Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 92 (Friday, May 15, 2020)

[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 92 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2007-H2019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 965, AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING
BY PROXY AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DURING
A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL CORONAVIRUS; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6800, HEALTH AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY OMNIBUS
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS ACT; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD
FROM MAY 19, 2020, THROUGH JULY 21, 2020; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 967 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 967

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 965)
authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of
Representatives and providing for official remote committee
proceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered

[[Page H2008]]

on the resolution to adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House without intervention of any
question of consideration the bill (H.R. 6800) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during
consideration of the bill. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
first two sections of this resolution--
(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion (except as expressly provided herein), resolution,
question, or notice; and
(b) the Chair may decline to entertain the question of
consideration.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from May
19, 2020, through July 21, 2020--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 6. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 8. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or
legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
Sec. 9. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.
Sec. 10. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July, 2020.
Sec. 11. It shall be in order at any time through the
calendar day of July 19, 2020, for the Speaker to entertain
motions that the House suspend the rules as though under
clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 12. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of July 21, 2020.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, yesterday, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 967, providing for
consideration of H. Res. 965, authorizing remote voting by proxy in the
House of Representatives and providing for official remote committee
proceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus
resolution; and H.R. 6800, the HEROES Act.
Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met for over 9 hours. While there
are strong disagreements between Democrats and Republicans on these
matters, I want to say that the proceedings were civil, and I
appreciate that very much.
I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Cole, for the tone that he
set, not only yesterday, but in all of our hearings on issues where we
have common ground and on issues where we disagree.
The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 965 under a closed
rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules and
provides that upon adoption of the rule it shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order to consider the resolution.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6800 under a
closed rule, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lowey,
provides 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and one
motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides
that upon adoption of the rule, it shall be in order to consider the
bill in the House without intervention of any question of
consideration.
Finally, the rule provides suspension authority through July 19,
2020, and same-day authority and recess instructions both through July
21, 2020.
Madam Speaker, let me begin with a snapshot of what we are seeing in
America today: a novel coronavirus that has infected more than 1.4
million people in this country and has taken the lives of close to
90,000 Americans already; more than 20 million jobs lost in the last
month; communities asked to stay home; businesses closed; an
unemployment rate that stands at 14 percent and growing; lines for food
banks that stretch for miles; and first responders working to the bone
to save lives.
People are struggling, Madam Speaker. We haven't seen numbers like
this since the Great Depression. This situation demands a whole-of-
government response that matches the challenges that we face.
I am proud that this Congress has come together on multiple bills
that provide trillions of dollars in emergency aid. We knew then that
although those bills were a large investment, they were just the first
step in our response.
This rule will allow for consideration of the HEROES Act, a
comprehensive response to further help the American people. This bill
is named after the teachers, healthcare workers, and first responders
who keep us all safe. It puts these heroes front and center by
providing more than $1 trillion for States and localities to give them
the pay that they have earned.
The bill also establishes a Heroes Fund totaling $200 billion so that
the essential workers who have risked their lives during this pandemic
get the hazard pay that they deserve.
There is another $75 billion for coronavirus testing, treatment, and
tracing.
There is support here for workers, renters, homeowners, and small
businesses.
This legislation also protects our democracy by providing resources
to ensure safe Federal elections, an accurate Census count, and a
Postal Service that can continue its vital work.
I am especially proud to see provisions here to fight the growing
hunger crisis in America. That includes many of the ideas behind the
bipartisan, bicameral FEED Act, and a separate 15 percent increase in
the maximum benefit under SNAP, our Nation's premier antihunger
program. More than 40 million people relied on this program even before
this pandemic hit. So when people say they want to get back to normal,
I want to get back to better than normal because having 40 million
people in this country hungry even before this pandemic is
unconscionable. We need to do better.
Today, we see lines for food banks across the country that go for
miles and miles. Parking lots are so full at some of these places that
they look like some kind of gathering for a major sporting event.
Instead, it is people just trying to secure their next meal. This is
happening in the richest country on the face of the Earth, a country

[[Page H2009]]

whose President, by the way, was trying to weaken SNAP and slash its
benefits before COVID-19 hit. If he succeeded, that would have thrown
millions and millions of poor people off the program.
People are suffering, Madam Speaker. But just this week, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called this bill a messaging exercise.
I don't give a damn about sending a message, Madam Speaker. I want to
send help to those in desperate need.
As we act on this bill today, we are also moving forward as part of
this rule with temporary changes to ensure that Congress can continue
legislating throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. That includes enabling
virtual committee proceedings and remote voting on the House floor
during this emergency.
I don't suggest these changes lightly. I still believe that we do our
best work in person and side by side. But we must temporarily embrace
technology during this unprecedented time, the same way local
governments and countries around the world have, so we can continue
legislating as safely as possible.

{time} 0915

Madam Speaker, the status quo has become dangerous and unacceptable.
We must act. Let's meet this moment. Let's honor our heroes, and let's
make sure that we can act throughout this pandemic.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule that provides for
consideration of two items.
Today's rule establishes a process for consideration of H.R. 6800,
what the majority is calling the HEROES Act, but what is better
described as an 1800-page, $3 trillion Democratic list of policy
priorities.
The rule proposes the most consequential change in the rules of the
House of Representatives during my time in Congress. The change to the
House rules covers two key areas:
First, it would impose, for the first time in our history as an
institution, a system of proxy voting on the floor of the House of
Representatives. That change also allows for the adoption of totally
remote voting upon the certification of a single Member of Congress,
Chairman Lofgren, of a technology for that use.
Second, it would also allow committees to operate remotely and
approve legislation remotely.
Madam Speaker, I said quite a bit about these rules changes at our
committee meeting yesterday, and I continue to stand by those comments.
I believe these changes will fundamentally alter the nature of the
institution, and not for the better. We must never forget that the
House is part of a Congress--literally, a physical meeting between
delegates.
When we move to acting remotely, we lose that fundamental aspect of
our character. We lose the opportunity to meet together, discuss ideas,
discuss legislation, and move forward together on bills that shape our
Nation. And we do so in a way that does not, in my view, pass
constitutional muster.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these rules changes
today and return to the drawing board so that we can act together in a
bipartisan manner to ensure that Congress can continue to operate
during this crisis.
Not to be outdone with attempting to change the fundamental nature of
the House of Representatives, in today's rule, the majority is
proposing an enormous bill that will fundamentally change the nature of
our country.
H.R. 6800, which we saw for the first time on Tuesday afternoon, is
1800 pages long. While we do not yet have a CBO score, the majority is
purporting that the bill includes spending in excess of $3 trillion.
And to make matters worse, the bill was assembled with only Democratic
input. It is not a stretch to say that this bill is nothing more than
Democratic policy agenda masquerading as a response to the coronavirus
crisis.
Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that this bill is going
nowhere, and it is going nowhere fast. The Senate will not consider
this bill. The President will not sign it into law.
Why we are wasting what precious little time that the Speaker is
allowing us to be assembled here at the Capitol on partisan policy
priorities of one party instead of working together in a bipartisan
manner is beyond my understanding.
What is even more surprising is how quickly the majority wants to
move on a bill of this magnitude. Just 6 weeks ago, Congress passed,
and the President signed into law, the CARES Act, a bill that provided
over $2.3 billion for coronavirus relief efforts. And just 2 weeks ago,
we passed another bipartisan bill that provided an additional $500
billion in relief. Some of the money from these two bills hasn't even
been spent yet. But now, Democrats are falling all over themselves to
spend another $3 trillion on their own priorities. It is simply
astonishing.
Let me be clear of one thing, Madam Speaker: Republicans in the
House, in the Senate, and in the White House stand ready to work with
Democrats to pass another bipartisan coronavirus relief bill at the
appropriate time and after the normal give-and-take of serious
negotiation. That bill, when it comes, will be very different in scope
and detail from what we are considering here today.
Consider just a few of the provisions in H.R. 6800:
$3 trillion in spending;
Nearly $10,000 for every American;
A controversial bailout of multiemployer pension plans;
Forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt per person;
Federalizing the national election system;
Changing credit scoring models and banning debt collection;
Requiring nationwide vote by mail and same-day registration.
I could go on and on and on, but I think everyone gets the picture.
So much of what is in this bill simply has nothing at all to do with
the current crisis. It is more like a liberal Christmas card wish list.
Madam Speaker, it would make more sense, in my view, to just send it
straight to Santa Clause than to send it to the United States Senate.
It would have a better chance of becoming law that way.
Madam Speaker, this doesn't make sense. If the majority actually
wants to help Americans, there are plenty of bipartisan ways to do so.
We could be focusing our efforts on legislation to combat the pandemic,
to get people back to work, and to restore the economy, but instead we
have been handed 1800 pages and over $3 trillion in Democratic
priorities that they would be pursuing regardless of the pandemic. We
can do better than that; and, frankly, Madam Speaker, recently, we have
done better than that.
I remind my friends that we actually considered and passed, on a
bipartisan basis, four relief bills with almost no partisan dissent.
Those bills were negotiated before they ever arrived on the floor of
this body. We should return to that method and that system. It yielded
real results for the American people. What we have got today will not.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 965 was mentioned, and some
questions were raised about constitutional issues.
Madam Speaker, we have consulted with several constitutional
scholars: Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned constitutional expert and
dean of the Berkeley School of Law; Deborah Pearlstein, constitutional
law professor from Cardozo School of Law and former clerk to Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens; Sai Prakkash, a constitutional law
professor from the University of Virginia and former clerk to the late
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia--all of whom have found that the
House has the constitutional authority to institute remote voting by
proxy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui), and also a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.
The public health challenge this country faces is unprecedented in
modern American life, and we have an obligation to respond in kind.

[[Page H2010]]

The administration's response to this pandemic and the implementation
of bipartisan legislation providing trillions of dollars in support
require meaningful oversight. As our public health experts continue to
recommend social distancing, this rule will allow the House to execute
its constitutional obligations in a way that respects their advice and
limits the spread of COVID-19.
I also am here to support the HEROES Act. The additional funding
included in this bill is needed immediately.
The HEROES Act builds upon the progress of our previous bills by
providing nearly $1 trillion for State and local governments to pay
healthcare workers, police, fire, teachers, transit workers, and other
essential personnel.
It also increases flexibility in the PPP to help small businesses use
money in a way that makes sense for them. I have heard from restaurants
and small businesses across Sacramento that these changes are needed,
and I am glad that this bill responds directly to their concerns.
And to contain the virus, the HEROES Act provides additional
resources for testing, tracing, and isolation, and ensures every
American has access to free coronavirus treatment, covers the cost of
COBRA premiums for 9 months, and opens up special enrollment periods
for ACA exchanges and Medicare.
As we come to fully appreciate the scale and severity of this
pandemic, it is clear that additional support is necessary to prevent
more deaths and job losses.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to supporting this bill and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles from
distinguished constitutional scholars at the Congressional Institute
that do raise questions about the constitutionality of the proposed
rules changes.

[From congressionalinstitute.org, May 13, 2020]

The Quorum, the Constitutional Convention, and the Coronavirus: Some
Questions

The coronavirus pandemic has led some to call on Congress
to continue its operations while Members are dispersed
throughout the country. H. Res. 965 authorizes the Speaker to
allow Members to vote by proxy when the Sergeant-at-Arms
notifies her that there is a public health emergency due to
the coronavirus. Conceivably, this means that a only minority
of the Members will be present in the Chamber when conducting
business. On the face of it, that would violate Article I,
Section 5, of the Constitution, which requires a majority of
Members to do business. To get insulate the votes against
constitutional challenges, H. Res. 965 stipulates that proxy
votes would count towards a quorum. This, however, would
still seem to violate the intent of the Framers of the U.S.
Constitution.

What does the Constitution say about quorums in Congress?

Article I, Section 5, of the U.S. Constitution sets forth a
requirement that a majority of the Members of either House of
Congress must be present for it to conduct business:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to
compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and
under such Penalties as each House may provide.

what did the delegates to the constitutional convention say about the
quorum?

The current form of the quorum clause was the subject of
debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The Committee of Detail was a group of delegates entrusted
with devising a draft constitution that reflected the
delegates' agreements. On August 6, 1787, it reported a draft
that said ``a majority of members'' would ``constitute a
quorum to do business,'' though ``a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day.'' Unlike the Constitution that was
ratified, the Committee of Detail did not include a provision
allowing for the ``smaller Number'' to ``compel the
Attendance of absent Members'' or penalize those who were
missing.
On August 10, the delegates debated the Committee of
Detail's quorum requirement. Two important concerns emerged.
If the quorum were too high, it could prevent the majority
from being able to transact business. If it were too low--or
could be manipulated to be lowered--it would allow a small
group of people to impose their will upon others.
According to James Madison's Notes of Debates in the
Federal Convention of 1787, some delegates advocated granting
the Legislature complete or partial discretion in setting a
quorum:
John Francis Mercer of Maryland proposed following the
example of Great Britain, where Parliament could determine
its own quorum. There, he said, ``the requisite number is
small & no inconveniency has been experienced.''
Gouverneur Morris of New York proposed setting the quorum
at 33 Representatives and 14 Senators. This would initially
be a majority for each Chamber, though it would be less than
a majority as Members were added. Congress, he thought,
should have a relatively low quorum since it would prevent a
small group of people from withholding a quorum, which would
be a particular risk when ``a particular part of the
Continent may be in need of immediate aid.''
Rufus King of Massachusetts proposed initially setting the
quorum at 33 Representatives and 14 Senators, but allowing
Congress to increase the numbers as it saw fit. As the number
of Members increased, a majority quorum would be
``cumbersome.''
Other delegates feared that a low quorum would allow small
groups to make laws for the rest of the country:
Elbridge Gerry, also of Massachusetts, proposed that for
the House the quorum should be no less than 33 and no more
than 50, with the Legislature free to select a number within
these bounds. A quorum of 33 in the House, Gerry said, would
allow as few as two states to make laws for the rest.
George Mason of Virginia said the majority quorum provision
was a ``valuable & necessary part of the plan.'' In fact, he
was concerned that a mere majority would allow people to
object to the plan as a whole. He reasoned that with a lower
quorum, states closer to the seat of government could make
laws favorable to themselves in the absence of more distant
states. ``If the Legislature should be able to reduce the
number at all, it might reduce it as low as it pleased & the
U. States might be governed by a Juncto,'' he said.
The delegates considered and overwhelmingly rejected King's
motion that the Constitution set a minimum of 33
Representatives and 14 Senators while the number to be
increased by law. Only the Massachusetts and Delaware
delegations favored King's plan.
James Madison and Edmund Randolph, both of Virginia, moved
to amend the draft by inserting a provision allowing for each
House to summon and penalize absent Members. All the state
delegations except for Pennsylvania supported this amendment.
In fact, the Pennsylvania delegation was divided on the
question. Then the delegations unanimously approved the
majority quorum provision, as amended, and it is this version
that made its way into the U.S. Constitution.

would proxy votes satisfy the constitutional requirement for a quorum?

It is clear that the delegates considered the possibility
of quorums of consisting of a minority of the Members and
rejected this option in favor of a majority quorum. That is
beyond dispute. What is disputed is whether proxy votes
counting towards a quorum would pass constitutional muster.
Even though the Constitution allows each House to determine
its rules of procedure (Article I, section 5), proxy votes
counting towards quorum seem to run contrary to the intent of
the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.
Proxy voting was certainly possible in the time of the
Constitutional Convention. For instance, absentee or proxy
voting was not unknown in the colonies. Yet, apparently, the
suggestion was not raised at the Convention. One should be
careful not to infer too much from silence, but one
possibility is that the delegates did not consider that the
Congress would ever ``meet'' by proxy. In fact, proxy voting
would have settled some of the problems delegates on both
sides of the issues raised. If proxy voting were permissible,
then the distant states could have more easily defended
themselves by stationing a member at the capital, armed with
proxies of their absent colleagues. By the same token, those
who feared that a small number could obstruct business by
collecting proxy votes from others who shared their concerns.
No one, apparently, raised proxy voting as a solution for
issues with the quorum; rather, both sides seemingly operated
under the assumption that a physical presence was necessary
for participation in Congress.
If proxy votes were to count towards a quorum, the
Randolph-Madison amendment would be a redundancy. Since the
amendment allows each House to ``compel the Attendance of
absent Members,'' it is predicated on the notion that a
physical presence is necessary for Congress to conduct its
business. If a physical presence were not necessary, it would
be unnecessary to ``compel the Attendance of absent
Members.'' Nor would there be any reason to penalize them for
failing to show. However, the states nearly unanimously voted
to include this provision in the Constitution, highlighting
the importance of a physical presence at the Constitutional
Convention.
The Framers' concern over the dangers of small numbers of
Members of Congress transacting business in the absence of
the majority of their colleagues is as valid today as it was
in 1787. It is true that the coronavirus pandemic presents
great difficulties to Congress, and both Chambers have shown
that they can still conduct business without violating
constitutional safeguards. As much as Congress needs to look
to

[[Page H2011]]

the here-and-now, it also must look to the future. In the
long-run, the inperson presence of Members of Congress is
absolutely vital to the strength of the Legislature, and no
amount of proxy votes may substitute for it.
____

Voting Present by Proxy is an Unconstitutional Oxymoron

The Constitution leaves a great deal of leeway to the House
and Senate for establishing their own rules of procedure. But
one provision is absolutely clear: in both chambers, a quorum
is required to do business. And a quorum is defined as a
majoritiy of its members.
Article 1, section 5, of the U.S. Constitution states:

a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do
Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,
and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent
Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each
House may provide.

If a physical presence were not necessary, it would be
unnecessary to ``compel the Attendance of absent Members.''
Although proxy voting was possible at the time of the
Constitutional Convention, the participants spent long days
waiting for their colleagues to arrive to conduct business in
person. Being physically present does make for an inefficient
system, but that's what the Founders intended--they did not
intend to make it easy to reach consensus and govern. The
constitutional provision for the quorum was designed to
protect the public.
Quorums are not self-enforcing. So a quorum is assumed
unless it questioned by a Member. That is why the House
carries on non-controversial business even when it is evident
that only a few Members are on the Floor. To conduct business
such as voting, however, a quorum can be demanded by any
Member through a point of order. Once demanded, the House
cannot conduct any business--even a request to withdraw the
call to quorum--until a quorum is attained. This protects the
minority party. Once a party tries to take action beyond what
has been agreed to by consensus, the other side can quickly
shut that down by raising an objection to the lack of quorum.
If a quorum cannot be achieved, under the Constitution, the
only business allowed is a motion to adjourn.
This raises a question of whether the House can change its
rules of procedures to allow proxy votes to count towards a
quorum. Besides the oxymoronic notion that a member could
vote ``present by proxy,'' the House's precedents argue
against it.
Proxy voting has never been allowed or even considered on
the House Floor. But proxy voting has, from time to time,
been allowed in Committees. Even though it has been banned
since 1995, the House has established precedents for how
proxy voting was treated in prior Congresses.
While Members who were absent could give their proxy to
another Member on the Committee, allowing their votes to be
counted, Deschler's Precedents shows that the ``no measure is
to be reported from any committee unless a majority of the
committee was actually present when the measure was ordered
reported.'' This echoes Cannon's Precedents, a previous
compilation of the precedents, which states:

Recognition of voting proxies by standing committees is a
matter to be respectively determined by each committee for
itself, but proxies may not be counted to make a quorum.

In other words, when allowed, Committees could count proxy
votes, but they first had to have a majority of actual people
attending or none of the votes would count.
It might be possible for the House to change the rules to
allow proxy voting, but only after attaining a physical
quorum. The one thing it cannot do under the Constitution and
under the House's own precedents is to allow those proxies to
count toward a physical quorum. So it might be possible that,
consistent with the Constitution, some proxy voting might be
allowed if there is a physical majority present for a vote.
House Rules Committee Chairman McGovern has stated his view
that Members who vote by proxy must give specific
instructions on how their votes would be recorded, and those
instructions should be printed in the Congressional Record.
If done this way, where most Members were present, and only a
few were unable to make it to Washington, it would be similar
to a traditional courtesy of ``pairing votes.'' In the not-
so-distant past, ``vote pairing'' would occur when a Member
who was voting opposite of the absent Member withheld their
vote and announced a pair with the absent member, thus
offsetting each other's vote. In today's highly polarized
Congress, such courtesies are rare, which might indicate the
need for an updated system.
The one thing that Congress cannot allow is the idea of
conducting controversial business with only a small number of
Members present. It is understandable why the House
Democratic leadership wants to put this rule in place since
we are in the midst of a pandemic. At the same time,
political leaders cannot simply ignore constitutional
requirements or proper parliamentary forms to resolve the
issues. Congress is, by definition, the gathering of people
together to solve issues. This cannot--and should not--be
done remotely.
Observers of Congress agree that one of the primary causes
of divisive partisan polarization is that Members no longer
form relationships and friendships. Back when Members met
five days a week instead of three, they moved their families
to Washington DC. Their kids went to school together, and
their spouses formed friendships with other spouses. It's
human nature to be much more civil to someone whose spouse is
friends with yours or whose kid is on your kid's soccer team.
Most importantly, legislators need to legislate. There is a
give and take created by amendments and debates that require
direct human interaction. Too little of that goes on now--how
much worse will it be if members are just ``emailing it in?''
Today, leaders from the House and Senate negotiate with the
President, and the other 533 legislators vote on their
agreement. That's not legislating.
Proxy voting might be more efficient than waiting for
everyone to physically get to Washington DC. But efficiency
was not a goal of the founding fathers. They wanted the
people's representatives to get together and work out
compromise and consensus. Isolated Members voting from remote
locations will further harm civility and undermine Congress'
already weakening place in the Constitution's balance of
power.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, a member of both
the Rules Committee and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Speaker, today's rule contains a resolution that will really
fundamentally change the proceedings of this House of Representatives.
Once that passes--and it will, because this House is ruled by the
majority--we will then take up a $3 trillion assistance bill.
It is not the first time this week that the majority Democrats have
trampled on the rights of the Republican minority. Allowing multiple
Members to vote by proxy does not seem like representative government.
I, for one, will not give away the vote of the people of the 26th
District to someone they did not elect. Governing is difficult, but we
sought the jobs and we need to get back to work.
Far too many American lives have been lost to the pandemic. This
novel coronavirus continues to wreak havoc on our healthcare, as well
as our economy. There are plenty of things we could have done in the
House on the Committee on Energy and Commerce during the last several
months which were undone.
We passed a bill called the Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness Act.
This was a good bill, and it was signed into law in June of 2019, 6
months before the pandemic started.
We could have had a realtime oversight of this bill that we had just
passed in the month of February ask the questions: Is it doing what we
thought? Are we achieving what we attempted to achieve with that bill?
Here is a realtime test, a stress test, but we chose not to do it. We
had hearings on flavored tobacco and horse racing instead.
In an effort to show what we should be working on, I wrote a series
of hearing request letters this week to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce Health Subcommittee chair, including work on the Strategic
National Stockpile, mental health, racial disparities, provider relief,
and testing. We should be working through authorizing committees to
improve our Nation's public health response to this pandemic.
State testing capacity has gotten substantially better, but we must
reflect on what went wrong so we make sure that it does not happen
again in the future.
I, frankly, do not understand what happened at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in the month of February of this year.
We have never really asked the question at the committee level. We
should have.
If we don't understand what went wrong, how do we prevent it from
happening again if the virus makes a resurgence, if some other virus
makes an appearance?
Congress, recognizing the importance of widespread diagnostic
testing, did take action to encourage the development of testing
strategies, and billions of dollars have been directed towards testing
in our four previous response bills. But now we are poised to push $3
trillion of taxpayer money out the door, and we should evaluate, we
should have the evaluation of what is the current state of our response
and our recovery, including our testing strategy.

[[Page H2012]]

Madam Speaker, we have to get this right for the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say, it is absolutely
ridiculous for anybody to suggest that, under the process that we are
advocating, somehow you are ``giving away'' your vote. There is no
discretion at all involved in the process that we are putting forward.
My colleague sat through hours of hearings yesterday. I would maybe
suggest that he reread the bill.
Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from law
professor Debra Pearlstein in response to Mr. Mark Strand's article,
which my ranking member just submitted for the Record.

CardozoLaw,

May 15, 2020.
Dear Chairman McGovern: I read with interest an article by
Mssrs. Mark Strand and Tim Lang introduced into the record
during yesterday's hearing of the House Rules Committee on H.
Res. 965--Authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of
Representatives. Having written elsewhere in detail about my
conviction that the rules change under consideration readily
passes constitutional muster, I am grateful for the
opportunity to explain why the Strand and Lang position fails
to persuade.
Mssrs. Strand and Lang offer no objection to the proxy
voting process as such, but rather argue that the
Constitution would permit votes by designated proxy only if a
quorum of Members is already physically present in the House
chamber as provided for under existing House rules. Their
objection is to the rule change proposed as part of H. Res.
965 that would allow Members voting by proxy to count toward
the establishment of a quorum ``to do business'' required by
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. The authors cite no
case law to support their view that the Constitution's Quorum
Clause requires Members' physical presence, relying instead
on two lines of argument: (1) the bare text of the Quorum
Clause, and (2) the interpretive claim that, because other
provisions of the Constitution refer to Members' ``presence''
or ``absence,'' it must be that the Quorum Clause itself must
be read to mandate physical presence. Neither argument is
persuasive.
In defining the scope of the quorum requirement, the Quorum
Clause itself says solely: ``a Majority of each shall
constitute a Quorum to do Business.'' The Clause does not
provide any method or test for determining the existence of a
majority. Neither does it define what measure each House must
use to establish the existence of a majority. The Clause
itself thus provides no basis for determining whether the
``majority'' must be, for example, ``a majority of Members
present,'' or ``a majority of Members elected,'' or ``a
majority of Members able to vote,'' or some other metric
altogether.
The authors must instead rely heavily on their interpretive
claim that, because other provisions of the Constitution
refer to Members' ``presence'' or ``absence,'' the Quorum
Clause itself must be read to include an implied requirement
of physical presence, as if the Clause had been written to
mandate ``a Majority of members present shall constitute a
Quorum.'' That is, of course, not what the Constitution says.
On the contrary, the absence of the word ``presence'' in the
Quorum Clause cuts as much against the authors' argument as
in its favor. The framers of the Constitution knew exactly
how to require ``presence'' when they wanted to; they do so,
for example, just a few lines earlier in the text, in Article
I, Section 3, providing: ``The Senate shall have the sole
power to try all impeachments . . . . [N]o person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the
members present.'' The failure to include such a requirement
in in the Quorum Clause, or indeed to modify or define the
Quorum Clause majority requirement in any way, suggests the
framers did not intend to include presence as such as part of
the quorum determination.
Particularly when coupled with the Clause immediately
following the Quorum Clause--according each House broad
discretion to ``determine the rules of its proceedings''--it
makes no sense to imagine the framers meant here to tie the
hands of future congresses from using what reasonable,
verifiable means might be available to adjust its procedures
to accommodate a crisis. On the contrary, as both judicial
opinion and the historical record referenced in my earlier
letter make clear, the House's discretion to adopt rules
reasonably adapted to suit changing circumstances is
precisely as broad as the Constitution's text suggests.
As ever, I thank you for your efforts, and for the
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Deborah N. Pearlstein,
Professor of Law.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will go into this later in much more
detail when we take up the resolution, but I would urge my colleagues
to read the response.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Shalala).

{time} 0930

Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
the underlying bills.
Madam Speaker, my office in Miami is not getting calls; we are
getting cries for help. My neighbors are scared of both a virus that
could kill them or their loved ones and worried about how they will
make their next rent or mortgage payment or buy groceries or when their
children will go back to school.
Today we vote on two bills. The first will allow Members of Congress
to do our jobs, as described by our chair, Mr. McGovern. The second
will provide desperately needed relief.
We have already passed four pieces of legislation to respond to the
pandemic which has killed more than 83,000 Americans. My friends and
neighbors in south Florida are suffering. The HEROES Act gives money to
my State, cities, and county that are shouldering both the economic and
health burdens of COVID-19.
Unless we do this, my county and cities and school board will not be
able to pay teachers or firefighters or police officers or transit
workers or even hire contact tracers to help get this virus under
control. This bill provides that and includes more money for SNAP and
additional economic impact payments of up to $6,000 per family.
The HEROES Act also provides needed funds for the Postal Service. The
Postal Service was founded in 1792. It is more critical than ever in
helping people safely access medications and food and cleaning supplies
and vote-by-mail ballots and more.
While the Senate may be here in D.C. whistling past the graveyard as
they confirm judicial nominees, we are working to get the American
people the help they desperately need. I urge all of my colleagues to
support these bills.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and member of both the Rules
Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, both bills under this rule are absolutely
terrible and should be rejected.
First of all, you have the proxy voting and remote voting. This has
never been done in the history of the United States--not during the
Civil War, not during previous pandemics, and we shouldn't do it now.
When you have nurses going to work, when you have grocery store workers
going to work, when you have everybody else going back to work, we are
setting a terrible example by saying: ``You don't have to show up to
work. Just give your voting card over to somebody else.'' It is
terrible.
And then when I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday
saying, ``Okay, if you don't show up to work, you don't get the travel
allowance in your MRA,'' that was rejected by every single Democrat
Member on the Rules Committee.
And then Speaker Pelosi's bill, I call it the Keep People Unemployed
Act, because that is what it is. It will incentivize people to stay
unemployed. It extends the $600-per-week unemployment payment through
January 31 of next year. It mandates all businesses continue the Family
Medical Paid Leave Act for another year, and it says that when you
apply for SNAP, food stamps, that the $600 per week that you are
getting doesn't count towards income. So now you are going to have
people that are sitting at home getting paid more than they did when
they worked and getting food stamps.
I already have businesses in my district that say we need to hire
back these people because Arizona is back open. They can't hire the
people because the people are getting paid more to sit at home.
In addition, it gives $1,200 to people that are here illegally. Why
are we not prioritizing U.S. citizens? It lets criminals who are
convicted of murder and rape, just because they are 50 years old or
older, out of prison. And it federalizes elections, mandating that
there is same-day voter registration and that everyone is mailed a
ballot.
This is a ridiculous bill in this combined rule, and I ask my Members
to vote ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, there is a lot that I could say, but let
me just say this: In the time of this incredible tragic health pandemic
and economic crisis, I don't think now is the time to kick poor people,
to beat up on people who are hungry in this country.

[[Page H2013]]

We ought to step forward, as the United States of America, the
richest country in the history of the world, and make sure that nobody
in our country goes hungry. It is shameful the way my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle demagogue this issue. It is shameful.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying rule
and the HEROES Act to provide stimulus checks to all taxpayers.
In April, I introduced H.R. 6438, the Leave No Taxpayer Behind Act,
so that hardworking, taxpaying immigrants, immigrants who work in our
fields to feed us on an everyday basis, also receive stimulus checks.
Thank you for including this measure in the HEROES Act, and I urge
passage of the HEROES Act.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend and the distinguished
ranking member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in
opposition to the underlying legislation, H. Res. 965.
The process that led to this debate is unacceptable. After a previous
failed attempt to bring a similar rules-change package to the floor
last month, I was hopeful that the work of the bipartisan task force to
reopen the House would result in a genuine willingness toward
bipartisan solutions. I was optimistic that our Democratic majority
would partner with us to help this body adapt to the coronavirus
pandemic.
We Republicans on that task force offered a realistic framework to
make responsible, measured, and thorough reforms to get the whole House
working again. That plan was dismissed out of hand by the
Democratic majority, with no alternative.

It was not until Wednesday morning, just two days ago, with the
release of H. Res. 965, that we saw any semblance of a plan, and in no
way was it a product of bipartisanship or greater Member input.
The majority's unwillingness to work in a collaborative way was
reinforced yesterday at the Rules Committee hearing when not one
commonsense amendment offered by the minority was accepted.
Commonsense amendments like: Requiring the technology used by the
House to be certified by the CAO; rejected.
Requiring technical support during virtual committee activity;
rejected.
Allowing the entire House of Representatives to weigh in on the type
of remote voting this body follows; rejected.
Not only is this resolution completely partisan, it is being rushed
to the floor while there is still an unacceptable amount of unanswered
questions, both on the specifics of the processes authorized in the
rules changes and the technology to support it.
I know that this morning, at 6 a.m., we were provided a copy of the
regulations that the Rules Committee plans on issuing. Is that the same
type of consultation that we can expect for the remote hearing changes
that are left to one Member of the majority to decide?
The House is on the receiving end of 1.6 billion unauthorized scans
on our network per month. After broadcasting to the world that Members
are going to now be able to cast their vote or operate in this
institution remotely, I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but I
expect those to increase.
What further reduces my confidence in these sweeping changes that
will not have their stated effect is the feedback from virtual
committee roundtables that have already been attempted by every
committee. There have been instances of the majority staff kicking
participants off video conferences because they had not RSVP'd.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of the concerns that
our ranking members have provided me on the House Administration
Committee.

[From Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis]

Republican Ranking Members Express Significant Concerns With Democrats
Proposal To Allow for Virtual Committee Proceedings

Virtual Committee Proceedings inhibit the ability of Members to fully
participate

Remote platforms give the majority, typically in the hands
of a junior technical staffer not even co-located with the
Chairman, the ability to control who can speak or even be
heard by other participants.
Other potential inhibitors could include a member's lack of
familiarity with the platform, lack of training, inadequate
resources (i.e., hardware, software, reception and
connectivity especially in rural areas), and user errors like
inadvertently pressing the mute button.
Virtual proceedings create an inability of Members to be
able to effectively interact and have conversations in person
with each other and with staff. Members won't have the same
opportunity to interact with each other in real-time that
they do with in person hearings. This puts the minority at a
distinct disadvantage because the majority controls the
content and the schedule. Minority strategy is always a last-
minute engagement and often is still forming as the hearing
begins.
Remote proceedings depend on the reliability various
technology elements. If anyone fails, members can't fully
participate.
Pre and post hearing engagement with witnesses, other
members, staff, and press will be lost. A lot of work is done
immediately before or after hearings in terms of connecting
with people. All of that time, connection, relationship
building will be gone.
Every Ranking Member who responded to a recent survey
expressed some level of concern over their members ability to
fully participate.

Virtual Committee Proceedings Raise Many Parliamentary Issues

Many rules aren't self-executing, and members may have
limited time to raise objections. Once the time has passed,
the opportunity is lost.
For example, a point of order regarding the germaneness of
an amendment must be made when the amendment is offered.
After reading the amendment is dispensed with, the
opportunity to object is lost.
The Majority already has demonstrated a great capacity to
ignore points of order, parliamentary inquiries, and
privileged motions. Since they will be controlling the
technology, how will Minority members ever get a chance to
even raise these procedural points?
It is unclear if current technologies have the capability
to have a clearly visible timer which will create challenges
enforcing time limits in a clear and transparent way.
Issues will arise without parliamentarians and counsels in
the room to advise on amendments, motions, objections, and
points of order.

Virtual Committee Proceedings Increase the Risk of the Politicization
of Official Committee Business

Traditionally, there is a clear separation between official
business and campaign work. This is particularly the case
immediately before the general election, when the House
generally takes about a month off to go campaign. This
creates an important break between official hearings and
legislative activity. With remote proceedings, there's less
reasons the majority couldn't respond to some less than
positive polling results by marking up newly introduced
legislation that could make an impact in key districts
leading up to an election.

Virtual Committee Proceedings Jeopardize the Integrity of Proceedings
and Raise Major Cybersecurity Concerns

Requiring Members to be present to vote ensure Members are
fully and transparently voting on their own volition. There
is no question of technological/cybersecurity problems
interfering with Members votes and there is no question as to
whether the vote was cast by the Member or by a third party.
Remote proceedings do not guarantee the same level of
transparency and accountability.

Experiences of Committees with Unofficial Virtual Committee Meetings so
far Lend Credence to these Concerns.

Over 80 percent of Committees who responded to a survey
responded that their committee had held unofficial committee
meetings virtually over the past couple of months. Those
meetings experienced numerous issues including:
People getting dropped or unable to unmute themselves in a
timely manner.
Majority staff kicking people off if their numbers were not
RSVP'd. This could be a concern in the future if Members or
staff call in from an unrecognizable or un-RSVP'd phone
number.
Members personal information almost released publicly due
to platforms displaying the phone numbers of people on the
call.
A Member who couldn't participate because of inadequate
internet connection.
Unauthorized individuals accessing a meeting.
One committee attempted to hold a roundtable and
experienced such significant technical glitches that called
into question whether the bipartisan roundtable could even
occur. It took some participants up to 30 minutes to join the
Cisco Webex video chat while others could join with only with
audio or never participate at all. Once connected, many
participants could not tell who was speaking or even
controlling the video or microphone settings. A third-party
moderator was unaware until the end of the call that typed
questions were being submitted by users throughout the
conference for speakers to answer.

[[Page H2014]]

For another committee, the technical issues have been so
bad that Member participation in recent calls has steadily
declined with less than 30 percent of the Committee's members
participating in the most recent virtual meeting.

Safeguards Must be Adopted to Ensure Minority Rights and Security of
any Official Committee Proceeding Held Virtually

There needs to be a backup method of communication,
independent of the primary platform, so that members can
contact the Chair directly in the event the platform fails.
There must be clear rules and conditions developed in a bi-
partisan way on control of audio/visual with respect to
rights of minority. An independent IT operator should be
mandatory for any remote proceedings. Video feeds should be
equally accessible by both parties to ensure that no one can
censor or edit official proceedings after the fact.
Members should not be forced to participate in committee
activity over a technology platform when they are capable and
willing to attend in person. Committees should always allow
Members to participate by simply showing up to a hearing room
in one of the House Office buildings.
All other House Rules should remain in effect. If
committees are unable to guarantee procedural safeguards in
the rules, they should not be permitted to use technology to
deny Members procedural protections.
Technology should permit staff work. Committee staff engage
in a lot of real-time work during hearings and markups. The
technology should facilitate some ability for committee staff
to continue to assist Members in ``real-time.''
There needs to be additional information on the security of
the platform to be used and assurances that each Member has
the connectivity needed to support the meetings.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, Members' personal
information on these roundtables has already been viewed publicly;
Members being dropped from platforms because of poor connections;
Members being unable to participate in web-based events due to poor
internet connections in rural areas. And the list goes on.
I mention these examples not to say that all virtual proceedings
cannot or should not be authorized, but I share these issues as further
proof that the ``crawl, walk, run'' approach is necessary to make sure
that virtual proceedings are done successfully.
In closing, I would like to reiterate what I shared at the Rules
Committee hearing yesterday. I want to encourage all of us to take a
step back. I want to make sure that we don't have a precedent set that
will create a brand-new process.
We are not here simply debating an outdated rule, Madam Speaker. We
are here debating what kind of institution we want the people's House
to be and the example that we want to set for the American people and
the rest of the world.
If we vote to adopt H. Res. 965, we are setting a new precedent that
will forever change the processes that are used in the House of
Representatives. It opens a Pandora's box, and it provides
constitutional risks. And in times of crisis, Americans should trust
their leaders. Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 965.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am disappointed with the gentleman's statement. He referred to a
failed attempt three weeks ago to deal with the issue of remote voting.
There was no failed amendment. We pulled the bill to have discussions
with Republicans about how we can move forward. That is why we did
that.
And then the gentleman refers to all of these amendments that were
brought up in the Rules Committee, commonsense amendments. Yeah,
amendments on everything, including abortion, immigration, airline
travel. But the gentleman knows full well that many of the suggestions
that the Republicans offered during our negotiations we took into
account and are part of this proposal.
So I don't know what the gentleman is talking about, but I will tell
you this: That kind of attitude, that commentary, doesn't bode well for
future negotiations.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, in all of our bills, virtually all the
money goes to bandage the economic wounds. We need a greater focus on
beating the disease. Workers need paid sick days so they will stay home
if they are sick, even if they work for an employer with under 50 or
over 500 employees.
The Defense Production Act needs to be amended so it can provide for
the licensing of new technology, and inventors need to be well
compensated if they invent something useful to attack the COVID virus.
We have provided money for testing, but only one-quarter of 1 percent
of the money we provide in this bill or prior bills has gone for
therapeutics, prophylaxes, and vaccines.
The clinical medical researchers of this country are sitting at home,
because virtually all non-COVID medical research has been suspended.
Let's put them to work. Let's learn more of the basic facts of COVID,
and let's test every reasonable combination of generic compounds at
every stage of the disease.
Yes, for a while, we can bind our economic wounds, but ultimately, we
need to beat the disease.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan), my good friend and ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, the Attorney General of
the United States said this: ``The Constitution is not suspended during
a crisis.'' Amen to that.
And guess who agreed with him, or at least used to agree with him?
Last month, April 9, the Speaker of the House said: ``There is a
constitutional requirement that we vote in person.'' But, oh, how that
has changed.
Today we are, in fact, suspending the Constitution. We are allowing
proxies to establish a quorum and do the business of the American
people. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this. In the Ballin
decision, the Court said Members have to be present by stating: ``All
that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when
that majority are present the power of the House arises.''
You have got to be there. Actually, you have got to be here. You have
got to be here to do the business of the people. You can't phone it in.
You can't mail it in. This bill would allow one Member to have 10
proxies in their back pocket. Think about that. 22 Members with 10
proxies in their back pocket could do the business of 330 million
people in this great country.
We all take an oath to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 of the
Constitution mandates that Congress must ``assemble at least once in
every year.'' That is when we start the session.
Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to physically congregate and
vote to change where it is going to sit; frankly, what is happening
today.
Section 5 also requires a recorded vote on any question at the desire
of one-fifth present.
Article I, Section 6 mandates and protects Members from arrest during
travel to and from their attendance at a session of their respective
House.
You would think if you could mail in your vote, the Constitution
wouldn't protect you on traveling to the vote. All of these provisions
envision Members physically traveling and being present at the seat of
the Federal Government.
As Mrs. Lesko said earlier, farmers are planting crops, truckers are
moving goods, grocers are stocking shelves, frontline healthcare
workers haven't missed a day. They can't phone it in. They can't mail
it in. They can't proxy their work in. They have to be there and do it,
and we should do the same.
The example this sends, the precedent this sets, is so darn wrong.
And I encourage a ``no'' vote on H. Res. 965.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

{time} 0945

Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the HEROES Act today
because our frontline workers, first responders, and community members
are rising to the occasion, and so must Congress.
We know we are living through an unprecedented crisis. If we fail to
redouble our efforts, the public health threat will grow, more jobs
will be permanently lost, additional small businesses will throw in the
towel, and cities and towns will go bust.
The conversations I have every day with mayors, hospital officials,
small business owners, and essential workers underscore why bold action
is immediately needed. I fought for a number of provisions in this bill
that are important to my constituents, including

[[Page H2015]]

aid to local government to sustain essential services; free coronavirus
testing, treatment, and vaccines for low-income individuals; expanded
tax credits for small businesses to keep workers on the job; and giving
our veterans a reprieve from VA debt collection.
No bill is perfect, but with bipartisan cooperation in the coming
days, we can deliver meaningful results. We can meet this moment
responsibly, ensure our communities are equipped to overcome this
virus, and allow our economy to safely get back on its feet.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to change to two-thirds the threshold required to
pass H. Res. 965, the resolution changing the rules of the House to
adopt a proxy voting procedure on the floor and to allow remote
proceedings.
Madam Speaker, changing the rule does require a two-thirds vote, and
that is what we are doing in this rule.
Madam Speaker, the rules change that H. Res. 965 contemplates has
simply never been utilized in the House of Representatives. We are
quite literally setting a new precedent that will guide us into the
future. Any change of this magnitude should only pass the House with
bipartisan consensus, and a two-thirds threshold is appropriate to
demonstrate whether or not such a drastic change and new precedent
actually meets this test.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me clarify for the Record that it
only takes a majority to change the rules. Democrats have changed the
rules with a majority. The Republicans have changed the rules with a
simple majority, not two-thirds.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), an effective and distinguished Member of this
House and the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, we convene today to pass a desperately
needed relief package that will provide nearly $3 trillion in economic
relief to frontline workers and families. I am proud to speak in favor
of the rule and in strong support of the underlying legislation, the
HEROES Act.
Like many of you, I continue to receive emails, letters, and phone
calls from constituents bearing the brunt of this administration's
disorganized response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
My constituents write: ``I have been denied unemployment even though
I have met every criterion. I am about to lose everything. Please help
me.''
They write: ``I am homeless. I was just laid off because the schools
are closing. I have my granddaughter with me. I need help.''
And they write: ``I am literally on my last $100 for food and have
already maxed out my credit cards. Please help. Please help. Please
help.''
Americans are afraid not just of how they are going to make ends meet
but whether they are going to make it through this pandemic at all.
Yet, this White House remains utterly disconnected from reality,
moving at every opportunity to reject science, sideline medical
experts, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done, even as
the COVID-19 pandemic tears our communities apart.
This week, President Trump said that ``we have prevailed,'' that ``we
are going to have one of the best years we have ever had,'' that we are
beginning to ``transition to greatness.'' The President of the United
States refers to over 80,000 dead Americans as a ``transition to
greatness''? I wish I could say that I was shocked, but I am not.
What we continue to witness is a catastrophe. Calling it anything
less does a great disservice to the millions of Americans who are
affected by this illness.
If there is to be any silver lining in these trying days, at this
exact moment, these public servants are working around the clock to
protect us.
Madam Speaker, I say to my constituents: We see you.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just briefly, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Florida, for being here. We all know he is fighting
bravely a very deadly disease, and it says a lot about his personal
courage and his commitment to service that he is here today. Madam
Speaker, it is good to have him on the floor of the House.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the ranking member of the
Education and Labor Committee.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Oklahoma for yielding.
Today is a dark day in the history of our country, and for that, I
rise in opposition to H. Res. 965, partisan legislation that would
upend more than 200 years of precedent and jeopardize the deliberative
process of the House of Representatives.

States have started reopening businesses, schools, and local
economies. Congress should be following suit. Yet, this is the first
time the House has come to semiregular order in over 2 weeks.
Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are holding the people's House
hostage. They would rather erect and prolong a partisan blockade
instead of doing the people's business in the open.
Members of Congress should not be on the sidelines. We can and should
get back to official business, especially committee work. Hearings and
markups are a critical function of the people's House.
Without passing ill-conceived legislation that jeopardizes our
democratic institution, the House proved 2 weeks ago, and again today,
that we can conduct business while following health guidelines. There
is no reason congressional committees can't do the same.
Sadly, the Democrats are using this pandemic to justify gutting the
Constitution and our practices, and it is disgraceful.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, it is good to see a Coloradan in the
chair. I rise today in support of the rule, the HEROES Act, and H. Res.
965.
Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman McGovern for his
leadership and his vision through this Congress and especially these
last difficult months.
COVID-19 has affected every corner of our country and the world. The
impact of the virus and the blow to our economy is massive, and
Congress must act with force and speed.
While some of my colleagues may argue that we are spending too much
money, these packages are a fraction of the losses we have suffered in
this country and around the world. I am proud the HEROES Act includes a
provision I introduced with Representative Joe Morelle to provide $500
billion for States to help them to respond to the crisis and to avoid
harmful cuts to law enforcement, firefighters, teachers, healthcare,
and others at a time when we can least afford it.
The HEROES Act also includes a $375 billion provision from fellow
Coloradan Joe Neguse for local, county, and municipal governments so
they can maintain critical services.
Another provision that I worked on is the inclusion of the bipartisan
SAFE Banking Act to provide legitimate cannabis businesses that are
legal under State laws access to the banking system. The bill passed
this body last fall with 321 votes, including 91 Republicans. Cannabis
businesses across the country have been deemed as essential during this
pandemic, and these businesses and their estimated 243,000 employees
deserve equity with other legal businesses.
The SAFE Banking Act would also address the increased health risk of
spreading COVID-19 on banknotes and coins, as well as the increased
public safety risk associated with this cash-only industry. At a
critical time, SAFE Banking will help protect jobs and encourage
lending in our communities.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the HEROES Act,
and I also encourage them to vote for

[[Page H2016]]

H. Res. 965. We had a spirited debate on this yesterday in the Rules
Committee, and the fact is that we cannot let Congress come to a
grinding halt, which is what I think some of my Republican colleagues
would like to have us do. I believe it is legislative malpractice if we
don't allow for remote voting during this pandemic.
Mr. McGovern has acknowledged this is a first step, and I hope we
continue discussions and eventually work on a permanent change to the
House rules to ensure Congress operates with speed through future
emergencies.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole) for yielding.
These are strange times. I saw my friend Alcee Hastings on the floor.
I wanted to sit down beside him and whisper in his ear like we would
have done when we gathered last year. I wanted to grab his hand and
tell him I have been praying for him. Now, he is gone, back off the
House floor and back into social distancing.
No one denies that these are unusual times, even dire times, that
require a substantial response. In many ways, what we are doing here
today isn't unusual. We have a majority in the U.S. House of
Representatives that will, in fact, jam through, on an almost party-
line vote, its agenda. That is not unusual.
We have a majority in the House that is going to implement its ideas
for rules changes in the House, even without a minority amendment. That
is not altogether unusual. But I have listened to colleague after
colleague come to the House floor and talk about the unusual times
that, I would argue, require an unusual response.
I feel a little empty today in what I usually enjoy as a Rules
Committee debate. I know how the Rules Committee goes, Madam Speaker.
There are nine members of the majority and four members of the
minority. The majority wins every vote, and not by a little, by a lot.
Your job, as a minority member on the Rules Committee, is to lose.
You go up there, and you lose every day. That is often the way the
House is when we are trying to put together a House position that is
going to go into negotiation.
But I have heard the sense of urgency that I know each of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle believes, and our sense of
urgency today doesn't allow us time to push a messaging bill across the
floor.
Madam Speaker, this is the single largest borrow-and-spend bill the
country has ever seen, and it included not one Republican amendment--
not one. The single largest rules change the House of Representatives
has seen in any of our lifetimes, and the underlying rules
change includes not one Republican amendment--not one.

I listened to my chairman, for whom I have great respect. Candidly,
with the small nature of the Rules Committee, we are able to develop
relationships that the entire institution is not able to develop. I
wish everybody on the House floor knew the gentleman from Massachusetts
as I believe I know the gentleman from Massachusetts. When he talks
about fighting hunger, when he talks about us doing better, he is
absolutely right and absolutely sincere. When he talks about people
suffering, when he talks about people in desperate need, he is
absolutely right and absolutely sincere.
When my friend from Florida, Ms. Shalala, said that she doesn't get
calls in her office but that she gets cries from desperate people for
help, I know that feeling because my office gets the same ones.
But that is not everything that is in this bill. This bill isn't all
testing. This bill isn't all hunger.
I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that said:
You know what? We are going to perpetuate the myth that we disagree on
everything in this institution. In a partisan way, let's divide this
1,800-page bill up. Let's divide it up into sections, and let's support
those things that we can support and oppose those things that we
oppose. Let's support hunger prevention and remediation. Let's support
food for children. Let's support testing for first responders. Let's do
those things.
Madam Speaker, this bill also repeals the SALT tax. It reinstitutes
the SALT tax deduction. This is not an idea that has come about in an
emergency. This is something we have been arguing about since 2017.
This is something the Ways and Means Committee acted on in an almost
purely partisan way in December. This is something the House acted on
in a purely partisan way in December, long before we were talking about
COVID.
This is a provision where 80 percent of Americans, the bottom 80
percent of all income-earning households, receive 4 cents out of every
dollar of this provision, 4 cents to the bottom 80 percent of
Americans. The top 5 percent of Americans, the top 5 percent of income
earners, receive 80 cents out of every dollar.
It is not an emergency. It is not COVID-related. It is not going to
the neediest of these. It is not a million-dollar provision. It is not
a billion-dollar provision. It is not a $10 billion provision. It is a
$200 billion provision tucked into this borrow-and-spend bill.
Madam Speaker, we don't disagree on serving those who need to be
served. We don't disagree on medical research. We don't disagree on
education. But we do have disagreements.
An 1,800-page bill, and I offered an amendment to say let's divide it
up into sections so we can support what we can support in a bipartisan
way and push through in a partisan way the things that we can't
support. It was denied.
There are times and places to have partisan debates, Madam Speaker.
Today is not one of them, and I reject the path that we are on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

{time} 1000

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity, and not an
opportunity that is an untread path as the path we are on today. We
have a well-tread path.
I will remind my colleagues, as we fight amongst ourselves on this
legislation, we have been to this floor already on COVID-related
measures in a bipartisan, partnership-negotiated way. Not once, not
twice, three times we have gone down that path.
For folks who are watching the debate today, Madam Speaker, I hope
they don't take away that we are divided when it comes to supporting
our constituency. I hope they don't take away that we are divided when
it comes to standing united on behalf of those families that cannot
stand for themselves in this tough time. And I hope, for my colleagues
who feel like they need to push a messaging bill through no matter
what, that they remember those times just a few short weeks ago where
we came together, where we stood together, largest change in American
history, largest bill, not one Republican amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, on March 1, Vermont had the lowest
unemployment rate in its history. Today, it has the highest
unemployment rate in its history. About one-third of Vermonters who
would like a job can't find a job.
The Federal Government is the only entity that has the fiscal
flexibility and the fiscal capacity to meet that need. We have to act.
This legislation would provide Vermont with over $2 billion for State
and local budgets. Absent that, the pain is going to be pressed,
pressed, pressed down into our firefighters, our teachers, and our
kids.
It has reforms to the Paycheck Protection Program so our restaurants
and our small businesses have a chance to make use of that, something
both sides want to happen.
It has $75 billion for testing, which is the path to getting on top
of this virus.
It provides funds to try to stabilize our institutions of higher
education that we must have on the other side of this virus.
There are differences, and we don't have the luxury of time for the
full debate all of us would prefer, but we must act, and we must act
now. If we make a mistake in how we proceed--and mistakes will be
made--it should be on the side of erring to do too much, not too
little.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.

[[Page H2017]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the HEROES Act, which meets urgent needs we are
facing in northern Illinois. This legislation invests in the testing,
tracing, and treatment we need to safely reopen our communities. It
supports the essential workers whose sacrifices and dedication are
keeping us safe and provides direct funding that will make a critical
difference for smaller communities. I am so proud it also includes my
bill to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for veterans and to help
survivors of domestic violence.
This bill is not perfect. We have more work to do, such as ensuring
affordable healthcare coverage for the tens of millions of Americans
who find it too expensive. But the HEROES Act will provide relief to
all of our communities, and we must pass it today.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to start by saluting Chairman McGovern, who has done such a
sensational job under adverse circumstances bringing us a new rule so
that we can maintain the continuity of the U.S. Congress.
We are bringing a rule forward today to allow for a very narrow
exception to allow for proxy voting in the coronavirus emergency, when
Members cannot get back to Washington, so we can continue the
absolutely vital and central work of Congress.
That work continues today with the HEROES Act, which will put
trillions of dollars into the heroes of America: the firefighters and
the cops, the teachers, the frontline health workers, the emergency
responders, the people who actually make America run. That is what the
HEROES Act is all about.
We hear a lot in Congress about how much people love the States and
the cities and the towns. Now is the chance to show it. Let's put our
money where our mouth is and support Americans who are struggling with
this crisis brought by the coronavirus and the mismanagement of the
disease from the very beginning, the mismanagement of our efforts to
fight it.
America, as Dr. Bright said yesterday, does not have a plan. We need
massive testing. We need vigilant contact tracing. We need coordination
of logistics rather than pitting the States against each other in a
ruthless competition for PPEs and for ventilators.
The U.S. Government, under our Constitution, should be coordinating
the national effort, not pilfering supplies from the States, much less
pitting the States against each other in a brutal competition.
The HEROES Act takes us in the right direction by putting billions of
dollars into the testing the population needs. A majority of the cases
of infectious transmission comes now from people who are asymptomatic
or presymptomatic.

The only way to deal with the disease and to put the coronavirus on
the run is to do mass testing, diligent contact tracing; and we have
got lots of people who can do it, because more than 35 million
Americans have been thrown out of work in this process.
Let's put millions of people to work being contact tracers. Let's
unify as a country. Let's show that America has the capacity and the
strength to operate under our system of federalism to put money into
the States and the counties and the cities to work together to stop the
disease and to win this major public health battle.
The HEROES Act is the way to go.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise for this big and bold For the People legislation.
We have been called back again into this great Chamber because we
can't quit living, because the world placed us here in unprecedented
times, not in control of this virus and events happening to us, but to
bring bold and big legislation for the people to speak to the human
conditions by creating a heroes fund to give frontline workers the
hazard pay they deserve, to make significant investments in State and
local governments, direct payments to families, fair elections,
housing, testing, contact tracing, and other priorities I proudly
support.
The bill also includes language that I have championed to put a
moratorium on consumer debt collection, to open up forgivable loans to
more nonprofits, ban the box for small business loans, and to make sure
that the smallest businesses can get a PPP loan, only to name a few.
I challenge my colleagues to join us and vote for this big and bold
bill. Americans deserve every penny of it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for one other speaker, but
I don't think he has arrived, so I am prepared to close.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for a spirited debate. We
certainly had one yesterday, and we had one again today, and I know we
will have one in a few minutes.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule. I oppose
both the change in House rules that is being proposed today, and I
oppose the massive and unwarranted 1,800-page, $3 trillion Democratic
wish list that the majority is proposing as well.
The rules changes that this resolution proposes will fundamentally
change the nature of the institution. I know that is not the intent of
my friends, but I think that is the impact of the rule.
I am deeply concerned with how these changes will actually work in
place, and I am concerned that we are doing so without regard to the
fact that a change like this is likely to lead to litigation and may
place in jeopardy legislation that we pass in a bipartisan manner.
After reaching a bipartisan agreement on $2.5 trillion in spending
over the last 6 weeks, the majority is now seeking to spend $3 trillion
more, regardless of the actual needs of the Nation and, frankly,
without any input from the Republican side of the aisle.
My friends talk about the urgency of the moment. I agree. This is an
urgent moment. But I also agree that we are going to have to work in a
bipartisan fashion to actually pass something. So if this makes my
friends feel better, that is fine; and if the intent is to set out a
negotiating position, I guess that is legitimate; but if you think this
is going to end up as law, you are sadly mistaken. The Senate has
already said it will not take up the bill. The President has already
said that, if it reaches his desk, he would veto it.
So let's do what we have done four times in a row: Sit down; work
together; craft a bipartisan bill. We have proven we can do it, and we
can do it again.
I am just mystified why my friends have felt the need to inject a
clearly partisan bill and think this is going to move us down the road
in the right direction. It is not. They are going to cement a lot of
Members in on both sides of the aisle to positions that will make it
more difficult to reach a common agreement when that is the appropriate
thing to do.
This really is an exercise in legislative futility. H.R. 6800 will
never become law. Democrats know that, and they are not going to be
able to jam it through.
So they can come down here and talk about it as much as they want,
and there are certainly some parts of it I could support, but as a
package, it is going nowhere, and it is not moving us toward a
solution.
I implore my colleagues to return to what they have done in the
previous four bills where we worked together, brought a product that
was bipartisan to the floor, and passed it overwhelmingly with almost
no dissent. That was the formula for success. The formula they are
pursuing now will not succeed. They know it will not succeed.
I have never been convinced as to why deliberately launching out
something you know won't pass is useful.

[[Page H2018]]

Both sides do it, by the way, from time to time. We have certainly done
it, so I don't want to suggest this is strictly a partisan exercise.
This bill will not succeed. I urge rejection of the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, let me begin by again thanking my colleague from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for the tone he set in the Rules Committee debate
yesterday and for his friendship and for always trying to be
constructive.
Madam Speaker, I began this debate by speaking about the challenge we
face today. And make no mistake, the list is long, but I have no doubt
the American people can rise to these challenges. They are resilient
and have shown again and again a perseverance that is no match for even
a global pandemic.
The question, quite frankly, is whether our elected officials are up
to these challenges; whether we are willing to rise above knee-jerk
partisanship of the moment and put what is best for our country and
this institution first ahead of the next great sound bite and before
the next election.
In all my time here, I have seen us do that again and again, whether
we face war or terrorism or natural disaster. I was proud of the way we
came together on prior coronavirus bills, too.
But I worry that something is changing on the other side. It is
deeply concerning to see the President throw up his hands and
essentially say, ``Enough.'' He has declared victory on testing,
despite it being out of reach for most Americans.
The Senate majority leader has essentially said he is hitting pause
on doing anything else related to this pandemic for the time being.
And there are some on the other side of this Chamber who want to
conduct business as usual around here as if nothing has changed. We
hear it today on the floor. Some Members get up and downplay this
pandemic like it is no big deal. It is like we are living in ``The
Twilight Zone.''
We are at the start of this pandemic, Madam Speaker, not the end, and
if we run into our respective partisan corners now, what example are we
setting? Things could get worse in the fall, and what then?
Madam Speaker, we need to act, and we need to act boldly and
immediately, and that includes passing this rule. It means passing the
HEROES Act, and it means making these temporary changes to allow for
virtual committee proceedings and remote floor voting during this
pandemic. This is what the moment requires.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 967

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 13. Notwithstanding any other section of this
resolution, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members
present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be required
on adoption of House Resolution 965.

{time} 1015

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 182, not voting 29, as follows:

[Roll No. 105]

YEAS--219

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Yarmuth

NAYS--182

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
Meuser
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--29

Carter (TX)
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Gonzalez (TX)
Granger
Hollingsworth
Huffman
Johnson (TX)
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Marchant
Marshall
McHenry
Mitchell
Napolitano
Ratcliffe
Rooney (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Shimkus
Stauber
Walorski
Wilson (FL)
Wright

{time} 1121

Mr. FULCHER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. BASS, PORTER, and OCASIO-CORTEZ changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote
No. 105. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Ordering the
Previous Question on H. Res. 965.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

May 15, 2020, on page H2018, the following appeared: Ms.
NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No.
105.

The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. NAPOLITANO.
Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 105.

========================= END NOTE =========================

[[Page H2019]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 199, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 106]

YEAS--207

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stanton
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Yarmuth

NAYS--199

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia (IL)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jayapal
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Tlaib
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--24

Carter (TX)
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Gonzalez (TX)
Granger
Johnson (TX)
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas
Marchant
Marshall
Mitchell
Napolitano
Ratcliffe
Rooney (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Shimkus
Walorski
Wilson (FL)
Wright

{time} 1228

Mr. GUEST changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. DINGELL changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote
No. 106. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Agreeing to
the Resolution H. Res. 965.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

May 15, 2020, on page H2019, the following appeared: Ms.
NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No.
106.

The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. NAPOLITANO.
Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 106.

========================= END NOTE =========================

____________________