Authorizing Remote Voting by Proxy in the House of Representatives During a Public Health Emergency

Summary

House Report 116–420 is a report of the Committee on Rules, submitted by Mr. McGovern, referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed May 14, 2020, with dissenting views, on H. Res. 965. The resolution authorizes remote voting by proxy in the House of Representatives during a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus, provides for official remote committee work, and directs a study and certification of remote technology for remote voting. The report states that it would authorize the Speaker or her designee, in consultation with the Minority Leader, to establish a 45-day period during which a Member may authorize another Member to cast a vote on their behalf.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: Congressional materials
Document type: Crpt Crpt 116Hrpt420 Crpt 116Hrpt420
Case: Crpt Crpt 116Hrpt420 Crpt 116Hrpt420

Cite this document

“Authorizing Remote Voting by Proxy in the House of Representatives During a Public Health Emergency.” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-116hrpt420-crpt-116hrpt420/, SHA-256 537a150275361a1c675a8f093818fc63b5922d57a46846c5f06f56f793b643c5.

Full text

116TH CONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session 116–420

AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT-
ATIVES AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PRO-
CEEDINGS DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL
CORONAVIRUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 14, 2020.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules,
submitted the following

R E P O R T
together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H. Res. 965]

The Committee on Rules to whom was referred the resolution (H.
Res. 965) authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of Rep-
resentatives and providing for official remote committee pro-
ceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus, and for other purposes.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1
Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2
Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 9
Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 9
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................................ 20
Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 20
Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 22
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 22
Changes in Existing House Rules Made by the Resolution, as Reported ........... 25
Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 26

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This resolution authorizes remote voting by proxy in the House
of Representatives, provides for official remote committee pro-
ceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus, and directs a study and certification of remote tech-
nology to conduct remote voting in the House once such a system
is operable and secure. The resolution authorizes the Speaker or
her designee, in consultation with the Minority Leader or his des-

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
99–008

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
2

ignee, to establish a 45-day period during which a Member may au-
thorize another Member to cast a vote on their behalf or record
their presence in the House at any time that the Speaker is noti-
fied by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending
Physician, of a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus.
This resolution lays out the procedures for a Member to authorize
another Member to vote or record their presence on their behalf,
to alter or revoke such authorization, and for voting in the House
Chamber while this temporary system is in effect. The resolution
further authorizes remote proceedings in committees during the 45-
day covered period, for Members to participate remotely during
such proceedings and to be counted for purposes of establishing a
quorum, and any chair or committee empowered to issue and au-
thorize subpoenas to do so for return at a hearing or deposition
conducted remotely. The resolution provides procedures for con-
ducting remote hearings and markups and requires committees to
further conduct these proceedings in accordance with regulations
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of
the Committee on Rules. The resolution directs the chair of the
Committee on House Administration, in consultation with the
ranking minority member, to study the feasibility of using tech-
nology to conduct remote voting in the House and to provide certifi-
cation to the House upon a determination that such operable and
secure technology exists. Finally, after such certification, the reso-
lution provides that the chair of the Committee on Rules shall sub-
mit regulation in the Congressional Record and the Speaker is then
authorized to notify the House that Members may cast their votes
remotely during the public health emergency period covered by the
resolution.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

COVID–19 pandemic
On December 31, 2019, a new virus detected in Wuhan, China
was first reported to the World Health Organization (WHO).1 By
early March, the new virus had spread around the globe and the
WHO officially declared the 2019 novel coronavirus, known as
COVID–19, to be a pandemic.2
On January 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention (CDC) confirmed the first case of the novel coronavirus in
the United States 3 and on February 29, 2020, the first U.S. death
from the virus was reported.4 Since that time, in the U.S. over
1,400,000 cases have been reported and over 80,000 people have
died.5 These numbers continue to rise. Globally, over 4 million
cases and 300,000 deaths have been reported.6
1 Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID–19), World Health Organization, last visited
April 20, 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-
happen.
2 Coronavirus: COVID–19 Is Now Officially A Pandemic, WHO Says, NPR, Mar. 11, 2020,
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/11/814474930/coronavirus-covid-19-is-now-of-
ficially-a-pandemic-who-says.
3 First Travel-related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in United States, Centers for
Disease Control, Press Release, Jan. 21, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-
novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html.
4 CDC, Washington State Report First COVID–19 Death, Centers for Disease Control, Media
Statement, Feb. 29, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0229-COVID-19-first-
death.html.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
5 Johns Hopkins University, Coronavirus Resource Center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map.
6 Id.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
3

In response to the pandemic outbreak in the U.S., most states
and municipalities have taken action to slow the spread of the
virus, including ordering the closing of nonessential businesses and
issuing stay-at-home orders.7 At the federal level, the White House
and the CDC have issued social distancing guidance and rec-
ommendations for a phased reopening of states when conditions
improve.8 Currently, over twenty states, Washington, DC, Guam,
and Puerto Rico have ongoing stay-at-home orders and about 60
percent of the population, or roughly 199 million Americans, are
subject to stay-at-home restrictions.9
Ordering Americans to stay home and shuttering nonessential
businesses, while necessary to slow the spread of the virus and pre-
vent the outbreak from overwhelming the health care system, has
resulted in an economic slowdown and an historic rise in unem-
ployment. The current unemployment rate in the United States is
estimated to be over 14 percent.10 More than 36 million Americans
have applied for unemployment.11 This economic crisis has fueled
calls for states to begin easing restrictions to allow Americans to
return to work. So far, over two dozen states have eased restric-
tions and allowed certain businesses to reopen.12 However, Dr. An-
thony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, testified before that Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, warning that if states and
cities reopen prematurely there is a risk of spreading the outbreak
that ‘‘will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and
death that could be avoided but could even set you back on the
road to try to get economic recovery.’’ 13
In response to this ongoing public health emergency and eco-
nomic crisis, Congress has acted swiftly to get resources where they
are needed most. Already, Congress has passed four bills that have
been signed into law: the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response
Supplemental Appropriations Act, the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, and the Paycheck Protection and Healthcare En-
hancement Act. In part, these bills provide money for hospitals, es-
tablish a new loan program to encourage small businesses to keep
workers on the payroll, and provide stimulus checks directly to
Americans. These bills are just the first in what will be many steps
Congress takes as the nation faces one of the most serious health
and economic emergencies in over a century.

7 More states issue stay-at-home orders as coronavirus crisis escalates, Axios, Apr. 6, 2020,

https://www.axios.com/states-shelter-in-place-coronavirus-66e9987a-a674-42bc-8d3f-
070a1c0ee1a9.html.
8 Guidelines: Opening Up America Again, https://www.whitehouse.gov/openingamerica/.
9 A map of the US cities and states under lockdown—and those that are reopening, Business

Insider, May 8, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/us-map-stay-at-home-orders-lockdowns-
2020-3.
10 Department of Labor, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, https://

data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.
11 Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims, News Release, May 14, 2020, https://www.dol.gov/

ui/data.pdf/.
12 Supra note 9.
13 Fauci tells Congress that states face serious consequences if they reopen too quickly, CNN,

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
May 12, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/politics/anthony-fauci-congress-hearing/
index.html.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
4

Government institutions begin to work remotely
As social distancing and stay-at-home orders become the norm to
slow the spread of this pandemic, government institutions in the
United States, and throughout the world, have been forced to
rethink how they operate, including establishing procedures to
allow for remote voting to ensure they are able to pass legislation
required to respond to the ongoing pandemic.
For example, over a dozen state legislatures and the District of
Columbia have instituted some form of remote voting for members
during the COVID–19 pandemic. Arizona, California, Connecticut,
the District of Columbia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Or-
egon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington legislatures
have established remote voting by telephone, video conference, or
other electronic means. In addition, Arkansas, Kentucky, Okla-
homa, and Pennsylvania have instituted remote voting via proxy
for their members.
Many other countries have also implemented remote voting in
their legislatures, including Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, China,
Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Taiwan,
and the European Union Parliament. In addition, the legislatures
of France and New Zealand have utilized remote voting by proxy
during this pandemic.
Legislatures are not the only branches of government looking to
adopt remote proceedings to continue operations during the pan-
demic. The U.S. judicial system has also had to revamp how it op-
erates. ‘‘Federal circuit, district, and bankruptcy courts are uti-
lizing multiple audio and video conferencing technologies to host
oral arguments, initial appearances, preliminary hearings, arraign-
ments, misdemeanor sentencings, and other procedures re-
motely.’’ 14 The National Center for State Courts has recommended
that state courts restrict or end jury trials, generally suspend in-
person proceedings, and encourage or require teleconference and
videoconferences in lieu of hearings.15 In response, most state
courts have instituted such restrictions.16 Notably, for the first
time in its history, the United States Supreme Court began hearing
oral arguments by telephone in May.17
House of Representatives’ voting options during a pandemic
The pandemic is having a ripple effect across the United States,
impacting the lives and livelihoods of people in every Congressional
district. This is true for the Members representing those districts
as well. The operations of the House of Representatives have been
affected by social distancing, isolation, and stay-at-home orders
that have captured every corner of the nation, making travel to,
and physical attendance in, the House Chamber difficult. Since the
start of this pandemic, numerous Members of Congress have tested
14 Courts Deliver Justice Virtually Amid Coronavirus Outbreak, U.S. Courts, Apr. 8, 2020,
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/04/08/courts-deliver-justice-virtually-amid-coronavirus-out-
break.
15 Coronavirus and the courts, National Center for State Courts, https://www.ncsc.org/pan-
demic.
16 Id.
17 The Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments by Phone. The Public Can Listen In, NY Times,

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Apr. 13, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/politics/supreme-court-phone-arguments-
virus.html.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
5

positive for COVID–19 or have been forced to quarantine after ex-
posure to the virus.
With the House needing to vote on critical legislation to respond
to the pandemic, while at the same time being faced with the pros-
pect that many Members may not be able to leave isolation or trav-
el during the pandemic, on March 23, 2020, the House Committee
on Rules Majority Staff released a report entitled ‘‘Majority Staff
Report Examining Voting Options During the COVID–19 Pan-
demic.’’ 18 The report explored a number of voting options and out-
lined several factors to be considered before any remote voting plan
can be adopted in response to the limitations presented by the
virus. The report identified currently available voting options, in-
cluding passing legislation by unanimous consent, requiring Mem-
bers to return to the Capitol to take recorded votes while maintain-
ing social distancing, employing paired voting, and utilizing a pro-
visional quorum. The report also explored the potential to provide
for new rules to allow for enhanced unanimous consent (increasing
the number of Members required to object to a unanimous consent
agreement), proxy voting, and remote voting.
While every option presented unique advantages and disadvan-
tages, the report concluded that ‘‘[t]here is currently no perfect so-
lution to allow absent Members to vote on the floor. However,
proxy voting is likely the best of the options available under the
circumstances.’’ 19
In addition to the Committee on Rules Majority Staff report ana-
lyzing voting options, on April 22, the Virtual Congress Task Force
was formed.20 This bipartisan Task Force, comprised of the Major-
ity and Minority Leaders, as well as the Chairs and Ranking Mem-
bers of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on House Ad-
ministration, examined ways Congress could better adapt to emer-
gencies like the coronavirus pandemic. This examination, com-
prised of several meetings and discussions, included not just re-
mote voting options, but also remote committee proceedings and
the technology involved.
Temporary remote voting by proxy during the pandemic
Based on the findings of the March 23 report, the work of the
Virtual Congress Task Force, and after consultation with Members
and outside experts, Rules Committee Chairman McGovern intro-
duced H. Res. 965, providing for a temporary voting system permit-
ting Members of the House of Representatives to vote remotely by
proxy during the COVID–19 pandemic. Pursuant to this resolution,
any Member could provide specific instructions for each vote to a
fellow Member who is present in the chamber and has been author-
ized to cast those votes on their behalf. A Member casting a vote
on behalf of another Member would be required to have exact direc-
tion from the Member granting proxy on how to vote and would
have to follow that direction. There would be no ability to grant a
general proxy. Members granting proxy would have to direct each
18 Majority Staff Report Examining Voting Options During the COVID–19 Pandemic. Avail-
able at: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/StaffReport_VotingOptions
.pdf.
19 Id. at 5.
20 Chairman McGovern Releases Statement on Bipartisan Task Force, Press Release, Apr. 22,

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
2020, https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/chairman-mcgovern-releases-statement-bipartisan-
task-force.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
6

and every vote, with the Member casting the proxy vote acting
more as a voting machine under the direction of the Member grant-
ing proxy. In short, this resolution calls for temporary, low-tech re-
mote voting.
Importantly, proxy voting is not a novel concept in Congress. The
House permitted proxy voting in its committees for many decades
and the Senate still permits it in its committees today. This resolu-
tion authorizes remote voting by proxy that provides for a minimal
and ministerial type of delegation on the part of the Member grant-
ing proxy. Compared to other remote voting proposals, this more
conservative option will allow Members to vote remotely by proxy
in a secure way and provides Members an opportunity to vote on
critical COVID–19 response legislation much more quickly.
Constitutionality of remote voting by proxy
The Constitution explicitly grants the House and Senate the au-
thority to make their own ‘‘Rules of Proceedings.’’ 21 In addition,
the Supreme Court has twice, in cases from the 1890s, issued opin-
ions that provide solid grounds to believe that the House’s estab-
lishment of remote voting rules is consistent with its constitutional
authority.
In Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), the Supreme Court ruled
that challenges to the internal operation of Congress are not jus-
ticiable in the federal courts.22 In United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S.
1 (1892), the Court found that, while the Constitution requires the
presence of a majority—or quorum—of the House to do business,
the Constitution also leaves it to the House to determine its own
rules.23 The Court in Ballin went on to say:
[Congress] may not by its rules ignore constitutional re-
straints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be
a reasonable relation between the mode or method of pro-
ceeding established by the rule and the result which is
sought to be attained. But within these limitations, all
matters of method are open to the determination of the
house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that
some other way would be better, more accurate, or even
more just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that
a different one has been prescribed and in force for a
length of time. The power to make rules is not one which
once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, al-
ways subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the
limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge
of any other body or tribunal.24
Any constitutional analysis should also examine the rationale
and context in which the House is utilizing its expansive rule-
making authority to consider and implement H. Res. 965. This res-
olution allowing for remote voting by proxy is temporary and will
operate only while there is a very significant risk to public health.
Arguably, not establishing such a remote voting rule itself rep-
resents a risk to public health and safety. If Members must travel
21 Art. I, Sec. 5, Cl. 2.
22 143 U.S. 649 (1892).

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
23 144 U.S. 1,5 (1892).
24 Id at 5.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
7

to vote in the House Chamber it is not just themselves who are put
in danger—their families, their staffs, and all of the people they en-
counter—are unnecessarily endangered as well. In other words, the
remote voting by proxy plan established by H. Res. 965 does not
simply ensure the safety of the Members voting—it acts to safe-
guard all the people with whom they have contact, both during and
after their travel. Such travel risks presented by unnecessary trav-
el is precisely why virtually all state governors have implemented
orders against non-essential movement and interaction among the
general populace; these public safety policies make no less sense
when they are applied as well to Members of Congress.
Simply put, as Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned constitutional
scholar and Dean of the University of California, Berkeley School
of Law, has written, ‘‘[t]he Constitution bestows on each House of
Congress broad discretion to determine the rules for its own pro-
ceedings . . . This authority is expansive and would include the
ability to adopt a rule to permit proxy voting. Nothing in the Con-
stitution specifies otherwise.’’ 25
Given this analysis, remote voting by proxy is likely to withstand
constitutional scrutiny.
Study, determination, and certification of additional remote voting
technology
Remote voting by proxy is a necessary and immediately feasible
low-tech option allowing Members who are unable to be in the
House Chamber due to this pandemic to have their vote cast by a
Member who can be present. However, the immediate feasibility of
remote proxy voting does not mean that it necessarily represents
the final stage in remote voting. Remote proxy voting is a good first
step, but it still requires that some Members must be present in
the Chamber. As this pandemic evolves, such presence—even by a
small number of Members—may not be feasible due to potentially
worsening public health concerns. Scientists have predicted that a
second wave of the virus could severely impact our nation in the
coming months. Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Dis-
eases Control and Prevention, said last month, ‘‘There’s a possi-
bility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will
actually be even more difficult than the one we just went
through.’’ 26 Therefore, adopting additional remote voting proce-
dures incorporating more advanced technology may not only be
warranted, it may be required.
To ensure that the House is fully prepared to operate under such
a scenario, H. Res. 965 directs the chair of the Committee on
House Administration, in consultation with the ranking minority
member, to study the feasibility of using technology to conduct re-
mote voting in the House and to provide certification to the House
upon a determination that such operable and secure technology ex-
ists. After the certification, the Chair of the Rules Committee is di-
rected to issue regulations on the implementation of remote voting
and the Speaker is then authorized to notify the House that Mem-
25 Letter from Dean Chemerinsky to Chairman McGovern. May 13, 2020 (on file with the
Committee).
26 CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus is likely to be even more devastating, Wash.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Post, Apr. 21, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/21/coronavirus-secondwave-
cdcdirector/.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
8

bers may cast their votes remotely during this public health emer-
gency. By directing the study of remote voting technology, and then
laying out a procedure by which such technology may be imple-
mented, H. Res. 965 provides the House with the tools to begin vot-
ing entirely remotely should the need arise.
Failure to adequately study and prepare to execute the use of
more advanced technology to vote entirely remotely during this cri-
sis would not only hinder the House from operating should the sit-
uation deteriorate further.
Official remote committee hearings and markups
With trillions of taxpayer dollars being appropriated to combat
this virus, new programs being established to aid workers and
small businesses, and the Trump Administration attempting to ad-
dress the pandemic, the American people deserve, and the Con-
stitution requires, that the People’s representatives conduct over-
sight into our nation’s response. That means conducting oversight
hearings.
Additionally, while Congress works to respond to this pandemic,
other vitally important business impacting the United States, such
as funding the government and providing for the national defense,
continues to require the House’s attention. That means conducting
markups on these critical pieces of legislation.
While hearings and markups have typically been held in-person,
just as with remote voting, there is no constitutional requirement
to do so—and our nation is dealing with anything but typical cir-
cumstances. The same public health concerns that make it ex-
tremely difficult, if not impossible, for Members to travel to the
Capitol to vote are likewise present as an obstacle to conducting in-
person hearings and markups.
Failing to hold these committee proceedings is not an option.
Just as the millions of Americans have begun utilizing technology
such a videoconferencing to work remotely in response to wide-
spread stay-at-home orders, the work of the People’s House cannot
be shuttered in a time of crisis. Therefore, in addition to putting
in place a system of temporary remote proxy voting and author-
izing the study, certification, and implementation of technology to
further facilitate remote voting, this resolution also provides for the
ability of House committees to operate official proceedings re-
motely.
Importantly, in preparation for holding these virtual official pro-
ceedings, a number of committees have already held virtual forums
and briefings using videoconference technology. For example:
• The Veterans Affairs Committee held a full committee, bi-
partisan virtual forum on homelessness among veterans.
• The Small Business Committee held a full committee, bi-
partisan virtual forum on the implementation of the CARES
Act.
• The Foreign Affairs Committee held a full committee, bi-
partisan virtual briefing on authoritarianism, disinformation,
and good governance with former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright and other experts.
• The Education and Labor Committee held a full com-
mittee, bipartisan virtual forum on responding to the pan-

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
demic.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
9

• The Homeland Security Committee has held seven virtual
forums to hear from a range of experts, including former
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and former Homeland Se-
curity Secretary Jeh Johnson.
• The Natural Resources Committee has livestreamed four
forums on the coronavirus pandemic, including the impact on
longstanding environmental and economic inequalities in our
country and the federal response to coronavirus in the U.S. ter-
ritories.
Building on the lessons learned from these informal proceedings,
H. Res. 965 authorizes committees to begin holding remote official
proceedings, including hearings, markups, and depositions. Allow-
ing for these important official proceedings to be conducted re-
motely ensures that the Legislative Branch can continue to operate
fully on behalf of the American people during this public health cri-
sis.
Conclusion
The United States is facing the worst pandemic since the Span-
ish Influenza of 1918. With over a million reported cases, tens of
thousands of lives lost, and tens of millions of Americans unem-
ployed and struggling to make ends meet, the House of Representa-
tives must continue operating to address the needs of the nation
during this crisis. This means that, within the authority granted
to it by the Constitution, the House must establish procedures to
enable the People’s representatives to pass critical relief legislation
and to conduct oversight of our nation’s response to this virus. The
temporary remote voting by proxy plan, procedures for remote offi-
cial committee proceedings, and study of the feasibility of tech-
nology to facilitate further remote voting by Members laid out in
this resolution achieves these goals.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Rules met on May 14, 2020, in open session
and ordered H. Res. 965 favorably reported to the House by a
record vote of 8 yeas and 4 nays, a quorum being present.
COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion
to report the legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr.
McGovern to report the resolution to the House with a favorable
recommendation was agreed to by a record vote of 8 yeas and 4
nays, a quorum being present. The names of Members voting for
and against follow:
Rules Committee record vote No. 303
Date: May 14, 2020
Motion to order H. Res. 965 reported favorably to the House.
Agreed to: 8–4
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Nay

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Yea Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Yea Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Nay

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
10
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Yea Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Nay
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Yea
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Yea
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Yea
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Yea

The committee also considered the following amendments on
which record votes were requested. The names of Members voting
for and against follow:
Rules Committee record vote No. 271
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 1) offered by Mr. Woodall to ensure the resolu-
tion doesn’t go into effect until the Clerk of the House certifies that
a system is in place for the secure receipt and validation of the des-
ignation of proxies by Members under this resolution. Defeated: 4–
6
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... ...................
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... ...................
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 272
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 2) offered by Mr. Cole to require the concur-
rence of the Minority Leader to designate a covered period. De-
feated: 4–7
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... ...................
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 273
Date: May 14, 2020.
Amendment (no. 3) offered by Mr. Cole to sunset the covered pe-
riod on June 30, 2020. The amendment also requires a two-thirds
vote to extend the covered period beyond June 30, 2020. Defeated:
4–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
11
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 274
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 4) offered by Mr. Woodall to strike the provi-
sions allowing Members to record the presence of other Members
who designated them as their proxy. Defeated: 4–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 275
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 5) offered by Mr. Woodall to require a report by
the General Counsel on defedning proxy voting against claims of
unconstitutionality. Defeated: 4–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 276
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 6) offered by Mr. Burgess to require the Com-
mittee on House Administration to submit a report analyzing the
accuracy and integrity of the votes cast by Members in the House,
including the votes cast by designated proxies under this resolu-
tion, and shall include in the report a description of any errors in
the votes cast by designated proxies under this resolution. The
Committee on House Administration shall submit this report not
later than 30 days after the end of the year. Defeated: 4–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
12
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 277
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 7) offered by Mr. Cole to limit measures for
which votes may be cast or presence recorded by proxy to measures
designated by the Speaker or her designee, in consultation with the
Minority Leader or his designee, as a response to the COVID–19
pandemic; any vote related to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX; any vote on a question unrelated to a specific
measure or matter; or a quorum call. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 278
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 8) offered by Mr. Woodall to prohibit a Member
from casting the vote or recording the presence of another Member
as a designated proxy with respect to any bill or resolution consid-
ered under the suspension of the rules, unless the bill or resolution
is designated by the Speaker or her designee, in consultation with
the Minority Leader or his designee, as a response to the COVID–
19 pandemic. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 279
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 9) offered by Mr. Cole to prohibit a Member
from casting a vote or recording the presence of another Member
as a designated proxy under this resolution with respect to any bill
or resolution which has not been reported by a committee of the

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
House. Defeated: 3–8

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
13
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 280
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 10) offered by Mrs. Lesko to prohibit a Member
from casting the vote or recording the presence of another Member
as a designated proxy under this resolution with respect to any bill
or resolution relating to impeachment, censure, or contempt. De-
feated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 281
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 11) offered by Mrs. Lesko to require the Com-
mittee on House Administration to reduce the amount available
under the Members’ Representational Allowance by the amount
which would have been paid from the Allowance for the Member’s
travel expenses if the Member casts a vote or records the presence
of another Member by proxy or attends a proceeding remotely at
any time during that fiscal year. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 282
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 13) offered by Mr. Cole to require the regula-
tions under Section 6 in the resolution to include a requirement
that, not later than 24 hours prior to the vote or quorum call in-
volved, the Speaker notify Members that votes may be cast or pres-

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
ence may be recorded by designated proxies. The amendment also

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
14

requires that these regulations include the establishment of min-
imum periods of time for the casting of votes and the recording of
presence by designated proxies, and a requirement for the use of
contingency plans which may be implemented in the event of fail-
ure of any technology to carry out sections 1, 2, or 3. Defeated: 3–
8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 283
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 14) offered by Mrs. Lesko to limit the number
of proxies any Member can hold to two. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 284
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 15) offered by Mrs. Lesko to strike section 4 of
this resolution, authorizing remote proceedings in committees. De-
feated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 285
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 16) offered by Mrs. Lesko to exclude the Com-
mittee on Ethics and the Permanent Select Committee on Intel-
ligence from the provisions authorizing remote proceedings in com-

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
mittees. Defeated: 3–8

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
15
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 286
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 17) offered by Mr. Cole to prohibit committee
members from recording their presence remotely. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 287
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 18) offered by Mr. Cole to strike ‘‘to the greatest
extent practicable’’ in the provision requiring committees to ensure
the ability of members to participate remotely to the greatest ex-
tent practicable. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 288
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 19) offered by Mrs. Lesko to ensure the guid-
ance referenced in section 4(h) outlines how the committee intends
to address specific time zones of members; how the committee in-
tends to address technological limitations that may exist that pre-
clude members from full participation in remote sessions; rules on
decorum including attire and how the chair would handle witnesses
and members who go over their time limit, and the muting of mem-
ber microphones; and how the chair plans to control platform ac-
cess, including providing the ranking member a list of those with
participatory access to the platform 24-hours in advance of the

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
scheduled committee meeting. Defeated: 3–8

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
16
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 289
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 20) offered by Mrs. Lesko to prohibit a com-
mittee from conducting a markup remotely. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 290
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 21) offered by Mrs. Lesko to prohibit a com-
mittee from taking depositions remotely. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 291
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 22) offered by Mr. Cole to create a point of order
against consideration of legislation reported by a committee under
any remote proceeding if the committee in marking up or reporting
the legislation violated any rule of the House, the committee, or
any provision of this resolution. It shall not be in order to consider
a rule or order that waives the application of this point of order.
Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
17
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 292
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 23) offered by Mr. Cole to require in the regula-
tions referenced in section 4(h) that the chair of a committee wish-
ing to conduct remote proceedings publish guidance in the Congres-
sional Record on how the chair intends to authenticate and vali-
date member participation. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 293
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 24) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that under
the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a committee
conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that members of the
committee have the right to offer a motion to adjourn and have the
right to offer a motion to postpone consideration. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 294
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 25) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that under
the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a committee
conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that members of the
committee have the right to demand words be taken down. De-
feated: 3–7
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
18
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Rules Committee record vote No. 295
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 26) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that under
the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a committee
conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that there is 7-day
notice before any hearing and 24-hour availability of such text of
any matter to be considered by the committee. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 296
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 27) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that,
under the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a com-
mittee conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that members
of the committee shall have the right to offer motions to appeal the
ruling of the chair. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 297
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 28) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that under
the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a committee
conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that members of the
committee have the right to offer second degree amendments, but
may not require the pre-filing of amendments. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
19
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 298
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 30) offered by Mrs. Lesko to require the chair
to notify the Members of the committee of the circumstances which
required a recess to be declared within 24 hours of recessing com-
mittee proceedings. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 299
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 31) offered by Mr. Woodall to require that under
the regulations referenced in section 4(h), the chair of a committee
conducting proceedings remotely shall ensure that Members have
access to dedicated technical support from the Chief Administrative
Officer during the proceedings. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 300
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 32) offered by Mr. Cole to require committees
to include in any report filed with the House with respect to any
proceeding conducted remotely a description of any issues arising
from conducting the proceeding remotely. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
20
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 301
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 33) offered by Mrs. Lesko to prohibit any com-
mittees from conducting remote proceedings until the Committee
on House Administration has submitted to the House a plan under
which committees will be able to make greater use of other facili-
ties in the United States Capitol Complex to conduct hearings and
markups in person. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

Rules Committee record vote No. 302
Date: May 14, 2020
Amendment (no. 34) offered by Mr. Woodall to amend section 5
to only require the chair of the Committee on House Administra-
tion, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to study
the feasibility of using technology to conduct remote voting in the
House. Defeated: 3–8
Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote

Mr. Hastings ..................................................... ................... Mr. Cole ........................................................... Yea
Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Perlmutter .................................................. Nay Mr. Burgess ..................................................... ...................
Mr. Raskin ........................................................ Nay Mrs. Lesko ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Scanlon ...................................................... Nay
Mr. Morelle ....................................................... Nay
Ms. Shalala ...................................................... Nay
Ms. Matsui ....................................................... Nay
Mr. McGovern, Chairman ................................. Nay

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) of rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
made oversight findings and recommendations that are reflected in
this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee establishes the following per-
formance related goals and objectives for this legislation:
This resolution authorizes remote voting by proxy in the House
of Representatives, provides for official remote committee pro-
ceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
coronavirus, and directs a study and certification of remote tech-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
21

nology to conduct remote voting in the House once such a system
is operable and secure. In doing so, this resolution ensures that the
House can function to its full constitutional and legislative ability
while taking the necessary precautions to protect against the public
health threat posed by a novel coronavirus. The resolution also em-
phasizes that the authority for Members to remote vote by proxy
and for committees to conduct remote proceedings is temporary and
limited to addressing the current public health crisis. The resolu-
tion authorizes the Speaker or her designee, in consultation with
the Minority Leader or his designee, to establish a 45-day period
during which a Member may authorize another Member to cast a
vote on their behalf or record their presence in the House at any
time that the Speaker is notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in con-
sultation with the Attending Physician, of a pandemic emergency
due to a novel coronavirus. But also, the resolution provides that
if during that 45-day period, the Speaker or her designee receive
further notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with
the Attending Physician, that the public health emergency due to
a novel coronavirus is no longer in effect, then the ability of a
Member to vote or record their presence remotely by proxy is ter-
minated as well as the authorization for remote committee pro-
ceedings.
To ensure that Members’ votes are cast accurately, the resolution
lays out the procedures for a Member to authorize another Member
to vote or record their presence on their behalf, to alter or revoke
such authorization, and on voting in the House Chamber while this
temporary voting system is in effect. Importantly, prior to casting
a vote, a Member designated as a proxy must obtain exact instruc-
tion from the Member wishing to vote remotely by proxy. A Mem-
ber whose vote is cast or whose presence is recorded by a des-
ignated proxy shall be counted for the purpose of establishing a
quorum. The resolution also clarifies that if a Member has des-
ignated another Member as their proxy, but the Member granting
proxy then casts their own vote in person, that Member shall be
considered to have revoked their proxy designation.
The resolution further authorizes remote proceedings in commit-
tees during the 45-day covered period, for Members to participate
remotely during such proceedings and to be counted for purposes
of establishing a quorum, and any chair or committee empowered
to issue and authorize subpoenas to do so for return at a hearing
or deposition conducted remotely. The resolution authorizes com-
mittees to hold official hearings, markups, and depositions re-
motely. Like the authorization allowing for remote proxy voting
during the covered period, if during that 45-day period, the Speak-
er or her designee receive further notification by the Sergeant-at-
Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, that the public
health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is no longer in effect,
then the ability of committees to hold remote official proceedings
is also terminated. This temporary authorization during a pan-
demic will allow committees to consider important legislation as
well as conduct their constitutional oversight duties.
Finally, the resolution directs the chair of the Committee on
House Administration, in consultation with the ranking minority
member, to study the feasibility of using technology to conduct re-

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
mote voting in the House and to provide certification to the House

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
22

upon a determination that such operable and secure technology ex-
ists; after such certification the chair of the Committee on Rules
shall submit regulations in the Congressional Record and the
Speaker is then authorized to notify the House that Members may
cast their votes remotely during the public health emergency period
covered by the resolution. This study, determination, certification,
and implementation of remote voting technology ensures that were
the pandemic situation to further deteriorate, making even a lim-
ited presence of Members in the House Chamber extremely dif-
ficult, the House will still be able to vote on critical legislation.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1: Authorization and time period for remote voting by proxy
Authorization—Authorizes the Speaker, in consultation with the
Minority Leader, to designate a 45-day period during which Mem-
bers may vote or record their presence remotely by proxy in the
House (not the Committee of the Whole), after the Speaker receives
notification from the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the
Attending Physician, that a pandemic emergency due to a novel
coronavirus is in effect.
Extension—Allows the Speaker, in consultation with the Minority
Leader, to extend the authority for an additional 45 days if the Ser-
geant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, noti-
fies the Speaker that the public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus remains in effect.
Early termination—Terminates the 45-day period early if the
Speaker is further notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consulta-
tion with the Attending Physician, that the pandemic emergency
due to a novel coronavirus is no longer in effect.
Section 2: Designating proxies
Signed letter—Requires a signed letter submitted to the Clerk
from any Member who wishes to vote by proxy naming the Member
who is authorized to serve as their proxy. The letter may be sub-
mitted in electronic form, including email. This letter will be used
by the Clerk to certify that a Member serving as proxy has the au-
thority to cast votes on behalf of the Member voting remotely by
proxy. It is the responsibility of the Members involved to ensure
that separately provided voting instruction, detailed below, is fol-
lowed.
Altering or revoking proxy—Allows Members to submit further
signed letters to the Clerk to alter or revoke their proxy, and auto-
matically revokes the proxy designation if a Member votes in-per-
son. These further letters may also be submitted in electronic form,
including email.
Notification—Requires the Clerk to notify the Speaker, Majority
Leader, Minority Leader, and the Member designated (and in the
case of an alteration, the Member formerly designated) as proxy of

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
any designation, alteration, or revocation of proxy.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
23

Proxy designation limitation—Limits the number of proxy des-
ignations a Member may hold to 10 at a time.
List of proxy designations—Requires the Clerk to maintain and
keep updated a list of all proxy designations, alterations, and rev-
ocations and to make that list publicly available electronically, in-
cluding available during any vote.
Section 3: Voting process
Yeas and nays—Provides that if a Member requests the yeas and
nays, a recorded vote, or makes a point of no quorum under clause
6 of rule XX, the yeas and nays will be considered as ordered (rath-
er than the chair first determining there is sufficient support), pre-
venting the need for large numbers of Members to gather in the
chamber to ensure a sufficient number to support their request.
Indicating proxy status—Requires Members who cast votes on be-
half of another Member to indicate that the vote is ‘‘by proxy’’ on
a ballot card.
Quorum—Provides that a Member whose votes are cast by proxy
are counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum in the House.
Proxy vote instructions—Requires that a Member voting on be-
half of another Member obtain an exact instruction with respect to
the specific vote or quorum call, to cast that vote pursuant to that
instruction, and is required to seek recognition from the Chair to
announce the exact instruction they received. If a Member casting
a proxy vote does not receive instructions from the Member grant-
ing the proxy then that Member may not cast the vote.
Section 4: Remote committee proceedings
Authorization—Provides that during the 45-day period des-
ignated by the Speaker under section 1, notwithstanding any rule
of the House or its committees, committees may conduct pro-
ceedings (hearings, markups, or any other official business) re-
motely pursuant to the provisions of section 4 and the regulations
authorized by section 4, and those proceedings will be considered
as official proceedings. This authorization does not prevent commit-
tees from being able to use official resources to hold unofficial re-
mote forums and roundtables.
Remote participation—Allows committee Members to participate
remotely during in-person committee proceedings and state that
the committee must, to the greatest extent practicable, ensure that
Members can participate remotely. This authorization does not
mean that a committee is prohibited from holding a remote pro-
ceeding unless all Members are able to participate remotely or that
a committee is required to procure technology for members to par-
ticipate remotely. Instead, it requires committees to provide Mem-
bers who wish to participate remotely the opportunity to do so, but
anticipates that in rare circumstances technological issues may
prevent committees from ensuring remote participation.
Voting—Provides that committee Members may vote or record
their presence remotely.
Quorum—Provides that committee Members participating re-
motely shall be counted for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Witnesses—Allows witnesses to appear remotely.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
24

Designating ‘‘place’’—Allows the committee chair to designate the
‘‘place’’ of a committee proceeding, satisfying the requirement of
clauses 2(g)(3) and 2(m)(1) of rule XI, as being conducted remotely.
Committee reports—Allows that reports of committees (including
those filed as privileged) may be delivered to the Clerk in electronic
form and written and signed supplemental, additional, and dis-
senting views may also be filed in electronic form with the clerk
of the committee.
Limitations on business meetings—Requires that before a com-
mittee holds a business meeting remotely or permits remote par-
ticipation in a business meeting for the first time, a majority mem-
ber of a committee must first submit a letter signed by a majority
of the members of the committee for printing in the Congressional
Record notifying the Speaker that the committee has complied with
regulations for remote committee proceedings submitted for print-
ing in the Congressional Record by the Rules Committee chair ref-
erenced in subsection (h) and that the committee is prepared to
conduct a remote business meeting and permit remote participation
during that meeting. Importantly, ensuring members can partici-
pate remotely pursuant to section 4(a)(2) does not mean that com-
mittees must allow remote participation in a markup if they have
not completed the requirements found in the regulations referenced
in subsection (h).
Remote proceedings—Provides that remote participants shall not
be considered absent; that during remote committee proceedings
the chair may declare a recess to address any technical difficulties;
and that the requirement that the result of any recorded vote be
made available by the committee in its offices (clause 2(e)(1)(B)(i)
of rule XI) shall not apply.
Submitted or written documents—Allows for copies of motions,
amendments, measures, or other documents submitted to the com-
mittee electronically pursuant to the regulations referred to in sub-
section (h) to satisfy any submission requirement for such docu-
ments under the rules of the House or its committees.
Amendment consideration—Provides that during a remote busi-
ness meeting the committee may manage the consideration of
amendments pursuant to regulations referred to in subsection (h).
Witness counsel—Permits the attendance of counsel for any wit-
ness appearing remotely before a committee in accordance with
regulations referred to in subsection (h).
Witness oaths—Allows an oath to be administered to a witness
remotely.
Transparency for meetings and hearings—Provides that any re-
mote committee meeting or hearing conducted in accordance with
regulations referred to in subsection (h) shall be considered open to
the public.
Subpoenas—Provides that any committee or chair empowered to
authorize and issue subpoenas may authorize and issue subpoenas
for return at a hearing or deposition conducted remotely. During
this period, authorized and issued subpoenas may be signed elec-
tronically and the Clerk may attest and affix the seal of the House
to such subpoenas electronically.
Executive session—Prohibits a committee from conducting a
closed or executive session proceeding remotely. If during a remote

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
proceeding a motion by a Member to go into closed or executive ses-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
25

sion is adopted, then the chair shall recess the meeting with re-
spect to such matter until the proceeding can be reconvened in per-
son. This prohibition on remote closed proceedings does not apply
to the Committee on Ethics.
Regulations—Subsection (h) provides that this section shall be
carried out in accordance with regulations submitted for printing
in the Congressional Record by the Rules Committee chair. Con-
sistent with past grants of regulatory authority to the chair of the
Committee on Rules, this authority is not limited to a single sub-
mission of regulations.
Application—‘‘Committee’’ includes select committees and sub-
committees.
Section 5: Study on remote participation
Study and certification of remote voting technology—Requires the
chair of the Committee on House Administration, in consultation
with the ranking minority member, to study the feasibility of using
technology to conduct remote voting in the House and to provide
certification to the House upon a determination that such operable
and secure technology exists.
Implementation of remote voting technology—Following certifi-
cation by the chair of the Committee on House Administration, the
chair of the Committee on Rules, in consultation with the ranking
minority member, will submit regulations for printing in the Con-
gressional Record that provide for implementation of remote voting
in the House. After submission of these regulations, the Speaker is
authorized to notify the House that Members may cast their votes
or record their presence remotely.
Section 6: Regulations
Remote voting regulations—Provides that sections 1, 2, and 3 (re-
mote voting by proxy) shall be carried out in accordance with regu-
lations submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Rules Committee chair, to the greatest extent practicable. Con-
sistent with past grants of regulatory authority to the chair of the
Committee on Rules, this authority is not limited to a single sub-
mission of regulations.
CHANGES IN EXISTING HOUSE RULES MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS
REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(g) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that this resolution
does not propose to repeal or amend a standing rule of the House.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
DISSENTING VIEWS
The American people expect its elected Representatives to lead
by example and continue to govern during these times, especially
when we ask health care workers, grocery store clerks, and other
front-line workers to keep going to work every single day. At the
same time, we also recognize that changes to the way the House
normally operates during a pandemic are appropriate. But a pan-
demic does not mean we should throw out 230 years of House prac-
tice and the Constitution. In fact, our founders faced many of the
same questions we face today when they drafted the Constitution.
Travel was long and dangerous, especially during a time of war.
Proxy voting is something they easily could have implemented, and
its omission leads us to conclude that they chose to draft the Con-
stitution without providing for proxy voting. They knew the value
of a Congress—a coming together of people and ideas—and there-
fore demanded physical presence to further us as an institution.
Before even addressing the Majority’s proposal, it is critical to
understand the process that led to this potentially flawed and defi-
cient product. When Democrats were entrusted with the Majority
in 2019, they promised things would be different. They instituted
rules changes that would ensure regular order, such as ensuring
committee hearings and markups before legislation would be con-
sidered by the Rules Committee and the House.
While these provisions made for good sound bites, the Majority
has waived the rule requiring a markup on 5 bills and has foregone
hearings on 7 House resolutions so far this Congress. And it is
deeply disappointing that on such a fundamentally important piece
of legislation, which changes how this House has operated for more
than 230 years, the Majority has yet again failed to hold proper
hearings and take testimony from witnesses. To be fair, this Com-
mittee did hold one unofficial, virtual roundtable discussion, lim-
ited to one hour, where Members were asked to limit themselves
to one question a piece from two panelists. Such a consequential
change certainly merits more than one hour of discussion and de-
serves hearings in all committees that would be impacted, espe-
cially the Committee on House Administration and the Committee
on the Judiciary. While we appreciate the Committee holding this
hearing and markup, they are certainly not designed to find com-
mon ground and develop a bipartisan proposal. As Chairman
McGovern once stated ‘‘. . . usually when you have a lousy process,
you have a lousy bill.’’ The process for consideration of this resolu-
tion has certainly been lousy and it is apparent in the product,
which is riddled with both serious constitutional concerns and prac-
tical implementation issues.
We must make one point abundantly clear: this measure fails to
pass constitutional muster in every regard. While the Constitu-
tional limitations on the power of Congress may be inconvenient to
(26)

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
27

some with a desired policy outcome in mind, it is, nevertheless; the
fundamental question that every Member of Congress must ask be-
fore casting a vote on this or any measure. The Majority has failed
to provide sufficient Constitutional basis for this substantial
change to the core functions of Congress, and as such, jeopardizes
the legitimacy of the passage of any future legislation. There are
constitutional options before the House, and should the Majority
alter their partisan and short-sighted crusade, we would gladly ex-
plore these options with them in a bipartisan and expeditious man-
ner.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution demands physical presence for
Congress to perform core legislating functions. Physical presence is
required for Congress to establish a ‘‘quorum’’ to conduct business
(Art. 1, Sec. 5, Cl. 1); and in regards to ‘‘meeting’’ (Art. I, Sec. 4,
Cl. 2), ‘‘assembling’’ (Art. I, Sec. 4, Cl. 2), and ‘‘attendance’’ (Art.
I, Sec. 5, Cl. 1). The Constitution grants each Member the right to
request for ‘‘the yeas and nays’’’ and requires a recorded vote on
any question ‘‘at the desire of one fifth present’’ (Art. 1, Sec. 5, Cl.
3). While the Majority may have novel arguments regarding the re-
definition of presence, such an argument is inconsistent with the
text of the Constitution and commonsense. In 1892 the Supreme
Court ruled in U.S. v. Ballin that the House of Representatives
lacks the authority to set rules that ignore constitutional re-
straints, the relevant restraint in the matter before us being that
of physical presence.
The Constitution provides that ‘‘a majority of each
[house} shall constitute a quorum to do business.’’ In other
words, when a majority are present the house is in a posi-
tion to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then
established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and
does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action, of
any single member or fraction of the majority present. All
that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority,
and when that majority are present the power of the house
arises’’ (emphasis added).
As we referenced above, the Constitution requires Congress to
assemble at least once a year and, as required, Congress has con-
sistently physically gathered in a single location to conduct busi-
ness. We can turn to The Federalist Papers for more color on this
requirement. In Federalist No. 14, James Madison argued that ‘‘the
natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which
will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be
necessary for the administration of public affairs.’’
In Federalist No. 53, Madison, in arguing in favor of two-year
terms for Members of the House, noted that ‘‘[t]he distance which
many of the representatives will be obliged to travel, and the ar-
rangements rendered necessary by that circumstance, might be
much more serious objections with fit men to this service, if limited
to a single year, than if extended to two years.’’
The Constitution and the words of the founders leave no room to
contemplate a scenario other than Members of Congress assem-
bling and meeting in person in one location. There is simply no
room in the constitutional confines of our government for Members

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
28

of the House of Representatives to meet in multiple or virtual loca-
tions.
For those who find these arguments unpersuasive or the call to
preserve the integrity of the Constitution too theoretical to demand
our fidelity, we urge them to carefully consider this warning: if any
Member casts their vote on passage of a measure without being
physical present in the chamber, it would raise the specter of ille-
gitimacy of the final action taken by the House. A Member who dis-
agrees with a potential change to the House rules could attempt to
challenge the change in the courts, or a member of the public who
is adversely affected by any law while the House is operating re-
motely could similarly allege that the law was not instituted
through constitutional means. Both scenarios would damage the
House as an institution and depending on the legislation in ques-
tion, have far-reaching economic consequences.
The confines of the Constitution are not so rigid as to prevent
Members of this body from finding a path forward that would allow
for safe and effective governing. We urge the Majority to embrace
Constitutional certainty and abandon this flawed proposal.
In addition to the serious Constitutional challenges contemplated
by this resolution, it has the potential to fundamentally alter how
the House operates. While the resolution only addresses proxy vot-
ing in the context of the current pandemic, relaxation of what it
means to be incapacitated as an institution is a legitimate concern.
So, while this proposal may be confined to the current crisis, it
opens the door to allowing proxy voting in other circumstances—
like fly-in days—because of the inconvenience of travel or weather-
related incidents.
Proxy voting fundamentally undermines the role of Congress.
Congress is derived from Latin words meaning ‘‘a coming together
of people’’ and ‘‘to meet with; to fight with.’’ Proxy voting removes
that personal element of Congress. Instead of a free-flowing debate
and exchange of ideas, proxy voting further serves to entrench
one’s own view and eliminates the interaction with different ideas.
Some have argued that the polarization of our Congress is due
in no small part to Members spending less time working out dif-
ferences in face-to-face settings and failing to develop personal rela-
tionships with those across the aisle. If that is the case, the turn
to proxy voting will only further exacerbate the polarization of Con-
gress to the detriment of the American people.
Beyond the Constitutional and institutional implications, there
are practical concerns with the Majority’s proposal. These could
have been further explored through a series of hearings; however,
the Majority seems determined on pushing this proposal through
as expeditiously as possible.
Rather than providing Members certainty and clarification, the
Majority’s resolution instead generates a series of questions about
how their proxy voting scheme will operate: questions that must be
answered before a monumental proposal like this should be imple-
mented. The Electronic Voting System (EVS) underwent three
years of testing before it was fully implemented; yet, the Majority
seems to think proxy voting can be implemented with the flip of
a switch. In discussions with the Office of the Clerk, we remain

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
29

concerned about the ability and of the Clerk’s office to authenticate
and certify the grantor of the proxy in real time.
Additionally, there are a series of questions generated by intro-
duction of a proxy like addressing the situation of a Member who
is unable to unable to find a willing proxy. This may occur for a
multitude of reasons, including a Member taking a different posi-
tion than their potential proxy. Beyond this, since House Rules
only prescribe a minimum time for voting, it is unclear how the
Majority’s proposal would ensure that all Members have an oppor-
tunity to inform their proxy on how they wish to vote before the
Chair closes a vote, especially on an unanticipated vote.
Instead of moving forward with this resolution, the Majority
would do well to use any of the many existing tools at the House’s
disposal. We note at least three potential alternatives that would
allow the House to proceed with business, while not trampling the
Constitution or the institution.
First, the House could use the approach it did during the 1918
Spanish Flu, where the House continued to operate by unanimous
consent. The Majority should truly consider what legislation will be
considered under their proxy voting scheme. We hope it will con-
tinue to be legislation that is broadly bipartisan, which has both
Senate and White House support. In that scenario, it makes sense
that unanimous consent is the appropriate approach to take. If,
however, the Majority is intending to undertake partisan legisla-
tion that has no chance of becoming law, their current approach,
which seeks to leverage their slim majority, makes sense.
Second, the House could continue to operate as it did for the vote
on the CARES Act. This would maintain appropriate safeguards
recommended by both the Office of the Attending Physician and
the House Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure the safety of all Members
and staff. Additional precautions could be implemented, if desired,
to further protect the safety of all Members and staff.
Third, the House could avail itself of Rule XX, clause 5, which
provides for the establishment of a provisional quorum in the event
of a catastrophic event. The rule specifically contemplates use of
this procedure in the event of ‘‘catastrophic circumstances involving
natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering
Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the
House’’ (emphasis added). This rules change was implemented after
the 9/11 attacks on a bipartisan basis four years after consider-
ation, not one month. Any of these tools should be used before cre-
ating more extraordinary, constitutionally untested processes.
The second major provision included in this resolution is more
notable for what is absent from it than from what it contains.
While this resolution purports to provide committees with the au-
thority to operate remotely, it provides no specific details on how
committees are to accomplish this objective. It is critical that many
of the real technological challenges are addressed prior to imple-
mentation of any remote operations by committees.
Serious implementation challenges exist to ensuring that com-
mittees are able to function remotely, first and foremost being the
issue of cybersecurity. The House is subject to more than 1.6 mil-
lion cyberattacks per month and currently, there are no House au-
thorized products which would allow committees to meet securely.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
30

Many of the existing platforms that committees have used thus far
have significant vulnerability issues that could be exploited, should
the Majority continue down this path.
Additionally, this resolution makes no effort to ensure the protec-
tion of the rights of the Minority or hold the chairs of committees
accountable for adhering to the rules of the House and guaran-
teeing equal participation by all committee members. Under this
resolution, Members of Congress wishing to exercise their constitu-
tional responsibilities can only do so to the extent allowed by the
chair. It remains troubling that there are no details as to how re-
mote committee operations will function under this resolution. How
a chair will dispense of motions, how a chair will ensure any mem-
ber retains the right to offer amendments at any time, how the rul-
ing of the chair may be appealed—these are just a few of the ques-
tions that have gone unanswered by the Majority. We are con-
cerned that this resolution not only consolidates for the chair the
legislative power belonging to all members of the committee, but
provides no recourse or mechanism whereby committee chairmen
are held accountable to their fellow members and the American
people for actions that disserve democracy and violate the rules of
the House. It should be noted that we have raised on numerous oc-
casions specific instances where this Majority’s chairmen have
failed to follow their own committee rules and the rules of the
House. Although it comes as no surprise since this Majority seems
to be more interested in expediting its partisan liberal agenda than
preserving the integrity of the legislative process and any sem-
blance of bipartisanship.
Beyond these concerns, there are practical challenges that must
be addressed. In a remote committee markup, how will amend-
ments be distributed? Given that some committees have time zone
differentials of 22 hours, how will committee activities be sched-
uled? How will a committee ensure all Members can attend and
participate when broadband internet access, especially in rural and
remote areas, can be limited? These questions deserve more than
a cursory glance in a Rules Committee hearing and markup.
As if the first four sections of this resolution didn’t go far enough
to upend the integrity and transparency of the proceedings of this
body, Section 5 places the future of remote voting in the House of
Representatives in the hands of one individual: the chair of the
Committee on House Administration. The gravity of this language
cannot be overstated. Remote voting fundamentally alters what it
means to be the People’s House and to make such a lasting and ca-
tastrophe change through a report issued by one person should
cause every American pause. Transparency, vote integrity, and
equal participation cannot exist if the House moves from a physical
location to the virtual ether. We shudder to think of the implica-
tions of this move on an already hyper-partisan environment. Bi-
partisanship—the overcoming of barriers—relies on the organic
forming of relationships through physical human connection and
conversation and a change of this magnitude demands more
thought than a casually written page and a half of legislative text.
There was potential for there to be bipartisan agreement on how
to address current and future pandemics. And as we’ve expressed
previously, we would like nothing more than to find a way to work

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
31

with our colleagues in the Majority to address some of these real
issues. Sadly, the Majority’s dedication to circumventing the stand-
ing rules that have existed from the first Congress leaves little
room for deliberation and discussion. Making fundamental changes
to how the House operates should be done in a thoughtful man-
ner—not simply as a reaction to an emergent need and an oppor-
tunity to consolidate power and diminish the rights of the minority
party.
TOM COLE.
ROB WOODALL.
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, MD
DEBBIE LESKO.

dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 May 19, 2020 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420

File and source

File: CRPT_crpt-116hrpt420_crpt-116hrpt420.pdf
Size: 266,983 bytes
SHA-256: 537a150275361a1c675a8f093818fc63b5922d57a46846c5f06f56f793b643c5
Our copy: CRPT_crpt-116hrpt420_crpt-116hrpt420.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov