Okay, the rules committee will come to order. Before i give my opening statement, i just want to read a guidance from the attending physician. And we asked him specifically about the use of face coverings during proceedings like these. And while he is not mandated their use, he did share that, and i quote, my preference is that members retain their face covers when speaking as speaking is an activity which can release virus particles, especially if the speaking is of high spirited nature. And ive never had a meeting in the rules committee that hasnt been of a high spirited nature. So were going to leave it up to individual members to decide. But i think i will to be cautious here, im going to keep mine on. Others will be mindful of the reason why there is guidance on this issue. It has been roughly three months since the First Community transmission of covid19 was discovered in the United States. Since that time, our world has changed dramatically. There are now more than 1. 3 million confirmed cases across 50 states, washington, d. C. , and four territories. More than 81,000 of our citizens have lost their lives to this virus. And the number continues to rise each and every day. And communities have taken precedented steps to slow the spread through stay the at home orders and travel restrictions. We dont know how long it will take to develop a treatment or vaccine to contain this virus or for lives to return to normal. But we do know that this house must continue legislating. We have to keep responding to the pandemic and provide oversight of the trillions of dollars in emergency spending passed by congress. All while completing our more routine business. And we have to do so in a way that is safe for all those around us whether its fellow travelers, staff, the public or members of the media. The way we have done things will have to change, at least temporarily. That means physical distancing, it means Wearing Masks, it means embracing technology during this pandemic so that we can hold virtual hearings and markups and vote remotely on the house floor. Local governments and countries around the world have taken similar steps. It is time for this house to utilize 21st Century Technology too. This resolution is a result of weeks of collaboration. It has been repeatedly refined and contains Many Republican provisions. I dont suggest these steps lightly. And i am not looking to change the fabric of this institution. I believe the best ideas still come from working in person and side by side. But we must adapt to the circumstance and make temporary changes during the pandemic. They will help us get our work done to take. The second wave of this virus could be worse in the fall. It will be a dereliction of our responsibility to do nothing. Further delay is not an option either. We have released a report and formed a task force and had weeks and weeks of talks. It is time to act. I know there will be a lot of discussion today. I welcome this conversation. I also invite all my colleagues to support this proposal because the status quo is not going to cut it. Before i turn it over to our Ranking Member, i want to recognize mr. Coles leadership on this committee and on the Bipartisan Task force as well. He cares deeply about this institution. And i know regardless wrf of wh where he stand on this proposal, we agree on making sure this house functions on behalf of the American People. I always appreciated his courtesy and open mindedness. And i just say, finally, that i regret very much that were not coming here today with a proposal that both our leaderships embrace. And, you know, i think all of us, i certainly did, wanted to see something come to the floor that received such overwhelming support that it would pass by voice vote or unanimous consent. But i think we have very different opinions of about how should proceed. Some of us have different opinions about the urgency of the moment we now find ourselves in. So having said that, im happy to turn it over to the gentleman from oklahoma for any remarks he wishes to make. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. For the record, im going to take my mask off only while eye speak. If i get spirited, ill put the mask back on. I appreciate your courtesy there. I think as a rule youre wise to do as you suggest. Mr. Chairman, our original jurisdiction hearing today is on the most consequential change to the rules of the house of representatives in my tenure here. Indeed this may be the most most consequential change to the establishmentst modern Committee System and the reorganization act of 1946. Today the majoritys proposing for the first time in our history a system of proxy voting on the floor of the house of representatives. At the same time, the proposed rules change was also authorize committees to perform remote proceedings including markups. And it also allows for the adoption of totally remote voting upon the certification of one member of congress. Though the changes are purportedly limited to the present covid19 pandemic time line, temporary change we make to the rules today becomes the precedent we follow tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, three weeks ago Speaker Pelosi did an extraordinarily wise thing. Rather than pushing through a partisan proxy voting rules similar to the one were considering today, she formed a working group of six members to consider the challenges. This working group consisted of majority leader hoyer, republican leader mccarthy and chairperson and Ranking Member davis of the House Administration committee and, of course, you and i as chair and Ranking Member of the rules committee. Over the past three weeks, this working group has been wrestling with the question of whether and if so how congress can continue to operate during this pandemic. I particularly want to comment you, mr. Chairman, for the thoughtful and productive way in which you approach these discussions. And rest assured my dissatisfaction with todays resolution is no criticism of you personally. Quite the opposite. I thought you really worked hard to bridge the gaps between us and made some meaningful concessions in the course of our discussions. Frankly commend every member of the committee. They all work that way and try to find common ground. We didnt get there. Last monday republican leader mccarthy, Ranking Member davis and i posted an article on the medium that laid out four strategies for reopening the house of representatives. These strategies were designed to strike the Necessary Balance between health and institutional concerns that allow the house to begin to move forward in a safe and healthy way. Before i continue i request unanimous consent to insert a copy of that article into the record. Without objection. Thank you very much. The four strategies we highlighted were as follows. First, modifying existing practices and structures to utilize existing house rules and current practices. Second, employing a phased return with committees or in other words bringing back individual committees to work on essential and needed legislation in a safe, socially distant format. Third, deploying technology in a crawl, walk, run progression and, fourth, continuing to accelerate active Risk Mitigation practices. These four principles would allow congress to safely begin to return to d. C. To continue our work. It would allow committees to come back, to conduct hearings and in person markups, draft new legislation to combat this crisis and provide relief for the American People. It would have limited the risk of using Unproven Technology that may or may not be secure from wrong doers such as hackers and foreign governments. And it would have ensured that Congress Continues to meet as a congress, literally a physical meeting between delegates. Above all else, republicans believe that any change to the centurys old rules of the house should only be done in a bipartisan way that achieves consensus. We believe the proposal we outline would achieve that goal. Instead, this proposed rules package fundamentally change twoz key rules of the house. First, for the first time in history of the chamber, were being asked to approve a system of proxy voting for members on the house floor. That rules change also holds open the possibility of moving forward with totally remote voting once the chairperson of the House Administration committee certifies the technology for that use. Second, again, for the first time in our history, were being asked to approve a measure that would allow committees to operate remotely and approve legislation remotely. While i have no doubt that the majoritys intentions are good proposing the two changes, i believe they will fund. Ally alter the nature of the institution and not for the better. And i cannot support them. First and foremost, im deeply concerned about the precedent this sets for the institution. Even a temporary measure to dealideal with the Current Crisis could be used down the line. When it comes to the fundamental way the house does business, facetoface with members building relationships and hashing out differences, im very reluctant to set a new precedent that erodes our normal practice. Second, i have real concerns about whether or not any system of remote voting or proxy voting is constitutional. The language of the constitution clearly contemplates members being physically present in the chamber to conduct business. A move to any other kind of procedure that involves members not being physically present in the chamber to vote and to make a quorum will put them at risk of Court Challenges. The legislation that we will likely pass by these methods in the near term will probably be bills along the lines of the c. A. R. E. S. Act, they deal with the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic distress. It does not make sense to me to put such important legislation at risk of a Court Challenge because we failed to comply with the constitutional requirements. Third, im not completely convinced that moving to a proxy Voting System or remote Voting System is necessary at this time. There are other methods of operating that comply with our existing rules. By far the best option is to operate with bipartisan agreement and unanimous consent. Which would not require members to return to washington during this crisis if there are travel concerns. In the event in the event that is not possible, we have already proven our ability to assemble and vote twice during this pandemic, tomorrow well do so for a third time. Im personally deeply concerned about the proposed remote voting rules change even if it is not imposed right away. The rules change we are considering today will allow for remote voting to take effect without an additional vote of the house and instead only upon certification of technology by one member, chairperson. This is seeding the authority of the rules committee and it denies the entire house deliberation on the technology and a vote on making such a consequential change. At the very least, i think the entire house should have an opportunity to evaluate and vote upon any remote Voting System before such a change takes effect. On the second piece of the resolution which allows committees to operate remotely, i have similar concerns. Im most concerned about what it means for the institution. Our present Committee Structure has meant that for decades the members of the house meet together to discuss new pieces of legislation. Though we may not agree with each other, and sometimes may not even particularly like one another, all present company excluded, of course, the Committee System forced us as members of the house of representatives to sit down in a room and Work Together. It is forced us to get to know one another, to learn from each others perspective and sometimes learn that we have more in common with eefrp othac than we recognized. If this measure passes that, will no longer be the case number longer will members be required to sit together in a room. Instead, well lose that fundamental piece of our institutions character. I think thats a grave loss for us as members and for the country. Im also deeply concerned with how Remote Committee action will actually work. With such an untested and unproven procedure, there will be significant hiccups moving forward. When markups happen, how well he ensure that chairs must recognize members for timely motions . How will we ensure that minority members will receive fair and equal time and fair and equal opportunity for recognition . How sure are we that the technology we intend to use is secure and protected from wrong doers whether hackers or foreign nations . The days rule is silent on these matters leaving most of the specifics to be determined later by you, mr. Chairman. We need to do better. Im disappointed that our bipartisan discussions on how to make Congress Work during this time of National Emergency did not result in consensus although ill be the first to acknowledge we certainly made progress and it was certainly a sincere effort. But its even more disappointing to understand how these rule changes in my opinion will begin to erode the very fabric of the house. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to also thank him for keeping his keeping his tone below a high spirited nature. I appreciate that as well. And i want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter from Deborah Pearlstein from school of law in her letter which i strongly recommend to all my colleagues that they read in full. Professor writes, i believe adopting procedures to allow for remote voting under the extraordinary circumstances is not only lawful but essential to the maintenance of our constitutional democracy. The constitution contains no specific requirement of physical presence for members to vote. What the constitution does instead is a course of repeatedly rouse is leave it up to each house of congress to determine the rules of its proceedings. Indeed, it is just such constitutional flexibility that is enabled congress to embrace various Informal Solutions its adopted over the years to do business including relying on members to give unanimous consent to a vote even if something less than an actual majority of members is physically present on the house floor. Finally, the temporary remote voting procedures bear an entirely reasonable relation to the goal you aim to achieve, namely, ensuring that congress preserves the ability to vote in a way that maintains the institutions representative character, protects the transparency of the operations in fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American People. And i just also want to say and, again, is that, you know, a lot has changed since first congress. None of us arrived by horse and buggy today. And the story of the peoples house is the story of change and adaptation to meet the needs of the times. And as i said, the house used to conduct every vote every vote i role call. Today the house uses electronic voting cards and computer talleys the votes. St the process of unanimous consent allowing bills to pass with just two members in the chamber was developed in response to the spanish flu pandemic despite the constitution requiring a majority of members to conduct business. And both the house and senate you see to this day, weve created an disbanded committees to fit the needs of our nation. We changed how to count a quorum and how we vote and were here today once again to change, to meet the challenge to meet the challenges that we face. And so i point that out because i think we need to put this in perspective. I want to say, i want to agree with my Ranking Member. I do not want to change the character of this institution. I dont like the idea that we have to be here today to even talk about this. I do value our in person interaction and i dont want to go down a slipper why i slope. And i think we all need to be clear on that. But i do think we find ourselves in an extraordinary moment. The gentleman, i yield to the gentleman. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your kind remarks. I just would ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article by the distinguished scholar mark strand titled voting present by proxies and unconstitutional oxymoron. All right. Without objection. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. For our first panel, im happy to welcome the distinguished minority leader mr. Hoyer and the Ranking Member of the House Administration committee mr. Davis. Both who are on the Bipartisan Task force to talk about these issues. Im delighted both of you are here. Well begin with the distinguished majority leader. What did i say . A rose by any other name. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Cole, members of this committee. I want to thank rodney davis and tom cole and my friend kevin mccarthy. We sat together the first time with one of our members participating virtually. So he was in california. And we met virtually the other two times that we met. I think we had open, substantive, thoughtful discussions. And i thank all of the participants. We did not reach consensus. I think the two letters that were just introduced apparently reflect the basic difference of opinion that voting virtually is somehow inconsistent with the constitution. I do not believe that is the case. But let me start, mr. Chairman, with a quote. The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy presence. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we mus