[House Prints, 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                             
   H. RES. 965, AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 
 DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

=======================================================================

                                MEETING

                                 of the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                         THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2020

                               ----------                              



                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
             
             
             
             
             
             
             

   MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES_H. RES. 965, AUTHORIZING REMOTE 
   VOTING BY PROXY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND PROVIDING FOR 
OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY 
           DUE TO A NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

                               


 
    H. RES. 965, AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 
 DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

=======================================================================

                                MEETING

                                 of the

                           COMMITTEE ON RULES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2020

                               __________
                               
                               
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
  



                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules
             
             
             
             
                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 40-591              WASHINGTON : 2020 
              
             
             
             
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

               JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts, Chairman
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida           TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
NORMA J. TORRES, California          ROB WOODALL, Georgia
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
                       DON SISSON, Staff Director
             KELLY DIXON CHAMBERS, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

             Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process

                  ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida, Chairman
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          ROB WOODALL, Georgia
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts

                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House

                   NORMA J. TORRES, California, Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       ROB WOODALL, Georgia
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts

                                 ------                                

                  Subcommittee on Expedited Procedures

                     JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chair
DONNA E. SHALALA, Florida            MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
  Vice Chair                           Ranking Republican
NORMA J. TORRES, California          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                              May 14, 2020

                                                                   Page
Opening Statements:
    Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules.     1
    Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules......     3
Witness Testimony:
    Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland and the Majority Leader..................    25
    Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois and Ranking Member of the Committee on 
      House Administration.......................................    28
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules.    36
    Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules......    46
    Hon. Norma Torres, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    55
    Hon. Rob Woodall, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Georgia.................................................    56
    Hon. Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................    66
    Hon. Debbie Lesko, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................    84
    Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................    86
    Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania......................................    89
    Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................    90
    Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................    94
Witness Testimony:
    Hon. Jack Bergman, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Michigan..........................................   101
    Hon. Dan Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of North Carolina..........................................   102
    Hon. Bradley Byrne, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Alabama...........................................   103
    Hon. Jim Jordan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Ohio and Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
      Judiciary..................................................   106
    Hon. Greg Pence, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana.................................................   108
Questions and Additional Testimony:
    Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Massachusetts and Chair of the Committee on Rules.   109
    Hon. Tom Cole, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
      Oklahoma and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules......   111
    Hon. Rob Woodall, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Georgia.................................................   112
    Hon. Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................   114
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Texas.........................................   116
    Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................   118
    Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................   119
    Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Florida...........................................   122
Committee Mark-up:
    Mark-up of H. Res. 965.......................................   123
    H. Res. 965 (as introduced)..................................   124
    Notice of Action.............................................   277
    H. Res. 965 (as reported)....................................   279
    H. Rept. 116-420--Report to accompany H. Res. 965............   293
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
    Article by Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, Tom Cole, 
      Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules, and Rodney Davis, 
      Ranking Member, of the Committee on House Administration 
      entitled ``A Plan for the People's House'' dated May 4, 
      2020.......................................................     5
    Letter from Deborah N. Pearlstein, Professor of Law and Co-
      Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional 
      Democracy at the Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal 
      Studies, Cardozo School of Law, dated April 16, 2020.......    18
    Article by Mark Strand entitled ``Voting Present By Proxy is 
      an Constitutional Oxymoron''...............................    22
    Letter from Rodney Davis, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
      House Administration, to Chairman McGovern dated May 14, 
      2020.......................................................    30
    Letter from Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper 
      Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of 
      California Berkeley School of Law, to Chairman McGovern and 
      Ranking Member Cole dated May 13, 2020.....................    40
    Opinion Editorial from The Hill by Saikrishna Prakash, law 
      professor at the University of Virginia and Senior Fellow 
      at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, entitled ``One 
      virtue of a virtual Congress''.............................    43
    Letter from Mike Rogers, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
      Homeland Security, to Members of the Ad Hoc Working Group 
      dated April 30, 2020.......................................    70
    Letter from Rob Bishop, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
      Natural Resources, to Chairman Grijalva dated April 30, 
      2020.......................................................    72
    Letter from Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, to Speaker 
      Pelosi dated April 21, 2020................................    74
    Letter from Ranking Members to Majority Leader Hoyer dated 
      May 14, 2020...............................................    75
    Letter from Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on 
      Homeland Security, to Members of the Ad Hoc Working Group 
      dated April 30, 2020.......................................    80
    Letter from Raul M. Grijalva, Chair of the Committee on 
      Natural Resources, to Ranking Member Bishop dated May 1, 
      2020.......................................................    81
    Letter from Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on 
      Homeland Security, to Ranking Member Rogers dated May 5, 
      2020.......................................................    83
    Report from the National Conference of State Legislatures 
      entitled ``Continuity of Legislature During Emergency''....    96
    Letter from Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar at The American 
      Enterprise Institute to Chairman McGovern..................   155
    Letter from Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York and Chairman of the House 
      Democratic Caucus, to Chairman McGovern dated May 13, 2020.   159
    Statement by Ann Kuster, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Hampshire.................................   160
    Press Release from Jim Langevin, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Rhode Island.............................   161
    Letter from Scott H. Peters, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of California, to Chairman McGovern and 
      Ranking Member Cole dated May 13, 2020.....................   162
    Letter from Mike Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, to Chairman McGovern dated May 13, 
      2020.......................................................   165
    Statement by Lori Trahan, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Massachusetts.................................   166
    Letter from Daniel T. Kildee, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Michigan, along with Representatives 
      Perlmutter, Levin, Lowenthal, and Lawrence, to Chairman 
      McGovern and Ranking Member Cole dated May 13, 2020........   167
    Statement by Tony Cardenas, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................   169
    Statement by Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of California...............................   170
    Statement by Filemon Vela, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Texas.........................................   171
    Letter from Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on 
      Energy and Commerce, to Chairman McGovern dated May 14, 
      2020.......................................................   172
    Letter from Mark Pocan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin and Co-Chair of the House Progressive 
      Caucus, to Chairman McGovern dated May 14, 2020............   182
    Statement by Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Tennessee.....................................   254


    H. RES. 965, AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 
 DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2020

                          House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Rules,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in Room 
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James P. McGovern 
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives McGovern, Torres, Perlmutter, 
Raskin, Scanlon, Morelle, Shalala, Matsui, Cole, Woodall, 
Burgess, and Lesko.

                       OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Chairman. The Rules Committee will come to order.
    Before I give my opening statement, I just want to read a 
guidance from the attending physician, Dr. Monahan. And we 
asked him specifically about the use of face coverings during 
proceedings like these, and while he has 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 a high-spirited nature, end quote.
    I have never had a meeting in the Rules Committee that 
hasn't been of a high-spirited nature, so we are going to leave 
it up to individual members to decide, but I think to be 
cautious here, I am going to keep mine on, and I hope, you 
know, that everybody else will obviously be mindful of the 
reason why there is guidance on this issue.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS AND CHAIR OF THE 
                       COMMITTEE ON RULES

    It has been roughly 3 months since the first community 
transmission of COVID-19 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 unprecedented steps to slow the spread through stay-at-
home orders and travel restrictions.
    We don't know how long it will take to develop a treatment 
or a 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 this 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 it is 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, and 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 don't 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 this extraordinary circumstance and make 
temporary changes during this pandemic. They will help us get 
our work done today and prepare us for whatever might happen 
tomorrow.
    Experts are already telling us the second wave of this 
virus could be worse in the fall. It would be a dereliction of 
our responsibility to do nothing. Further delay is not an 
option either. We have released a report, we formed a 
bipartisan task force, and we have had weeks and weeks of 
talks. It is time to act.
    I know there will be a lot of discussion today, and 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, Mr. Cole, I 
want to recognize his leadership, not just on this committee, 
but on the bipartisan task force as well. He cares deeply about 
this institution. And I know, regardless of where we stand on 
this particular proposal, we agree on making sure that this 
House functions on behalf of the American people. I have always 
appreciated his courtesy and his open-mindedness.
    And I just say, finally, that I regret very much that we 
are 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 by unanimous consent, but I think we have very 
different opinions about how we should proceed. And I think 
some of us may even have different opinions about the urgency 
of the moment that we now find ourselves in.
    So having said that, I am happy to turn it over to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, my friend, Mr. Cole, for any remarks 
he wishes to make.

   STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM COLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
                       COMMITTEE ON RULES

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am just, 
for the record, going to take my mask off only when I speak. I 
will speak in a very controlled manner, and if I get spirited, 
I will put the mask back on. But--and I appreciate your 
courtesy there. And I think, as a rule, you are 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 
consequential change to the rules since the establishment of 
the modern committee system and the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946.
    Today, the majority is 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 changes 
would 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 
COVID-19 pandemic timeline, the temporary change we make to the 
rules today becomes the precedent we follow tomorrow.
    Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi did an 
extraordinarily wise thing. Rather than pushing through 
partisan proxy voting rules similar to the one we are 
considering today, she instead formed a working group of six 
members to consider these challenges. This working group 
consisted of Majority Leader Hoyer, Republican Leader McCarthy, 
Chairperson Lofgren, 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 3 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 commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the thoughtful and 
productive way in which you approach these discussions. And 
rest assured, my dissatisfaction with today's 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, I commend every member of the committee, because I 
think they all worked that way and tried to find common ground. 
In this case, we just simply didn't get there.
    Last Monday, Republican Leader McCarthy, Ranking Member 
Davis, and I posted an article on 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.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    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 distance 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, to 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 wrongdoers, 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 
centuries 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 changes 
two key rules of the House. First, for the first time in 
history of the Chamber, we are 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, we are being 
asked to approve a measure that would allow committees to 
operate remotely and approve legislation remotely.
    While I have no doubt that the majority's intentions are 
good when it comes to proposing these two changes, I believe 
they will fundamentally alter the nature of the institution and 
not for the better, and I cannot support them.
    First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the 
precedent this sets for the institution. Even a temporary 
measure to deal with the current crisis could be used to 
establish precedent for something else down the line. And when 
it comes to the fundamental way the House does business face-
to-face with members building relationships and hashing out 
differences, I am 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 the legislation passed by those methods 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 
CARES Act, bipartisan measures that 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 constitutional 
requirements.
    Third, I am 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 that is not possible, we have already proven 
our ability to assemble and vote in person twice during this 
pandemic. Tomorrow, we will do so for a third time.
    I am 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 Lofgren. This is ceding 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 your resolution which will allow 
committees to operate remotely, I have similar concerns, but I 
am 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 has 
forced us as members of the House of Representatives to sit 
down in a room and work together. It has forced us to get to 
know one another, to learn from each other's perspective, and 
sometimes learn that we have more in common with each other 
than we previously recognized. But if this measure passes, that 
will no longer be the case.
    No longer will members be required to sit together in a 
room. Instead, we will lose that fundamental piece of our 
institution's character. I think that is a grave loss for us as 
members and for the country.
    I am also deeply concerned with how remote committee action 
will actually work. With such an untested and unproven 
procedure, there will undoubtedly be significant hiccups moving 
forward.
    When markups happen, how will we 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 
wrongdoers, whether hackers or foreign nations?
    Today's rule is silent on these matters, leaving most of 
the specifics to be determined later by you, Mr. Chairman. We 
need to do better.
    I am disappointed that our bipartisan discussions on how to 
make Congress work during this time of national emergency did 
not result in consensus, although I would be the first to 
acknowledge we certainly made progress and it was certainly a 
sincere effort. But it is 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 thank you and yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments, and I want to also thank him for keeping his tone 
below a high-spirited nature. So I appreciate that as well.
    And I want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the 
record a letter from Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law 
professor from Cardozo School of Law. In her letter, which I 
strongly recommend to all my colleagues that they read in full, 
Professor Pearlstein writes: I believe adopting procedures to 
allow for remote voting under these 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, as the courts have repeatedly 
recognized, is leave it up to each House of Congress to 
determine the rules of its proceedings. Indeed it is just such 
constitutional flexibility that has enabled Congress to embrace 
the various informal solutions it has 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.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
     
    And 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 institution's representative 
character, protects the transparency of its operations, and 
fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American people.
    And I just also want to say, again, that a lot has changed 
since the first Congress. None of us arrived by horse and buggy 
today, and the story of the people's 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 by roll call. Today, 
the House uses electronic voting cards and a computer tallies 
the votes. The process of unanimous consent, that is, 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.
    In both the House and the Senate, you see, to this day, we 
have created and disbanded committees to fit the needs of our 
Nation. We have changed how to count a quorum. We have changed 
how to vote--how we vote, and we are here today, once again, to 
meet the challenges that we face.
    And so anyway, I point that out because I think we need to 
put this in perspective. And I want to say, I want to agree 
with my ranking member, I do not want to change the character 
of this institution. I don't like the idea that we have to be 
here today to even talk about this. I do value our in-person 
interaction and I don't want to go down a slippery slope. And I 
think we all need to be clear on that. But I do think we find 
ourselves in an extraordinary moment.
    I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Cole Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
your kind remarks.
    And I just would ask unanimous consent to place into the 
record an article by distinguished congressional scholar Mark 
Strand, entitled, ``Voting Present By Proxy is an 
Constitutional Oxymoron.''
    The Chairman All right. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. For our first panel, I am happy to welcome 
the distinguished majority 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. I am delighted that both of you are here. We will begin 
with the distinguished majority leader.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

    Mr. Hoyer. 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. Zoe Lofgren 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 in that.
    We did not reach consensus. I think the two letters that 
were just introduced apparently reflect the basic difference of 
opinion that voting virtually is somehow inconsistent with the 
Constitution. I do not believe that is the case.
    But let me start, Mr. Chairman, with a quote. The dogmas of 
the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy presence. The 
occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with 
the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act 
anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our 
country. Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862.
    I have served in this body starting May 19 for 40 years, 
and will be in my 41st year. Never have I experienced an 
environment that exists today. Nor do I believe that anybody 
alive in America has experienced such circumstances. And so as 
our case is new, we must act and think anew, as Abraham Lincoln 
said. The constitutional Framers expressly intended for the 
House to be closest to the American people and be their chief 
representative in government.
    I, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, and Leader McConnell 
all believe there is no substitute for meeting together, 
personally, individually, collectively, in committee, in the 
House of Representatives. However, if that is not possible, 
either because planes won't fly because there has been an 
attack on the satellite and the air traffic control system is 
down or because of a natural disaster that destroys much of the 
country or because of a national security attack as we had on 
9/11, but on 9/11 we did not shut down America. We were not 
precluded from meetings. As a matter of fact, we came together 
that night and stood on the steps of the Senate and sang God 
Bless America.
    But we have voluntarily shut down the country in many 
respects because health experts say it is essential to defeat 
this virus. And so we are meeting in an unnatural way in a very 
large committee room for a relatively small committee separated 
by at least 6 feet. We are doing that to accommodate the crisis 
that confronts us.
    The Framers established this House in the very first 
article of the Constitution and gave it the power to legislate 
and conduct oversight of the executive branch. Never are those 
responsibilities more critical than during times of crisis. We 
are now in such a crisis with COVID-19 infections still surging 
across the country and its economic impacts having led to more 
than 33 million Americans being unemployed.
    We need to be about the people's business. The American 
people need their Representatives to be able to perform the 
full measure of their duties under our Constitution, which 
included committees holding hearings and markups and members 
debating and voting on the floor. Because of social and 
physical distancing measures currently in place to save lives 
and prevent the spread of COVID-19, it is unsafe for members to 
travel back and forth to Washington from their districts and 
risk exposing potentially thousands of people while in transit.
    It is also unsafe to require thousands of House staff and 
Capitol Hill employees to commute to work while infections have 
not even reached their peak in the Washington metropolitan 
area. That is why we must--must--adopt the kind of virtual 
practices authorized by this resolution.
    As the chairman pointed out at the beginning, of course the 
Founders did not contemplate the technology that is now 
available to us, which allows us to meet virtually, to see one 
another, to hear one another, to respond to one another 
virtually. Not in the same room but in the same box that we 
call an iPad or a computer or some other device that allows us 
to communicate in real time, essentially, in person virtually.
    These include video and teleconference technologies 
currently used safely and effectively by millions of Americans, 
including the Senate and the Supreme Court. Ironically, you saw 
yesterday a virtual hearing held by the United States Senate. 
The chairman was not present. The witnesses were not present; 
Dr. Fauci, in particular. Rand Paul was in the room. Somewhat 
like a hybrid hearing that was discussed by the minority 
leader.
    We provided for that in this rule. Including the Supreme 
Court of the United States, only nine people, who are 
conducting hearings and arguments virtually. The Supreme Court 
of the United States, the final word of what the law is in 
America. So that this is not a radical idea, this is not an 
idea that undermines the Constitution in any way or the 
character of this body.
    The character of this body is the individual members 
elected, and the only way you can get here, by their 
constituents. And what their constituents want is not 
necessarily that they are in this chair or that chair. What 
they want them is to raise their voice, to protect their 
interest, to reflect their views.
    And we live in an age where that can be done virtually 
without exposing others to risk or without exposing the members 
to risk or the press to risk or the witnesses to risk. That is 
what happened in the United States Senate yesterday and that is 
what the Supreme Court of the United States is trying to 
preclude. A new and radical change for the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in one sense. In another sense, exactly the same 
thing they do, they hear arguments, they ask questions, and 
they decide. Nothing radical about that. It is simply the 
medium rather than a horse, a car. Rather than a horse, a 
plane. Rather than a horse, a train, to get to the objective.
    This resolution, as has been pointed out, would authorize 
committees to markup legislation remotely so we can prepare 
bills. That is what our duty is. We can hold hearings. We can 
do oversight. We can question witnesses on behalf of the 
750,000 that each of us represents, give or take.
    For those members who cannot safely return to Washington at 
this time, it allows proxy voting. Now, some of you have heard 
my comments. I think that is one way to do it and I think there 
are other ways to do it, and this rule provides to look at 
that. And I will tell you, as long as I am majority leader, we 
will do that in discussion, because we were--I think we had six 
people of goodwill in the room trying to figure out how do we 
do this.
    For those members who cannot get here, we will do their 
proxy voting, a first step that authorizes the House to begin 
working on a remote voting system. Such a system would only be 
used during emergencies like this one. Let me stress that. In 
the 40 years I have been here, there is not an instance where I 
think this would be justified, until now. And we see it in the 
White House where the COVID virus came in. We are not 
fundamentally changing the way the House works. Let me be 
clear. We are not changing. There is no advantage to Democrats, 
no disadvantage to Republicans by using virtual technology. 
None. Zero. Zip.
    All the rules that apply for the minority protections 
apply, and they should. This is not about getting advantage; 
this is about allowing the people's House and the people's 
Representatives in committee to work and work productively. 
What H. Res. 965 does is enable the House to meet this moment 
and do its job in full while we do our part to help prevent the 
spread of COVID-19, and ensure the safety of those who serve 
and work here on Capitol Hill.
    While I was disappointed that we were unable to reach a 
bipartisan agreement on adopting virtual tools for the House, 
it was not for lack of trying on the part of Democrats and 
Republicans. And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, the time 
when it was obvious we could not reach agreement, I called Mr. 
McCarthy and we had a very civil, quiet conversation. I said to 
him, Kevin, we cannot reach agreement. A, I don't believe, 
frankly, Kevin, what you are asking for for concurrence you 
would give to Nancy Pelosi if she were the minority leader. I 
want you to think about that, whether you would have given 
Nancy Pelosi the ability to veto your ability to act. I want 
you to honestly think about that.
    So we could not agree on that, but it is not because we did 
not want to reach agreement. I wish Republicans would have 
joined us in this effort, and I hope they will join us on the 
floor in voting for this resolution, if it is included in the 
rule, as I think it will be.
    So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I have a list of about eight 
or nine things that Mr. Cole and the staff and other 
Republicans suggested. There were good suggestions and you have 
included them in this rule. That was the right thing to do. 
This should not be about partisanships. This should be about, 
do we want this institution to have the capacity to meet at 
times of crisis?
    Frankly, we didn't get there after 9/11. This ought to be 
impetus for us to get there, and we ought to all be committed 
that we would only use it in extraordinary circumstances. I 
don't believe there has been such a circumstance in the United 
States of America since 1918. Over 100 years ago. This may be 
once-in-a-century experience for our country. Let's pray that 
it doesn't happen again. But let us also pray that when it 
does, as Abraham Lincoln said, we will think anew and act anew 
so that we can do our job.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Davis.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
to Ranking Member Cole for allowing me to testify. It is always 
great to be here with my good friend, majority leader, Mr. 
Hoyer, and the rest of my colleagues on this committee.
    This is an unprecedented proposal and it is going to 
fundamentally change the way that the House of Representatives 
can craft, consider, and vote on legislation. The processes 
that led to this hearing is unacceptable to me.
    After a previous failed attempt to bring similar rules 
change package to the floor last month, we, on our side, were 
hopeful and optimistic, just like Leader Hoyer was, that the 
work of a bipartisan task force to get the House back to work 
would result in a genuine willingness toward bipartisan 
agreement. We Republicans on that task force offered a 
realistic framework and a plan to make responsible, measured, 
thorough reforms to get the entire House working again to 
perform our essential functions on behalf of the American 
people who elected us to represent them.
    And thank you for including some of our suggestions in that 
proposal. As Leader Hoyer mentioned, there were others that we 
put forth in this framework and our suggestions. I would argue, 
Mr. Leader, we wouldn't have to offer Speaker Pelosi or 
minority leader Pelosi, in your example, concurrence because we 
wouldn't bring this proposal to the House. We would do it much 
differently. Our plan was dismissed out of hand by the 
Democratic majority with no alternative. It was not until 
yesterday, yesterday morning, with the release of H.R. 965--
House Res. 965 that we saw any semblance of a plan, and in no 
way was it a product of bipartisanship or greater member input.
    This resolution would dramatically overhaul the committee 
process, which is fundamental to producing legislation to now 
only allow for minimal input and consultation with the minority 
party.
    Let's call it what it is. We are talking about a Member of 
Congress giving their voting privilege to someone else. There 
is legitimate constitutional uncertainty with what is being 
proposed, and it could call into question the validity of any 
legislation that proxy voting is used for.
    I am sure that many of our peers are reviewing the proposed 
rules changes with the idea in mind that desperate times call 
for desperate measures. It is important to note that this is 
not the first time Congress has had to work through national 
emergencies, be it the civil war, Spanish flu pandemic, the two 
world wars, and after September 11th, this body continued to 
operate.
    In fact, after 9/11, there was an exhaustive effort for 
years that would make sure that the House rules had a mechanism 
that would allow the House to continue to function during 
catastrophic times. That effort took 3 years to implement. And 
I would like to remind members that as we sit here and 
contemplate changing 200-plus years of voting and committee 
precedent, we already have a product of those 3 years of 
bipartisan work.
    We have rule XX, clause 5, which the Speaker could exercise 
and was crafted to allow the House to operate when impacted by 
a natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity 
rendering the Representatives incapable of attending the 
proceedings of the House. The changes to House floor and 
committee processes being proposed in this resolution are 
heavily dependent on the Clerk of the House's, the House 
Recording Studio's, and the House Information Resources' 
ability to execute and support these dramatic process changes.
    I have confidence in the Clerk, CAO, and the professionals 
on their teams. However, it is unfair to them and puts the 
institution at risk by not first listening to them, mitigating 
risks, and testing the process extensively. These steps have 
been skipped.
    To that point, I submit today a letter for the record to 
you, Mr. Chair, outlining important technical questions and 
concerns that must be addressed before the official virtual 
proceedings are conducted. I ask unanimous consent.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. The House is on the receiving end of 
1.6 billion unauthorized scams, probes, and malicious attempted 
network connections per month. After broadcasting to the world 
our intention to allow members to delegate their votes via 
email and moving committee activity to virtual platforms, I 
would expect that number to increase. I want to be clear. I am 
not opposed to exploring, and Leader Hoyer and everyone on the 
task force can tell you, I and the others are not opposed to 
exploring commonsense reforms to the way the House operates.
    In fact, you will find no bigger advocate in Congress for 
making improvements. That is why I asked to serve on the House 
Administration Committee. That is why I have invested countless 
hours working on the Select Committee on Modernization, to try 
and move the ball forward. It is also why I was excited to work 
on crafting this bipartisan emergency response proposal on the 
bipartisan task force. Disappointed, as you know, but for weeks 
we have put forward roadmaps in solutions to open the House in 
a way that prioritizes member and staff safety, as well as 
institutional legitimacy, but they were dismissed out of hand.
    I ask you, Mr. Chairman, based on your comments earlier, 
what has changed since just a few short weeks ago when the 
Committee on Rules released a report on March 23 that could be 
viewed as the antithesis of what is being put forth today. I 
agree with each of the statements that you made and I believe 
that they hold no less weight on May 14 than they did only 7 
weeks ago on March 23.
    In closing, I want to encourage all of us to take a step 
back and admire our institution for its strength, agility, and 
the ability to be closest to the very people we represent, even 
during difficult times. I also want to remind us how fragile it 
is. Our rules are easy to change. A break in precedent can 
unravel generations of institutional reforms and institutional 
norms. Former member Bob Walker, who served for 20 years in 
this chamber and was one of the chief architects in the 
institutional reforms implemented after the 1994 election, 
recently issued the warning to me that precedent creates 
process.
    What we are considering today and the process through which 
it has been drafted is being considered is unprecedented. We 
are not here debating rule changes. We are here debating what 
kind of institution we want to be and the example we want to 
set for the American people and the rest of the world.
    If we approve H. Res. 965, we are creating a new precedent 
that will forever change the House processes, threaten 
legitimacy of members' votes, and open a Pandora's box of 
unnecessary constitutional risks. Tragically, this time should 
have been an era of bipartisanship, like it was previous few 
times we have come together just in the last few weeks. 
Instead, we are debating a member management proposal for folks 
who have a fundamental view of the role and responsibilities of 
Congress that is much different than mine and many of us have 
ever envisioned.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    And I would simply say, again, that I regret that we 
couldn't come together on this, but we are looking at the 
current moment very differently. And, again, we saw your 
proposal that was released to the press that we read about--we 
first found out about it that way, but it doesn't address the 
challenges that we face right now.
    This is the Rules Committee, right? We are one of the 
smallest committees in Congress and here we are taking up the 
entire Ways and Means committee room, which is one of the 
biggest committee rooms in Congress. What do you do with the 
Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee, 
which, you know, are significantly larger? Some have suggested 
that maybe they can meet in the auditorium or maybe on the 
House floor, one at a time. We have a huge amount of work to 
do.
    In addition to responding to this crisis and trying to 
figure out how to get the economy back on its feet again, we 
have must-pass bills that we need to get done, the defense 
authorization bill, appropriations bills. I mean--and the fact 
that we cannot function, our committee process just literally 
can't function the way it should if we are going to follow CDC 
guidelines, that is problematic. So what do we do? We don't 
meet? We don't address certain issues that need to be 
addressed, number one.
    Number two, look, I don't think some of my friends on the 
Republican side believe as we do that the situation right now 
is such that some members cannot come back. There are 
transportation challenges. Some members represent districts 
that are hot spots. And then there is the whole issue that we 
could be asymptomatic carriers of the disease and we are coming 
back here and mingling with our staff, Capitol Police, the 
people who maintain this campus. I mean, all those issues need 
to be considered.
    And at the end of our process, the two suggestions that the 
distinguished minority leader put forward was, one, that he 
wanted concurrence on whether or not we could implement a 
process of operating remotely. And so I said, okay, well, would 
you give us--would you concur? And his response was no.
    So all that we are talking about here, by the way, which is 
a response to not just Democratic members, Mr. Davis, it is 
also in response to Republican members who have reached out to 
us, you know, that somehow we need to figure out a way to deal 
and to operate during pandemics. But basically, what the 
minority leader wanted was the ability to veto something and he 
would use that veto to make sure we don't proceed forward.
    And then his alternative, which I think incorporates some 
of the things that are in the press release that you guys 
released, was that we should operate like the White House and 
we all should get tested. We all should move to the front of 
the line. We are all special enough that even though our 
constituents can't get tests--people who work in hospitals, 
first responders, people who are working in food pantries and 
homeless shelters, who, quite frankly, should be tested--that 
Congress all come back and every time we come into session we 
will get tested.
    I don't know what the reaction would be in the minority 
leader's district, but in my district, people think that is 
tone deaf and think its wrong. We are not super special, and we 
shouldnt move to the front of the line. And so that was the 
long and short of it.
    And, again, I don't take this lightly at all. I wish we 
were not having this discussion. I wish we were meeting as 
usual and we were able to fight with each other as usual and be 
able to have high-spirited conversations as usual and be able 
to move bills forward as usual, but we just can't. Now, I hope 
that that is short-lived. I hope that this ends really quickly. 
Maybe it will end so quickly that we don't even have to utilize 
any of this, but then if you listen to the head of the CDC and 
you listen to other medical experts, they are warning about the 
fall. And so what happens if things get worse? I mean, much 
worse than they are right now. What do we do? Conduct business 
in the same fashion that we always conduct business? Ignore the 
advice of medical experts?
    And I appreciate this issue of precedence. I mean, believe 
me, we have talked to constitutional experts, I have talked to 
people who have studied the institution. I am very reluctant to 
make changes that I don't think are totally warranted. But the 
gentleman referred to the change that was implemented after 9/
11 when the Republicans were in charge of the House. And in 
2005, you changed the rules for a provisional quorum which 
would allow in the extreme two members to constitute a quorum.
    Now, the Constitution defines a quorum as the majority of 
the membership, but under the rules change that was done back 
then, I mean, you literally could have two members constitute a 
quorum. I don't think that is constitutional, but nonetheless, 
that was the plan that was put forward. And yeah, it may have 
taken a long time to put forward, but I don't really think it 
was a very good plan.
    And the issue right now for all of us is that this 
discussion is not about what ifs. What if we had a pandemic? 
What if this happened? We are living it right now. And we all 
hope and pray that it is winding down and that it will stay 
wound down. But if we are wrong and this comes back and we are 
not prepared, then shame on us, because we have a lot to do.
    And, by the way, we have come together in a bipartisan way 
on a number of packages that have become law in which we have 
literally appropriated, the House in a bipartisan way, the 
Senate in a bipartisan way, has appropriated trillions of 
dollars to help respond to this health crisis and to help try 
to protect our economy.
    We need to do oversight. We need to make sure the money is 
being spent the way we want it to be spent. I mean, that is one 
of our jobs. And if committees cannot meet because of this 
pandemic, where they have to wait their turn, you know, because 
we don't have rooms big enough here for people to meet and 
follow CDC guidelines, that is a dereliction of our duty. So, I 
appreciate all your concerns.
    And let me just--I want to ask unanimous consent to submit 
to the record a letter from Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned 
constitutional expert and dean of the Berkeley School of Law, 
discussing the view that the remote voting process we are 
considering today would be constitutional. And in his letter, 
the dean states: The Constitution bestows on each House of 
Congress broad discretion to determine the rules of its own 
proceedings. This authority is expansive and would include the 
ability to adopt a rule to permit proxy voting. Nothing in the 
Constitution specifies otherwise. Moreover, if this were 
challenged in court, it is very likely that the case would be 
dismissed as a political question. The Supreme Court has ruled 
that challenges to the internal operation of Congress are not 
justiciable in the Federal courts. Indeed, I have written the 
court often, quote, has held that congressional judgments 
pertaining to its internal governance should not be reviewed by 
the Federal judiciary.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    And I also ask unanimous consent to submit to the record a 
May 5 opinion piece published in the Hill from Sai Prakash, a 
constitutional law professor from the University of Virginia 
and former clerk to the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 
In his piece, Professor Prakash said, I quote: The more general 
point is that if legislators are monitoring proceedings in 
Congress online and can vote remotely, they are in attendance 
and can be present for quorums. What is good for the President 
and the Supreme Court must be good for Congress.
    And I ask that his letter be part of the record.
    I would yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank you and your opening remarks, for the tone, the tenor you 
set. Appreciate it. Very much same thing with our two witnesses 
here that I have had the great pleasure of working with on the 
ad hoc committee that the Speaker appointed. And I agree very 
much with what the majority leader had to say. It was a good 
exercise and one that there was good give and take. We didn't 
get as far as we would like, but there were certainly some 
areas of agreement, and I think it was taken seriously by 
everybody.
    Mr. Leader, my first question is to you. I see two changes 
that Republicans requested as part of our task force 
negotiations, the prohibition on closed or executive sessions 
and a limitation on the number of proxies for any other 
members, but I don't see other changes that are in there. Could 
you tell us when and how those would be incorporated?
    Mr. Hoyer. Committees are required to use software 
platforms that the chief administrative officer recommends, 
which is, I think, a suggestion that you made. Actually, I 
think Mr. Davis made. Committees will not be allowed to hold 
closed executive sessions. As you know, if you are going into 
closed executive session, you have to recess and you proceed 
only with present members, not virtually present, but present.
    Committees have the option to hold hybrid hearings, which 
was one of the first suggestions that Mr. McCarthy made. 
Committees are required to hold two virtual hearings to allow 
members to test the software. That was, I think, something that 
was sort of agreed to, but you were concerned about--not you 
personally, but on your side, was it going to work? So that is 
one thing we think that was a good suggestion and we have tried 
to incorporate.
    Twenty-four hours' notice before any final passage votes 
during this period to give members time to secure proxies if 
they haven't designated one yet. I am not sure that was 
specifically a Republican proposal, but--chairs are required to 
be cognizant of time zones so some chair doesn't schedule a 9 
o'clock meeting and disadvantage the people who are on the West 
Coast. They would have to come in the day before--well, if they 
are not coming, then virtual. That was a suggestion that was 
made.
    Committees are required to provide a list of individuals 
with participatory access to the virtual hearing platform to 
the ranking member 24 hours prior to the hearing to the extent 
practical. And lastly, the Rules Committee will issue uniform 
regulations on enforcing decorum in a virtual setting.
    Where we disagreed, we think, was--and I think you 
expressed it at the beginning and the two constitutional 
scholars differed substantively. And I think, frankly, that is 
where we have a substantive difference, because I believe that 
being virtually present and being present is essentially the 
same thing in the constitutional consequences of that presence. 
Because I can vote aye here and I can vote aye a thousand miles 
away, and it has the same representation of my constituents. It 
is just--it is transmitted in a different way. It was somewhat 
controversial when we went from standing on the floor and 
saying aye or nay, which is a very dramatic kind of 
presentation, to the electronic voting.
    Now, one thing that happened to the electronic voting, 
since I have been here, I don't know whether any of you 
experienced, the electronic voting machine broke down and so we 
had to go back to the aye/nay. And it took a long time. And the 
next day, the machine was fixed and we went back to that.
    When we, frankly, went to television, it was--members were 
nervous about that. It was a real change and, you know, is it 
going to change the character of the House? Are we going to 
speak longer? Are we going to take just political positions as 
opposed to substantive positions? So they were substantive 
changes.
    Where I think we disagree, and I want to say this strongly 
and I think my reputation on your side of the aisle is I try to 
be fair to both sides. I do not believe this changes in any way 
the rights of the minority, nor do I believe it in any way 
enhances the rights of the majority. I think it is an even 
playing field on both sides, no rules change.
    Let me give you a rules change that your side made, not in 
this body, and both sides made this change because they were 
frustrated. Mr. Reid initially made a change that wouldn't take 
60 votes to approve judges. However, those judges were not the 
final say. Mr. McConnell changed the rule and the Republicans 
which substantially disadvantaged the Democrats and a 
bipartisan choice of Supreme Court Justices because could be 
made on a partisan level 51 votes. That was a very substantive 
change. It was made. And it did, in fact, change the influence 
and the ability of the minority, in this case, a 47 vote 
minority, to impact the outcome.
    This House change, though, Mr. Cole, and I have great 
respect for you, as you know, and we have a great relationship 
and we both served on the Appropriations Committee, so we have 
a lot in common. And I really think you are a very thoughtful 
voice on your side of the aisle and in the Congress. I don't 
think this changes your rights and privileges at all. And if it 
does, I will be the first to say, no, we have to make sure it 
does not, either in cross-examining witnesses, calling 
witnesses, voting. You are going to have the same number of 
votes--now some people may be absent, but some people are 
absent when you are physically present, as you have now.
    This is not intent--what this is intended to do solely is 
to assure that the Congress is not sidelined because of an 
event that neither one of us are responsible for. There is no 
fault here. It is a circumstance we confront, and this is an 
attempt to confront it so that Congress is not sidelined.
    Now, let me point out that we have come here, as you 
pointed out, three times. And we have come here because we need 
to do the people's business, and we are going to do the 
people's business and we are going to do the people's business 
tomorrow. Some of us will agree that it is a good way or some 
of us are going to say, no, that is not the way we ought to go. 
That is the process. We will come here, but why when we have 
the technology that allows us to do it virtually do we put 
lives at risk. Not only here, you are going to go back to 
Oklahoma at some point in time and you are going to deal with 
the folks in Oklahoma and you are going to come from a hot 
spot. Now, hopefully, you will not have anything to transmit, 
but we know that that is possible. And if we have the ability 
to do something virtually which does not in any way denigrate 
our democracy, our institution, or the rights of the minority 
party or enhance the rights of the majority party, why don't we 
do it? And that is why I am a proponent of this use of 
technology.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader.
    Let me make two points quickly in response. Number one, a 
lot of the measures you mentioned that are incorporated are not 
actually in the resolution. I assume they will come in the 
guidance, and I certainly trust my chairman to that, but I 
wanted to get that on the record. But many of those points 
aren't in the resolution yet. Hopefully they will be in the 
guidance. We haven't seen that.
    The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield?
    Mr. Cole. I certainly yield to the chairman.
    The Chairman. I pledge to the gentleman that we will have 
that guidance available to him before this comes to the floor. 
We will certainly consult with him before we submit it. 
Obviously, the only thing that probably would not be in the 
guidance is, you know, what future technologies might exist 
that might be applicable to dealing with a situation like this. 
But a lot of the stuff that the gentleman has referred to will 
be taken care of. But we will have a consultation.
    Mr. Cole. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Majority Leader.
    Mr. Hoyer. Let me say something. On our side of the aisle, 
sometimes we are frustrated with your chairman and we get 
frustrated when your chairman says, no, that is not fair, we 
told him we would get this, that, and the other. And we say, 
come on, Jim, we got to get this done. No, we have to be fair. 
So you have got a chairman of the committee who on our side is 
perceived as leaning over backwards to make sure that he and 
his committee is perceived as fair.
    And I want you to know, Mr. Cole, as we go through adopting 
this technology and using this technology if, in fact, we get 
there, as the chairman said, I want to assure you, I will be 
the first one, I want to hear from you this is not fair to 
Republicans to say, well, let's make it fair.
    Mr. Cole. And I say this facetiously, obviously, but there 
is another thing we agree on. We both chair the Danish--co-
chair the Danish Caucus and we both occasionally get frustrated 
with Chairman McGovern. So there is bipartisanship right there.
    The Chairman. I like frustration.
    Mr. Cole. You like frustration, yes, sir.
    Let me make another point, if I may, and I appreciate very 
much what you said, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working 
collectively with you. And I don't have any doubt, Mr. Leader, 
about your concern about trying to be fair here and trying to 
not disadvantage anybody either individually or in a partisan 
sense. I accept that without reservation.
    Just so you know and so I am clear, my bigger concerns are 
about the nature of the institution itself. I know you share 
many of those concerns, so I didn't want you to have the 
impression that I thought you were trying to tilt the table one 
way or the other to your advantage. I don't. I just worry very 
much about the way this place works. I worry very much about 
members being in bubbles back in their own districts where they 
basically talk to people just like them. A lot of people only 
talk to people with different political opinions when they are 
here and they sort of have to because the person has a vote and 
has a say. I think that is a good thing about the institution, 
and I think they also develop a lot of personal relationships 
that sort of provide the manner and bipartisanship, sometimes 
regional alliances, things like that which I think are very 
hard to do remotely. I know you share those concerns. But just 
so you know that is what I would consider.
    Now, next question, if I may, the resolution before us 
today allows for the use of remote voting upon the 
certification of Chairwoman Lofgren. This was something we 
really never talked about in our meetings. It was brought up 
before the task force, and I am, frankly, a little surprised to 
see it here. Could you explain why you felt the need to include 
this? And then I would ask you to follow up, because I do 
think, as I suggested in my opening remarks, this is a lot of 
power in one person's hands. I don't think that is the intent. 
And, again, I have a lot of trust for the member in question, a 
lot of respect for, but have you considered or would you 
consider, once she comes to a decision, maybe opening up and 
having the whole House have a look at that so that we didn't 
move forward technologically really on the basis of just one 
person, that there are other sets of eyes on it if you will?
    Mr. Hoyer. Let me say that I know that the Speaker--and she 
indicated that, when Mr. McCarthy said, I may be open to 
proxies but not now, and she withdrew the proposal at the last 
time we met. She set up a task force to discuss it.
    Now, to your specific question, I think that is in largely 
at my instance. And the reason it is in is because I think 
there are better ways to have a direct conversation with that 
camera. Me, not somebody I--not Rodney Davis, who I give my 
proxy to.
    And, by the way, as we know, proxies are used regularly in 
the United States Senate today. We no longer use them in the 
House. I think that was a good decision that the Republicans 
made.
    When I first came here, the chairman of my committee--I was 
on two committees--sometimes had 10 or 12 or 15 proxies in his 
pocket that were undesignated. This proxy is a very specific, 
you vote ``aye'' on this, ``nay'' on this. And it is clearly 
the person's opinion. It is not the chairman or somebody else 
using a large number of proxies.
    The limit, as you know, was your side's concern. We shared 
that view. You couldn't go too low, because you might have to 
have somebody with a lot of proxies under those circumstances.
    But I assure you that any change that we make we will do 
with discussion, serious and fair consideration. And I think we 
all have to have a sense that the technology works.
    For instance, let me give you my example, which--I wrote an 
article as well, as you know, and you probably read it, where I 
said my first initial recommendation to the chairman was, 
``Let's use FaceTime.'' Because you put the camera up, you see 
my face, and you see me say ``aye'' or ``nay.'' It is not 
somebody else. It is not an instruction I gave to somebody. I 
do it.
    I happen to think that, personally, is preferable. But I 
think what the Rules Committee has suggested is an interim 
step, which is now being used in the United States Senate by 
committees, and that I think will reflect--because they have 
carefully written it so you have to have specific instructions. 
The person has to announce first, ``I am casting my vote for 
Tom Cole.'' Then they cast their vote for Tom Cole. And it is 
as if Tom Cole were present, because it is going to be listed, 
you voted ``aye'' or ``nay.''
    So the answer to your question is--I certainly, I think, 
can speak for the Speaker that we intend to make any of these 
changes--and I know this is the chairman's view as well--after 
discussion and careful and thoughtful and bipartisan discussion 
for the institution--not for either party, but for the 
institution.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Leader.
    If I can, I will go to Mr. Davis.
    In the task force that we were all on, we had a roundtable 
discussion with the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentarian 
about the broader issue of remote voting. In those 
conversations, the Clerk consistently highlighted the need to 
be able to certify a proxy's validity. Has your committee had 
any conversations with the Clerk's Office on exactly how they 
would do that?
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Cole. Okay. So we are sort of moving forward without an 
agreed-upon system of how we would actually verify the proxy.
    Also----
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is----
    Mr. Cole. Excuse me. Go ahead.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. And that is why in my opening 
remarks I mentioned I think we need to take into consideration 
the professional House staff who are going to be tasked with 
implementing these new plans and proposals.
    And one other thing I would like to mention is, I think 
there is a big difference between proxy voting and remote 
voting and remote hearings. And kind of equating them all 
together is something that I don't think we should do in this 
institution. I think they all have very different rules and 
aspects and potential problems that can be played in the House.
    Mr. Cole. Well, I know my friend, the chairman's intention 
here is to make sure that proxies are very narrowly used, and I 
commend him for that. I think it is the right thing to do.
    Do you have any suggestions that would, you know, make sure 
that that proxy was actually cast by who was intended, used in 
the manner in which it was intended?
    Because, again, I appreciate the sentiment that the 
majority expressed here, that they want to really narrowly 
curtail this so we don't have what we had at the committee 
level that my friend, the Leader, referred to in the past--that 
is, people literally casting votes without any consultation 
with the Member whose vote that actually is.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I have a problem with the 
proxy process as a whole because of the process being corrupted 
under 40--you know, we were almost 40 years of one-party rule 
in the House.
    And, frankly, after speaking to former Members, like Bob 
Walker, who helped institute the reforms that got rid of the 
proxy process at the committee level, you know, he even joked 
about how the former chairs, now ranking members, laughed 
because the new Republican chairs took away their own power. 
And it was a process that they could not believe that the new 
majority would give up. But I think it was the right thing to 
do.
    And, as Mr. Walker said, you know, this is a new precedent. 
And while I appreciate the work of Chairman McGovern and Leader 
Hoyer and Chairperson Lofgren in trying to limit this proxy 
process, I think it is a process that has been shown in this 
institution to have been corrupted in the past. And it may be 
years from now--it may not be this Congress, it may not be next 
Congress, but it could be three, four, Congresses later, and we 
go back to that same corrupted process. And I don't think it is 
our job to allow this to move forward when we know it has been 
abused in the past.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cole, could you----
    Mr. Cole. Yeah.
    The Chairman. Would you mind yielding for a second?
    Mr. Cole. I would certainly yield to the chairman.
    The Chairman. So, I mean, there is the proxy voting of the 
past, which we would all agree was not a good standard, and I 
think the Republican majority, when they got rid of it, did the 
right thing. Because the way it worked back then was that the 
chair would have a bunch of proxies in his or her pocket and 
vote however the chair saw fit without consulting with the 
Member.
    That is not the way this should work. And that is not what 
we are talking about is.
    What we are talking about is that, if you want to give me 
your proxy, you have to indicate in writing how you want me to 
vote on every single vote. And then it will be announced 
publicly, how you voted, on the House floor. And if Jim 
McGovern had Rodney Davis's proxy and I voted, you know, 
contrary to the way you wanted to, it would be announced. And 
there would be a period of time, if I somehow abused my power, 
for it to be corrected.
    So the reason we suggested this is because it is the 
approach that I think, you know, is the--let's put it, it is a 
low-tech approach that can't be screwed around with, that can 
be transparent, that the Member's vote could be cast the way he 
or she wanted it to be.
    The problem with FaceTime and some other stuff right now is 
we have all been on calls where people freeze, you can't get 
through. You know, the technology out there may be such that we 
can actually go in a direction that Mr. Hoyer wants us to go. 
That is fine. But, you know, we need to test these things. We 
need to make sure that we are moving in a way that makes sense 
and that is foolproof, as foolproof as anything can be.
    So to compare what we are trying to do to the old days, 
that is just not accurate in any way, shape, or form. And the 
idea that somehow the process could be corrupted--the 
safeguards that are being built into this, you know, unless a 
Member is not paying attention, it just can't happen. So I just 
reject that comparison to the old days, because that is not 
what it is.
    And the gentleman knows that. We have talked about this 
time and time again. And I think we want to have a process with 
integrity, a process where there could be as few errors as 
possible in bringing this forward. And, again, as we learn 
more, there may be better ways to do it.
    And, again, my hope is--by the way, we have also had 
multiple conversations with the Clerk, our staff has. I think 
we feel confident that this process can move forward.
    So if there are better ways to do it, you know, this 
resolution says, let's look at it. But, in the meantime, 
let's--you know, the idea of just dragging this out forever and 
ever and ever in the middle of a pandemic doesn't make a lot of 
sense.
    I thank the gentleman for his indulgence. I yield back.
    Mr. Cole. It is certainly my privilege, Mr. Chairman.
    Although I will say again that, if you actually look at the 
resolution, it is pretty specific about assigning; it is not 
very specific about voting. And so that is an area that I--
again, I don't doubt my friend's intent. I think that is an 
area that we need to look at very carefully.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Cole, would----
    Mr. Cole. Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. You yield so I can 
respond to----
    Mr. Cole. Yes, I would certainly yield to you, my friend.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Look, I appreciate the work that was 
put together in a bipartisan way on our task force. I am glad 
you incorporated some of our suggestions. I don't see them as 
much as concessions as I see them as commonsense reforms that 
should have been in anyone's proposal.
    The proxy process being instituted in the midst of a 
pandemic or whenever has a potential to be abused once again. 
And I worry less about--Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I 
worry less about the process being corrupted once the vote is 
in the hands of your proxy and more so, how did that proxy get 
to that person in the first place? What are the discussions 
before that proxy is offered? Why is that person even offering 
that proxy? And could that process be abused? And you and I 
both know, Mr. Chair, it could be.
    But there is a big difference between proxy voting and 
remote voting and also remote hearings. And our plan that Mr. 
Cole submitted for the record laid out, I believe, a very 
commonsense approach that gets us to a point where Congress can 
work, just like essential workers are working throughout this 
country every day.
    My wife is a nurse. She gets up, she goes to work at a 
facility that is treating COVID patients in the building right 
next to where her office is. She is in and out of that 
building. She doesn't quarantine herself when she gets home 
every night. She comes home knowing she followed the proper 
protocol and the guidelines to make sure that she mitigated the 
risk of her picking up the virus.
    We have shown here that we can adapt in a very bipartisan 
way to do that. And we offered the opportunity to implement 
hearings--remote hearings, hybrid hearings. Let's test it. As 
you said, Mr. Chair, let's test the process.
    But let's not kid ourselves. What you are proposing today 
does leave the minority out. It gives unprecedented power to 
you, as the chair of this committee, when determining how and 
when a--to determine all regulations for all House remote 
proceedings. It comes directly from you. It doesn't say you 
have to consult with the ranking member of your committee. You, 
solely, have the authority to do this, Mr. Chair.
    And that takes away our ability, as minority Members--and, 
frankly, any rank-and-file Member on either party does not have 
the authority to work with you. This is something that you will 
be in charge of, adapting committee proceedings to a virtual 
platform. And it will be the largest change to the House 
processes and precedent in modern history. I think we do 
deserve our voices to be heard.
    It also gives unprecedented power to just the chairperson 
of House Administration. It doesn't say she has to consult with 
me, the ranking member, when determining what type of 
technology to choose and implement before putting forth remote 
voting on the House floor.
    Remote voting is much different than proxy voting. That 
allows somebody to sit at home and cast a vote. And, yes, there 
is technology, Mr. Chair, that could allow that to happen, but, 
in the end, why do we have one person, in the majority party, 
determining what technology to use?
    The Chairman. Well----
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. We don't have--hey, let me finish 
real quick, and I will yield back.
    But think about this. In modern congressional history, we 
have had majorities switch a lot more often than 40 years up 
until 1994 and 1995. Now, when this switches, if I am the chair 
of House Administration, do I then unilaterally get to change 
the process that was selected unilaterally by your majority on 
a remote voting process?
    You can consult, but----
    The Chairman. You just said--you just said----
    Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. You don't give us----
    The Chairman. You just said that the----
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. But there is nothing that forces you 
to consult or concur.
    The Chairman. Excuse me. You just said that the chair of 
the House Administration Committee is not required to consult 
with you. Go to page 11 of the bill.
    It says here: ``The Chair of the Committee on House 
Administration, in consultation with the Ranking Minority 
Member, shall study the feasibility of using technology to 
conduct remote voting in the House, and shall provide 
certification in the House upon a determination that operable 
and secure technology exists to conduct remote voting in the 
House.''
    So what you just stated was incorrect. It is in the 
resolution.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I certainly hope--I certainly 
hope that----
    The Chairman. And I personally----
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. I certainly hope that consulting, 
Mr. Chair, is taken into consideration a lot more so than the 
consultation that we provided in a very bipartisan and public 
way on our task force was taken into consideration.
    And I think you need to be very careful about this process. 
There needs to be stricter procedures for minority rights. 
Consultation. Consultation. Yes, I may have misspoke on 
consultation, but I would certainly like to have written, in 
this rule and in this package, a much more precise process of 
how this technology is chosen. The chair does not have to 
listen to any consultation or any advice--and you know that--
based upon what is written there.
    So I would expect much more precision, to see the biggest 
change to House procedures in my congressional career. And that 
spans not just the 7\1/2\ years that I have served here but 
also 16 other years working for another Member of this 
institution.
    Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman, I think I would reclaim my time, 
but I would grant you any time you might want to respond.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate--I just--again, I mean, 
read the resolution.
    And, again, you know, I appreciated the efforts that were 
made by both sides on the task force. But, again, I will point 
out, what my friends were asking for, at the end of the day, 
was to give the minority leader veto power over our ability to 
implement these temporary procedures. And the minority leader, 
when I asked him would he concur and allow us to move forward 
during this pandemic, said, no, he wouldn't. So he would have 
vetoed that.
    So I appreciate that.
    And, again, I don't question the gentleman's motives. And, 
again, I respect the gentleman from Oklahoma. And believe me, 
we will consult. And our staffs work very well together. We 
don't always agree, and the end result may not be what you 
want, but sometimes it will be. And that is the nature of this 
business.
    But at the end of the day, we want to get this right. We 
understand the importance of this moment. But, again, I mean, 
the idea, to basically give the minority the ability to say, 
``We want veto power over anything, and we will use the veto 
power so you can't move forward,'' I think it kind of defeats 
the whole purpose of why we are having this conversation to 
begin with.
    I mean, we have Members, Democrats and Republicans, who 
have approached us to say that, during this moment, we need to 
figure out alternative ways to be able to meet and to be able 
to do our business. And that is what we are doing here.
    And if the deal is that my friends don't think that we 
should do this, that's fine. We just have a difference of 
opinion that we are not going to be able to bridge. But we will 
do our best to make sure that, as we move forward, and in the 
regulations that we--or guidelines that we put forward, that we 
are consulting with Mr. Cole and others and that we are being 
as transparent as humanly possible on this stuff.
    So I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Cole. Reclaiming my time, just want to make two points.
    Number one, I have no doubt that you will consult in good 
faith, Mr. Chairman. You have all the way through the process. 
And I look forward to you continuing to work with me.
    To my friend Mr. Davis, you actually answered in your 
exchange with the chairman the question I was going to ask you, 
which was the concerns about, consultation or not, a single 
Member basically making a decision about remote voting. And in 
the amendment process, we may provide the opportunity for the 
majority to reconsider that.
    And I would just urge you to--again, I think, in the end, 
you are the majority, and you have the ability to make the 
decision as a majority. You might want to consider expanding 
that out so it has the legitimacy of the entire House--excuse 
me--or of the majority in the House.
    I just think--and I know this is not the intent. And, 
again, I want to state for the record, I have enormous respect 
for the individual we are talking about. I don't have any doubt 
about her professionalism and her personal integrity. That is 
not it. I just think there ought to be more fingerprints on 
this particular decision. And I would ask my friends in the 
majority to consider that, going forward, in some form or 
fashion.
    With that, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole [continuing]. I yield back. Thank you for your 
generosity with the time.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 
meeting today.
    And thank you to both of our panelists for being here.
    Most of all, I want to take this opportunity to thank all 
of the staff that is here and that made this meeting possible. 
I know that you have stay-at-home orders, that you are not in 
compliance by being called here. So, in many ways, I consider 
you the heroes of the U.S. Capitol because you are here, 
working for the people.
    I fully support this measure, and I want to thank both of 
you for helping Members of Congress convene meetings through 
whatever means possible that we have been able to do it, to 
ensure that we continue representing and hearing the voices in 
our communities, their concerns and their requests for 
assistance, as it has come down to having to do these, whether 
it is through the Teams network that I participated with you, 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer--I really liked that platform.
    But, as you know, platforms come and go, computer programs 
come and go. And I certainly don't want to be stuck, you know, 
with an old system, you know, that hasn't, you know, progressed 
with the times.
    So this resolution is for--what is meant to address the 
issues of today. At the end of this Congress, we may not have a 
need to do this, and we may have another opportunity to do 
something. And hopefully we don't. Hopefully we will beat this 
virus, and we can go back to our more comfortable way of doing.
    I do want to say that, just because I support having an 
opportunity to be able to have another Member vote for me, cast 
my vote on the floor for me, it doesn't mean that I am 
committed to doing that.
    I have a preexisting condition. And when I got on the plane 
yesterday, I was scared to death. There were people in the 
screening area of the TSA process that were much too close for 
my own comfort.
    And I had made a commitment to my staff, to my family, that 
if that plane was more than 70-percent occupied and there were 
people, you know, stepping over each other, that I would 
immediately get off of it before taking off, because I am not 
willing to risk my life for this. And I don't think that we 
should be asking our staffs to risk their lives simply because 
we are afraid of a new system, of working under extreme 
conditions.
    This is not normal. This is not something that--you know, 
one party or the other. This pandemic is not a Republican 
pandemic and is not a Democratic pandemic. It is a public 
health issue.
    Eighty-plus-thousand people have died--80-plus-thousand--
that we know of. There are many others that have died as a 
result of the complications of this disease that are not on 
record simply because we did not test them.
    I don't want a test, when my 5-year-old grandson, who had 
been sick, could not even get a test; when a very popular 
pastor in my community died because he could not get a test--
not because he lacked insurance, but simply because the tests 
have not been available in my community, like food isn't 
necessarily available in pantries in my community.
    This gives people an opportunity to vote on behalf of their 
constituents on the floor, and not--simply because they are 
sick, they should not have to relinquish their vote and to be 
that voice of their community. This gives everyone an 
opportunity to do that.
    So, with that, I want to yield back. And I want to thank 
you both for being here and risking yourselves on behalf of 
bringing better government and more accountability.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for convening us on this.
    I didn't have the privilege of serving on the bipartisan 
group, and I appreciate the shared agreement on both sides of 
the aisle that folks put in a lot of very serious work there. 
Couldn't come to conclusion. To be fair, that work took place 
over a short period of time, and conclusions in a bipartisan 
way either are often small or they take longer.
    And we have an opportunity to do some small bipartisan 
things. We are choosing to bring the whole package together at 
once.
    I wanted to ask you, Mr. Leader, because I don't serve on 
the bipartisan committee--I do serve on the Rules Committee. I 
am thinking about rule XX, clause 5. This chamber spent 3 years 
between September 11, 2001, and January 4, 2005, talking about 
what to do in the event, not of unanticipated events, but, 
reading from rule XX, specifically, ``the inability of the 
House to establish a quorum is attributable to catastrophic 
circumstances involving natural disaster, attack, contagion, or 
similar calamity.'' We anticipated COVID.
    And, again, 3 years of collaborative work went into that 
decision. What is the inadequacy of the work we did in a 
bipartisan way at that time?
    Mr. Hoyer. Well, ultimately, we didn't come to a 
conclusion. Had we come to a conclusion--and let me back up. 
The reason we didn't come to conclusion, the reality of the 
House shutting down did not occur. The 9/11 occurrence did not 
shut down our economy. It shut down the airplanes for about 3 
or 4 days.
    So that there was not the compulsion of the reality of 
being unable, in this case because of a pandemic, to come 
together. And, as a result, the difficulty of getting to that 
point was not overcome, even though they took 3 years.
    Mr. Woodall. But we----
    Mr. Hoyer. Now, they did take some steps, as you know, but 
we did not get to a step that would solve the problem that we 
have now where Ms. Torres, so, I think, dramatically and 
correctly pointed out, she was fearful. She was fearful. And 
she is going to have to go home to her family, and she is 
hopeful that, while she is here, that wearing masks and keeping 
our distance will preclude her from being infected. Let us all 
pray that that is true of all of us.
    But the reason they didn't get to an agreement was because 
the reality was not as stark as it is today. You know, nobody 
was wearing masks; nobody was not flying because they were 
afraid of sitting in the middle seat. You know, they didn't 
like sitting in a middle seat, but they weren't afraid that if 
they sat in a middle seat that they were going to get sick 
because of the proximity that that would cause.
    And I think it is unfortunate that we didn't get to that, 
because if we had gotten to a solution and had provided for 
that, then we would not be having this discussion, because we 
would have set in place a way for the Congress to meet 
virtually.
    And in addition to that, you and I both know, in the last 
20 or 17 years, what extraordinary difference we have with 
respect to technology and the way to communicate with one 
another and the way to aggregate ourselves in a technological 
way rather than a physical way. So, had they had that 
technology, they may have tried to pursue it more 
energetically.
    Mr. Woodall. Well, I know of your passion for reaching a 
virtual opportunity. That is not where this resolution takes us 
today; that is out there on the horizon.
    But they did reach conclusion in that effort after 2001, 
which is why it is in the House rules today, that the House's 
business must go on. And so, in the event that I can't get here 
because of contagion or Ms. Torres can't get here because of 
contagion, we are not going to let the absence of these two 
Members of Congress and the inability to establish a quorum 
prevent the House from doing business. We are going to have a 
quorum call; we are going to find out which Members can come 
back. And we took the unprecedented step of then reestablishing 
the number necessary for a quorum. And as Members began to 
travel or became unable to travel, that number for a quorum 
would adjust. We did establish----
    Mr. Hoyer. Which was a radical change, I would suggest to 
you, that Mr. McCarthy mentioned. That was a radical change, to 
say that less than a majority would be a majority. And, 
frankly, what it did not provide for, Mr. Woodall, is either 
your voice or my voice being heard if we were not physically 
present.
    Mr. Woodall. Well----
    Mr. Hoyer. So that our constituents would have been 
voiceless.
    Mr. Woodall. It does not provide for that.
    Mr. Hoyer. No.
    Mr. Woodall. I am not sure that answers my question about 
why, as opposed to rushing afford with changes, we are not 
utilizing the changes we spent 3 years on and have never used.
    But let me go to that point about having our voice heard. I 
have read the documentation----
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Please.
    The Chairman. Just let me make one point. I thought I made 
it before. I just want to again.
    You know, the Constitution is clear: A majority of each 
house shall constitute a quorum in order to do business. Under 
the change that the Republicans put into place--I didn't vote 
for it at the time, because I thought there were serious 
constitutional questions--I mean, you could literally have two 
people constitute a quorum. I don't know how committees 
function. I am not even sure it would stand a constitutional 
challenge.
    But, you know, the point we are trying to respond to is 
what Democrats and Republicans have expressed to me and, I am 
sure, to others as well, is that, you know, how do we function 
during a pandemic when, you know, we all want to participate, 
we all want to do our committee work, we want to move things 
forward? How do we do that? Can we do that remotely, and is 
there a way to do it?
    But the rule change that the gentleman is referring to, I 
wouldn't call it a collaborative effort. There were hearings--
--
    Mr. Woodall. Uh-huh.
    The Chairman [continuing]. But it was pretty controversial 
at the time. And, again, I am not sure how many people can 
defend, you know, having the House of Representatives 
potentially consist of two people calling all the shots. I 
mean, I don't think that--but I wanted to point that out.
    And what we are doing here is, we want to follow the 
Constitution. We do believe a majority of the membership should 
be what a quorum is, not just a couple of people.
    Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Woodall, can I make a comment?
    Mr. Woodall. Just one moment, Mr. Leader.
    To my chairman's point, I have no doubt that his concerns 
are sincere, but Speaker Pelosi has been elected Speaker of the 
People's House three times since these rules were put into 
place. If the majority had serious constitutional questions 
about the nature of House rules, I have no doubt, with the 
other rules changes the majority made, the majority would have 
repealed this section as well.
    I don't dispute----
    The Chairman. Well, with all----
    Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield to the chair.
    The Chairman. To be honest with you, we didn't think--we 
probably should have thought about it. I mean, you know, the 
deal is, we never used it. But I think the gentleman has raised 
a good point, and we should take another look at it. Because I 
don't think that a quorum should be defined by potentially two 
people. I don't think that is consistent with the Constitution.
    But the gentleman raised a good point, and when we get 
through this, you know, maybe we should be talking about--you 
know, we should talk about, you know, how we can take another 
look at that.
    Mr. Woodall. Okay.
    The Chairman. But I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Woodall. And in the spirit of the House creating its 
own rules, as the gentleman knows, we often have two people on 
the floor of the House, under a unanimous consent agreement. 
The Constitution is no less adamant that a quorum be present to 
conduct business, and yet two people on the floor of the House 
conduct business regularly.
    So I recognize the gentleman's concern, and I think that is 
the minority's----
    The Chairman. And if the gentleman wants to defend the 
House of Representatives operating in its entirety with 
potentially two people on the floor to deal with everything, 
then he can do that. I just don't think that is what the 
American people would like to see happen, and I don't think it 
is constitutional.
    But the gentleman is right; we should take another look at 
it, because I do think we need to be planning for the future.
    Mr. Woodall. I appreciate the gentleman. I think he 
reflects my constituents' concerns. Two people on the House 
floor do not represent an active, deliberative body, though nor 
do 45 people on the House floor, as this----
    The Chairman. Right, but the difference here is that----
    Mr. Woodall. Happy to yield to the chairman.
    The Chairman [continuing]. We could all participate 
virtually. So the bottom line is, as Mr. Hoyer pointed out in 
the very beginning, you know, when we had our calls through 
various platforms, we all could see each other, we all could 
talk to each other, we all were able to participate, albeit 
virtually.
    So we want everybody to participate. Those who can be here 
should be here. Those who can't can participate virtually. The 
Supreme Court is taking arguments right now virtually, and I 
don't know why we can't. So there is a big difference here.
    Mr. Woodall. Of course, the flip side of that is the United 
States Senate is meeting consistently right now, and I don't 
know why we can't. But----
    Mr. Hoyer. They have a virtual hearing----
    Mr. Woodall. In a hybrid--in a hybrid way, which, again, 
the minority leader said he would like to be a part of.
    Mr. Leader, please?
    Mr. Hoyer. Excuse me. I tell people I have had this cough 
for 3 years. It is allergies, not anything else.
    Mr. Woodall. But you feel a little more suspicious now with 
it, don't you?
    Mr. Hoyer. That is right. That is right. Just keep them 
informed.
    Why didn't they get to a resolution? If you ask Mr. 
Ornstein, who was very much involved in that, Norm Ornstein, 
whom I think you probably know, if you asked Mr. Baird, 
Congressman Baird from Washington State, he will say they 
failed, not that they didn't take some action. Why did they 
fail? Because the threat at that time was conceptual.
    Let me suggest to you, one of the problems we have today is 
that, although people conceptually raised the pandemic that had 
happened in 1918, could happen again, it was conceptual, and, 
as a result, we were not prepared.
    Here, it is actual. That is why you are sitting with a 
mask, why I am sitting with a mask, why we are distancing, we 
are in this large room, as the chairman pointed out, where a 
small room would have accommodated the Rules Committee and the 
witnesses. It is here. It is not conceptual; it is not 
theoretical.
    We had 9/11. Now, if 9/11 had knocked out the entire air 
traffic system, it would have been actual, because people would 
not have been able to get here, except drive maybe 5 days or 3 
days from the West Coast.
    Mr. Woodall, it is actual. Ms. Torres's fears are shared by 
millions of Americans, in your community and in my community, 
about a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of 
people, where the entire world has been impacted, where, for 
the first time in my lifetime--and I am older than anybody in 
this room--the economy of the United States was shut down 
purposefully, not because we had a recession or depression, but 
because we decided it was so important to stop this pandemic in 
its tracks, which we have not yet done, that we would shut down 
the economy of the United States. And 33 million people are 
unemployed. Depression-like levels.
    So this is not conceptual; it is here. And we have to deal 
with it. And we have to deal with it, in my view, in a context 
where we do not take Congress off the field.
    And this is an opportunity, in my view--and I use this. I 
talked to a newspaper reporter today. I do this with my 
grandchildren all the time, and it is much different than my 
talking to them on the phone. I see them. Very frankly, the 
children don't like to talk for very long, but, frankly, when 
they are on TV, they like it a lot more. They feel, ``I can see 
He-Pop, He-Pop sees me,'' da-da, da-da, da-da. It is different. 
I don't know about the rest of you; I feel it is a different 
experience than talking on the phone.
    Mr. Woodall. I believe you are making Mr. Davis's point, 
though, Mr. Hoyer. It hasn't been 3 minutes here; we have 
conflated virtual voting with proxy voting. We have conflated 
hybrid hearings with not showing up on the House floor to 
vote----
    Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Woodall----
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. To vote at all. There are a lot 
of issues going on here that we can absolutely deal with in a 
responsible and collaborative way, as the committee tried to 
do.
    But that experience you are having with your grandchild, 
you didn't phone that in. You didn't designate to your nephew 
the ability to visit with your grandchild that day and have 
that count as having seen your grandfather.
    Mr. Hoyer. I am laughing, Mr. Woodall, because you and I 
probably agree more than the chairman and I agree. And the 
chairman agrees, too, in my view. And I don't want to speak for 
the chairman.
    This is an interim step. But in a world in which we live, 
you can be in Tokyo and I can be in Washington, D.C., and you 
and I can call ourselves on FaceTime and see one another in 
real-time. It is a little different time on the clock where you 
are than it is where I am, but in real-time, as we are talking, 
we see one another.
    And I think, you know, that is where I would go to 
ultimately, because I think that is the better way. But what 
the chairman--and I agree; I am going to vote for this rule--
has proposed is an interim way of getting there using something 
that we have used through history.
    Now, I understand, in the House, we eliminated, but the 
Senate is still using it. So it is a technology--I think the 
chairman referred to as a simpler--maybe that wasn't the word 
you used, but----
    The Chairman. Well, if the gentleman would just yield----
    Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman [continuing]. I am proposing that we take a 
baby step, that we go with a low-tech approach first. And, as 
we feel more comfortable, we can evolve.
    Mr. Hoyer. Low-tech.
    The Chairman. This may shock you, Mr. Woodall, but there 
are some Members of the House who still have flip phones. There 
are some Members of this Chamber who are more technologically 
comfortable than others. There are some Members of this House 
who think bifocals are a radical idea.
    So, I mean, the bottom line is, we are trying to deal with 
this situation in a way that we feel that there is a comfort 
level, and, as people get more comfortable, we can then look at 
other things. But the point of the matter is, we want to move 
in a way where everybody feels they can participate, not just 
those who maybe have more experience with technology than 
others.
    And, again, that is the reason behind this, but, also, the 
bottom line is that, you know, we have experienced this 
reality, and we all need to be prepared because it may be 
coming back in the fall. And so, if it does, we can learn from 
what works really well, how we can do things better, but we 
need to be prepared. And that is what this is all about.
    But I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Woodall. You are very welcome, Mr. Chairman.
    And since the leader has focused on this much more than I 
have--again, that bipartisan group that has been the source of 
a lot of praise--the resolution today is very specific when it 
comes to my designating my proxy. Mr. Davis and I agree on a 
lot; we disagree on a little. I hope he would trust me with his 
proxy if he couldn't be here on a particular day.
    And it says specifically, ``A Member casting a vote or 
recording the presence of another Member as a designated proxy 
under this resolution shall cast such vote or record such 
presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the 
other Member.''
    Now, when Mr. Davis's name is called and I am holding his 
proxy and I speak out and vote in a way contrary to the Davis 
instruction--because things do come up on the fly, and not 
everything can be consulted with--what is the procedure for 
resolving that?
    Mr. Hoyer. The theory--not the theory, but I think the 
letter of the rule that is being proposed is: If you did not 
get instructions, you could not vote that proxy.
    Mr. Woodall. I am going the other direction. I did receive 
instructions, and I am voting against those instructions, just 
like in the electoral college where folks had received 
instructions to vote for President Trump but they don't. What 
is my recourse as a Member? Again, the most solemn 
responsibility we have as Members is voting on the House floor. 
What is my recourse?
    Mr. Hoyer. ``Madam Clerk, he cast my vote incorrectly.'' 
You can email. You can text. You can call. There are so many 
different methods of technology.
    And Mr. McGovern and I have had conversations about this. 
My own view, I will tell you honestly, is that the best way for 
me to convey my vote is to look into my phone on FaceTime and 
say, I vote aye or nay.
    I personally don't believe there is a security question. 
Everything we do is public. This meeting is public. The TV is 
watching me, what I do. I don't have any secret on that.
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall? If I could just----
    Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
    The Chairman. If it is an honest mistake--right? I mean, 
the deal is that you will--I mean, as I mentioned before, if 
you gave Mr. Hoyer your proxy and he cast it the wrong way and 
it was an honest mistake, you would hear ``Mr. Woodall voted 
yes'' or ``Mr. Woodall voted no.'' There would be a period of 
time for you to correct it.
    Now, if you are trying to assert that Mr. Hoyer would 
deliberately try to take your vote and use it in a bad way, 
then that is a question of privilege. And you would have the 
opportunity to be able to correct the record.
    So there is the--I mean, hopefully, if you are 
participating remotely, you are following what is going on. You 
will hear your name announced. You will hear how you voted. And 
if you call and Mr. Hoyer doesn't want to change your vote, 
then it is a question of privilege and you have the right to be 
able to change it that way.
    Mr. Woodall. As the chairman knows and certainly as the 
leader knows, even in the short time I have been here, we have 
had motions to reconsider votes brought to the floor of the 
House, and they have to be brought in real-time.
    We have had votes that have been held open for hours as 
leadership on both sides of the aisle went and twisted arms, 
one by one by one, to try to move a vote in a different 
direction. And I promise you, it is going to be easier to move 
a vote of one of my nine proxies that I am voting for than it 
is for you to move my vote on the House floor.
    I recognize, in the public domain, we have more 
opportunities than ever before to correct errors, and I can be 
certain that, with Mr. Davis's vast digital presence, he will 
tell all of his constituents that I voted the wrong way for 
him. But the law of the land will have changed because I voted 
the proxy my way instead of his way. There is no mechanism for 
reconsideration, as I read the resolution.
    We do have votes that hinge on a one-vote margin day-in and 
day-out. How do we anticipate correcting, not the understanding 
of someone's constituents, but the direction of public policy 
for the greatest country the world has ever known?
    Mr. Hoyer. Can I suggest that that is one of the reasons 
the rule provides for alternatives, and we ought to be talking 
about what those alternatives are that both of us believe give 
us a sense of confidence.
    This is a first step. I think it is a credible step. It is 
something that has been used and is used.
    The contingency that you raise is certainly possible. I 
think we all have to recognize that. And it is certainly 
possible that any contingency might have technological glitches 
as we move forward, and we will have to consider making 
accommodations for that that we otherwise might not have 
thought of.
    So I think you raise a legitimate point, not against the 
rule, but a legitimate point of something that we ought to look 
at as we implement the rule.
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. The gentleman shares my concern that this may 
change the direction of public policy but will still support 
the rule, and we will sort these problems out on the fly? Is--
--
    Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Woodall, let me call your attention back to 
a time when the Republicans, who were managing, forgot to ask 
for a recorded vote on an issue. Do you recall that I stepped 
forward and said we are going to reconsider it so that we would 
be fair? Well, I would do the same in this instance. Because 
the chairman's rule perceives that your intention is carried 
out. There is no discretion.
    If somebody votes differently than you instructed them to 
do, that is a violation of the rule, it is a question of 
privileges of the House, and it has to be corrected.
    Mr. Woodall. I won't belabor this any longer, Mr. Chairman. 
I will tell you that you worked very hard to build a lot of 
goodwill in this committee, for which I am not just grateful 
but I am the beneficiary. It is the consensus opinion that this 
is an unprecedented change.
    The Chairman. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Woodall. It is the consensus opinion that it got 
started in a bipartisan way but we are now talking about things 
that were never even discussed in the bipartisan committee that 
might come forward. And we have defined ``consultation'' as 
being, ``Guidance is going to come out tomorrow, and the 
ranking member still hasn't seen any of it yet.''
    And so I hope the chairman understands, for 
institutionalists--and I want to stipulate what the leader said 
to begin with, that he has a reputation of being both an 
institutionalist and a fair-minded, bipartisan negotiator--we 
don't get to put this genie back in the bottle. Harry Reid was 
wrong to do what he did in the Senate. I think Mitch McConnell 
was wrong to do what he did in the Senate. We are never going 
to get any of those things back.
    And what we are doing today is not something that is going 
to last for the life of this pandemic; it is something that is 
going to last for the life of this institution. And I hope the 
chairman takes the concerns on our side of the aisle not 
remotely as a ``I don't trust the leader or the Speaker or the 
chairman,'' but as a ``I have the trust of generations of the 
American people that I have to be accountable for, and moving 
this dramatically, this quickly, gives us great pause.''
    You had a wonderful, bipartisan committee, and I refuse to 
accept that there was not a pathway forward, even if more 
incremental than the majority would have liked to see, that 
there was not a pathway forward that could have been done with 
the complete support, as opposed to this division.
    Mr. Leader?
    Mr. Hoyer. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
    Unlike the reference--I made a reference to the Supreme 
Court and the U.S. district courts and circuit court 
appointments. I agree with the gentleman's conclusion that that 
was a mistake.
    What I disagree with is, though, that this rule does not 
change, as that rule changed on both sides--Republicans, 
Democrats--does not change the rights of the minority, does not 
change the outcome.
    I don't mean that somebody couldn't make a mistake or, 
let's say, intentionally, which would have been subject to, 
frankly, being removed from the House, in my opinion, if 
somebody intentionally voted somebody's vote differently.
    But this rule does not change the rights of the minority. 
It does not change the consequences of votes. It doesn't 
change--as those Supreme Court decisions did. And it is 
intended simply to empower the Congress to be able to meet and 
meet its responsibilities to the American people.
    Right now, a committee, if its members either can't get on 
transportation or are sick themselves, whatever it is, but are 
fully able to--you know, their faculties, their mental 
faculties are whole to instruct somebody to vote--let me say 
something that maybe I shouldn't say.
    You are sitting on an aisle. There are four people sitting 
on the aisle. And there are a lot of people coming around. And 
Rodney is there, and I said, Rodney, will you put this in the 
slot? He does, and I tell him how to vote. He does that.
    Technically, that is a violation. But it is not a 
violation. I am there, I am voting. It just so happens I am 
using his hand rather than my hand. But he is doing what I told 
him to do.
    What the American people want is the ability of the 
Congress at a time like this--and you cannot name another time 
like this in your lifetime. I can't, and I am a lot older than 
you. There is no analogy, except perhaps the Spanish Flu, where 
they did have two people on the floor and they passed 
legislation, but not much. They didn't do much during the 
Spanish Flu. That was a century ago. So this is a century 
happening, if you will. And it is in that context that we are 
acting quickly.
    Why are we acting quickly? Because the experts tell us--and 
some people believe the experts--that this may regenerate 
itself in September. We may have a flattening, but until, 
frankly, we get a vaccine or a therapeutic that very 
substantially minimizes the consequences of COVID-19, we are 
going to have a problem. And if it raises again its ugly head 
in September, we ought to be ready. Because September is going 
to be a very busy month for us, and we don't have a lot--it is 
an election year, so we are going to be off in October, et 
cetera, et cetera. So now is the time.
    You say we moved quickly. We did move quickly, because we 
need to anticipate--we all hope this gets better. We all hope 
we get a vaccine. We all hope we get a therapeutic. But if it 
doesn't, we need to be ready to make sure that Congress is 
empowered to act on behalf of the American people and to 
conduct oversight that the extraordinary funds that we are 
appropriating are used in a way as we intended.
    Mr. Woodall. I stipulate that this is a crisis of a 
magnitude that I have never seen before.
    Mr. Hoyer. Right.
    Mr. Woodall. But I was here with you on September 11. And 
we never imagined that we would go another 18 years and not 
have another attack on this Capitol. We expected it to come 
again the next day.
    In the month of October, 30 days later, when anthrax came 
to Capitol Hill and folks became afraid to open up their mail 
that they were getting from their constituents, we expected 
there to be deaths on Capitol Hill because the Capitol was 
targeted.
    And the D.C. sniper. I remember the talks of families, 
that, was it worth running for Congress again, because 
Washington was becoming a life-and-death decision.
    I don't want to see us justify with a crisis something that 
we would not otherwise do as the caretakers of this 
institution.
    I appreciate your commitment not to undermine minority 
rights. This resolution is silent on notice requirements for 
virtual hearings. I am sure that will be included in the 
guidance, but it is silent as we sit here today. It is silent 
on whether or not I can still have a Member's words taken down. 
Will I be able to protect decorum? Can I make a motion to 
adjourn? It is silent on those issues as we sit here today.
    Mr. Hoyer. And----
    Mr. Woodall. And I am concerned about what the guidance is 
going to look like, but I am comforted by your commitment that 
you know it would be wrong to undermine minority rights and you 
have no intention of pursuing that path.
    Mr. Hoyer. Let me, if I can. They are silent on those 
rights, which are currently in the rules and are not changed. 
It is not the intention of this rule to change any protection 
the minority has that currently exists. There is no need to 
tell it in the rules because we don't change those rules. We 
want you to have notice requirement, amendments requirement, 
cross-examination requirements, time that you are entitled to 
use during committee hearings.
    This is not about party. This is not about faction. This is 
not about philosophy. This is about ensuring that the Congress 
of the United States can act even if it can't get its Members 
into a particular room, including the House Chamber.
    Mr. Woodall. My friends won't believe me, Mr. Chairman. I 
am trying desperately to close, but the leader keeps bringing 
up new topics as I conclude.
    There are prefiling requirements in here. There is no 
opportunity for me to offer secondary amendments----
    Mr. Hoyer. No, they----
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. In the virtual committee process.
    Mr. Hoyer. No, I wanted prefiling for amendments, and Mr. 
McGovern did not want to have that in there, and, as far as I 
know, it is not in there. They are talking about it, but as I 
read and as I had a discussion with Mr. McGovern, I thought 
there ought to be prefiling.
    Let me tell you why I thought there ought to be prefiling. 
Because if you weren't in one room together, it would be hard 
to hand it out. So if you got it out before, Members would 
have--but you would still have secondary amendments. And I 
think that is pretty easy to solve. Every committee, almost, 
has a screen, and you put up on the screen, and everybody sees 
it on their computer at home, this is the amendment, and they 
read it.
    But I have thought prefiling was a protection for every 
Member, that they would know what the amendments are. After 
all, this is--you know, I am a trial lawyer, and you like to, 
sort of, spring something, surprise, you know. It is our Perry 
Mason thing, and everybody says, ``Oh, wow. Isn't that 
something?'' But, frankly, we have a discovery process in the 
law. The reason for discovery is because it ought not to be 
about surprises; it ought to be about substance.
    And that is why--but the chairman said, ``I don't think the 
Republicans will feel that is fair, so we won't do it.''
    Now, my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we didn't put it 
in.
    The Chairman. We did not.
    Mr. Woodall. I appreciate the----
    Mr. Hoyer. So I agreed with Mr. McGovern--well, I didn't 
agree with him, but I said, ``If that is what you think, and I 
want to be fair to the Republicans, and you think the 
Republicans will not think that is fair, fine, leave it out.''
    Mr. Woodall. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment.
    I was on the floor yelling and screaming for a recorded 
vote on a measure just a short time ago, and the 
Parliamentarian just didn't see me. I wasn't at the microphone; 
I was on the back aisle. I was overlooked, and I was denied my 
rights as a Member of this institution because the 
Parliamentarian could not see me to direct the chair.
    It troubles me that, as we move towards adopting a brand-
new process of conducting our business, that there would not be 
cognizance that not only could a Member's rights be denied 
currently in an in-person proceeding but they would be 
certainly susceptible in a brand-new proceeding. And if we are 
not proceeding forward with the understanding that those rights 
could easily be denied, then I have no doubt they will be 
trampled upon along that path.
    So I appreciate the chairman's indulgence in letting me 
make it clear that I have those concerns. And hopefully my 
colleagues will share those concerns, as the leader does.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    This is all about the continuity of government, period, bar 
none. That is it.
    Joseph Story, a couple hundred years ago, said, ``Congress, 
in representing the entire Nation, must be able to exercise 
certain inherent powers to deal with unforeseen circumstances 
which could threaten the continuity of its operations and the 
safety of the Nation.''
    Another famous scholar, a guy named David Dreier, said, 
``One of the most important duties of the Congress is to assure 
continuing representation and congressional operations for the 
American people during times of crisis.''
    Mr. Hoyer, I think you have explained it perfectly. And Mr. 
Cole has heard me reject the nostalgia that he projects and the 
need to be able to meet in close groups and visit, which is--as 
I said, we had a virtual hearing a month ago on this--and I 
said to the gentleman from Oklahoma at that time, that is what 
I love about the Congress, is the ability to, with Mr. Davis, 
you know, play some catch and discuss a particular issue or sit 
down over a beer and try to hash out a particular problem. That 
is what is great about this place.
    But, on the other hand, we are in a very different time 
that doesn't allow for that kind of relationship. The 
relationship is by phone, or it is by FaceTime or Zoom or WebEx 
or whatever. That is what it is. I mean, I would love to come 
over and sit next to Mr. Cole and, you know, visit about this 
rule and say, ``Okay, where could we make some changes that 
would satisfy you all?''
    Mr. Perlmutter. But we cannot have government come to a 
grinding halt in a pandemic, where our own Attending Physician 
or our public health experts at home or the public health 
experts here in D.C. say, ``You guys shouldn't get together, 
because you could drag the disease from Denver to D.C., or you 
could take the disease from D.C. back to Denver.'' And that is 
the last thing I want to do. I am not worried about my own 
health. And Mr. Jordan and I had this conversation the last 
time we met in this room. And it is about being the vector that 
could affect so many others, and to demand of our staff when 
there are better ways to do this.
    So, Mr. Hoyer, let me ask you a couple questions.
    The rule, as I understand it, for a quorum says ``chosen, 
sworn, and living,'' but does not require presence. Am I wrong 
on that?
    Mr. Hoyer. I am sorry. Repeat again?
    Mr. Perlmutter. Quorum, those who are chosen----
    Mr. Hoyer. Oh, quorum. A quorum can be a virtual quorum.
    Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. sworn, and living.
    Mr. Hoyer. Yes.
    Mr. Perlmutter. That is what it requires, not presence.
    The Constitution says we should assemble in D.C. at least 
once a year. And I would assume we have met that requirement, 
several times.
    Mr. Hoyer. We did, but I would like to comment on that.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Sure.
    Mr. Hoyer. The Founders could have no conception that you 
could assemble virtually in that box that I talked about, that 
computer or that iPad or whatever----
    Mr. Perlmutter. But I guess I am just saying, even if they 
did, we have actually physically assembled this year----
    Mr. Hoyer. We have.
    Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. at least once in Washington, 
D.C.
    Mr. Hoyer. Yes.
    Mr. Perlmutter. And I have said to you and I have said to 
Mr. McGovern, I don't think this rule goes far enough. And my 
friends Mr. Cole, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Woodall apparently think 
it goes too far.
    I guess the real problem here is that, when the rule was 
amended, as Mr. Woodall talked about, you know, 15, 16 years 
ago, 2005, 2006, it discussed contagion, but it didn't really 
go into contagion; it went into incapacity.
    People, if they have to stay someplace else, at home 
because they have shelter-in-place orders, or who come here and 
we have to be 6 feet apart--and most of the committees are 
going to be in different rooms because they can't be handled. 
They are not next to each other; they are not in the same 
place. They are going to have to work virtually anyway.
    So it is my opinion that--and this is where you were going, 
Mr. Hoyer, I think--that back in 2005, 2006--the change to the 
rules didn't go far enough, because with contagion you have a 
different set of circumstances that we face today. And it isn't 
like there was an attack and it was over and you now figure out 
what to do next. This contagion exists today and will continue 
to exist for the foreseeable future. We were told that 
Washington is a hotspot. In Denver, we can see the surge having 
reduced, but not here.
    So I said a month ago to my friends that it would be 
legislative malpractice if we didn't address this subject. And 
a month later, it still would be legislative malpractice.
    Now, Mr. Hoyer, I understand that this rule terminates. 
This is a temporary rule, is it not?
    Mr. Hoyer. For the life of the Congress and 45 days, in the 
sense that it has to be recertified that the cause of the rules 
being implemented was still present.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Right. For the rule to be called upon, it 
has to be the Sergeant at Arms, the Attending Physician, and 
the Speaker. And then it lasts for 45 days, or at least the 
proxy voting and the different things called for in the rule.
    The rule itself is temporary, the change, because it ends 
at the end of this Congress--well, 45 days, potentially, after, 
I guess. But I think it ends with the end of this Congress, and 
that is why it is temporary.
    So I would say to my friend Mr. Davis and to Mr. Cole and 
Mr. Woodall that if you all were to take the majority next 
year, then you could revise this rule as you so choose. I don't 
think you are going to take the majority next year, but you 
certainly could.
    If I didn't know the three of you better, you know, I would 
say the effort here to not address this issue in any meaningful 
way is to bring the Congress to a halt. And I know that isn't 
your intention, but that is, in fact, what happens if we don't 
deal with this thing, given this contagion, this miserable 
disease that has killed tens of thousands of people.
    We have to address this. We should have addressed this 2 
months ago, and we had better take care of it now.
    With that, I yield back to the chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Before I yield to Mrs. Lesko, let me just yield to Mr. Cole 
for a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I ask for unanimous consent to submit the following for the 
record: a letter from the ranking member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, Mike Rogers, to the ad hoc working group 
detailing a number of rule violations with regards to the 
recent Committee on Homeland Security hearing; a letter from 
the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. 
Bishop of Utah, to the chairman of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, Mr. Grijalva, detailing the committee's use of 
unofficial and highly partisan roundtable discussions displayed 
as hearings on the committee official website; a letter from 
the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, to the Speaker, Ms. 
Pelosi, detailing a Republican plan to establish a clear, safe, 
and effective path to reopen Congress; and, finally, Mr. 
Chairman, a letter from all committee ranking members to the 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, detailing a number of issues with 
respect to partisan changes proposed by H. Res. 965.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And I would ask unanimous consent to insert 
in the record next to those all the responses to those letters.
    Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you. It is good to see both of you.
    I am going to oppose this resolution for a number of 
reasons; many have been stated already. There are a lot of 
unanswered questions, I think, but I won't go into that.
    Mr. Davis, let's say there is a committee that is going to 
do some major legislation. Let's say it is impeachment, let's 
say there is more impeachment. Do you have a concern that there 
will be lawsuits filed because the question of 
constitutionality is not clear, as evidenced by the different 
unanimous consent--you have one constitutional lawyer saying it 
is constitutional, another one saying it is not constitutional. 
Do you have concerns about that?
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. I do have concerns, Mrs. Lesko. And 
thank you for the question.
    In your example, what you are referring to with an 
impeachment committee hearing, maybe the Judiciary Committee, 
for example, you would assume that that remote technology then 
would be used during that markup process.
    If you look at the plan that was submitted and given to the 
bipartisan task force during our first meeting--everything that 
was laid out in that plan was laid out during that first 
meeting. And Mr. Cole and Leader McCarthy and I specifically 
say we have some concerns about that markup process, 
specifically, number one, because of the constitutionality 
disagreements that we may have with others in this room and 
others that may be in the legal profession.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Davis, do you have any other comments you would 
like to make in relation to any of the previous comments?
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, Mrs. Lesko, thank you.
    And thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to be here and 
communicate our issues and our concerns with this.
    Let's be clear: This is a process that will fundamentally 
change the House. I do appreciate Chairman McGovern, Leader 
Hoyer, and all of the members of this committee. Everybody is 
here to solve problems. We have a fundamental disagreement on 
this process and how it should move forward.
    We do not oppose, as Republicans--and you can see in the 
plan; this was submitted for the record--we do not oppose 
remote hearings, we do not oppose utilizing technology. We just 
would like to see it done in a fair way. And the list of 
concerns coming from our ranking members of how it may already 
have been abused, unintended--it is the unintended 
consequences.
    I know everybody on this dais and here at this table would 
likely be offended by the abuses that our ranking members have 
witnessed already with remote technology. That is why we laid 
out a clear and concise path to implementing technology for 
hearings, so we don't see the abuse. I would like those to be 
taken into consideration.
    I know this is a hearing, Mr. Chairman. I know you are 
going to have a Rules Committee process, where amendments to 
this piece of legislation are going to come forward. I 
certainly hope you take into consideration the debate and 
discussion we had here today, as those amendments come to each 
and every one of you. And let's work together to make this rule 
better.
    You are going to pass this rule because you are in the 
majority. You are going to implement this. We get that. Let us 
have our voice throughout the rest of the day in this room, and 
let's see some amendments that are going to be offered by the 
minority put into this rule to make it better and to make it 
more fair.
    And I do want to clarify some things.
    Yes, the United States Senate does have a proxy process, 
but that proxy process, unlike the rule that is being debated 
today, does not ever allow a proxy vote on the Senate floor. 
That is something that this rule will allow for today.
    That is why we have some constitutional concerns. That is 
why I think you are going to see any piece of legislation move 
forward going to have to go through the courts. Somebody 
somewhere will file a lawsuit, and it will go through the court 
system.
    But let's also remind the American people today, in 
closing, that this Congress has not stopped working. This 
Congress just a few short weeks ago had 300 Members that came 
out here.
    I do understand and I share the concerns of my colleagues 
in this room about staff, which is why we worked in a 
bipartisan way before this crisis to get equipment to every 
office so that every office was ready in case they needed to 
telework. And they did, and it is working great. We want to 
protect the staff.
    And the debate on testing is not just about testing 
Members. It is about setting up a process in a bipartisan way 
where we can ensure the safety of our staff and the people who 
work in this facility when we are not here. I certainly hope 
that is something that we can debate and discuss as we move 
forward and as we see testing capabilities increase in this 
country every single day. Let's protect the people who protect 
this House.
    But let's continue to work in a way that we showed the 
American people just a few weeks ago and a month ago when we 
put forth the CARES Act and the updated CARES Act. That is what 
we should see here today.
    And, unfortunately, our task force did not come up with a 
bipartisan agreement. I certainly don't begrudge the people who 
were on that task forth, even Chairman McGovern, who offends me 
by wearing that Patriots mask. Geez, you know? Although, you 
know I am a Raiders fan, Mr. Broncos Fan. I would be more 
offended if it was a Broncos mask.
    But, in the end, we wanted to come up with an agreement. 
Today is not an agreement. It is not bipartisan. I am certainly 
regretful of that. I certainly wish we could have gotten 
something like that in place. But, in the end, we have had our 
voice heard today in this hearing room. I appreciate that 
opportunity.
    And, again, I reiterate: The voices of my fellow 
Republicans that are going to come offer amendments behind me, 
I certainly hope that you take their suggestions into 
consideration and make this bipartisan before it gets to the 
floor.
    And thank you, Mrs. Lesko, for your questions.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank you.
    Just for clarification here, I mean, the question Mrs. 
Lesko asked was about the constitutionality of committees.
    Why would that be a constitutional question?
    Mrs. Lesko. Actually, sir, my question--if I could speak?
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Mrs. Lesko. It was just on constitutionality. Let's say 
another impeachment thing----
    The Chairman. Right, but----
    Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. Goes on and there is a vote on the 
floor.
    The Chairman. But, I mean----
    Mrs. Lesko. Is that----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Votes on the floor are one 
thing, but in terms of committees, they are creations of 
Congress. They are not, you know, creations of the 
Constitution. So I think there is a distinction.
    Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, could I make an observation?
    The Chairman. Yeah. Put your mic on, though.
    Mr. Hoyer. That would be better.
    The Patriots are not playing. The Broncos are not playing. 
The Nationals are not playing. The Yankees and Red Sox are not 
playing. Why are they not playing? Because they have determined 
to bring people together in large numbers is dangerous. That is 
all this rule recognizes.
    And I think we can work together. This is not about party 
or faction or philosophy. This is about how we can safely 
exercise our duties with a confidence that it is, in fact, 
Hoyer's opinion that is reflected, not someone else's opinion. 
I was elected by 750,000, just like the rest of you, and they 
want us to reflect their opinion.
    We are just talking about what kind of technology, whether 
it is a--and when I use that example, you know what happens. We 
see it on the floor. What I am using is--I am putting it in. 
You know, I am using your arm. You stick it in, but you do what 
I say. That is what proxy voting is. Now, it may be a thousand-
mile-long arm. I get that. But there is no difference in terms 
of character.
    That is why--you know, Maryland--I grieve--I use this in my 
graduation speech, which I am giving on the 22nd, about--we 
have a young man whose name is Cowan, Jr. He lives in Bowie, in 
my district. One of the great guards in America. He didn't get 
to play in the Big Ten finals. He didn't get to play in the 
Final Four. He is a senior. He won't get that opportunity 
again. Why? Because millions of people who had a lot of money 
at risk decided it is not safe. And we want to keep people 
healthy and safe, not just us. As Mr. Perlmutter said, he is 
going to go back to Denver.
    And I tell you as passionately as I can, I don't want, in 
any way, the use of this technology to diminish the rights of 
the minority any more than I want it to enhance the rights of 
the majority. This is not about Democrats and Republicans. It 
is about our institution and having it on the field at a 
critical time in our history.
    Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me yield to a constitutional scholar, Mr. Raskin from 
Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And I want to thank the majority leader for his very 
thoughtful comments and also my friend Mr. Davis for what he 
has said today.
    I actually want to pick up with something that Mr. Davis 
just said, where he said that the rule threatens a fundamental 
change of Congress, an institution. And I think it is the 
coronavirus that has already fundamentally changed this 
institution and Congress, just as it has fundamentally changed 
the Government of the United States, society, culture, 
economics. We have 82,000 of our fellow citizens who have died 
already. We have tens of millions who have been thrown out of 
work. We have seen massive shutdowns in the economy. So it is 
the coronavirus that is transforming everything. We need to 
respond.
    As my friend from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, says, this is 
all about the continuity of government. What are we supposed to 
be doing? Well, it is all summed up in one sentence in the 
Preamble of the Constitution: ``We the People, in Order to form 
a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
general Welfare, and preserve to ourselves and our Posterity 
the Blessings of Liberty, do hereby ordain and establish the 
Constitution.''
    And the very next line says that all legislative powers 
belong to the Congress of the United States. The sovereign 
power of the people to create the Constitution and the 
government flowed immediately to us in Congress and gave us the 
power to fix the rules of our own proceedings, consistent with 
particular constitutional parameters.
    Taking the ayes and the nays: There is nothing in this rule 
that violates the constitutional requirement of taking the ayes 
and the nays. Consistent with the quorum requirement, there is 
nothing in this rule that offends the constitutional quorum 
requirement.
    You know, if some people object to the use of the proxy--
well, let me say this first about the proxy rule, because I 
would have gone all the way with the technological rule, but 
the proxy rule is perfectly constitutional.
    And I found the conversation between Mr. Cole and Majority 
Leader Hoyer uplifting on both the process and the substance, 
because they agreed that there was a real effort to try to 
arrive at a bipartisan judgment. And sometimes it just doesn't 
work, and that is why we have voting. And the Framers of the 
Constitution understood that. We even have voting on the 
Supreme Court where they are just interpreting particular 
language. But in the final analysis, if you can't agree 
unanimously, you vote. That is how we do it in democracy.
    And so the process was one where there was a good-faith 
effort on the part of Democrats, there was a good-faith effort 
on the part of Republicans, but the majority felt that we need 
to put a rule in place, an emergency rule, to deal with this 
terrible crisis that the country is in.
    And, on the substance, I think I also heard them both agree 
that this is a rule that doesn't benefit the D's at the expense 
of the R's or the R's at the expense of the D's. It is just a 
rule that allows Congress to continue to meet and to function. 
That is what it is all about.
    So, for me--and I was asked about it by members of the 
staff and by the chairman. And although I favored moving 
towards a technological--you know, a voting-by-distance 
technology solution, I said that the proxy voting is fine so 
long as the person who is the proxy exercises no discretion and 
no judgment. They are acting like a letter carrier. They are 
delivering a letter. That is all.
    And I have both a constitutional vested interest in that 
and I have a personal vested interest in that because I live 25 
minutes away from the Capitol--these days, it is more like 18 
minutes--and Members know that. So, not only do I know I will 
be called, I have already been called by Members, saying, ``If 
it comes to this and we pass this, would you be willing?''
    And these are Members who have expressed some of the fears 
that our distinguished colleague from California has expressed. 
It is people who have members of their family who are medically 
vulnerable. It is people who are not sure the transportation 
will be working for them.
    But I tell you, my--and I believe that every Member of this 
body who is asked to be a proxy will act in utter 100-percent 
good faith, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat or an 
independent. I think we might have a couple of those now. Every 
one will act in strict accordance with the instructions of the 
person who asked them to cast their vote for them.
    And not only that, Mr. Hoyer properly reminds us that it is 
a matter of public record. Everybody is going to be able to 
watch it. It is a perfectly transparent process. And if there 
is any departure from it, the Member whose vote is miscast will 
know immediately and will be able to call and protest and get 
it changed.
    And I cannot believe that anybody in this body would think 
it is not a violation of rule I of our Code of Official Conduct 
to deliberately miscast a vote. It says that a Member shall 
behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably 
on the House. Would anybody think that it reflects creditably 
on the House to deliberately miscast a vote in the proxy rule 
adopted, I hope, today? I don't think so.
    Having said that, my reluctance is being a local Member and 
knowing that--you know, I think about ``Romeo and Juliet'' and 
how one of the major themes in Shakespeare is failed 
communication. The whole plot in ``Romeo and Juliet'' turns on 
the failure of Friar Lawrence to get Friar John to deliver the 
message to Romeo that Juliet has just taken a sleeping potion, 
she is not really dead. Remember? But Friar John never 
delivered the letter. Why? Because he was stuck inside because 
of a plague, because of a pandemic, and he couldn't get the 
message to Romeo. So he finds Juliet, he thinks that she is 
dead, he commits suicide, and then she commits suicide. So 
things go wrong.
    Now, things go wrong with technology too, and I understand 
that. But I do think that the committees will be able to 
operate very well under this rule. And I think over the last 
several weeks, by necessity, the Congress of the United States, 
like the rest of the country, has gotten a lot of practice on 
how to use Zoom and Teams and all of these different 
technologies. And, again, those are open, those are public, 
they are transparent, and people know if there is funny 
business afoot.
    I do think that is the direction ultimately we have to get 
to. And if I am called upon to be a proxy, I will do my very 
best to get here on time, to be here and to act consistent with 
the--absolutely consistently with the instructions I have been 
given. But, you know, my real fear is just people not making it 
for some reason. And that is my only hesitation about it.
    But, look, we are living in a dramatically imperfect world 
right now, and I am very happy to support this rule. I think 
that the Constitution demands it. The Constitution, Justice 
Jackson said, is not a suicide pact. We don't have to go down 
the drain together. We can make the Constitution work.
    There is a wonderful passage from Jefferson where he said 
he deplores the sanctimonious reverence with which some people 
regard the way things were back when the Constitution was 
written. He said that all of us have the same potential wisdom 
and knowledge of the Founders, but we have something they don't 
have, which is the experience of living in our own times, and 
we have to adjust our practices, our policies, and our 
institutions to the requirements of our own time. And that is 
why I am very happy to support this resolution.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. You know, just thinking of Mr. Raskin saying 
we can't always be wedded to the practices of the past. When 
the Constitution was written, Ms. Shalala, myself, Mrs. Lesko, 
and Mrs. Torres wouldn't be here. So Congress must change with 
the times.
    You know, we were here 3 weeks ago today to debate this 
rules change that would allow the House to do the people's 
business while complying with medical advice and working 
remotely.
    Three weeks have passed. Some things haven't changed. Our 
colleagues across the aisle are still opposed to a rules change 
that will allow the House to do its job while reducing the risk 
to Members of Congress, our staff, the Capitol Police, our 
families, and the communities that we serve when we go home.
    The other thing that hasn't changed is we still don't have 
enough testing, PPE, or vaccines to be able to control this 
pandemic.
    Some things have changed in the 3 weeks since we were here 
last discussing the same thing. In the three counties that I 
represent, in southeastern Pennsylvania, the COVID-19 
infections have swelled to over 26,000 infections and the 
number of deaths has doubled. We are now approaching 2,000 
COVID deaths in those three counties--that we know of. We know 
that it is greater because there are a lot of suspected deaths 
that can't be confirmed because we didn't have testing.
    I have been in daily contact with our healthcare providers 
in that region, and they are hopeful that infections have begun 
to decline. But they stress that will only continue if we 
maintain our vigilance, maintain social distancing, and 
implement a comprehensive testing program.
    Here in D.C., infections have not yet begun to decline. And 
it is dangerous to expose Members, staff, families, and 
communities to a virus that is so insidious it has even invaded 
the White House despite the extraordinary testing and 
precautions that have been put in place in that workplace, if 
nowhere else.
    Congress has provided the administration with the funding 
and the authority to develop and implement the comprehensive 
testing and Federal guidance that Americans are begging for. 
Now, we can't force the President to use those resources any 
more than we can force him to wear a mask. But if the President 
won't do the responsible thing and lead by example, Congress 
can. We can wear masks, we can lead by example, and we can 
follow the advice of medical experts.
    We don't have time to waste on trumped-up process arguments 
while lives are in the balance. We can work remotely, and so we 
must. I strongly support this rule change, as I have for the 
past several weeks, and I look forward to voting on it.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize for repeating some of what my colleagues have 
said, but I think this is a critically important subject, as 
evidenced by the fact that the majority leader is with us. So I 
do want to take a moment to just sort of make some comments 
about what we propose to do here.
    And I do want to thank you for your extraordinary work on 
this. As on all matters before this committee, you approach it 
with incredible professionalism and bipartisanship and 
fairness. And I appreciate what you do, and Mr. Cole, and I 
certainly appreciate the majority leader and Mr. Davis being 
here this afternoon.
    You know, when we did have a conversation--we have had one 
remotely on this committee, and I expressed some reservations 
in that conversation. I have expressed reservations publicly 
and privately about changes, significant changes, to the 
legislative process. I, you know, acknowledge I am a 
traditionalist. And although this is my first full term in the 
House, I have a background in legislative bodies at the county, 
State, and now the Federal level.
    And so I always worry about, what is the character of the 
legislative work? It has been discussed by others here that, 
you know, much of what we do and the conversations we have are 
conversations like this, together. And that does inform our 
work and does have a significant impact on the work we do.
    I also, you know, have concerns about the precedent-setting 
nature of what we do and whether or not the precedents we set 
in some way impact in a negative way the work that we do.
    And then I also expressed my concern about the security of 
the technology.
    But, at the end of the day, for me, there are really two, 
sort of, central questions. The first is, what is the nature of 
the challenge we face? If this were a small challenge, if it 
were an inconvenience, then obviously I would be rightly, I 
think, concerned about significant changes.
    And then the second question is, if the challenges we face 
are so significant that it affects our ability to do our job, 
then the second question, to me, is, what is the nature of the 
resolution to correct or to address those challenges and that 
problem?
    And so, you know, as it relates to the first, I mean, this 
is obviously undeniable, and I think all of my colleagues have 
expressed as well: 84,000 deaths from COVID-19 just in the 
United States, millions infected, and we continue to face 
challenges from a public health perspective; we face challenges 
in terms of commerce and our economy. Unemployment numbers may 
reach 25 percent of Americans. Thirty-six million Americans 
have applied for unemployment insurance. And to the majority 
leader's point, even things that--let's be clear, major sports 
is major business in the United States, and it has completely 
ground to a halt, as so many industries have.
    So this is undeniable. I mean, there are no challenges that 
we have faced in our lifetime that come anywhere close to the 
challenges that this faces. And it does occur to me that 
Congress must respond to it.
    And so I also think that is sort of common sense. What 
would people that I represent, what would they say if posed 
with two, sort of, questions? First, do they decide that we 
insist on the status quo and not have a functioning Government 
of the United States? Or can we use available means and 
available technology to respond to the crisis in an appropriate 
way? I think all of us would probably agree that, if you could 
achieve the second, the second option would win overwhelmingly 
by the American public. They would want us to use available 
means in an appropriate way to respond to this crisis.
    And I do note, just parenthetically, that a number of 
States have moved to remote voting. Some have constitutional 
problems in their States, but many that do not have addressed 
this--the State of Oklahoma, the State of Pennsylvania, the 
State of South Dakota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Jersey, even my 
home, the State of New York.
    And I often used to say, no disrespect to the Members here, 
but the New York State Assembly is the oldest, longest-serving, 
democratically elected legislative body in the world. It 
actually predates the House of Representatives. And they have 
made changes, despite long traditions and history, that allow 
them to vote remotely.
    So we are not alone. In fact, in some ways--we are now 2 
months into this. I wouldn't call this a precipitous response. 
In some ways, you might argue that we have--I guess you could 
look at it as we have taken our time to prudently think about 
this. Others might say that it is too slow. People on this 
panel might believe that.
    So, in my mind, answering the first question, that this is 
clearly a challenge of unprecedented nature, the question then 
is, does the resolution before us meet, at least in my mind, 
the question of appropriateness, and is it, in effect, a 
proportional response? And I just want to, if you will permit 
me, just go through how I view this.
    First of all, the fact that this is a temporary rule and it 
does not permanently change the rules of the House I think is 
an important distinction to make and an important decision has 
been made to move ahead. That does not hold any future Congress 
to the rule we impose here, and I think that is appropriate.
    We will be able to judge whether or not this rule bears 
being put into the permanent rules of the House, but that is 
not a decision we make today. We make it with the ability to 
look back, having watched what happens and what unfolds over 
the ensuing several months of this Congress, to make that 
determination, and I think that is entirely appropriate.
    Secondly--and I thank the Chair for this very much, and the 
Members and the majority leader--it is very narrow and very 
specific. It is a public health emergency due to a novel 
coronavirus. I mean, that is about as narrow and as specific as 
you could possibly say. I guess the only other thing you could 
have put is ``COVID-19,'' the specific year in which that virus 
was found. But since we are in 2020 and you can't--this is only 
a temporary rule. It applies to this epidemic, which I think is 
entirely appropriate as well.
    The process to trigger it: notification by the Sergeant at 
Arms in consultation with the Attending Physician, the Speaker 
in consultation with the minority Leader, may designate a 
period--and these are 45-day increments, which, again, seems to 
me entirely appropriate.
    As I read the rule, at some point that the Sergeant at Arms 
concludes, in consultation, again, with the Attending 
Physician, that an emergency no longer exists, the rule 
terminates, or the process terminates.
    So, again, I think this is very narrow, it is very 
thoughtful, even to the degree--and I appreciate always the 
comments made by my good friend from Georgia relative to how a 
Member shall cast a vote.
    I think on page 6, lines 6 through 11, it is pretty clear. 
Following instructions, a Member casting a vote or recording 
the presence of another Member as a designated proxy under this 
resolution shall cast, vote, or record such presence pursuant 
to the exact instruction received from the other Member under 
paragraph 1.
    It doesn't say ``may'' cast, that you use your independent 
judgment because someone who has designated you as the proxy 
trusts you enough to do it, although I hope that is the case. 
``Shall'' cast, not ``may'' cast. ``Shall'' cast. That is the 
rule that we are living under.
    And I would hesitate to believe that any single Member of 
this House, duly elected, would ever violate the rule of the 
House by casting a vote that is not an exact instruction 
received from the Member who has designated them as a proxy.
    And what I would do--and, you know, I would certainly ask 
the majority leader if he wants to comment on it. But what I 
would do if I had designated a proxy, I would tell the majority 
leader in advance who I had designated and make sure that the 
majority leader knew how I intended to cast those votes.
    Now, it is true, motions come up, but they will be given 
ample time for those instructions to be relayed. But that would 
allow the majority leader to make sure that those votes are 
cast in accordance with the rule.
    But I go back to my earlier point, which is, I don't 
believe any Member of this House would ever violate the rule of 
the House and would not cast the instructions that have been 
given, the exact instructions. And that is what the rule 
suggests.
    Mr. Woodall. Would my friend from New York yield?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Woodall. While you are following that line of 
questioning, you raise an interesting point about unexpected 
votes.
    It had been my assumption that, if I was carrying proxies 
and an unexpected vote came up, that those Members would trust 
me, and I would cast my vote--I would cast the vote as I would 
anticipate----
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. They would want it cast. But----
    Mr. Morelle. No. I believe--and I will defer to the 
majority leader or the chair. I don't believe that is how it 
works. I think what would work then is, again, you need written 
instructions, exact instructions, given by the Member who has 
given the proxy.
    So, if you were my proxy--and I would certainly trust you 
to carry my proxy, Mr. Woodall--if there were a motion that 
came on the floor, a motion to recommit or some other motion 
before the House that was not anticipated, you would have to be 
required--and I am sure the House would allow enough time for 
this to happen. You would be allowed--there would be enough 
time to allow me to give you exact instructions on how that 
vote should be cast before the vote is cast. Which will slow 
down the process, I don't think there is any question about 
that, but we want to get this right.
    And I would defer to the majority leader or the chair. I 
believe that is what is anticipated.
    Is that right, Mr. Majority Leader?
    Mr. Hoyer. I think the rule that Mr. McGovern has put 
forward is, specifically, you have to instruct on every vote. 
It is not that I would trust you to know what I want to do. You 
have to have, either in writing or electronically, in some 
communication, whether I send you a text, whether I send you an 
email, what vote I would cast--not what you think I might cast, 
but what vote I would cast.
    And that is why it is specific, exact instructions on how 
to vote. Because we don't want--this is you voting. This is 
not--as this example I gave, his hand is putting my card--
because we are all jammed up--in the slot, which is 
technically, of course, not allowed, but it is my vote, not 
somebody else's.
    Therefore, we would contemplate only acting if you got 
specific instructions. And if you didn't get instructions, you 
could not cast a proxy.
    Mr. Morelle. And to go further, I believe, in the rules: 
Announcing instructions immediately prior to casting the vote 
or recording the presence of another Member as a designated 
proxy, under this resolution, the Member shall seek recognition 
from the chair to announce the intended vote or recorded 
presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the 
other Member under paragraph 1.
    I think it is pretty clear that there is no--this isn't 
intended, as I understand it--and I think this is appropriate. 
It is not intended to give license to the designated proxy to 
cast votes as he or she thinks is appropriate. It is to allow 
them to do, physically, what the Member who has designated them 
wants to be done as though they were there physically. And so 
you are not giving anyone license to do anything or to use 
their judgment in place of yours.
    And I assume--and, again, people can correct me. But if I 
am not available to give that exact instruction, then I would 
not be casting a vote. And any Member who casts a vote without 
my exact instruction would be violating the rules of the House 
and I think would suffer the sanctions and the consequences of 
having violated the rules or any rule of this House.
    Is that right, Mr. Majority Leader?
    Mr. Hoyer. That is correct.
    Mr. Morelle. So I will just conclude this way. And I 
appreciate the indulgence of the chair. I do think the 
resolution before us is measured. I think it is proportional. I 
think it leverages appropriate and available technology. I 
think it meets my concerns over security. I think it is narrow. 
I think--and this has been repeated, and I firmly believe 
this--I do not believe it advantages either side in terms of a 
partisan divide; it simply allows those Members to do what is 
right.
    So I think this creates a method to move us forward and 
protects not only the prerogatives under Article I--and 
prerogatives are important--but the duties and obligations and 
responsibilities that we have under Article I of the 
Constitution. And so, therefore, I will support the resolution.
    And I appreciate all the incredible work done by all my 
colleagues on both sides. And I do want to again particularly 
thank the chair for his great work, as well as the majority 
leader. So thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Shalala.
    Ms. Shalala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
quality of the discussion that has taken place, and I have deep 
respect for this institution and for its leaders.
    This virus is vicious. Most of our States are opening up 
without meeting the CDC guidelines. Nothing is winding down. 
And those of us that had to go through airports can describe 
them as scary.
    We have two responsibilities here. The first is to do the 
people's business, and the second is to save lives. We have a 
responsibility to continue to do the people's business, and we 
are responsible for the lives of people who work here.
    This proposal is minimalist, as far as I can tell, so that 
we can do our jobs. And we must do our jobs. In my State, 2 
million people have applied for unemployment. Less than half 
have received it. We have a legacy system that was designed to 
say ``no,'' and our poor new Governor is trying to fix it. 
Thousands of really small businesses applied for PPP in my 
district, and very few got it.
    Oversight? We need oversight on unemployment insurance and 
the SBA, at the minimum. So virtual oversight hearings are 
critical on the trillions that a bipartisan Congress approved.
    Mr. Chairman, I can be just as tough with a mask on as 
without a mask. My personality doesn't change if I have to look 
at a screen. But my second responsibility, to save lives in my 
community, with all of you in every community, and I will not 
put my hardworking staff or the others that serve and protect 
us here at risk. So, if I have to choose between a mask and a 
screen, I choose the screen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Are there any questions?
    Seeing none, let me thank the distinguished majority leader 
for being here and for his work on the task force. Let me also 
thank Mr. Davis, Ranking Member Davis, for being here all of 
this time and for his work on the task force.
    And let me just say as strongly as I can, Mr. Davis, that I 
strongly disagree with you and emphatically disagree with you 
on the New England Patriots. As my late father would say, you 
hate the sin, love the sinner. So we will work things out. But 
I appreciate you being here.
    And I don't know if anyone has any final things to add, 
but----
    Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think 
the Congress is blessed by having someone as chair of the Rules 
Committee who is as fair as any of our Members, who wants to 
make sure that the process is fair. Obviously, he wants the 
result that he wants, but he wants to make sure--and I agree 
with him--that the process of getting to a decision gives 
everybody a fair shot.
    And we want to do that in this process, but we do want to 
make sure that the Congress can, in fact, act at a time of 
great crisis.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Chair, Leader, my fellow 
colleagues, thank you again.
    I would just like to remind the committee, following us 
today are going to be Members of our party offering amendments. 
I certainly hope you take into consideration our debate today, 
and I certainly hope you take into consideration their 
amendments to make this rule much more bipartisan than it is 
right now.
    So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chair. I still don't like 
your mask with the Patriots.
    The Chairman. Get used to it.
    But, anyway, nice to see you. You are dismissed.
    And now I would like to call up our next panel: Mr. 
Bergman, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Pence.
    To maintain health and safety, please take a chair in the 
second row. Staff will escort you to your chairs.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Hold on just a minute.
    Thank you.
    Yeah, Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Mr. Morelle's discussion 
reminded me of something I meant to put into the record, and we 
discussed it at the virtual conference we had a month ago.
    The National Conference of State Legislatures has compiled 
17 States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin 
Islands that allow for some type of remote voting. And I 
believe the template for this current rule is similar to that 
that is being done in Pennsylvania.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Mr. Perlmutter. I would also like to have the record 
reflect that virtually every democracy around the world is now 
allowing for some type of virtual voting because of the novel 
coronavirus.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    So I know you are all probably gathering support around an 
amendment to limit the 5-minute rule in the Rules Committee, 
but let me--I don't know whether anyone has a preference to go 
first, but, if not, we will begin with Mr. Bergman.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK BERGMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I think your mic is not on yet.
    Mr. Bergman. There we go.
    The Chairman. There we go. Okay. Welcome.
    Mr. Bergman. Are we doing this alphabetically or by age?
    Mrs. Torres. Either way, you are first.
    Mr. Bergman. Well, number one, thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
the Rules Committee, for allowing me the opportunity to speak 
today. I believe that the American people want to hear this 
dialogue.
    I want to be brief. I am not a lawyer. I am not a 
constitutional scholar. I am just a Marine. Over 50 years ago, 
I swore an oath to, quote, ``support and defend the 
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to 
bear true faith and allegiance to the same.'' That oath never 
expires.
    ``Honor,'' ``courage,'' and ``commitment'' are not Marine 
Corps buzzwords. They are part of a belief system designed to 
instill confidence and achieve results at all times, but 
especially in stressful times, life-threatening times.
    As just a fact, 35 years ago today by days--35 months ago 
by days, 14th of June, several of us were scrambling for our 
lives on a baseball field in Alexandria. So we were not worried 
about a lot that day other than making sure that we did the 
right thing for the right reason, and it was instinctive.
    The actions that we take, the decisions that we make as the 
116th Congress will be viewed, reviewed, debated, and discussed 
by future generations. When those of us privileged enough to be 
empowered by our constituents to vote on these important issues 
reflect back, will we see that the actions that we took built 
trust, built confidence, or diminished it?
    And that trust is given to us, granted to us, if you will, 
by the American people. Either they trust us or they don't. Are 
we, as the House of Representatives, leading by example? Are we 
inspiring others?
    You know, we will adapt. I heard, as I listened here for 
the last couple of hours, suggestions about how we can change 
the setup of the committee room. Some of us are used to setting 
up forward operations around the world in contended areas, are 
used to adjusting to the challenges and the threats of the day.
    I know that we are better than what I have seen recently in 
the media, but I believe we, as a body, can come together and 
show the American people--show them that we can be socially 
distanced, that we can be personally responsible, and that we 
can conduct our business here in Washington, D.C., in an 
appropriate, safe manner.
    But what the American people want to see and need to see--
they need to see us agreeing to disagree, being passionate 
about what we believe in, but, in the end, coming to a 
consensus, if you will, and making a decision and going 
forward.
    So I oppose the proxy voting. We will adjust 
technologically, and we can do it safely, but we must do it 
aggressively, with the thought of actually what we have been 
chartered to do by the people who sent us here.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Bishop of North Carolina. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, 
Ranking Member Cole, for the opportunity to testify--members of 
the committee.
    It has been a fascinating experience to listen to your 
proceedings today because there are many Members here and, of 
course, your witnesses who have great experience, long 
experience in Congress. No one is more rank-and-file than me, 
elected last September, a member of the minority.
    And I learned a great deal in the comments made by all, but 
one thing that kept ringing in my ears is perhaps, Mr. Woodall, 
something that you said in response to Mr. Hoyer or agreeing 
with Mr. Hoyer: that this is an unprecedented experience. And 
it is not.
    Now, it is, Mr. Woodall, for your age, because you were 
born in 1970. But in 1968-1969, there was the Hong Kong Flu 
pandemic that killed 100,000 Americans and a million people 
worldwide. And at a population then of 200 million in the 
Nation, if you extrapolate it, according to the American 
Institute of Economic Research, it might be a 250,000-person 
death, if you extrapolate it.
    And I heard a lot said by Mr. Hoyer and other Members and 
members of the committee that have well-voiced the fears that 
we all experience. But I think what is different about this 
situation is the way in which we are reacting to fear. Because 
it is not an unprecedented situation.
    In 1968-1969, it is not even clear that there were any 
alterations in the proceedings of the Congress. In 1918, the 
Congress wasn't dissolved.
    Unfortunately, what this bill represents is a failure of 
leadership when leadership is desperately needed, a loss of 
nerve when courage is called for.
    Contrary--well, to Mr. Hoyer's point, this institution has 
always met in times of crisis. This House has remained open in 
the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11 and in 1861, with the 
Confederate Army a few miles away.
    By refusing to let Members get back to the work we were 
elected to do, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership 
seek to enforce a vision of the House completely at odds with 
the vision of the Framers of the Constitution and, in the 
process, supplant the will of the people with the will of a 
liberal elite.
    Given that, it is no surprise that, instead of a bipartisan 
recovery package supporting efforts of States to reopen, later 
today this committee will consider a bill that amounts to a 
socialist wish list masquerading as a relief package.
    That failure of leadership, which this one exacerbates, 
reflects the simple truth that Members cannot represent their 
constituents without being here in Washington to debate, 
negotiate, and work with their colleagues.
    Instead of considering commonsense proposals to allow all 
Members to perform responsibly the work we were elected to do, 
this proceeds with a radical change to House procedure that 
would upend 200 years of precedent and irreparably damage this 
institution. So-called proxy voting cheapens and dilutes the 
people's constitutional right to have their voices heard in 
this Nation's Capital.
    I am here, ready to work with all my colleagues. And I will 
keep coming back to Washington every week, as safely as 
possible but confronting risk if necessary, to uphold the oath 
I took when I was sworn into this office.
    Thank you for your patience. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Our former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Byrne, 
welcome back.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

    Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back. 
The last few hours have reminded me of all the fond memories I 
have of being a member of this committee.
    I am here today to testify regarding H.R. 965.
    We all have a responsibility to defend the Constitution and 
this institution. Members walked these halls hundreds of years 
before we arrived, and, God willing, they will continue to do 
so for hundreds of years after we are gone. The truth is, we 
are mere custodians of this building and this institution and 
the awesome powers and responsibilities that the Founders laid 
down for us. As Benjamin Franklin is said to have famously 
retorted, ``This is a Republic, if we can keep it.''
    Republics have vanished in the past. The Roman Republic 
vanished when their legislative body, the Roman Senate, simply 
abdicated its legislative responsibility and let men who 
actually acted as dictators and then later emperors take over.
    Today, it is my strong belief this committee will transmit 
a rule change to the House that is not only unconstitutional 
but will damage the institution of the House for years to come. 
I came back early to tell you I think it is a grave mistake, 
and I ask you to reject it.
    The Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 
5, makes it pretty clear that, in each house, a majority shall 
constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may 
adjourn from day to day and may be authorized to compel the 
attendance of absent Members.
    Now, why would they want to have that power to compel the 
attendance of absent Members unless they intended for a quorum 
to include the physical presence of Members?
    Now, we have further proof of this. In the very first 
Congress, which was supposed to meet and did meet on March the 
4th, 1789, in New York--one of the Members there, by the way, 
was James Madison, probably the most important person at the 
Constitutional Convention. They met, but they couldn't conduct 
business because they couldn't achieve a quorum. In fact, they 
met for day after day after day until April the 1st, 1789, when 
they finally got enough people there, physically, to constitute 
the quorum that the Constitution required.
    Now, Mr. Madison didn't raise his hand and say, ``Hey, we 
didn't require that.'' He sat there patiently, day after day 
after day, waiting for that quorum to arrive.
    That was a pretty important Congress. That Congress created 
the Department of Treasury, created the Department of State, 
created the Department of War, created the Attorney General's 
Office, created the first Federal court system, and sent the 
Bill of Rights to the States for their ratification.
    If that Congress, with people like James Madison in it, 
could wait for that quorum to get there, surely we can get our 
quorum today.
    Now, I listened to the majority leader talk about the 
``quiet dogmas of the past,'' quoting President Lincoln. The 
Constitution of the United States is not quiet, and it is not 
dogma. It is the fundamental law of the United States.
    By the way, President Lincoln used those words in his 
annual report to Congress on December 1, 1862, when he proposed 
one of the worst ideas he ever had, which was not to free the 
enslaved people of the United States, but to round them up, put 
them on boats, and re-colonize them to Africa. Thankfully, we 
didn't follow what he wanted to do. But it just goes to show, 
even great men can have bad ideas.
    Mr. Byrne. As you have heard over and over again, Congress 
has met through foreign invasions in the war of 1812, the civil 
war, two world wars, and by my count, three serious pandemics. 
In fact, during the 1890s and early 1900s, Washington was the 
hottest spot in America for typhoid fever. And up until 1950, 
because of the water around this place, Washington was subject 
to recurrent bouts of malaria.
    So Congresses have met here for centuries in the face of 
disease and figured out a way to make it work without having to 
change their rules. And I did check with CRS to make sure we 
never changed our rules in light of those diseases, and we 
didn't.
    I do not mean to make light of the serious issues that some 
members face in getting to Washington, D.C. now or the fact 
that some members may be simply unable to attend or face 
serious health risks if they do. However, the Framers already 
provided for this. They did not say we cannot transact business 
unless all were present. They were clear. Majority present 
would suffice. The fact that most of us are here today and 
probably arrived to Washington via air travel would be 
astounding to our forbearers, many of whom traveled weeks or 
even months to make it to a session.
    Certainly, the Framers would probably never have imagined 
that even on an inconsequential vote it is not uncommon for 95 
percent or more of the House to be present and voting. Despite 
all the challenges that we are presently facing with COVID-19, 
only 35 members missed the roll call vote 2 weeks ago. Again, 
the Constitution contemplates only 218 of us being able to make 
it, and we already provide a mechanism for members to enter 
into the record how they would vote had they been present. Yet 
the majority feels comfortable today effectively lowering the 
quorum requirements to a mere 22 members. Under the rule 
proposed today, only 22 Democrats to command the House to pass 
or do whatever you want.
    I know many will say it is unfair for me to demand members 
come to Washington right now. They will say it is dangerous or 
a health risk to others. Let me say this. I have interacted 
with, in my district, over the last couple of months, people 
who have been forced to go to work day after day after day. 
Healthcare workers, people in the agriculture industry who 
produce our food, the people who process our food, the people 
who transport our food, the people stocking on the shelves and 
check us out, people who work in pharmacies, people who work in 
utilities. And I could go on and on and on, and they show up 
every day without near the protections that we all have here 
today and they do their job. And they have a right to expect 
that the House of Representatives will show up like they do and 
do our job.
    The truth is that the quorum requirement and the quorum 
point of order is an important check on abuse of power. And 
remember, it was abuse of power that did in the Roman republic. 
At the Constitutional Convention, no less an authority than 
George Mason called the thought of a less than majority quorum 
to be dangerous, remarking that it, quote, would allow a small 
number of members to make laws, close quote. What would George 
Mason say about the Congress today?
    In the last 3 months, some of the most monumental pieces of 
legislation passed in decades, and they have appeared out of 
air from the Speaker's office. No hearings, no markups, no 
amendments accepted. We have already spent over 11 percent of 
our GDP in the last 3 months under this process. Now we are 
about to lay upon the House another bill that counts for a 70 
percent growth of last year's entire Federal budget under the 
same manner. We are living in a House where the work product is 
coming from the very top and being thrown upon the rest of us, 
and we are abdicating our responsibility to legislate.
    If we are honest with ourselves, I believe no one would 
challenge me when I say the rights and individual prerogatives 
of the members of the House have been steadily shrinking for 
decades. It was true when the chairman eloquently made this 
point when he was the ranking member of this committee and it 
is just as true today. Too much power has been taken away from 
individual members in committees of jurisdiction and 
transferred to the Office of the Speaker. With all due respect, 
this proposal today reinforces what is fast becoming a complete 
transfer of the power of the institution to the Speaker.
    If the committee and amendment process is unnecessary to 
make laws, so is the presence of members to even bother to come 
and vote. Your proposal says to members, don't come to 
Washington. It has already been decided.
    That address from Mr. Lincoln to the Congress as I say 
occurred on December 1, 1862. We were in the middle of a civil 
war. Ten days later, the Battle of Fredericksburg occurred 50 
miles from here. There were 18,000 casualties in that battle. 
It was a decisive victory for General Lee and the confederacy. 
And there were many Members of Congress that were worried that 
General Lee would march that same Army up here and take the 
capital of the United States. And yet the Congress continued to 
meet here in Washington, D.C. Perhaps these prior Congresses 
were just made of sterner stuff or perhaps they had an 
understanding of their obligations as Members different from 
ours.
    I am concerned about this disease, I take it seriously and 
I take precautions, but I am not afraid of this disease any 
more than those people I talked about who show up day after day 
after day and do their jobs that is so important to us, any 
more than they are afraid enough to not show up for work. If 
they can show up for work and do their job, Mr. Chairman, I 
think we can show up for work and do our job.
    And if I can make one last point. Mr. Cole said something 
that I hadn't thought about. He is right. There are times when 
I am in conversations here in Washington with my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle and they tell me things that change 
my mind. And if we are not together, we are not going to have 
those opportunities as a practical matter. We will lose that 
opportunity, and we will lose the ability to have the sort of 
deliberative process that makes better policy.
    When we got the second coronavirus bill that dealt with 
paid leave, paid sick leave, it showed up without any committee 
work, including the committee on which I sit, which is the 
committee of jurisdiction. We were given less than an hour to 
look at it and then vote on it at 1 o'clock in the morning. And 
then we found out there were so many problems with it, they had 
to pass a 90-page technical corrections bill. Perhaps if it had 
gone through the regular process and we had done our job, that 
that bill would have been right the first time it came before 
us instead of being shoved down our throat.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Jordan.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM JORDAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                     FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. 
Three weeks ago, in a critically important memorandum, the 
Attorney General of the United States said this: The 
Constitution is not suspended during a crisis. And amen to 
that. And guess who agreed with him? Guess who agreed with him 
just last month? The Speaker of the United States House of 
Representatives said this: There is a constitutional 
requirement. We vote in person. Today, we are changing that. 
Today, we are not following the Constitution. In fact, I think 
we are trying to suspend the Constitution by allowing proxies 
to establish a quorum.
    The Supreme Court was very clear. In the Ballin decision, 
the Supreme Court said this: Members have to be present. 
Constitution requires the presence of a majority, and when that 
majority is present, the power of the House arises. You have 
got to have a majority present. You can't--you can't phone it 
in. You can't mail it in. Present means present. You got to be 
there. Frankly, you got to be here in order to conduct the 
business of the American people.
    And understand what is in this proposal. One member can 
have 10 proxies. You know what that means? 22 members with 10 
proxies in their back pocket can conduct the business of the 
American people. Twenty-two, 5 percent of the United States 
House of Representatives. Five percent can conduct the business 
of the American people representing all 330 million?
    You can't phone it in. You can't mail it in. We are 
supposed to be present to do the business of the American 
people. Article I, Section 4 mandates that the Congress, quote, 
must assemble at least once a year. We do this at the start of 
every Congress. Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to 
physically congregate to vote to change where it sits. So if we 
are going to change where we sit, we got to come together. It 
is, frankly, what you are doing tomorrow, what the majority 
wants to do tomorrow.
    Article I, Section 5 requires a recorded vote on any 
question at the desire of one-fifth present. The people 
required four recorded votes stand up on the floor. We do this 
every vote we take on the House floor. Twenty percent. How can 
that happen if you got 22 members with 10 proxies, how can you 
even have that?
    Article I, Section 6 says this. It protects members from 
arrest during travel to and from their attendance at a session 
of their respective House. Well, golly, if you can mail in your 
vote, why would the Constitution say you have to be protected 
from being arrested coming to vote? You could just mail it in. 
That makes no sense.
    All of these provisions envision members physically 
traveling and being present at the seat of the Federal 
Government to do the business of the American people, but we 
are going to change all that. We are going to change all that. 
The Constitution leaves no room for what we are trying to do 
here. It is so wrong. Farmers are planting crops. As my 
colleagues mentioned, farmers are planting crops, truckers are 
moving goods, grocers are stocking shelves, frontline 
healthcare workers haven't missed a day, law enforcement are 
busting their tail every day doing their job, but somehow 
Congress can't. Nope. Nope. We are going to phone it in. We are 
going to mail it in. We are going to ask a coworker to do our 
job and vote for us.
    This is a dangerous place we are heading and everybody 
knows it, but the majority's going to go ahead and do it, and 
that is what ticks me off. Proxy voting, Zoom, WebEx, House 
party meetings and hearings, quasi hearings, remote 
depositions. Remote depositions? The example this sends, the 
precedent this sets is wrong, and I think even the majority 
knows it, but they are going to pass it anyway. And that is why 
the country gets so ticked with this place. Let's just get here 
and do like we are doing today. I testified for an hour in this 
very room 3 weeks ago. We are all testifying here, keeping our 
appropriate distance, doing it the way we are supposed to do 
it. It isn't going to be easy, but doing things the right way 
is never easy.
    The hard way is usually the right way, so let's do it the 
hard way. Let's do it the right way. Let's do it the way we 
have been doing it for 200-plus years instead of phoning it in 
and mailing it in.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I just would like to remind the panel of the advice of Dr. 
Monahan, that if the discussion becomes especially high 
spirited in nature, that we should wear masks because we 
release virus particles onto the microphone.
    Mr. Jordan. Changing the Constitution should be high 
spirited, Mr. Chairman. Holy cow. Not changing. Not adhering to 
it.
    The Chairman. All right. The gentleman's been heard.
    Mr. Pence.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG PENCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. Pence. Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole, thank 
you for allowing me to testify on the House Democrats' proposal 
to authorize remote voting by proxy and remote committee 
proceedings.
    Mr. Chairman, throughout our Nation's history, the House of 
Representatives has cast their votes here under all 
circumstances. Tomorrow, we will consider legislation that 
represents one of the largest power grabs by a select few, or 
one, in the history of Congress. This legislation was written 
without the participation from more than half of the country's 
representatives. I know that the coronavirus pandemic continues 
to pose a real threat to our health, but these concerns do not 
supersede the responsibility we have and I have to my 
constituents.
    I believe it is very wrong to pass my vote to someone who 
has never stepped foot in my district. This voting card does 
not belong to me. It is not mine to proxy to my peers. This 
voting card belongs to the Sixth Congressional District of 
Indiana.
    Today I am here to uphold the oath I took when I said, and 
I quote: I will well and faithfully represent the Hoosiers that 
sent me to Washington, D.C., to cast my vote on their behalf. I 
am here to stand with the healthcare providers, truckers, 
farmers, and essential workers, the marines, sailors, soldiers, 
airmen, Coasties, and all the other heroes who are still 
showing up every single day on behalf of their communities and 
this country.
    Mr. Chairman, I respect that some of my peers are concerned 
about their own health and personal safety, but that does not 
absolve Congress' responsibility or mine.
    The definition of Congress is, and I quote: A national 
legislative body, especially that of the United States, which 
meets at the Capital in Washington, D.C. The Trump 
administration is working here, the Senate is working here. The 
United States House of Representatives should lead by example 
and come to work here too.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Everybody testified?
    Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here.
    Let me just make a couple of remarks. I don't want to go on 
too long here. Sometimes I get the impression that we just talk 
past each other in this chamber, and I am listening to some of 
the testimony that I don't think reflects some of the concerns 
that were raised, at least accurately, during this hearing.
    But let me begin by reminding everybody here that over a 
month ago, I actually sent a Dear Colleague letter to everybody 
here, Democrats, Republicans, asking for input on how we might 
deal with this. A handful of people responded. I don't recall 
anybody here sending me or the Rules Committee guidance or 
advice, be that as it may, but the idea that somehow that 
nobody wanted to hear what anybody else had to say is just not 
right.
    We heard--by the way, we have heard not just from 
Democrats, but I got calls from a lot of Republicans. In fact, 
some of your colleagues on the Republican side expressed 
frustration with the fact that we didn't do something the last 
time we were here. And I asked whether they would have voted 
with us, they said probably not, but nonetheless, they wanted 
us to do something because that was the right thing to do.
    And let me just state for the record, this is not about 
courage or about protecting Members of Congress. I am reminded 
of that great philosopher Billy Joel who said only the good die 
young. I am not worried about Members of Congress. What I am 
worried about are staff, I am worried about the Capitol Police, 
I am worried about the people who maintain this campus. This is 
a serious, serious, serious pandemic.
    I heard reference to the pandemic of 1918, how Congress 
continued to function. It really didn't. In fact, it was so 
dysfunctional that a bill to provide additional doctors to 
rural areas couldn't get passed because people couldn't get 
here. I mean, that is an example of failure that I don't want 
to see repeated now.
    Yeah, I understand all the constitutional questions. 
Believe me, we have been talking to constitutional scholars and 
maybe you have as well, and clearly, we do not want to do 
anything--I think there is a bipartisan concern--that would, in 
fact, violate the Constitution. But I will remind you, and I 
have never heard anybody object to this, that when my friends 
were in charge and they changed the rules post-9/11, you came 
up with the scheme that would allow literally two people to 
constitute a quorum here in the House of Representatives.
    I think the Constitution is very clear about what a quorum 
is. And the idea that you could basically say that two people 
can just run everything, you know--I don't know. I voted 
against that when that came up, but that was something that my 
friends did when they were in charge. I am not sure--I don't 
know whether any of you were here at the time, but that was the 
response. I mean, I think that--that, to me, there were 
constitutional questions.
    But having said that, I didn't say that the Republican 
party tried to destroy the Constitution. I think that was borne 
out of a legitimate concern about how we would function in the 
face of a catastrophe, a major terrorist attack. I think it was 
the wrong approach. I voted against it, but I didn't question 
the motives of what people were doing.
    I agree with Mr. Byrne. I don't like the idea that we are 
passing major pieces of legislation without committee hearings 
or markups. That is one of the things this is trying to 
address. You know, I will remind you that we are here because 
already it is May and 85,000 people are dead of this virus. I 
hope the President is right that this is going to go away 
forever soon. I hope he is right, and then we will never have 
to even do any of this stuff. But if he is wrong, and we are 
already close to 100,000, and we will probably get to 100,000 
before the end of June, and we are being told that things might 
be much worse in the fall, I want to be prepared. I want to 
make sure we function. I mean, I want to make sure that we can 
do hearings and that it is safe for people to come here. Not 
just Members of Congress. We all could be carriers and be 
asymptomatic and, you know, by interacting with the people on 
our staffs or here, we could be inadvertently spreading this 
disease.
    I don't want to question anybody's motivations here, but I 
am just simply saying that I think the status quo is 
unacceptable. I want there to be hearings. I want there to be 
deliberation. I want there to be oversight. I want to make sure 
that the money that all of us in a bipartisan way, at least 
most of us, in a bipartisan way passed, that is getting to the 
people that need it. That is an important--that is an important 
obligation that we have. And I want to make sure that we also, 
in addition to responding to this emergency, that we are doing 
our appropriations work; that we are keeping the government 
running; that we are passing a defense authorization bill.
    And under the proposal we are putting forward, if you want 
to come here, you can come here. But let me just say just from 
a practical, logistical point of view: We are the Rules 
Committee. We are one of the smallest committees in the 
Congress and here we are taking up the entire Ways and Means 
committee room, which is the biggest committee hearing room in 
the House of Representatives.
    Now, some of us could maybe meet in the auditorium, I 
guess, if you are the Transportation Committee. Maybe some 
could meet on the House floor. By the way, we are not just 
three committees. I mean, we have lots of committees that all 
feel that they are doing important work and they are doing 
important work. The Veterans committee, the Resources 
committee, you know, all the Appropriations subcommittees. I 
can go right down the list of all the committees that we have 
here.
    So we have a job to do. And, look, you know, we had a 
bipartisan task force to try to look at some of this stuff. We 
agree on some stuff. Some stuff we didn't agree on. You know, 
sometimes that happens, you can't get to an agreement. And we 
will have this debate and we will move forward. But I just 
really--I resent the implication that somehow our motivations 
are suspect here when, in fact, what we are trying to do is 
respond to the bipartisan calls and concerns that have been 
expressed by members of this House.
    I can drive here from Massachusetts. That is what I have 
been doing, and I will come here, for committee meetings. I 
will try to follow all the rules and regulations, but, you 
know, in this case, one glove doesn't fit all. And so I don't 
think this is a test of one's courage or I want to show that, 
you know, I am willing to show up no matter what. This is also 
about common sense and about protecting the people that we come 
in contact every single day, not just us, but everybody around 
us.
    So I appreciate you being here. You know, we will have a 
vigorous debate.
    Mr. Byrne.
    Mr. Byrne. Just one last thing. I believe that the rule 
change in 2005 is also unconstitutional.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Byrne. I didn't want to seem inconsistent on that. I do 
think it is unconstitutional.
    The Chairman. And we need to look at it. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank all 
of our witnesses. I just actually have one question that I 
would just ask to all of them, if I may.
    And I recognize constitutional scholars disagree on this. I 
recognize all of you aren't lawyers, so--but you are members of 
this body, and so I just want to know, in your opinion, 
personally, if you have one, is it constitutional to allow 
Members of Congress to vote on matters before the full House 
without them being physically present in the chamber?
    And I will start, if I may, with you, General, and then 
just move across.
    Mr. Bergman. No.
    Mr. Bishop. No, by virtue of the definition of the word 
``present.''
    Mr. Byrne. No, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    Mr. Pence. No, but it is very much against what my 
constituents have told me where they want me to be.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. That was an incredibly brief set of 
answers, and I thank all of you for that. But I asked the 
question, Mr. Chairman, just to make the point. I think every 
member in this particular panel feels strongly about this 
constitutionally. I don't think they are here to question 
anybody's motives or courage or anything. I don't believe that 
for a minute, and I don't believe that of people that hold the 
other point of view either.
    I just think, you know, if you take an oath and this is the 
way you understand your oath to apply in this circumstance, 
that is an important thing for the record to show. But the 
members are all here in this particular panel because they 
think, literally, the rule we are about to pass, assuming we do 
and we probably will tomorrow, is unconstitutional; that the 
rule, just as my friend Mr. Byrne said, maybe what we did in 
2004 or 2005, whatever that too. So you can't get mad at 
members when they are expressing their opinion about their 
constitutional obligation under an oath that they all swore to.
    So with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. I am going to pass.
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I was struck by your opening that sometimes we talk past 
each other, because I think you are absolutely right, your 
high-spirited response to our witnesses was that Congress has a 
job to do and we have got to get back to it and folks just need 
to get on board and we need to get it done. When I was 
listening to the testimony, I didn't hear anybody say Congress 
should abdicate their responsibility. I thought I heard 
everybody say Congress needs to get back about their business. 
And I say that because I was so disappointed that the 
bipartisan group couldn't reach a bipartisan consensus.
    The chairman says he resents the implication something 
nefarious is going on here. I resent the implication that we 
don't love this institution enough collectively to find a 
bipartisan solution to getting about our work. I know that we 
can.
    But, General, if I could start with you, as Mr. Cole did, 
and go across. Chairman says we have got to get this place back 
to work. That is what I thought I understood you to say. Did I 
understand you correctly?
    Mr. Bergman. That is correct. We have got to get back to 
work. That is what the American people expect us to do, and we 
can do it safely. I mean, I have already done the--I loved 
geometry when I was in high school. I have done the geometry of 
all of these rooms, based on committee size, how we can do it, 
and make the American people proud of us. They sent us here to 
debate, to go at an issue from all sides, and we can do it, and 
we need to be the example of how to, if you will--if you want 
to talk about the bigger reopening of the economy, let's talk 
about reopening of the House of Representatives in its 
functional, daily business.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Bishop, you have spoken out against the 
underlying rules change, but for or against to getting the 
House back to work?
    Mr. Bishop. So much for it, Mr. Woodall, that I am coming 
every week. I am spending my weeks here because we must and we 
can return to our duty here.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Byrne, you are visiting with folks who are 
getting back to work every day. Chairman's right, we need to 
get the House of Representatives back to work. You have spoken 
out against the underlying rules change.
    Mr. Byrne. The United States House of Representatives, 
every single one of us is essential to the functioning of this 
Nation. Every other essential worker in America is at work. 
Every member of the House of Representatives that can be here, 
and there are some of us that can't be here, need to come here 
and do our job as we have done it for over 230 years.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Jordan, this is twice you have come to 
testify before this committee as this committee has been trying 
to get back to work. Again, the chairman's right, the Congress 
has to get back to work. We have to find a pathway forward, but 
you have spoken out against this rule change.
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I mean, you heard my comments earlier, 
Congressman. The chairman mentioned this is a small committee 
and we are taking up a good portion of this large hearing room, 
but there are other facilities. And he mentioned there is lots 
of committees, this is a smaller committee, but practical 
concerns and scheduling concerns shouldn't dictate a deviation 
from what the Constitution requires.
    Let's schedule this room around the clock for committees 
that can meet here. Let's schedule the auditorium in the HVC 
around the clock for committees that can meet there and 
maintain the appropriate distance. That is just a scheduling 
practical concern, but instead, we are saying no, no, no. 
Members can give their vote to some other member, and 
conceivably under this legislation, 22 members could conduct 
the business of the American people. That is certainly not what 
was envisioned in any way by the Constitution.
    So let's not make a scheduling and practical concern--very 
real. The chairman's right, very real--but let's not make that 
the reason we are going to change the Constitution and not 
follow the Constitution. Let's get back to work and let's do it 
in the right way, just like this committee is doing as we 
speak.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Pence, you traveled back to Washington for 
this committee hearing today. Again, we do have to get Congress 
back to work, but you have spoken out against this rules 
change.
    Mr. Pence. Yes, sir. I actually came Sunday as I felt so 
strongly about being out here. As I mentioned earlier, my 
constituents kept asking me, when is Congress going to get back 
to work? In their mind, back to work is right out here.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I don't go through that exercise 
for effect. I think you genuinely are looking for bipartisan 
cooperation to get Congress back to work. And I believe you and 
Mr. Cole share a disappointment that the bipartisan committee 
couldn't find that, but I can tell you this is a perfect cross-
section of the Republican Conference and every single one of 
them is concerned about the underlying resolution, but 
absolutely shares the passion to get back to work.
    I know that if we commit more time to it as we talked 
about--this is a September problem--worried about what happens 
in round two, that we can find that bipartisan cross-section. 
We don't have to do this in a way that divides us. We can do 
this in a way that brings this institution together, as I know 
you want to do.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
    I can't speak for all of you, but I have been working very 
hard during this time, talking to committee chairs, weighing in 
on my priorities on some of the bills, dealing with my 
constituents. So, I mean, some of us have been working. And I 
would also say that, I guess where we disagree is that you said 
you think the only way we can do our job is by all being here 
in one spot; whereas, some of us believe we can operate 
remotely in some cases or in a hybrid fashion.
    But here is the good news. For everybody who wants to come 
back, I mean, what we are doing here today basically allows for 
that. And if that is where you feel most comfortable, in a 
committee room, you are more than welcome to do that. So 
nothing in any way, shape, or form would undercut that.
    Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Jordan, you and I didn't agree last time you were here. 
We don't agree today, so I will just----
    Mr. Jordan. Imagine that.
    Mr. Perlmutter. That is really surprising for the two of 
us.
    But I do, General, I kind of like math too, so I did some 
math.
    Mr. Bishop, I am looking at a Hong Kong flu. Hong Kong flu, 
100,000 died over 3 years. We have 84,000 in 2 months. So if I 
do the math, the math is 18 times 84,000 puts us at a 
1,512,000, if it continues for 3 years. So they are not the 
same thing. This is more like the--this is more like the 
Spanish flu, which ultimately resulted in us coming up with the 
UC, unanimous consent, where two people have to agree and you 
pass legislation.
    The thing that the Hong Kong flu may be like this is that 
it was the second wave that was worse than the first, and we 
have to watch out for that. At that time, it was considered to 
be an epidemic, and I am looking at the side bar of where there 
were 650 deaths a week in America. Today, it is 2,000 a day. So 
the math is much different.
    Mr. Byrne, I did some math for you, and it was brought to 
my attention because of Mr. Pence. He is here to represent the 
750,000 or so folks from his district. I assume you represent 
about that many too. I think in my district, we are up to about 
850,000. But just doing the math, you said last vote, 35 were 
not present. 35 times 750,000, I think is about 26,250,000. 
That is how many people they represented, that is how many 
people were disenfranchised by their not being here because 
they were not present.
    We have at least two members of this committee, one of whom 
you served with, Mr. Hastings, who has been told in no 
uncertain terms he cannot travel because of his condition, but 
he certainly is capable of making decisions and representing 
the 750,000 people. And I wish he were here, because his voice 
is so strong and powerful. And I want him to be able to 
participate and provide his experience and his logic, whether 
it is virtually or by casting a vote by proxy.
    And we have two pieces to this particular rule. You all 
have been talking more about the floor vote and the proxy vote, 
but we also have the ability of committees, although maybe 
imperfect, to continue to meet and allow for individuals to 
make decisions and make votes on behalf of Americans. And that 
is the bottom line here is the continuity of government.
    And I appreciate everybody's legal opinion that this is 
unconstitutional, which I absolutely dispute every way to 
Sunday. This is about representing people. We have asked most 
of America to work remotely to avoid precisely what happened 
with the Hong Kong flu and the Spanish flu and have another big 
outbreak. We have asked that because this administration was 
caught flat-footed when this virus came on our shores and we 
didn't have enough protective gear, we didn't have enough 
ventilators, we didn't have enough beds. And thank goodness 
Americans, those who provide essential services, and God bless 
them--I assume every one of you is going to vote for the bill 
tomorrow because it has hazard pay for those people. But thank 
goodness Americans said, you know what, we are going to take 
the advice of the CDC and people to suppress this surge so that 
our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed and so that there, you 
know, God forbid, are other outbreaks, there will be sufficient 
protective gear and beds and ventilators and of the like.
    Now, Mr. Pence, and I appreciate--you know, I served with 
your brother, outstanding legislator. Tell me, is he in 
quarantine now? Is he self-isolated?
    Mr. Pence. I don't speak on behalf of my brother. I am here 
as the Indiana Sixth----
    Mr. Perlmutter. I know. I mean, I am just asking.
    Mr. Pence [continuing]. District representative.
    Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Let's not talk about him. Let's 
talk about the 39 members of the House, most of whom went into 
quarantine in that first week after we broke on March 14. Those 
39 members have had to go into--had to go into quarantine, some 
of them very ill. There were nine Senators. Lamar Alexander is 
still in quarantine. And we have had--and I didn't realize 
this. I forgot my friend, Mr. Cole, was in quarantine for some 
time. And I disagree with him sometimes, I agree with him 
sometimes, but I always appreciate his perspective.
    And so we are in a pandemic that is much worse than Hong 
Kong flu. Based on the numbers it is. Three years, 100,000, and 
I think I just read the same story you did out of The Wall 
Street Journal, and I did the math. I extrapolated it from 2-
\1/2\ months to 3 years, which is what they were saying.
    Mr. Bishop. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Perlmutter. Let me finish with Mr. Pence and I will 
yield to the gentleman.
    But the purpose and the concern I have is whether I would 
agree with a Greg Pence or a Jim Jordan or Bradley Byrne. I 
respect their opinions and I want those people to be able to 
represent the 750,000 folks back in their districts. And in an 
imperfect and, in fact, an improbable time like we are in right 
now, we must be able to exercise certain inherent powers to 
deal with unforeseen circumstances which could threaten the 
continuity of its operations and the safety of the Nation.
    We are asking a lot of people to work remotely. We are 
asking a lot of essential workers to be present themselves. The 
rule that has been fashioned is very narrow. It expires at the 
end of this year. It is limited to 45-day increments, based on 
the Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, the 
House physician, and the sergeant at arms.
    And I think it is something that enfranchises the Alcee 
Hastings, the Tom Cole's when he is in quarantine. And the 
notion that this is fundamentally changing the operations of 
the House or the notion that this is unconstitutional is just 
wrong.
    So I would yield to Mr. Bishop for him to criticize my 
math.
    Mr. Bishop. It isn't the point of your math. In other 
words, it is not a question--the pandemic doesn't become 
serious once it crosses a magic line, although I made the point 
that the number of deaths if extrapolated from that pandemic in 
the United States would be 250,000, a measure we have not 
reached. The point is, and it was made well I think by Mr. 
Byrne's comments, that we have faced--this is not an 
unprecedented danger. And it is not the Spanish flu of 1918 in 
which 50 million died worldwide in a much smaller world 
population. This is a serious, serious risk, but it is not 
defining, and our response to it need not act as if it is.
    Mr. Perlmutter. And I would just say to the gentleman--Mr. 
Morelle, you want me to yield to you?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I would say to the gentleman that the 
rule that is before us is very proportional in terms of it 
would allow you, if you so chose, to come here every week, do 
your thing, sit in that chair, but it also would allow Alcee 
Hastings to offer his perspective and his knowledge on behalf 
of the people he represents.
    And for all of you to suggest that some shouldn't be given 
that opportunity in this pandemic, which is very serious, you 
admit that, I think is just fundamentally flawed and ultimately 
leaves a lot of people without representation, which is the 
whole point of our government.
    And with that, I yield back to the chair.
    The Chairman. Dr. Burgess, you have questions?
    Dr. Burgess. Thank you. Thanks to our witnesses for being 
here today.
    Mr. Pence, let me just add my praise to what you just 
heard. Your brother, during his time of service here, was 
probably the best conference chairman that I have served with, 
and we honor his service here and we miss him, but we are glad 
he is where he is today, so please convey that.
    The Chairman. We like this Mr. Pence too.
    Dr. Burgess. Yes, we do.
    May I--and I really don't know whom to address this, 
probably either Mr. Jordan or Mr. Byrne. As I read the rule 
that we are considering today, yes, there is a time limit on 
the denotation that this is an emergency and all of this is 
triggered, but there is an extension available, and that 
extension is arrived at by the Speaker, in consultation with 
the sergeant at arms, attending physician, two individuals that 
I hold in very high regard, but they are not constitutional 
offices, so we are putting some power in the hands of some 
people that are really not accountable to the people, and this 
being the people's House, that seems to me to be counter to 
what we should be about.
    Do either of you have a thought on that?
    Mr. Byrne. Well, I think you said it correctly. The rules 
who are operating this House right now will all go out January 
3 at noon when the new Congress comes in, but between now and 
then there could be this perpetual running 45-day extension of 
this, all the way up until the very end. And there is no check 
on that. I mean, it is up to the Speaker.
    And one person--and I know the Speaker is an important 
position in the House, but one person can get this thing to 
just roll over and over and over till the end of the Congress, 
and I do think that is unconstitutional. But more importantly, 
I think it does great damage to the institution of the House.
    Dr. Burgess. I agree.
    Mr. Jordan. I agree with my colleague, and appreciate the 
gentleman for raising the point. I am very nervous about people 
whose names never go on a ballot making all kinds of policy. We 
are seeing it all across the country. Health commissioners in 
States dictating policy and the general assembly of those 
respective States doesn't get to weigh in. And now the U.S. 
Congress is going to follow a similar pattern? That is scary 
stuff.
    And I am like you. I have the utmost respect for these 
people, but their name is not on a ballot. They are not 
constitutionally elected. Again, when you start playing these 
kind of games--the previous gentleman mentioned all kinds of 
math, all kinds of math extrapolation he did, but the math in 
the bill he didn't talk about. The math in the bill is real 
simple. A member can have 10 proxies in their pocket, which 
means, as I have said now three times, 22 people on the House 
floor can make policy for the country. And, oh, then it gets 
reapproved, we want to continue to do this for three people 
that you talked about, two of them who aren't elected. How is 
that government by the people, for the people, and we the 
people being served?
    This is so scary where we are heading. So darn scary. And I 
appreciate the fact that some members can't be here today who 
we wish were. I appreciate that. But the Constitution is the 
foundational document that we got to follow.
    So you are so right, Dr. Burgess, and I appreciate you for 
raising that point.
    Dr. Burgess. Thank you.
    And let me just say I appreciate the fact that we are 
having this hearing today. I think it is important that we be 
seen as being on the job. It has been extremely uncomfortable 
all of these weeks, many weeks that we have remained home and 
out of our place of service, which is here in the Capital of 
the United States. I just cannot shake the notion that the 
people's House was never meant to be this passive and, 
unfortunately, that seems to be what has devolved, where we are 
having a bill tomorrow on the floor that none of us had 
anything to do with and we are just supposed to accept it and 
rubber-stamp it. That is not why we were elected. That is not 
why we ran for office. It can't be why we ran for office.
    Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Not only was the House not supposed to be this 
passive; it was supposed to be the most active. When the 
Founders put this experiment together we call America, it was 
supposed to be the most engaged, the most active. Again, this 
is scary that this unelected--we have seen this the last couple 
weeks with information that has come public about certain 
investigations and things being done, done by people whose 
names were not on a ballot. That is scary stuff.
    Again, I appreciate the gentleman.
    Dr. Burgess. I thank the gentleman.
    I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And, again, that is why I think we 
should pass this bill, because we can then, you know, remove 
any excuse why we can't be meeting on a regular basis no matter 
where anybody might be from.
    And let me just say that the alternative to this is to rely 
on the Republican standing rule, which is to where you could 
literally redefine a quorum as two people. And, again, I mean, 
that is--my friends here, many of them supported it. I did not 
at the time, but that is what the standing rule is right now 
that my friends passed post-9/11, and I think that is 
unacceptable.
    What we are proposing here is a way for people to come--you 
feel comfortable coming back, if you can come back, if you 
don't represent a hot spot, then you can come back. And by the 
way, this idea that we should de-emphasize the importance of 
medical advice, that somehow they are unelected officials and, 
therefore, they are not as important as the elected official, I 
mean, I am going to be honest with you, I want to make 
decisions on how we combat this virus based on the best medical 
advice that exists. I want to have it be made by people who 
know what they are talking about, not by politicians who have 
no--many of them who have no medical degrees. We have heard 
some of the suggestions that have been put forward by the 
President that, you know, leave your head spinning but, quite 
frankly, the advice that he should follow, the advice that all 
of us should follow is by the experts. Those who know what they 
are talking about when it comes to how you deal with a virus 
like this.
    Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for your really dedicated and impressive leadership through 
this tough time. And I also want to salute Mr. Cole. I got to 
tell you, Mr. Cole, I spoke to a class at Grinnell College. And 
you have got a lot of fans there. I don't know if you are a 
graduate of Grinnell, but they wanted me to send their very 
best to you and said that they are proud of you, so----
    Mr. Cole posed an interesting question to the panel about 
whether all of you concurred that you think that the proposed 
rule here is unconstitutional, and each one of you in seriatim 
repeated the idea that you thought it was unconstitutional.
    Now, Mr. Byrne has candidly volunteered that the current 
rule adopted by a Republican Congress is unconstitutional which 
would allow two members to constitute a quorum. I just want to 
know, do all five of you also agree that the current rule is 
unconstitutional? And perhaps I could start with you, Mr. 
Pence.
    Mr. Pence. I am afraid I don't know enough about that to 
answer.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, well, you were expressing your outrage 
about this proposal, but the current rule would allow two 
people to constitute.
    Mr. Pence. My answer--I want to be clear about a couple of 
things. One is, and I agree with the chairman, you know, it is 
health and safety first, and for any members that feel that 
they shouldn't come here or can't come here, I completely 
understand and I support. I am an individual that volunteered 
to join the Marine Corps, volunteered to go ashore in a hot 
situation, and I volunteered to run for this position, okay, 
and my constituents have told me that I should be here. That is 
my answer to you.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. I will come back to you about 
volunteering, because you make a very interesting point.
    Mr. Jordan, what about you, do you agree the current rule 
is unconstitutional?
    Mr. Jordan. As the gentleman well knows, my colleagues in 
the Freedom Caucus have come to the floor and objected to 
unanimous consent to pass certain legislation.
    Mr. Raskin. Do you agree with Mr. Byrne?
    Mr. Jordan. So we have always had a problem with that.
    Mr. Raskin. So you agree, yes or no question, do you agree 
with Mr. Byrne it is unconstitutional?
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, I don't like the rule. We have been very 
clear about that.
    Mr. Raskin. You agree it is unconstitutional. Okay. Is that 
right? Okay.
    Mr. Byrne, you presumably still agree that it is 
unconstitutional?
    Mr. Byrne. Yes, sir. If you are going to be consistent, you 
have to follow what the Constitution requires, and what is good 
for the goose is good for the gander. I try to be consistent.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Bishop, do you believe the current rule is 
unconstitutional, adopted under a Republican Congress?
    Mr. Bishop. I haven't examined it carefully, but I find Mr. 
Byrne's comments and those that have been made by the chairman 
on the point persuasive. It probably is unconstitutional.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. And do you agree as well?
    Mr. Bergman. I would like to make in reference--the short 
answer is there is the yes but understanding that commanders 
command, leaders lead, advisers advise, and on the advice of my 
attorney off here to my right, you know, I take his advice 
because that is his job. My job as a commander, as a leader is 
that you get the results that you were missioned to give.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Okay. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank all of you. I think you did a great job of 
explaining your stance. I agree with you totally. And not to 
belabor this, I am just going to yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly. And I 
thank the gentlemen for their testimony.
    Mr. Perlmutter took us through a math lesson. At the risk 
of boring people with a math lesson, it occurs to me that the 
testimony by each of the members suggests that we live in a 
binary state here. It is either on or off--binary being two 
choices--on or off, yes or no, black or white, work or not 
work. And I think the beauty of this resolution and the wonder 
of technology has given us an opportunity to continue to work 
even as we respect the guidance of the House physician, the 
guidance of science and technology, guidance of other 
individuals. In prior pandemics, in prior crisis, perhaps those 
were binary choices, work or not work, come to Washington, not 
come to Washington.
    Frankly, I would just say parenthetically, I have worked 
harder in the last 2 months probably sitting in my home office 
than I may have in the previous year. This has been--and I 
assume this is true of everybody not only on the panel, but 
members of our committee, that we are all working incredibly 
hard to represent constituents in communities that are under 
significant stress. So we are no longer in this binary box 
where it is work or not work.
    I appreciate Mr. Byrne's view on the Constitution and, 
frankly, if we could get to a point where the question of 
constitutionality needs to be heard, that would go in front of 
the courts and they would make that judgment. But I think it is 
pretty clear Article I suggests that the Congress is the master 
of its houses when it comes to the rules.
    I do want to just point out, I hate to disagree with you, 
Mr. Jordan, but you make it sound as though, under the proposed 
rule, that a member could gather up proxies like you might do 
in a committee fight back in your local town and cast them 
however you choose to do. The rules are very explicit on how 
the votes will be cast. This is not by the person who holds the 
proxy; it is the person who gives the proxy. They have to give 
exact instructions on every single motion or vote in front of 
them.
    So, you know, I appreciate what you are suggesting. I just 
don't think it is borne out by----
    Mr. Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Morelle. I will.
    Mr. Jordan. So then there is a motion made on the floor, 
what happens?
    Mr. Morelle. During the motion----
    Mr. Jordan. Do they get to vote for the 10 proxies in their 
pocket?
    Mr. Morelle. No, they do not. They do not. And the 
testimony----
    Mr. Jordan. Which is my point. Twenty-two members then 
could be making law. They could decide.
    Mr. Morelle. No, no. No. Well, let me----
    The Chairman. Read the resolution.
    Mr. Morelle. Let me answer, if I might. In the rule, and 
the majority leader testified to this as well, that if a motion 
comes forward, each member who has a designated proxy must 
communicate to that proxy holder what his or her view is on the 
motion in front of the House. So it is not the holder of the 
proxy who uses independent judgment; it is the person who is 
given the proxy who gives explicit instructions, and it is 
repeated in a number of different instances in the proposed 
rule.
    So it is not the 22 people holding the proxies. And I 
appreciate what you are saying about the fact that you can hold 
up to 10. But they may not exercise independent judgment. We 
had this conversation earlier. It would be a violation of the 
rule and a member would be subject to sanctions by the House 
should they vote in a way that was not consistent with the 
instructions they had been given.
    So I just make that point only to suggest that this is not 
an attempt to concentrate power. It is an attempt to continue 
to conduct business under the most difficult circumstances we 
have faced in our lifetime. And I would also suggest that the 
question of whether the Speaker would choose--this is the 
Speaker may, upon the designation by the sergeant at arms, in 
consultation with the House physician, during this pandemic 
only, during a coronavirus, novel coronavirus, in this Congress 
only, may designate for 45 days. I will note, though, 45 days 
is the amount indicated. But it also suggests, on page 3, that 
even during any--whether it is the original 45-day or an 
additional 45 days is the covered period, the Speaker or the 
designee receives further notification from the sergeant at 
arms, in consultation with the attending physician, that the 
public health emergency due to the coronavirus is no longer in 
effect, the Speaker shall terminate the covered period.
    It is not as though the Speaker--it doesn't say may, it 
says shall. So immediately upon--so if the Speaker, as I read 
the rule, if the Speaker says on May 1 we have a pandemic, I 
have been advised by the sergeant at arms, in consultation with 
the attending physician, to put this temporary rule in place, 
and then 2 weeks later, before the 45 days has terminated, if 
you receive--if the Speaker receives another certification or 
notification from the sergeant at arms that the emergency no 
longer exists, it is terminated, shall terminate, so it 
wouldn't even be 45 days in length.
    But the point I want to make, and I appreciate the concern 
people have, but this is not--I fear at times this is being 
somehow equated with weakness or strength, that our desire to 
meet through technological means or our desire to conduct 
business by proxy is a sign somehow of weakness. And I would 
just, you know, suggest that the Vice President of the United 
States and the President right now don't meet personally. It 
has been--I am not making that up. I don't have inside 
information, I just read the newspaper. The Vice President has 
said he will not meet with the President for a period of time. 
I don't know if that is 14 days. I don't know what it will be. 
But I suggest to you that I suspect they are talking on the 
telephone and they are communicating on an ongoing basis and 
they are conducting business. And I don't think--I would never 
say and I don't believe that the Vice President is weak. I 
don't think the President is weak. I don't think they are 
fearful. I think they are just, you know, exhibiting the 
appropriate distancing that healthcare professionals have 
suggested.
    So I appreciate what people have said. I have expressed my 
concerns about precedent, but I think the narrow nature of this 
resolution and the arguments that have been made I don't think 
are compelling.
    Mr. Byrne. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Byrne. Thank you. The function of the executive and the 
function of the legislative branch of government are 
fundamentally different.
    Mr. Morelle. Yeah. No, I wasn't suggesting it is the same. 
All I am saying is the suggestion----
    Mr. Byrne. We have to legislate, and under the 
Constitution, the intent is we legislate while we are 
physically present. That is why they have the command in there 
that less than a quorum can actually force people to come to 
where we meet. I also think that is good policy, because as I 
said earlier, I think we get better policy when we go through 
regular order, everybody is in the room, we hash it out, 
majority wins, that is the way it goes. I get that. I don't 
think you can equate whether the President and Vice President 
are physically in the same room with one another to what our 
job is, because our job is fundamentally different.
    If I could say one other thing. You said something, and I 
hope you didn't misunderstand me here. I know we are working 
hard back in our districts. I talked to plenty of my 
colleagues. We are doing everything we can to take care of our 
constituents, but under the Constitution, the part of our job 
that is legislating, we have to do here.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, I would just respond, and I wasn't--I 
appreciate what you are saying about our different functions 
and I agree with you. We do have different functions, but I 
feel as though, and maybe this hasn't been said directly, but I 
will say I get the impression that there is sort of a 
suggestion there is some weakness here. And I was simply 
suggesting that I don't think the President and Vice President 
are acting in a weak manner by not meeting together, and they 
certainly are using technology to continue to do their jobs. 
And I don't think the gentleman would disagree that, clearly, 
the Constitution intended for the Congress to make its own 
rules, and even the question of the quorum under emergencies 
has been suggested could be smaller.
    So I just think--the point that I want to make is I think 
it is not a decision of yes, we come to work, and even under 
your definition, even if you take the view that work doesn't 
mean work but work in terms of the Congress means that we are 
voting, I believe that it is not we don't 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.
    Mr. Morelle. 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.
    But I appreciate it, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And I think you also raised a point. I don't think there 
are any constitutional issues revolving around whether or not 
committees can meet virtually. I mean, the Constitution doesn't 
create the committees; the Congress creates the committees. So, 
I mean, hopefully we can all agree on that.
    Ms. Shalala.
    Ms. Shalala. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment 
about the suggestion that scientists and public health people 
are making policy in this country. They are not. We are 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 
advice. And all across the country, there is evidence that some 
people are taking the advice and some people aren't taking the 
advice.
    But all of the scientists I know and the public health 
people in this country--and many of them I have 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 Institutes of 
Health, the CDC, the FDA--thank God we have them now.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
    I want to thank all of you for being here. I want to thank 
you for your patience. It is always wonderful to see you. And 
you can go. Thank you.
    So do any other Members wish to testify on H. Res. 965?
    Seeing none, this closes the original jurisdiction hearing 
on H. Res. 965.
    The measure before the committee is H. Res. 965. Without 
objection, the resolution is considered as read and will be 
open for amendment at any point.
    [The resolution follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    The Chairman. Are there any amendments to this resolution?
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, is recognized for 
his amendment.
    Mr. Woodall. I very much appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I 
have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. If the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 1 to H. Res. 965, offered by Mr. 
Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is an amendment to make sure that this resolution does 
not go into effect until the Clerk of the House has certified 
that there is a system in place that securely receives and 
validates proxy designations.
    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 have disagreements about who should be the decision-makers 
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 the Clerk 
consistently mentioned was that her most important role here in 
the House, as it relates to remote voting, would be to 
authenticate--and 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 voting 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.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    You have heard the gentleman's amendment. Any comments?
    I would urge a ``no'' vote. We have been in contact with 
the Clerk's 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 don't think 
makes a lot of sense.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Mr. Woodall. I know it has been over a month, but when you 
were interviewed on the CARES Act, I know you recall, you said, 
``I think it is not only important that Congress be competent 
but that we should also look competent, going forward.'' And I 
don't 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 don't want to move 
forward if the Clerk says, ``I am not ready yet.'' What is the 
harm in having the office of the House that is in charge of 
voting integrity certify that we have voting integrity before 
we move forward? I just don't understand the harm. And if there 
is a harm, I would appreciate being corrected.
    The Chairman. Yeah. I trust my staff who have been working 
on this, and I feel confident that we have a good measure.
    So the vote is now on the Woodall amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Could I get a roll call, please, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, six nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will----
    Mr. Cole. I would ask that the reading be suspended.
    The Chairman. Yeah. If the clerk would report the 
amendment. Okay.
    The Clerk. Amendment to House Resolution 965, offered by 
Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I will be quick about this, 
because I think the fate will be quick as well, but my 
amendment simply would change the resolution to say that proxy 
voting cannot be authorized without the concurrence of the 
minority leader.
    And, you know, I know there is some concern, and I think it 
is a very legitimate concern, on the part of the majority 
that--we live in a majoritarian institution, and I respect 
that. But this is an extraordinary measure for extraordinary 
times.
    And I know, Mr. Chairman, you will recall, when we had our 
discussion over this particular item, 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 have him effectively 
deciding what came on the floor, as the majority leader 
appropriately does. That is not something he wanted to do.
    And so he asked, he said, look, we would 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, while I don't expect my 
friends to agree with this, this is an extraordinary moment. We 
have never done this before. We ought to do it bipartisan. I 
think the minority leader has shown that he would 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.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    And, again, I guess my response to this was that, when--you 
know, we obviously think that this is necessary at this moment. 
And when I asked the minority leader specifically whether he 
would concur, he said no. So, basically, if we agree to this, 
we are 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, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, seven nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    And let me just say for the record, Ms. Scanlon is not here 
right now because she is presiding over the House floor. So she 
will be back shortly.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The second 
bite at the apple may be not so difficult. My amendment--well, 
I have an amendment at the desk and would ask----
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 3 to House Resolution 965, offered 
by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Cole. I would ask to dispense with the reading, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Basically, this just says, look, okay, let's try this for 
45 days, and let's give this extraordinary power to the 
Speaker, which we have never done before in the 230-odd-year 
history of this institution. If it works well, then let's 
extend it, but it would require a two-thirds vote--in other 
words, some bipartisan buy-in. So we will give it a trial run, 
come back, and see if we can find bipartisan consensus.
    I know, Mr. Chairman, you have mentioned a number of times 
that you have talked to some of our Members that probably are 
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 a bipartisan vote, as opposed to what is 
probably going to happen tomorrow, a party-line vote. So I just 
offer that for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Appreciate it.
    You have heard the gentleman's amendment. The vote is on 
the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Can I have a roll call?
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. How is Ms. Scanlon recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon is not recorded.
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 4 to House Resolution 965, offered 
by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, you heard most of the concern 
about constitutionality reflected on the Constitution's 
requirement of a quorum. My amendment would very simply say and 
move forward with the other issues that you want to move 
forward with but let's not have proxy voting as a part of 
declaring a quorum.
    There is no doubt that litigation would be involved. It 
matters not that our last crisis quorum language was passed by 
a Republican majority, was passed by a Democratic majority, was 
done in a bipartisan way; it still would have been the subject 
of constitutional review, had it ever been utilized. You don't 
just anticipate this might be utilized; you believe that it 
will be utilized.
    I ask that we remove that most obvious of the 
constitutional hurdles so that it is not distracting from the 
other work that we both agree needs to be done.
    The Chairman. I thank----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman [continuing]. The gentleman for his amendment.
    We have consulted with many constitutional scholars who 
feel that, 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'' vote.
    Mr. Raskin. Hey, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yeah? Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Could I speak a word on the motion?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. I think something fascinating has emerged from 
today's proceedings, which is that we seem to have a pretty 
strong bipartisan consensus, or at least among the Republican 
witnesses who came to testify, that the current rule, adopted 
under a Republican majority, is unconstitutional because it 
allows for two Members to constitute a quorum.
    By enacting this rule, we are going to dramatically expand 
the number of people who are required to create a quorum. So it 
is 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 this, at least, is moving us in the right direction, 
because it says a quorum is exactly that, is a quorum. It is a 
majority of the people--a majority of the people who are 
participating, who are casting their votes, and who are 
intending to participate in the proceedings, as opposed to the 
current rule, which says that 2 people alone, excluding the 
other 433, can constitute a quorum.
    So I rise in opposition to that amendment.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, just to dispel that, because it 
has become a common narrative, number one, it is 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; next by a Democratic Congress in 2009; and then by the 
Congress I was elected in in 2011.
    So it has been a shared priority, just as this is a shared 
priority: how to get Congress back to work in the unthinkable 
event of a catastrophe. And what it said is, have a quorum call 
that is open for 72 hours and allow every Member possible to 
get there. And then, if you can't get a real quorum then, have 
the House open for another 24 hours for a quorum call, and let 
that number, however many people can get there within 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 provision 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 because that was the best we 
could do in those times. I wasn't elected at that time.
    But to suggest that having 2 people, in your example, run 
the House of Representatives is unconstitutional but having 22 
people run it does constitute a quorum, well, that is just 
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 this very discussion demonstrates that it is going to 
be the topic of legal conversation. I would posit that the work 
that we do together over the next 60 to 90 days is going to be 
incredibly consequential work for the Nation. And I just don't 
know why, if this is where we have laser-focused on where the 
biggest problem is, we would put our constituents and our 
policies at that risk.
    And I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could I just be entitled to a 
moment----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. To respond to Mr. Woodall on that?
    The first point we have to make is that this is what the 
Supreme Court considers a political question. It would invoke 
the Political Question Doctrine, meaning that it is up to the 
House of Representatives. It is our rule.
    That is why this existing rule, adopted under a Republican 
Congress--and succeeding Congresses of both Republican and 
Democratic character have kept it in there--has stayed on the 
books despite the fact that we have the testimony of the 
outraged witnesses that this is unconstitutional. They were 
more outraged about the proposal than the current rule, but, 
nonetheless, their outrage presumably flows to any rule 
governing outside of their interpretation of what a quorum 
requirement is.
    Now, here is why I think there is a big qualitative 
difference between what we are doing and what the existing rule 
is, which has been fine with most of the people because people 
haven't 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 we are 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 it has to be physical 
voting. I think we already crossed that bridge when we went to 
electronic voting. There were people at that time who were 
saying it was unconstitutional to have electronic voting. They 
said, no, it calls for the ayes and the nays, it has to be a 
spoken vote or it has to be a written vote. But, no, we went to 
electronic voting, and the Republic hasn't collapsed.
    The critical point is that the intent of the Member to cast 
his or her legislative will is vindicated by the system that we 
have adopted in our rule. And the current proposed rule is a 
dramatic improvement over that two people can constitute a 
quorum.
    Now, if what you are saying is, ``Well, that is just in 
emergency circumstances,'' then you are conceding that 
emergency circumstances can change Congress's treatment of the 
quorum. And we are changing our treatment of it in a much more 
mild and modest way than allowing two Members to speak for the 
entire body.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Woodall. To be fair, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Again, these were mass-casualty 
events that we were responding to. If I am dead, the quorum 
requirement for the House declines. It is not hypothetical; it 
is actual.
    And that is what this language, as sobering as that is, 
anticipated, is that if 433 of us are dead, then 2 of us can 
constitute a quorum. And that is 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.
    I am just----
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield.
    The Chairman. I think you may be mischaracterizing what 
happened in 2005 a little bit, because it doesn't contemplate 
that everyone has to be dead for there to be a diminished 
quorum. I mean, it could be for a whole number of reasons, 
including contagion.
    Mr. Woodall. The chairman misunderstood me. If 433 of us 
are dead, 2 people does----
    The Chairman. Right, right.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. In fact, constitute a quorum.
    The Chairman. Right, right. But I am simply--yeah. But I 
think that he raises a good point, and that is, 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 good look at it before we 
pass the next set of rules, all right?
    You have heard the gentleman's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Does the gentleman want a roll call?
    Mr. Woodall. Please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, given the committee's reluctance 
to accept that last amendment, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 5 to House Resolution 965, offered 
by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Woodall. I recognize that you have consulted with legal 
scholars on this. I also recognize that most of the Supreme 
Court decisions I read are five-four, and 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 are undoubtedly to follow, that 
the House General Counsel present its theory for defending 
proxy voting in court to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group 
and explain what that rationale is.
    Here we are, the committee of jurisdiction. We didn't have 
a single constitutional scholar, with the privileged exception 
of Mr. Raskin, come and testify before the committee today. We 
didn't have that opportunity.
    I know everyone shares this concern. It is not a partisan 
issue; it is a House's will issue. And so this amendment would 
simply require that 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.
    The Chairman. Yeah. No, I oppose the amendment. I think 
that there is--I mean, every legal scholar we have talked to 
has not seen any constitutional issues with regard to what we 
are trying to do.
    I think that my colleague submitted a letter from some guy, 
Mr. Strand, who I don't think is a legal scholar. I don't even 
think he is a lawyer. But, in any event----
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, if every lawyer you talked to 
had the same opinion, I am very suspicious of what has 
happened.
    The Chairman. Let me also--if you are talking congressional 
scholars, let me also introduce and ask unanimous consent to 
include the statement of Norm Ornstein, who we all know is a 
congressional scholar.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    The Chairman. But in terms of legal scholars and 
constitutional experts, I think we feel very strongly that we 
are on solid ground.
    And so I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's 
amendment.
    Mr. Woodall. To be fair, Mr. Chairman, my amendment only 
asks that you make your confidence known to the rest of us----
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Not just with prose, but with 
substantive legal arguments, and not to those of us who are not 
constitutional scholars, but to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
Group. And I----
    The Chairman. And if there was going to be a challenge, 
that would not, probably, negate a challenge from an outside 
group. So I look at this as more of a delay tactic than 
anything else, so I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    You have heard--the vote is now on the Woodall amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Roll call, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Before I go to the next amendment, I just want to ask 
unanimous consent to put into the record some statements and 
letters that have been submitted in support of this bill by Mr. 
Jeffries, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Peters, Mr. Thompson of 
California, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Kildee, Perlmutter, Levin, 
Lowenthal, and Lawrence, and Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
Vela, and Chairman Pallone.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    The Chairman. Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, are you saying the current House 
rules allow for the participation of those Members even though 
they are not physically present here with us today?
    The Chairman. I am asking that their statements be put into 
the record----
    Mr. Woodall. Ah.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Like we do all the time.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Does the gentleman object?
    Mr. Woodall. I do not object. I just recognize how 
effective the House rules are at solving those issues.
    The Chairman. Yeah. All right. Do you have another 
amendment?
    Mr. Woodall. Not at this time.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Mr. Burgess.
    Dr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 6 to House Resolution 965, offered 
by----
    Dr. Burgess. I move to dispense with the reading.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Dr. Burgess follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Dr. Burgess. So Amendment No. 6 is 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 were encountered with proxy voting.
    We all know, with the law of unintended consequences, 
things sometimes turn out differently than what we anticipated. 
And, again, this as a good-government check, an oversight 
check, on what we are enacting with this rule.
    And I urge an ``aye'' vote.
    And I guess it is accepted. Good enough. Let's move on.
    The Chairman. 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 it is being implemented the way that we have intended.
    And, again, hopefully the President is right that this 
virus will mysteriously disappear and we won't have to worry 
about any of this stuff. But, in the meantime, I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
    So the vote now is on the Burgess amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Does the gentleman want a roll call?
    Dr. Burgess. Yes, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Four yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 7 to House Resolution----
    Mr. Cole. I would ask the reading be dispensed with, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, we will obviously be dealing with a lot of 
legislation in the next few months--NDAA, approps, things we 
have talked about today. My amendment would limit the use of 
proxy voting to literally things related to the coronavirus 
crisis. We would treat 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 3 weeks ago. So all we are asking here is to do what you 
were positioned to do, at least 3 weeks ago.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment by the 
gentleman. I opposed it when it was in the initial draft of the 
rule, for at least a couple reasons.
    One, we are in a pandemic, through the consultation with 
the doctor and the Sergeant at Arms.
    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 we are 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 COVID-20, in which case we still 
have a problem.
    So I felt the approach that was taken in the earlier draft 
was unreasonably limited. It is still very limited, as Mr. 
Morelle pointed out when he talked about the novel coronavirus 
section in the beginning. But we have to conduct our business, 
and I think this would undercut and needlessly limit it. And I 
don't want to disenfranchise all those people in this 
representative government on big issues.
    So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's motion.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to my friend--and he is perfectly right; he has been 
consistent in his view on this. But I would say, we would be 
more than happy, number one, to make it just ``coronavirus'' in 
general so it was not confined if there was a particular 
mutation. That is something we are willing to do.
    And, again, we are going to do this for this emergency. 
This is actually what we are going to be focusing on, for the 
most part, obviously. And I think we are going to be doing it 
for some years.
    But I think, again, this limits it. We are just asking you 
to be where you were 3 weeks ago. And if you can't be there, as 
a majority, I would just point out for the record, it sort of 
does suggest there is a slippery-slope danger here, because we 
have already moved from where the majority was 3 weeks ago to a 
different position today. So 3 weeks from now? I mean, yet 
another movement.
    Mr. Perlmutter. If I might respond?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Perlmutter. We didn't bring it up. I was going to 
oppose it at that point. I had spoken to a number of Members 
and seek to have it stricken. So I think we weren't 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 gentleman's 
amendment.
    Mr. Cole. Well, I don't think we had the ability to accept 
it. This was in the majority's, you know, purview.
    And this is where you were 3 weeks ago; you have moved 
someplace else in 3 weeks. So I just make that point to 
suggest, once you let this particular, you know, rabbit out of 
the box, it can run a lot of different directions, including 
ones you didn't expect 3 weeks ago.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    I will just say that, you know, during these last 3 weeks, 
we have listened to a lot of Members on both sides of the 
aisle. We have taken some ideas from Republicans. We have heard 
from our Members. And so, the consensus on our side is that we 
have a lot of work to do that is not just coronavirus-related. 
And so I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    The vote is now on the Cole amendment.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. Might I just make 
one additional comment?
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Morelle. Just as it relates to it. It seems to me that, 
if we adopted this amendment, the question of constitutionality 
which has been raised, which we don't agree with you on, but 
constitutionality would still be in play. This doesn't make it 
more constitutional because you identify only things related to 
COVID-19.
    So I just note that, you know, from our perspective, it 
rises or falls on the question of whether a pandemic and a 
national emergency exists, not with what kind of legislation 
will be taken up.
    Mr. Cole. Well----
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Oklahoma.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    With all due respect to my friend, I didn't suggest it made 
it more constitutional.
    Mr. Morelle. Okay.
    Mr. Cole. Frankly, I have serious constitutional doubts 
about this whole course regardless. But it does make it more 
limited and, I think, more traditional.
    And, look, from an institutional standpoint, I think if you 
are going to do something--and one of the things, and I think 
appropriately, that you have pointed out in the course of the 
debate--and you, in particular, Mr. Morelle--is that, look, 
this is very limited. This is 45-day increments. We are trying 
to be--this is just another limitation.
    So I don't think it is--you may disagree with it, but, 
again, it wasn't advanced as a constitutional argument, and it 
is just another limitation.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. So the vote is now on the gentleman from 
Oklahoma's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Roll call, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Before we go to the next amendment, I want to ask unanimous 
consent to insert into the record a letter from Mark Pocan, co-
chair of the Progressive Caucus, in favor of the resolution.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    The Chairman. Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 8 to House Resolution 965, offered 
by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, this amendment respects what Mr. 
Perlmutter had to say. There is some must-do work that has to 
happen in this institution, and if we are going to go down this 
constitutionally perilous path, we should be getting those 
highest-priority items done.
    This would say, for those bills that are not high-priority 
items, those suspension bills that are non-COVID-related, that 
we should not use proxy voting then. Whether we are 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 can do those suspension bills in 
person that are non-COVID-related.
    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 more numerous bills through the traditional process.
    The Chairman. You have heard the gentleman's amendment. Any 
discussion?
    Hearing none, the vote is now on the Woodall amendment.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Roll call, please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this is actually a pretty simple bill. I am 
sort of surprised it wasn't in the text. It simply says no--or, 
excuse me, amendment--no proxy votes on non-COVID bills that 
haven't had a committee hearing or markup.
    In other words, if we are doing these extraordinary things 
because of COVID, you know, other things at least ought to be 
able to go through our committee. Particularly if we have 
adopted the rule as written, I would hope we continue to attend 
the committee process and markup process for things that are 
truly, clearly non-emergency and non-coronavirus-related.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yeah, I appreciate--I mean, part of 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 wouldn't 
want to tie our hands, so I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    The vote is on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Would you like a roll call?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 10 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
       
    Mrs. Lesko. 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 citations.
    And I want to be clear that I don't like anything in this 
bill, so my amendment is only offered because I know that the 
Democrats are going to pass this bill and maybe it will make it 
a little bit better.
    I mean, certainly, impeachment, censure, and contempt 
citations are three extraordinary actions reserved for the 
greatest of times, and I would certainly hope that we would 
want all Members here to consider that.
    With that, I encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yeah. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this, 
because this is like we are throwing everything but the kitchen 
sink at this thing right now. I don't see any reason to do 
this. I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    The vote is on the Lesko amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 11 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, 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, commonly known as MRA, will be 
reduced by the amount it would take for them to travel to the 
House under normal circumstances to vote per the 2020 MRA 
travel expense formula. This is an official document all of our 
offices have access to from House Administration.
    This money saved would be returned to the Treasury. Members 
shouldn't be able to use funds that were meant for travel on 
other things. That is not what our constituents want. At this 
point, we need to give funds back to the American people, not 
use them for things we aren't even utilizing.
    I believe this is a commonsense amendment. If Members 
choose not to travel, they shouldn't get the money to do so, 
and we should return it to the Treasury. And I ask for a 
``yes''' vote.
    The Chairman. You heard the gentlewoman's amendment.
    I would urge a ``no'' vote on this.
    I mean, let me just say a couple things.
    First of all, some people have had to incur more expenses 
to get here from their districts because normal flights have 
been canceled.
    Secondly, I don't know what you do with your MRA if there 
is any left over at the end of the year, but 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.
    Anyway, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Mr. Woodall. For folks who don't serve on House 
Administration, they may not have studied those numbers, but, 
you know, there is a formula in place. This isn't just about 
saving money. The formula says, if you live further away----
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. 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 the table 
because he lives the closest. So----
    The Chairman. So if you have money left over in your MRA, 
what do you do with it? Can you write a check out to yourself? 
What----
    Mr. Woodall. It is the--you are absolutely right----
    The Chairman. I think you could.
    Mr. Woodall. If Members choose to save it. It is 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, because he said, ``This is my constituents'' money, 
and I am spending it to serve them. I am going to spend every 
penny.''
    The reason California Members get 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 
serve their constituents----
    The Chairman. What----
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Than East Coast Members are 
getting to serve their constituents, is the nature of the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Yeah. I strongly object to this. This is--I 
mean, we have just appropriated trillions of dollars to try to 
help people. 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 we 
are funding testing.
    So I just--whatever. I mean, people----
    Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr.----
    Mr. Perlmutter. So I just would object to the gentlelady's 
amendment.
    I would say we are spending more money, at this point, 
certainly in my office, doing telephone townhalls to reach 
people because of so many questions about unemployment, so many 
questions about small business, so many questions about health, 
and adding people like our health officers and somebody from 
the SBA.
    Actually, I am finding that this is much more expensive and 
have hope that the House Administration and the Appropriations 
Committee will offer us some additional money to cover all the 
telephone townhalls to communicate with the people that we 
represent.
    So I object to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Can I respond?
    The Chairman. Yes, absolutely.
    Mrs. Lesko. Actually, in the last bill, every Member was 
given extra money to do telephone townhalls and to deal with 
the coronavirus, so we already got a bunch of extra money.
    In fact, I have constituents complaining about it because 
they think that it was used for our salaries or something, 
which it was not meant to be. It was meant to be used for tele-
townhalls 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 in reaction to the 
proxy bill. And the proxy bill says, okay, Members that don't 
basically want to come in to work can turn over their vote to 
someone else. Well, then, they are not traveling here.
    And we have a formula that all the offices have. It is a 
setout formula. It is a certain amount of money per mile, and 
it is based on how far away, from the farthest part of your 
district, you are to Washington, D.C. And if you are not going 
to fly here, if you are not going to travel here, then why 
should you get the money? That is all my bill does.
    So thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yeah, Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. I understand, and I would be delighted to be 
corrected if I am wrong, but I understand from my chief of 
staff and a couple of other chiefs of staff that there was no 
additional MRA allowance given. That money went to the House of 
Representatives for maintenance staff. So if somebody could 
clear this up definitively, that would be great.
    In any event, that kind of story, I think, contributes to 
the mythology about what is really going on here. And I want to 
say that it seems like there is so much outrage about such 
trivia being voiced today, and we hear so little about the 
82,000 American citizens who have died in this process. We have 
heard so little about the tens of millions of Americans thrown 
out of work in this process, about spreading hunger in society, 
the people lined up at homeless shelters, people lined up at 
food banks. And we get this kind of delight in trivia. I just--
I don't really get it.
    But let me just say--and that is a general statement. Let 
me say specifically about this amendment, what I would 
recommend to the gentlelady--and I know she has 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 they are 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 don't 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.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. 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.
    Mrs. Torres. That was for interns.
    The Chairman. We are being told that was for interns.
    But putting that aside, my suggestion is that maybe we 
should bring this up with House Administration and go that way. 
So I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    All those in favor of the Lesko amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me just quickly note for the record, our friend Mr. 
Burgess is also having a conflicting hearing and had to go, so 
I am actually offering the amendment on his behalf. And I just 
want the committee to understand why he is not here.
    The Chairman. We appreciate that.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    This amendment--it says my amendment; it is actually Mr. 
Burgess's amendment--would--oh, sorry. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 13 to House Resolution 965----
    Mr. Cole. I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Dr. Burgess follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And I ask the indulgence of 
the committee.
    We are undoubtedly--and you may well be dealing with this, 
Mr. Chairman, in the guidance that you will 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 24-hour-
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, so we would just like to get those as part 
of the base bill. And, obviously, your guidance would be 
determinative in how we work through that.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mrs. Torres. Can I ask a question?
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
    Mrs. Torres. I know you are presenting on behalf of another 
member, but I am just wondering if these amendment requests 
were brought up before the committee----
    The Chairman. This one was.
    Mrs. Torres [continuing]. Got together. And what was the--
--
    Mr. Cole. No, I don't think we got down to that level of 
detail. There is going to be quite a bit of, you know.
    You know, we think we are actually heading into this 
without a lot of these very basic things having been worked out 
or thought through. And so these are just three 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, the 
timing on the vote, those sorts of things, any kind of problems 
technologically, you know, and what are contingency plans for 
them.
    So, again, I suspect these are things that the chairman 
will be considering as he puts together guidance. I have no 
doubt he will be consulting with us on those matters as well. 
And, obviously, he makes the final decision himself, but he has 
been very forthright in dealing with us openly in these things.
    So these are just concerns we have with respect to proxy 
voting we would like to make sure are answered, whatever the 
guidance is going to be.
    The Chairman. And I appreciate the gentleman. And I know on 
a staff level some of these issues were brought up in the 
committee.
    And I think what I could say to the gentleman is that, you 
know, I can't say that, verbatim, this will all be adopted, but 
I think some of the spirit of what has been offered here will 
be in the guidance. And we will share that with the gentleman, 
you know, hopefully sooner rather than later, certainly before 
the vote.
    But, anyway, you have heard the gentleman's amendment. The 
vote is now on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Since it wasn't my amendment, I will get a roll 
call, just out of respect for Mr. Burgess.
    The Chairman. All right. Sure.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 14 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment would limit the number of proxies that any 
one Member could carry to two.
    And I think there are legitimate reasons for this. First of 
all, again, I don't like the bill at all, or the resolution, 
but it is going to pass, so I might as well try to make it 
better.
    And, you know, just from a practical point of view, think 
about it. Let's say there is an MTR or there is a motion to 
adjourn or something unexpected and you are carrying 10 
proxies. I mean, how are you going to communicate with 10 
different people? I just think it is going to cause a problem.
    And so that is why I would advocate for a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment.
    I will just point out to her that, in our original 
proposal, we had no limit to how many proxies somebody could 
carry. The minority leader suggested two. We have come up with 
10. That shows, I think, a compromise. But there is no question 
that voting will take a longer time, no matter how we do it.
    And so I think we have moved as much as I think makes 
sense, and I will urge a ``no'' vote.
    So the vote is now on the Lesko amendment.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Would you like a roll call?
    Mrs. Lesko. Yes.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 15 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
   
    
    The Chairman. If you would.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would strike section 4 of the resolution 
related to remote committee operations. So it would just take 
out the entire section about remote voting for committees.
    The Chairman. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I don't 
think there are any constitutional questions around this. You 
know, I--anyway, we have had this discussion.
    The vote is now on the Lesko amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 16 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]\
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mrs. Lesko. 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 HPSCI 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 the Ethics Committee holds a public meeting, it is 
generally in relation to allegations of improper conduct. The 
Sixth Amendment provides for an accused person to confront a 
witness against them. By permitting remote committee 
operations, we fundamentally deny individuals this right.
    I hope that all members can support this amendment, and I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I would just point out, already, this prohibits classified 
briefings in remote format.
    We said on the Ethics Committee, which is a bipartisan 
committee, that if they can figure out a way to operate 
remotely, they ought to go forward. The idea that all ethics 
matters would be halted because of this, I mean, if it doesn't 
have to be, you know, then that is a thing.
    But this has to be a bipartisan vote in the Ethics 
Committee in order for this to--if they can figure out a way to 
operate remotely, let's give them the opportunity. If they can 
figure it out, they can; if not, they can't.
    Any other--yeah, Mr. Cole.
    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 really can't do remotely. And the 
Intelligence Committee, you know, if it is not talking about 
sensitive matters, it----
    The Chairman. Well, they are not going to be able to 
operate.
    Mr. Cole. Yeah.
    The Chairman. I mean, that is already there.
    And the Ethics Committee, if in a bipartisan way--because 
it is a truly bipartisan committee--you can figure out a way to 
operate----
    Mr. Cole. Yeah. Again, I just----
    The Chairman. And if you can't, then we don't do it.
    Mr. Cole. Well, we will see. This would make sure we didn't 
walk down that road.
    But, with that, yield back.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, voting 
for my amendment doesn't preclude Ethics Committee from not 
doing their job. It is a small committee. They could certainly 
meet in person.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, we don't know what the future is going 
to hold. That is the whole reason why we are doing this 
resolution.
    I would just urge a ``no'' vote.
    The vote is now on the Lesko amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 17 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    Mr. Cole. I would ask that the reading be dispensed with.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    This is actually pretty simple. We would just strike the 
language to the greatest extent practicable in section 4(a)(2) 
ensuring the committees must ensure that all members have the 
ability to----
    The Chairman. That is not the amendment.
    Mr. Cole. Oh, I am sorry. I went to my next amendment, so I 
will go back and stay in order, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
that.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Mr. Cole. This would just simply prohibit proxy voting from 
counting towards a quorum in committee. I point out that, 
again, that is something we have never done. We have had proxy 
votings in the past. We actually had a case in 1966 when the 
House Committee on Administration attempted to call up a 
privileged resolution, but a point of order was raised because 
a quorum was not actually present. So, again, I think we should 
be careful about this particular thing, and we shouldn't allow 
proxy votes to be used towards a quorum in a committee.
    The Chairman. I think we have talked about this already, so 
I would urge a ``no'' vote. Vote is now on the Cole amendment.
    All of those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Now back to where I was at. I have an amendment at the 
desk, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 18 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    Mr. Cole. I would ask that reading be dispensed.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Pretty simple. We just strike the language to the greatest 
extent as practicable in section 4(a)(2), the committees must 
require all members to have the ability to participate 
remotely. The whole spirit of the amendment is for more members 
to be able to participate. So I don't see how you would limit 
that. Every member on a committee ought to have the ability to 
participate. It is the responsibility of the institution to 
provide that. If we are not going to call people back so they 
could participate here, it seems to me we have to guarantee 
that wherever they are at, if they are an in 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 someplace 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 they are at.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yeah, 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 I think we 
need to build in a little bit of a safeguard here, so I would 
urge a ``no'' vote.
    The vote is now on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendment is at the 
desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 19 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
   
    
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment ensures there is guidance regarding a number 
of limitations within the resolution, including addressing 
difficulties with difference in time zones. There is a 22-hour 
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 there 
is really--I mean, I know that you say you are going to--
somebody is going to provide guidance, but we are voting on 
this big bill that changes U.S. history, and we don't even know 
how we are going to do it.
    And so, with that, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairman. So you said somebody is going to provide 
guidance. I am going to provide guidance, and many of these 
issues that you talked about will be addressed. So I will urge 
a ``no'' vote.
    The vote now is on Lesko amendment.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments? Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 20 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would ensure that, during this period of 
remote committee work and proxy voting, that no remote markups 
are held. I think it is 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.
    The Chairman. I would oppose this. I am getting confused 
because, a few minutes ago, we were told we shouldn't be taking 
bills to the floor that weren't marked up, didn't have hearings 
and markups. Now we are saying we don't want to allow markups. 
Anyway, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    Vote now is on the----
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. In case it affects your vote----
    The Chairman. It won't.
    Mr. Woodall [continuing]. The consistency there is that 
what we are saying is we should be here doing our work in both 
cases is what that is.
    The Chairman. All right.
    The vote is on the Lesko amendment.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three ayes, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 21 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would ensure that, during this period of 
remote committee work and proxy voting that no remote 
depositions are to occur. This is a simple amendment aimed to 
protect the right to counsel. It is of the utmost importance 
during a deposition that those being questioned have the right 
to counsel readily available, and that becomes much more 
complicated in a remote setting. We must really 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.
    The Chairman. Yeah, I would strongly oppose it. I mean, in 
the real world, depositions are conducted remotely, and I don't 
think we should do anything to frustrate our constitutional 
responsibility to do oversight.
    Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Yes, depositions have been taken remotely 
for 20 or 30 years at least, and evidence being presented to 
our courts remotely right now, State and Federal. So I am not 
sure what lawyer is advising you on this one, but they are 
wrong.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Per the gentlelady's amendment, all those in 
favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three ayes, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 22 to House Resolution 965 offered 
by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    Mr. Cole. I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, 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 is ensure 
that, obviously, a point of order that is legal under the rules 
would actually reach the floor to be fully considered. So this 
is a protection since we are, obviously, embarking into unknown 
territory with new methods, new procedures that haven't been 
used ever in this House before, which simply allow members to 
bring their case, if you will, beyond the Rules Committee where 
decision is apt to be automatic to the full body to make a 
decision.
    The Chairman. Well, I would oppose this again. I mean, we 
waive the rules prophylactically all the time, as my friends 
did when they were in the majority. And, again, I think these 
are attempts to, obviously, frustrate our ability to move 
forward on legislation. And I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    Mr. Cole. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Cole. When we were in the majority, we never embarked 
on anything like this, but I understand the circumstances are 
different.
    The Chairman. Even in this committee right now, we are 
violating the 5-minute rule.
    Mr. Cole. Yeah. Well, we have routinely done that for a 
long time.
    The Chairman. I know we have----
    Mr. Cole [continuing]. Be the first person to agree with 
you on that. But, in this case, this is an unchartered 
expansion of the rules. This is way beyond anything we have 
ever done before. So it simply makes sure--you still control 
the body. If you control the Rules Committee, you control the 
body. So you are still going to win the point of order, but it 
allows--if somebody feels like it is a flagrant violation, it 
at least allows them to get a hearing in front of the body. 
That's all.
    The Chairman. The vote is on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three ayes, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 23 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
    Mr. Cole. I ask the reading be dispensed with.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This would simply require that the guidance include how the 
committee plans to authenticate and validate member 
participation. Obviously, you haven't made that decision yet, 
but we want to make sure it is--it is not in the bill or in the 
resolution. So we want to make sure that this is one of the 
things you actually consider, that we actually get an 
authentication and validation of member participation.
    The Chairman. Yeah, I mean, I will ensure the gentleman of 
the guidance that there will be language so that you will be 
able--so that you can verify that someone is who they say they 
are. So it will be in the guidance. So I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on this because it will be in the guidance.
    Mr. Cole. Well, just--and I know it will be, Mr. Chairman, 
I just want to say that. We are just using this opportunity to 
point those things out to make sure that, when you review the 
record of this hearing, as I know you will, that that is one of 
the things that you consider----
    The Chairman. The vote is now on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Roll call?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 24 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
   
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to ensure 
that, in the guidance that you provide, that a member's right 
to offer a motion to adjourn and a motion to postpone is 
preserved. Again, it is an unprecedented new process, 
unprecedented amount of authority placed solely in your hands 
to draft 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 member's offer to make the motion 
to adjourn and the motion to postpone as the rules today 
provide.
    The Chairman. Well, the rules are still the rules, and they 
will not be denied. So I don't--this is unnecessary, but the 
vote is on the----
    Mr. Woodall. 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----
    The Chairman. There will be nothing in the guidance to 
prevent members from making motions to adjourn or any other 
motions that they have the ability to do as stipulated by the 
rules that are in place right now.
    Mr. Woodall. And so, when the implementing legislation says 
``notwithstanding any other rules of the House,'' this is where 
we are going. I think that is 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 we are going, I 
would have a completely different set of amendments.
    The Chairman. Yeah, I would just assure the gentleman that 
we are protecting minority rights; but if he wants a vote on 
this to make an exclamation point, I am happy to----
    Mr. Woodall. Well, again, I would settle for the chairman's 
commitment. It says in section 4, I am not----
    The Chairman. You have my commitment.
    Mr. Woodall. During any covered period and notwithstanding 
any rule of the House or its committees, here is this new 
process that Chairman McGovern will lay out in his sole 
discretion.
    The Chairman. 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 for--I mean, whatever. If the gentleman wants--
let's have a vote on your amendment.
    Mr. Woodall. Well, and I have got several. It sounds petty 
when you say it, and I know you are not trying to demean the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. No. That wouldn't be fitting, no.
    Mr. Woodall. But these are the minority rights that you 
were talking with Mr. Hoyer about and, yes, having those in a 
process that is likely to suppress a minority, having minority 
rights specifically----
    The Chairman. Well, I disagree with the gentleman's 
assessment of what we are trying to do. But, in any event, he 
has made his point, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.
    So the vote is now on the Woodall amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Roll call, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 25 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to ensure 
the right of a member to have a member's words be taken down, 
be included. To Mr. Perlmutter's point earlier, I know things 
have evolved in the 3 weeks since the last package that was 
discussed, but in the last package, it specifically stipulated 
that all current House rules would be followed. This package 
specifically says, notwithstanding any House rules, we are 
going to do things differently.
    I know the gentleman does not have a partisan goal, but I 
think it is not only appropriate, but it is 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.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Again, I don't think it is 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 I 
personally attack him or besmirch his character, he will have 
the right to take my words down.
    Mr. Woodall. I know that circumstance would never happen, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We're speaking hypothetically here. I would 
never do that.
    Mr. Woodall. But we have all experienced this on the video 
calls that we are on. Folks are raising their hand. They are 
trying to talk over each other. It is 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 chairman is absolutely right, 
we cannot possibly list every minority right. If the chairman 
would agree with me that we will include these six that I am 
mentioning, we can be done with it.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I think if we include these six and don't 
include others, then we are basically making it possible for 
those others to be violated.
    Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. I was going to make precisely that point, Mr. 
Chairman. The omission of other rights when you are starting, 
beginning to enumerate rights implies that those other ones are 
not included in the production; thus, the existence of the 
Ninth Amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I 
don't think we need to reenact the entire constitutional 
history of the United States here when we have a very simple 
delegation of power to the chairs of the committees to operate 
consistent with all of the laws of the United States and the 
rules of the House of Representatives.
    Mr. Woodall. If that is what we had, you would be exactly 
right, and that is what we had 3 weeks ago. 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 of the rules. We have 
a document that says you are empowered to ignore all of the 
rules, to the gentleman's point.
    Mr. Raskin. Then we are 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 couldn't otherwise do.
    Mr. Woodall. The new rules being whatever Chairman McGovern 
drafts as guidance and shares with us whenever he decides to 
share----
    Mr. Raskin. Are you telling me that you think that the 
import of our new rule would be essentially what Donald Trump 
thinks is the meaning of Article II, that we can do whatever we 
want, inconsistent with the rules of the House and the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Woodall. I don't take the gentleman's reference. I 
simply note, from my very limited legal understanding, that 
``notwithstanding any rule of the House'' means notwithstanding 
any rule of the House. I am 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 
don't know why you did it. I am sure it wasn't 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 having protected minority rights in this way.
    The Chairman. Let me, if I could, let me assure the 
gentleman that minority rights will be protected and that I 
think, we can--let's just vote on the gentleman's amendment 
because I think we are just talking in circles now.
    The vote is now on the Woodall amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, seven nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 26 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Woodall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, again, I don't dispute the very 
generous way that you have led this committee, but the ranking 
member introduced letters from other committee ranking members 
who have not had that same experience with their chairman, 
which is why amendment No. 26 says that the guidance should 
include the right to ensure 7-day notice before the hearing and 
that the guidance should preserve the right to ensure 24-hour 
availability of text. I don't know how chairmen will use their 
power. I know chairmen use their power very differently today 
than they did 30 years ago, and I think that is to the credit 
of this institution that that is 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.
    And so this, again, provides those very limited guarantees 
that many of our ranking members have already said have been 
denied to them.
    The Chairman. All right. Well, first of all, we haven't had 
any remote hearings yet. I mean, 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 haven't been able to do 
that yet. But I assure the gentleman all of these rules will 
continue to be complied with and chairs will have to follow 
them, period.
    So the vote is now on the gentleman's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Roll call, please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 27 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mr. Woodall. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 
ensure that the guidance includes the right to offer motion to 
appeal the ruling of the chair. I take Mr. Raskin's point that, 
if we list a number of powers and do not include others, that 
can be deceptive in a limiting nature. So I would be willing to 
accept, if it would win your support, a friendly amendment that 
would add ``including but not limited to the following minority 
rights,'' including the right to appeal the ruling of the 
chair. It is going to be very difficult to go through these 
parliamentary processes that are already difficult for members 
who are not parliamentary experts when we all sit together and 
are surrounded by a talented cadre of staff, Trying to do this 
from your den without the likes of a Kelly or a Dawn sitting 
beside you is only going to make it harder, and that is why I 
would like to make sure that the guidance includes these items.
    The Chairman. Members will have the right to appeal the 
ruling of the chair. So I think this is unnecessary, but let's 
have a vote.
    The vote is on the gentleman's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 28 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, as you will 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 pre-filing 
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, where when we have a chance to talk about 
something together, we can end up with a better solution than 
what we had to begin with. I don't want the stilted nature of 
a--or even the expedited nature of a remote committee process 
to undermine either of these important collegial functions.
    The Chairman. Well, as the majority leader stated and as I 
stated as well, there will be no pre-filing 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 that is that.
    So there is no need for this, and I would urge a ``no'' 
vote.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Morelle. And I just might suggest, because I think you 
are being too modest, I think these kind of protections which 
you personally made sure exist I think ought to be 
acknowledged. I mean, think to Mr. Woodall's amendment, I agree 
with the spirit of it, but it is already in what we have done, 
and the chair has not only indicated that will be the case, the 
majority leader has indicated that will be the case. But I 
wanted to acknowledge the chair's good work in making sure that 
we continue to operate even if it is by remote process in the 
same spirit and in the same letter of the current rules.
    So I just want to acknowledge your work, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that, and let me just say, 
you know, 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 it was 
attractive for some to try to figure out ways to limit that, 
but we are not going to, all right. So we are just going to all 
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 pre-filed.
    So, you know, we will get through this. But this is not 
necessary, but we will go on anyway.
    Mr. Woodall. If the Chairman would--I don't disagree with a 
thing that 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 I will 
decide later how it is going to work.''
    The Chairman. We will----
    Mr. Woodall. No one----
    The Chairman. I told Mr. Cole earlier today that we will 
share with him the guidance before--it will be public. It is 
going to be before the vote.
    Mr. Woodall. I understand that.
    The Chairman. And if the gentleman wants to now require 
that there be a pre-filing amendment, we can entertain that as 
well.
    Mr. Woodall. The gentleman has a--we have a committee that 
could have a minority voice as we crafted this. The very first 
step in creating remote committee jurisdictions is to say in 
fact the minority members won't be voting on any of these 
things, we won't as a committee sit on any of these things, we 
are going to delegate the entire process to the Rules Committee 
chairman. There is no better chairman than you to delegate that 
to. I am not denigrating your leadership at all. What I am 
saying is the first step out of the box is to say we won't do 
this collectively; we are going to do it in a unified way as if 
we had given you all of our proxies, and you had decided to 
write these rules. And this is the nature of our concern. It is 
not a faux concern. It is a very real concern, and we are 
living it out right now.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman has asked that we not 
have a pre-filing requirement. I would urge the gentleman to 
take yes for an answer, but everything--I kind of see what's 
happening here. This is--we are going through this procedure 
here, which is perfectly fine, and no matter if the answer is 
yes, it is still not the answer that the gentleman wants.
    I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
    Mr. Perlmutter. And I guess what is bothering me here is 
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 we have 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 this guidance and he 
will visit with you, and he keeps saying this. I mean, we will 
be here all night, and that is fine, I don't care.
    But America is undergoing something it hasn't experienced 
in at least a hundred years, and the size of the economic 
fallout of this is beyond belief. And what we are trying to do, 
Mr. Woodall, is to keep this government running in any kind of 
a way to address so many emergencies 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 mean, I don't like what we see 
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 don't exclude it in another way, the courts are going 
to draw conclusions from that. And what--I just want to have 
you--you can 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.
    You know, we have got work to do. This is a way to start 
getting it done. I know Mr. Cole wants to get on to normal 
appropriations. There is a lot of work to be done. There is a 
lot of work for us to have to conduct long before this damn 
virus hit us all, and we have got to get this done. And I 
appreciate the minority wanting to, you know, make it as 
difficult as possible, you know, and maybe run out the clock 
through the end of December. I don't think that is what you 
want to do. But I will tell you, after 28 or 29 of these 
amendments, I can see that coming. And America will suffer for 
it.
    That is all I can say, and I yield back.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate 
your indulgence.
    And I know my friend from Colorado was not suggesting that 
I am here in a dilatory capacity and that my sincerity--I know 
he was not questioning my sincerity in any way, shape, or form.
    Mr. Raskin went down that same line of, I would argue, 
policy shaming for folks who aren't focused on other issues. We 
all like to think that we are a committee of jurisdiction, that 
we are in charge of getting those healthcare dollars out the 
door, but that is not our job. We like to think we are 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. 
That is not our job on this committee. Our job on this 
committee is the rules of the House, and what you are 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 is tragic human 
suffering, as an excuse to drive their will over the minority. 
So for the Rules Committee hearing on May 14th, when folks say 
those minority guys, they are just trying to delay it. Those 
minority guys, there ideas aren't even sincere. Those minority 
guys, they are focused on the minutia when they ought to be 
focused on the big picture.
    We are a process committee. We focus on the minutia because 
if we don't get the minutia right, the process falls apart. We 
don't even need a Rules Committee. You know that. We can 
operate this entire House without a Rules Committee at all. We 
have a Rules Committee to deal with the problems that the 
regular process doesn't solve. Perhaps creating a brandnew way 
to hold committee hearings after 200 years, perhaps responding 
to a crisis of unprecedented proportions, perhaps that merits a 
conversation. And I think it is 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 committees usually vote on their own rules--
we will be telling those committees how to do their rules--I 
think it is wonderful that Chairman McGovern is going to come 
and consult with Mr. Cole after the fact, but there is not a 
single member on this committee who questions the value that 
Mr. Cole provides here. There is not a single member on this 
committee who questions Mr. Cole's wisdom as it comes to how we 
can operate in a collaborative bipartisan way. And so there is 
not a member on this committee who doesn't think it is a waste 
of our collective resources to come to him after the fact when 
the cake is baked instead of before the fact when we are mixing 
up the ingredients to begin with.
    The Chairman. Let me, if I could--may I respond just 
briefly? Let me just say one thing. I mean, we don't agree on 
what we are doing here. I mean, that is 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 that we get healthcare 
dollars out. We are the committee that brings these bills to 
the floor so that, in fact, we can move this stuff forward. So 
let's not--I mean, the idea that it is just not--the process is 
policy as well.
    Secondly, you know, I mean, I--you know, we didn't come to 
an agreement in the bipartisan committee, but I think that it 
is not because we weren't exchanging ideas or I wasn't 
listening to Mr. Cole or he wasn't listening to me. It is just 
that we just couldn't come to an agreement. And so the idea 
that somehow this is a big surprise that we are here right now 
and that there has been no consultation and no back and forth, 
I respect Mr. Cole. I can disagree with his conclusion here 
today. I think we need to do this to be able to help our first 
responders and get healthcare dollars out. But, I mean, the 
implication that somehow we don't value--I don't value his 
opinion or his guidance, I do. You know, 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 
t's and putting dots on i's. It is about making sure that this 
place functions in a way that we can get the monies and the 
relief to people in this crisis who need it. So I get it. And I 
don't question anybody's motives here. I think we need to move 
on. We have to deal with 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.
    Mr. Cole. Just quickly, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I doubt the wisdom of consulting me all the 
time. So I appreciate your kind words and my friend's kind 
words.
    But I 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 
a number of the suggestions that we made, and I appreciate 
that. Others, you know, 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.
    So all we are trying to do, we have a lot of questions our 
members want to ask. We have to go back and defend this process 
to them.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Cole. And I think that is what Mr. Woodall is trying to 
do. But, please, don't think for a minute that any of us doubt 
your fairness, because we don't, or that any of us think that 
you have not been forthright with us and inclusive, because you 
have.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Cole. I yield back.
    The Chairman. All right.
    The vote is on the Woodall amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Would you like a roll call vote?
    Mr. Woodall. Please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Before I go to next to the amendment, let me ask unanimous 
consent to insert into the record a statement by Representative 
Stephen Cohen in support of the resolution.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    The Chairman. Further amendments?
    Mr. Cole--wait a minute. Mr. Who?
    Mr. Woodall. I had an amendment designated as No. 12, Mr. 
Chairman, but I was not going to offer that amendment. Withdraw 
it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall. If I could.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Woodall. Just so the committee is clear, we talked a 
lot about your consultation with the ranking member, and my 
amendment was to codify that to say that 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, there is no 
need to vote on that because you have already given us your 
word, which gives me great confidence so I withdraw the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Further amendments? Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This again is a Burgess amendment. So bear with me a little 
amendment. I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 29 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.


    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mr. Cole. And I would ask that the reading be dispensed 
with.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Again, as I noted, Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment by 
our esteemed colleague, Mr. Burgess. It simply asks that only 
CAO-authorized products be used to conduct the operations of 
our committees when we are operating remotely. I think that is 
something that you want to do as well, but we are just trying 
to get it nailed down so that we know the source of any 
technology that we need to use. That is a pretty important 
thing and particularly given the number of times that people 
try to hack into various House, you know, proceedings as it is, 
so----
    The Chairman. And we are going to basically--it is a very 
good idea. We are going to end up taking it--I think we are 
going to change the word ``approved'' to ``certified.''
    Mr. Cole. That is more than generous, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you very much.
    The Chairman. But no on the amendment because we are going 
to do it.
    Mr. Cole. Gee.
    The Chairman. We are giving you what you want.
    Mr. Cole. No, no, I tell you what, on that basis----
    The Chairman. Tell Burgess he won.
    Mr. Cole. Well, he won't look at it quite that way.
    The Chairman. Anyway, the vote is on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, No.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. We will leave it up to voice vote on your 
assurances.
    The Chairman. Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 30 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mrs. Lesko. 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 immediately recess committee 
operations for technical issues, but there should be a 
mandatory followup promptly sent to all committee members 
clarifying the reason for the recess.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Let us think about this. I don't--I am going 
to urge a ``no'' vote right now, but----
    Mr. Cole. Do you want us to set it aside while you look at 
it for a second, and we move through the rest of them?
    The Chairman. Yes, I think we need to consult with a few--
it is going to take more than 10 seconds to go through this, 
but let us--why don't we have a vote. But if we can try and 
take care of this in the guidelines, we will. But why don't 
we--do you want to vote on this? I would urge a ``no'' vote so 
we could consult.
    But all of those in favor of the Lesko amendment, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. I have an amendment on behalf of Mr. Burgess.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 31 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    The Chairman. Mr. Woodall.
    Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    All of the minority rights I discussed earlier that you 
assured me would be protected in the guidance go by the wayside 
if a member can't unmute their phone, if a member has a 
technical problem. We are not all created technologically equal 
in our understanding and our use of technology. So this 
amendment by Dr. Burgess would say that, if we are 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 real time 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 of exponential importance when it 
comes to doing the legislative business. So having that 
technical support team, recognizing that we are not all equally 
skilled, I think would go a long way to ensuring the comfort of 
members in this new process.
    The Chairman. So we agree that members need to be given 
technical support to be able to comply with the new rules if we 
would operate remotely, but I don't think we feel comfortable 
prescribing how that is done. Different committees rely on 
different technical support teams. And so I agree with this in 
spirit, but in real life, I would urge a ``no'' vote at this 
particular time.
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how individual 
committees pay for their support staff, but what's unique about 
the CAO support staff is that it is a nonpartisan staff. Again, 
when it comes to partisan concerns, are we suppressing the 
minority, who is getting the help of having the nonpartisan 
office directed by the chairman as opposed to the partisan 
offices that support----
    The Chairman. I don't know what their capacity is, to be 
honest with you, so the idea of just taking this like this, you 
know, I would be reluctant to do so at this point. I would urge 
a ``no'' vote.
    Mr. Woodall. Well, to alleviate some of Dr. Burgess' 
concerns, Mr. Chairman, having assured folks that we would make 
a pathway forward so that all members could participate, that 
this would increase participation as opposed to diminish it, if 
we don't even know what the CAO's capacity is, if we don't know 
what the committee's individual capacity is, how can we be 
confident going down this road?
    The Chairman. Yeah. I don't know even that this is the best 
group to do it. So I would urge a ``no'' vote. And I would just 
say that I'm not sure there is anything I could do or say that 
would alleviate Mr. Burgess's concerns. So I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
    Vote on the Woodall amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mr. Who?
    Mr. Cole. Right here.
    The Chairman. Oh, Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This is actually pretty simple. This amendment would 
require that any issues with remote operation should be 
included in the committee report on activities. We are 
embarking again in a new area here. This will just give us a 
systematic way to know what the problems are and address them. 
And if they are highlighted in every committee's report, I just 
think that taking remedial action becomes a lot easier. So I 
think it is a pretty practical thing to do.
    I yield back. Oh, I am sorry, I had an amendment at the 
desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 32 to House Resolution, offered by 
Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. I would ask that the reading be dispensed with.
    [The amendment of Mr. Cole follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Cole. And I think I have explained the amendment 
sufficiently. So I don't think there is any additional 
explanation required.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We have heard the gentleman's amendment. Any 
discussion?
    The vote is on the Cole amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Cole. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman, could I make a quick point?
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. I ask you that you consider this when you are 
putting together your guidance. It is certainly appropriate, 
and again it is serious.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that, and we will.
    Mr. Cole. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at 
the desk on behalf of Mr. Burgess.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 33 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Lesko follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
   
    
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed 
their serious and legitimate concerns about ensuring that 
committees can meet safely following the recommendations of the 
CDC and Attending Physician. I agree with their concerns about 
ensuring that large communities have the capacity to meet.
    Mr. Chairman, that is why I offer this amendment, which 
would require the Committee on House Administration to develop 
a plan that would allow committees to more fully use the 
Capitol Complex for hearings and markups prior to permitting 
the use of remote operations. We have large, significantly 
underutilized spaces that can be used for the House's business. 
Emancipation Hall, CVC meeting rooms, auditoriums, these could 
all be converted to allow for Congress to continue its work 
before implementing a solution that overturns more than 200 
years of precedent.
    And, with that, I urge my members to support this 
amendment, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. You heard the Lesko amendment.
    Any discussion?
    If not, the vote is on the Lesko amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three ayes, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 34 to House Resolution 965, 
offered by Mr. Woodall of Georgia.
    [The amendment of Mr. Woodall follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I have taken 
absolutely no pleasure in our proceedings today. The 
circumstances that bring us here are disturbing and painful, 
and the work that we have to do here today changes a process 
that is near and dear to all of us, and we are doing it in the 
name of trying to get to a better ending.
    The anxieties that you heard shared by all of the 
witnesses, save Mr. Hoyer, who testified today were anxieties 
that came from a very--a place of partisan that is rampant in 
this institution today, not that anyone questions your 
leadership or anyone on this committee, but that concern that 
partisanship creeps in seemingly 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 diminished way, anxiety because we all want to serve 
our constituents as best we can but confidence that we were 
doing it in a collaborative way.
    So this final amendment from Dr. Burgess changes section 5 
and changes it from a study of implementation of remote voting 
in the House to study a remote voting in the House. The most 
significant thing that 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 and is the most 
consequential thing in this piece of legislation.
    And so asking the House Administration Committee, rather 
than to study it and to certify let's do it, to study it and 
then tell us that we are ready to do it so that we can then 
have a vote of the House on that--it would, it would require 
one more Rules Committee markup. It would require us to be down 
on the floor for one more roll call vote. But, no, you cannot 
do anything that is going to satisfy all of the concerns of the 
minority, but you could do this one thing that would thwart the 
majority's goals not one iota and would give the minority and I 
believe the American people a degree of confidence in the 
direction we are going that is not contained in the underlying 
resolution.
    I think Dr. Burgess is spot on here. Let's proceed with the 
study exactly as the legislation requires, and when the 
conclusion comes back from the House Administration Committee 
to do this most consequential thing of moving to remote voting 
on the floor of the House, let's come back and have a final 
vote, not on that measure as part of a giant package, not on 
that measure as a part of a multibill rule, but on that measure 
and that measure alone.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. You heard the gentleman's amendment.
    Any discussion?
    Hearing none, the vote is on the Woodall amendment.
    All of those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Woodall. Roll call, please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, no.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, no.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, no.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, no.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, no.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, no.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, aye.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, aye.
    Mr. Burgess?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total.
    The Clerk. Three yeas, eight nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments?
    Any final comments? Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. If I may, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 
thank you very much for the spirit in which you conducted the 
hearing. I know it is a long hearing. I know it is a 
contentious topic. I know we don't agree on everything, but you 
have been extraordinarily fair, as you have been throughout the 
process, and I appreciate that.
    Mr. Cole. I also want to, for the record, note--I know 
there is some frustration with talking a lot about the 
guidance, but remember, we haven't seen the guidance yet, and 
our members have a lot of concerns that they ask us 
collectively to express and points to make and that was the 
spirit in which we operated. And I know you and I will have 
good and extensive comments and discussions about the guidance 
as we go forward. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
    I also want to address a point that our distinguished 
majority leader made or a concern he expressed, and I want to 
reassure him as well. My concerns, and I think the concerns on 
our side, and I know some of these are shared on your side, are 
about changing the nature of the institution. They are really 
not about the relative power of the majority and the minority.
    Honestly, this is a majoritarian institution, the power is 
where it belongs. It is with the majority. I don't have any 
dispute. And I don't think the majority leader or any member of 
our ad hoc panel was trying in any way, shape, or form to 
change that. I am much more profoundly worried, and I know you 
know this because we have had this discussion about the nature 
of the institution. I am very worried that some of these 
changes will diminish the power of the individual member pretty 
dramatically and enhance the power of leadership in both the 
majority and the minority pretty dramatically.
    I also think the use or overuse of this particular--whether 
it is for remote voting, whether it is for a virtual committee 
meeting hearings, will ultimately weaken us as a branch of 
government vis-a-vis the executive branch. The executive branch 
is in here actually operating.
    And I also think there is a concern, and you heard it from 
some of the members today, that we are asking lots of other 
Americans to do their work, to show up and do their work. And 
they are heroes all, doctors, nurses, obviously, but the unsung 
heroes are people at food processing plants and people that are 
driving trucks and people that are stocking shelves. And I know 
you feel that way too because I have heard you express that 
sentiment on many occasions.
    I know my own hometown, when I was there in our extended 
break, I go to the same 7-Eleven every morning, get a cup of 
coffee. Know the people there, and they were there every 
morning and there was a truck there every morning making sure 
that there was food supplies and there was gasoline. So we have 
asked a lot of Americans to do ours. And I think as our 
members--we understand we need to change the way we operate. 
This very committee meeting and the way we have arranged 
ourselves and the way we have operated is an admission of that, 
and I think we all share that. But we do think broadly that 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.
    So while we have great concerns about the rule and the 
changes that it proposes and, you know, our amendment 
suggestions, I suspect our debate will suggest that tomorrow, 
please don't think it is because I have any doubt about your 
motives. I don't, or any other member of the majority on this 
or certainly the majority leader.
    I do have concerns about the judgments that have been made, 
and you tried to work with us where you could, I appreciate 
that. We tried to work with you where we could. We didn't 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 have 
always found you and your staff fair and congenial to work 
with. I know that is going to continue going forward, and I 
look forward to that process, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you. And let me just say to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, my friend, I appreciate his kind 
words. I also appreciate the fact that on this issue, which is 
contentious, but also on a number of other issues that have 
been contentious that have come before this committee, he, his 
staff, but the other members of the committee on the Republican 
side, the Democratic side, we have 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 oftentimes be more civil 
and more thoughtful, and I don't say that in any disrespect to 
the chairs who are out in the audience here today, but we 
have--I mean, we have been through a lot. We did hearings on 
Medicare for All, with impeachment, you know, Article I 
responsibilities, and we have had some very thoughtful 
interactions here in this committee.
    Let me just say, finally, none of us want to be in this 
moment where we have to confront these issues about not just 
the safety of members, because as I said before, I think that 
is the least of our concern. It is the safety of everybody who 
works up here that we have to be thinking of ways to operate 
remotely.
    We have never experienced anything like this pandemic in 
our lifetime. And lots of references were made to the 1918 
pandemic, but when you look back on the history, Congress 
didn't function. And I gave an example of the fact that we 
couldn't--Congress couldn't get together to approve more 
doctors to go to rural areas. And probably as a result of that 
more people died than should've as a result of that crisis.
    That is an example of how--that is an example of failure. 
And so, look, we are trying to come up with a package that 
hopefully is not only temporary, but very, very temporary, and 
hopefully we will not have to look to this in the fall; that 
somehow we will manage to get through this or, you know, 
miraculously find a vaccine or something. But I think the one 
thing I have become very convinced of is that the status quo is 
unacceptable, and we need to figure out a way--you know, if 
members can come here, that is fine, but not everybody can. And 
we also need to think about the safety of our staff and the 
people who work here.
    So, in any event, I know we are going to not agree on this, 
but, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his 
incredible partnership up here. I want to thank all the members 
of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, and the staffs, in 
particular, for, you know, all the work leading up to this 
hearing. But, you know, this has been a long day and it is 
nowhere near over yet. So, again, I want to thank everybody.
    So if there are no further amendments, the question is now 
on the motion to order the measure reported favorably to the 
House.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.
    Mr. Cole. Roll call.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres?
    Mrs. Torres. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Torres, aye.
    Mr. Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter, aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin, aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
    Mr. Morelle?
    Mr. Morelle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Morelle, aye.
    Ms. Shalala?
    Ms. Shalala. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shalala, aye.
    Ms. Matsui?
    Ms. Matsui. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Matsui, aye.
    Mr. Cole?
    Mr. Cole. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cole, no.
    Mr. Woodall?
    Mr. Woodall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Woodall, no.
    Mr. Burgess?
    Dr. Burgess. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess, no.
    Mrs. Lesko?
    Mrs. Lesko. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko, no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report the total?
    The Clerk. Eight yeas, four nays.
    The Chairman. The motion is adopted. And without objection, 
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    All right. So now----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. There were two little bits of misinformation 
that were still floating around from the last set of amendments 
and discussion. I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to 
take a second to correct them now?
    The Chairman. Do you want to publicly correct the record?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. I will yield to you right now.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I understand from the House Committee on Administration 
that in the CARES Act there was $25 million that was 
appropriated to the House of Representatives, but it was stated 
in the discussion of one of the Lesko amendments that that was 
money that went to the MRA accounts of individual members. It 
did not. That money went to, overwhelmingly it looks like 
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 and as far as we can tell, there was no money that was 
allocated to MRAs. So that is the first.
    And the second I wanted to correct, Mr. Chairman, is that 
one of the witnesses before took issue with--I am sorry? Okay.
    The Chairman. I think we need to pause this to start the 
next hearing.
    [Whereupon the committee proceeded to other business.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]