. But youre not going to get the votes in the United States senate for that opinion to prevail. When theres so much we could work on together. Im sorry were having this kind of disagreement here tonight. I look forward to debating the bill tomorrow, its a pretty easy bill for every republican to oppose, since not a single republican was asked for any input or proposal. Were going to spin this with no committee meetings, i would suspect no amendments, no nothing. So if we want to have political fireworks and a show on the floor tomorrow, thats exactly what were going to get. This wasnt designed to become law. This is a political messaging bill pure and simple. Or perhaps its let me be charitable. A political negotiating thing, thats fine, you could have dropped the bill, we all did that, didnt have to drag everybody back for that. But again, i dont see this as remotely likely to become law. And i regret my friends who acted in a bipartisan way for four consecutive bills. Working with everybody, not always getting what they wanted. But offering good suggestions, we didnt always get what we wanted either, and we put some things in bills that we didnt particularly agree with, but we recognize our friends control the house of representatives. And their priorities needed to be included and they needed to be part of the discussion. And they made sure they were part of the discussion. No complaint with that. Thats exactly whats going to happen. Theyre going to decide they want to be part of the process too. And this is not going to be anything like our final work product. I fear that we run the danger of cementing people into their spots when they vote for something that we havent agreed to, and make it more difficult to compromise and delay compromise. Weve acted with extraordinary speed given the crisis thats overtaken us. Both parties can be proud of that. We put aside our differences, we Work Together. Why my friends have not continued down that course, which has been productive, i dont know. But perhaps ill explain that to us in the course of the debate. So again, forgive me for going on, mr. Chairman, i feel strongly about this, this is a great missed opportunity to Work Together in good faith. And instead were going to have a partisan vote tomorrow that we didnt need to have. And were going to delay things that in my opinion didnt need to be delayed. With that, i yield back. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his comments. And i want to begin by thanking all of you our esteemed chairman and chair woman for being here with us. Im a bit surprised to hear there was theres a feeling that there is no consultation on behalf of republicans on this bill. Because let me tell you, theres a lot to hate from the democratic side on this bill that looked much more like republican proposals. Let me start, before i give my statement and ask a couple questions, let me start by putting into the record a few letters of opposition that have come from our friends in labor. One of them is from ibew. In opposition of having the grow act added to the bill. The other one comes from bakery confectionery tobacco workers and Grain Millers International union. Grekt irs guild of america. International Alliance Stage employs. International longshore and warehouse union. International unions of allied trades. Pension rights center. Seiu, united food and commercial Workers International union. United steel workers. United steel workers. Now, while its good to see all of you today. And its good to see that you are all in good health despite the pandemic ranging around us, id like to take a moment to acknowledge why were here. When i boarded my flight yesterday, i was in a region where Small Businesses are struggling to survive in an economy that has grounded to a halt. Its a place where families are waiting bumper to bumper in a seamingly endless line of cars for food banks because their funds have run out. And their children are hungry. It is a place where donation drives are the only way some of our medical workers fighting to save lives can get the ppe to stay safe. This place, the region that i call home is not an obscure place across an ocean, its the inland empire. Its in california, the fifth Largest Global economy. Those businesses i mentioned are the momandpop shops that make our community what it is. And those people in line are not folks from some far away place, theyre our neighbors. They are our friends. And they are our family members. And those donation drives are my communitys way of stepping up because for all that this congress has done in its previous bills, its still not enough. Theyre calling 911. Theyre crying for help. We are here today and tomorrow to answer their call for help. And so that is why . ÷today, w it has taken us five hours to take up this bill, this rule, the people we know, we love need us to do more in this time of unprecedented danger. The question before us has nothing to do with politics. The question before us is whether or not we support the very communities we live in. The people and businesses that make us call those communities home. The heroes act does exactly that. I made a number of specific requests for this package after many, many, many days and several hours on the phone with people in my community. I am happy to see that you answered their call for help in this legislation. I led more than 75 of our colleagues in a call fori caller workers putting their life on the line to keep others alive. Toffee this is personal. Three of my closest family members are nurses. They are on the front lines of this pandemic. Just like countless medical doctors nurses are across the country. We are asking them to risk their lives right now, and they deserve proper support. I am glad to see that these provisions are in this bill. I also lead a push for virtual naturalizations to help the more than 100,000 americans in waiting. They can take that final step to citizenship with an online oath ceremony. These are people that have already approved, and have been approved to become our fellow americans. The only thing standing in the way is the oath ceremony. This is an hole to prevent the spread of covid19. While everyone agrees that we have to prevent the spread of the virus including in our immigration process, in the age of the internet, there is no excuse for a slow naturalization process. In my region of Southern California 10,000 people were denied this final step to naturalization in march. 10,000 more were denied in april. 10,000 more were denied in may. Thankfully, the heroes act includes funding for virtual naturalization ceremonies to. Aside from fulfilling request like, these the vital support started in the cares act. It expands economic payments for the American People. It has new investments and Small Business support, and it Paycheck Protection Program and a new Employee Retention tax credit. Extends Unemployment Benefits for the more than 20 million americans that are out of work through january of next year, and much much more. To me the provision honors the most sacred and fundamental ingredient in our democracy, and that is our vote. The reason why we debated for five hours. The heroes act has new resources to ensure our election is safe in november, and our census count is as accurate as possible. As i close i want to revisit something that i said earlier. This is not about politics. It is not about supporting the American People, it is about supporting the American People in this moment. It is about the incredible need in our communities. And its about answering their call for help. This way our fellow americans dont go hungry, or lose their homes. So our businesses dont falter in a freefall. So one date with this horrible virus is behind us, we will have society to emerge to. With that, i will thank you again for being here, and i am going to now recognize the doctor. You can turn to cspan to for continuing coverage of the House Rules Committee as it considers the rules for debate on another court of our leaf bill that is expected and house floor tonight. Remember all of our coverage is Available Online and cspan. Org. Search rules committee to find the video. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. With white house briefings, updates from governors and congress, and our daily call in Program Washington journal. Hearing your thoughts about the Coronavirus Crisis, and if you missed any of our live coverage watch anytime on demand cspan. Org slash coronavirus. The select subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis and its first hearing with Public Health experts, including former fda commissioner scott and matt mick leaven. Adequate Contact Tracing needs to be in place in order to slow the spread of the virus. They also address the Health Disparities of rural and minority communities. This is an hour and 15 minutes