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

[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 92 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2019-H2042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AUTHORIZING REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY AND PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL REMOTE
COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL
CORONAVIRUS

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 967, I call
up 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 967, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 965

Resolved,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF REMOTE VOTING BY PROXY DURING
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO NOVEL
CORONAVIRUS.

(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding rule III, at any time
after the Speaker or the Speaker's designee is notified by
the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending
Physician, that a public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus is in effect, the Speaker or the Speaker's
designee, in consultation with the Minority Leader or the
Minority Leader's designee, may designate a period (hereafter
in this resolution referred to as a ``covered period'')
during which a Member who is designated by another Member as
a proxy in accordance with section 2 may cast the vote of
such other Member or record the presence of such other Member
in the House.
(b) Length of Covered Period.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a covered period shall terminate 45 days after the
Speaker or the Speaker's designee designates such period.
(2) Extension.--If, during a covered period, the Speaker or
the Speaker's designee receives further notification from the
Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending
Physician, that the public health emergency due to a novel
coronavirus remains in effect, the Speaker or the Speaker's
designee, in consultation with the Minority Leader or the
Minority Leader's designee, may extend the covered period for
an additional 45 days.
(3) Early termination.--If, during a covered period, the
Speaker or the Speaker's designee receives further
notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with
the Attending Physician, that the public health emergency due
to a novel coronavirus is no longer in effect, the Speaker or
the Speaker's designee shall terminate the covered period.

SEC. 2. PROCESS FOR DESIGNATION OF PROXIES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Designation by signed letter.--In order for a Member to
designate another

[[Page H2020]]

Member as a proxy for purposes of section 1, the Member shall
submit to the Clerk a signed letter (which may be in
electronic form) specifying by name the Member who is
designated for such purposes.
(2) Alteration or revocation of designation.--
(A) In general.--At any time after submitting a letter to
designate a proxy under paragraph (1), a Member may submit to
the Clerk a signed letter (which may be in electronic form)
altering or revoking the designation.
(B) Automatic revocation upon casting of vote or recording
of presence.--If during a covered period, a Member who has
designated another Member as a proxy under this section casts
the Member's own vote or records the Member's own presence in
the House, the Member shall be considered to have revoked the
designation of any proxy under this subsection with respect
to such covered period.
(3) Notification.--Upon receipt of a letter submitted by a
Member pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2), the Clerk shall
notify the Speaker, the majority leader, the Minority Leader,
and the other Member or Members involved of the designation,
alteration, or revocation.
(4) Limitation.--A Member may not be designated as a proxy
under this section for more than 10 Members concurrently.
(b) Maintenance and Availability of List of Designations.--
The Clerk shall maintain an updated list of the designations,
alterations, and revocations submitted or in effect under
subsection (a), and shall make such list publicly available
in electronic form and available during any vote conducted
pursuant to section 3.

SEC. 3. PROCESS FOR VOTING DURING COVERED PERIODS.

(a) Recorded Votes Ordered.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding clause 6 of rule I, during
a covered period, the yeas and nays shall be considered as
ordered on any vote on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are requested, or which is objected to under clause 6 of
rule XX.
(2) Indications of proxy status.--In the case of a vote by
electronic device, a Member who casts a vote or records a
presence as a designated proxy for another Member under this
resolution shall do so by ballot card, indicating on the
ballot card ``by proxy''.
(b) Determination of Quorum.--Any Member whose vote is cast
or whose presence is recorded by a designated proxy under
this resolution shall be counted for the purpose of
establishing a quorum under the rules of the House.
(c) Instructions From Member Authorizing Proxy.--
(1) Receiving instructions.--Prior to casting the vote or
recording the presence of another Member as a designated
proxy under this resolution, the Member shall obtain an exact
instruction from the other Member with respect to such vote
or quorum call, in accordance with the regulations referred
to in section 6.
(2) Announcing instructions.--Immediately prior to casting
the vote or recording the presence of another Member as a
designated proxy under this resolution, the Member shall seek
recognition from the Chair to announce the intended vote or
recorded presence pursuant to the exact instruction received
from the other Member under paragraph (1).
(3) Following instructions.--A Member casting the vote or
recording the presence of another Member as a designated
proxy under this resolution shall cast such vote or record
such presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from
the other Member under paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZING REMOTE PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEES.

(a) Authorization.--During any covered period, and
notwithstanding any rule of the House or its committees--
(1) any committee may conduct proceedings remotely in
accordance with this section, and any such proceedings
conducted remotely shall be considered as official
proceedings for all purposes in the House;
(2) committee members may participate remotely during in-
person committee proceedings, and committees shall, to the
greatest extent practicable, ensure the ability of members to
participate remotely;
(3) committee members may cast a vote or record their
presence while participating remotely;
(4) committee members participating remotely pursuant to
this section shall be counted for the purpose of establishing
a quorum under the rules of the House and the committee;
(5) witnesses at committee proceedings may appear remotely;
(6) committee proceedings conducted remotely are deemed to
satisfy the requirement of a ``place'' for purposes of
clauses 2(g)(3) and 2(m)(1) of rule XI; and
(7) reports of committees (including those filed as
privileged) may be delivered to the Clerk in electronic form,
and written and signed views under clause 2(l) of rule XI may
be filed in electronic form with the clerk of the committee.
(b) Limitation on Business Meetings.--A committee shall not
conduct a meeting remotely or permit remote participation at
a meeting under this section until a member of the committee
submits for printing in the Congressional Record a letter
from a majority of the members of the committee notifying the
Speaker that the requirements for conducting a meeting in the
regulations referred to in subsection (h) have been met and
that the committee is prepared to conduct a remote meeting
and permit remote participation.
(c) Remote Proceedings.--Notwithstanding any rule of the
House or its committees, during proceedings conducted
remotely pursuant to this section--
(1) remote participation shall not be considered absence
for purposes of clause 5(c) of rule X or clause 2(d) of rule
XI;
(2) the chair may declare a recess subject to the call of
the chair at any time to address technical difficulties with
respect to such proceedings;
(3) copies of motions, amendments, measures, or other
documents submitted to the committee in electronic form as
prescribed by the regulations referred to in subsection (h)
shall satisfy any requirement for the submission of printed
or written documents under the rules of the House or its
committees;
(4) the requirement that results of recorded votes be made
available by the committee in its offices pursuant to clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI shall not apply;
(5) a committee may manage the consideration of amendments
pursuant to the regulations referred to in subsection (h);
(6) counsel shall be permitted to accompany witnesses at a
remote proceeding in accordance with the regulations referred
to in subsection (h); and
(7) an oath may be administered to a witness remotely for
purposes of clause 2(m)(2) of rule XI.
(d) Remote Participants During In-Person Proceedings.--All
relevant provisions of this section and the regulations
referred to in subsection (h) shall apply to committee
members participating remotely during in-person committee
proceedings held during any covered period.
(e) Transparency for Meetings and Hearings.--Any committee
meeting or hearing that is conducted remotely in accordance
with the regulations referred to in subsection (h)--
(1) shall be considered open to the public;
(2) shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement for
non-participatory attendance under clause 2(g)(2)(C) of rule
XI; and
(3) shall be deemed to satisfy all requirements for
broadcasting and audio and visual coverage under rule V,
clause 4 of rule XI, and accompanying committee rules.
(f) Subpoenas.--
(1) Authority.--Any committee or chair thereof empowered to
authorize and issue subpoenas may authorize and issue
subpoenas for return at a hearing or deposition to be
conducted remotely under this section.
(2) Use of electronic signature and seal.--During any
covered period, authorized and issued subpoenas may be signed
in electronic form; and the Clerk may attest and affix the
seal of the House to such subpoenas in electronic form.
(g) Executive Sessions.--
(1) Prohibition.--A committee may not conduct closed or
executive session proceedings remotely, and members may not
participate remotely in closed or executive session
proceedings.
(2) Motion to close proceedings.--Upon adoption of a motion
to close proceedings or to move into executive session with
respect to a proceeding conducted remotely under this
section, the chair shall declare the committee in recess
subject to the call of the chair with respect to such matter
until it can reconvene in person.
(3) Exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to
proceedings of the Committee on Ethics.
(h) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out in
accordance with regulations submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules.
(i) Application to Subcommittees and Select Committees.--
For purposes of this section, the term ``committee'' or
``committees'' also includes a subcommittee and a select
committee.

SEC. 5. STUDY AND CERTIFICATION OF FEASIBILITY OF REMOTE
VOTING IN HOUSE.

(a) Study and Certification.--The chair of the Committee on
House Administration, in consultation with the ranking
minority member, shall study the feasibility of using
technology to conduct remote voting in the House, and shall
provide certification to the House upon a determination that
operable and secure technology exists to conduct remote
voting in the House.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) Initial regulations.--On any legislative day that
follows the date on which the chair of the Committee on House
Administration provides the certification described in
subsection (a), the chair of the Committee on Rules, in
consultation with the ranking minority member, shall submit
regulations for printing in the Congressional Record that
provide for the implementation of remote voting in the House.
(2) Supplemental regulations.--At any time after submitting
the initial regulations under paragraph (1), the chair of the
Committee on Rules, in consultation with the ranking minority
member, may submit regulations to supplement the initial
regulations submitted under such paragraph for printing in
the Congressional Record.
(c) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any rule of the House,
upon notification of the House by the Speaker after the
submission of regulations by the chair of the Committee on
Rules under subsection (b)--

[[Page H2021]]

(1) Members may cast their votes or record their presence
in the House remotely during a covered period;
(2) any Member whose vote is cast or whose presence is
recorded remotely under this section shall be counted for the
purpose of establishing a quorum under the rules of the
House; and
(3) the casting of votes and the recording of presence
remotely under this section shall be subject to the
applicable regulations submitted by the chair of the
Committee on Rules under subsection (b).

SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

To the greatest extent practicable, sections 1, 2, and 3 of
this resolution shall be carried out in accordance with
regulations submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1
hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Rules.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a pandemic, the
likes of which the world hasn't seen in more than 100 years.
The question before us today is a simple one: Will this institution,
which has adapted to challenges and technology time and time again
throughout its history, adapt so that we can continue legislating
during this public health emergency.
Medical experts have told us that COVID-19 is up to three times more
contagious than the flu. That means, in a normal cycle of this virus,
just one person with coronavirus could kick off a snowball effect that
leads to up to 59,000 new infections.
Now think about that.
And then think about the way we normally operate here. Members travel
frequently from their home States, some of which are coronavirus hot
spots, to convene together here in the Capitol complex. Then we travel
back home at the end of the week. And we repeat this process month
after month after month.
Along the way, we come in contact with fellow travelers, colleagues,
the general public, press, and the hundreds and hundreds of people who
help make this House operate. There is no telling who among them could
have compromised immune systems, preexisting conditions, or other
heightened risks for illness. But we know just how easy this virus
spreads among those with strong immune systems.
That is why the choices that each one of us makes are especially
important--not just about protecting Members of Congress. This is about
protecting all of those who come in contact with us.
Now, any of us could have the virus and not even know it. We could be
asymptomatic but be carriers nonetheless. Convening Congress must not
turn into a superspreader event.
Technology has changed considerably over the last 231 years. There
are now tools available that make temporary committee proceedings and
remote voting on the House floor possible--not forever, just
temporarily during this emergency.
Now, some on the other side seem to think that temporarily embracing
technology during this pandemic is a radical idea.
Well, let me say this loud and clear to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker:
If anyone tells you you would be giving away your vote with remote
voting by proxy, this is just a lie. Plain and simple, it is just not
true.
What would be radical is if this House did nothing, if we made
Members decide between spreading a deadly virus or legislating for the
American people. That is a false choice. We can and we should do both.
At least 16 States, 10 countries, and the European Parliament have
all implemented some form of remote procedures to safely conduct
official proceedings during this pandemic. With this resolution, this
House can finally join them.
Now, let me repeat: We are not suggesting permanent changes. No one
believes we do our best work in person and side by side more than me,
Mr. Speaker. Remote legislating will only be utilized so long as this
pandemic continues.
Mr. Speaker, this is the type of adapting that this House has always
done. Our Founders did not vote by electronic device, but we do.
Constituents, decades ago, couldn't watch floor proceedings live on C-
SPAN or listen to them on the radio, but ours can. Changes were made to
our quorum requirement time and time again, including most recently
after the September 11 attacks. And I could go on and on and on and on.
Believe it or not, adapting is action in this institution's DNA.
There are always those quick to proclaim that any change means ending
the House as we know it. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? The sky did
not fall, and the House continues its work.
So I don't say this to make light of what we are doing here today.
What we are doing is serious. It is a big deal. My State of
Massachusetts has one of the oldest legislatures in the country, but
even they changed their rules to allow for remote voting.
You can respect tradition without blinding yourself of the need to
make temporary changes when necessary, and today is one of those times.
This resolution comes after careful study, months of talks, feedback
from constitutional experts, and conversations among a bipartisan task
force. This resolution has been strengthened by this deliberative
process, and it contains many provisions suggested by my Republican
friends. It is now time to act.
Now, some communities have turned the corner with this virus, and I
hope that continues. Medical experts tell us, however, that a second
wave this fall could be even more damaging than what we are seeing now.
So as we hope for the best, we must prepare for the worst. Anything
less would be a dereliction of our responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in
supporting this resolution. Let's adapt the way this institution has
always done. And let's make sure that we can continue legislating
during this pandemic, no matter what the future may bring.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked long and hard together and tried to do so
cooperatively. As my friend said, there are a number of things in here
we have worked on together but, in the end, we were unable to reach an
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we are back here to consider the resolution representing
the most consequential change to the rules of the House of
Representatives in my time in Congress, and possibly the most
consequential rules change since the establishment of the modern
committee system in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the majority is proposing, for the first time in
our history, a system of proxy voting on the floor of the House of
Representatives. That change also allows for the adoption of a totally
remote voting procedure upon the certification of a single Member of
Congress. Second, it would allow for committees to perform remote
proceedings, including markups.
Above all else, Mr. Speaker, Republicans believe that any change to
centuries-old rules of the House should only be done in a bipartisan
way that achieves consensus. Unfortunately, these proposed rules
changes do not meet that goal.
While I have no doubt of the chairman's good intentions, I believe
these changes will fundamentally alter the nature of the institution,
and not for the better. As such, I simply cannot support them.
Mr. Speaker, though this resolution is intended only to deal with the
present public health emergency, we must never forget that the
temporary changes that we make today become the precedent that we
follow tomorrow. I am deeply concerned that shifting to remote
activity, both in the form of proxy voting and the form of remote
committee work, will fundamentally change the way the House operates
and will remove the collegial environment we enjoy when we meet in
person, get

[[Page H2022]]

to know one another, and use our knowledge of each legislator as a
person to move toward bipartisan consensus. I fear that that would be
lost in remote activity.
I am also deeply concerned that these changes will not pass
constitutional muster. Why we would risk exposing important legislation
to obvious constitutional flaws does not make sense to me.
Most of all, I am concerned that we are moving forward with these
changes on a partisan basis. Any change that is this consequential
should only be done after we reach bipartisan agreement--no matter how
difficult it may be to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, I think a bipartisan agreement was possible on much of
what my friends are trying to accomplish, but today's resolution is
simply not it.
I have a modest suggestion to my friends: Let's take appropriate
cautions and go back to work. That is what the executive branch is
doing. That is what the United States Senate is doing. That is what
millions of Americans do each and every day. We should be no different.
The House should do the same.
Mr. 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.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned constitutional scholar and dean of
Berkeley School of Law, who actually wrote the book on constitutional
law, discussing his view that the remote voting process we are
considering today would be constitutional.
Berkeleylaw,

University of California,

May 13, 2020.
Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole: I have been
asked for my view as to whether the House of Representatives
could constitutionally adopt a rule to permit remote voting
by proxy. As explained below, I believe that this would be
constitutional and it is very unlikely that any court would
invalidate such a rule, especially in light of the current
public health emergency.
My understanding is that the system of remote voting by
proxy that is being considered would have some key features:
Low-tech remote voting process through proxy voting
Some number of Members would be present on the Floor for
debate and in-Chamber voting
Proxy would be used to establish a quorum and to register
the yeas/nays
The proxy holder would be another Member of the House
The proxy holder would have NO discretion on the vote.
Instead, the proxy holder would be required (through the rule
and accompanying regulations) to cast the vote in accordance
with the specific and exact instruction from the Member.
The Constitution bestows on each House of Congress broad
discretion to determine the rules for its own proceedings.
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says: ``Each House
may determine the Rules of its proceedings.'' This authority
is expansive and would include the ability to adopt a rule to
permit proxy voting. Nothing in the Constitution specifies
otherwise.
Moreover, if this were challenged in court, it is very
likely that the case would be dismissed as a political
question. The Supreme Court has ruled that challenges to the
internal operation of Congress are not justiciable in the
federal courts. See Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892).
Indeed, I have written, the Court often ``has held that
congressional judgments pertaining to its internal governance
should not be reviewed by the federal judiciary.'' Erwin
Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies
Sec. 2.8.5 (6th ed. 2019).
Especially in the context of the current public health
emergency, it is highly unlikely that any court would review
and invalidate the procedures adopted by the House of
Representatives that would allow it to conduct its business
without endangering the health of its members and its staff.
Every branch of government is devising new procedures to
accomplish this. The Supreme Court, for example, will conduct
oral arguments by telephone for the first time in its
history. I am sure that the rules will ensure that the votes
cast by proxy are accurate and carefully recorded.
I hope that this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to let
me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Erwin Chemerinsky.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the letter, the dean states: ``The
Constitution bestows on each House of Congress broad discretion to
determine the rules for its own proceedings. . . . This authority is
expansive and would include the ability to adopt a rule to permit proxy
voting. Nothing in the Constitution specifies otherwise.''
I also just say to my friend that the White House isn't operating as
business as usual. My understanding is that the Vice President has been
sequestered from the President. In addition to that, everybody in the
White House is being tested multiple times before they can even get
near the President. A lot of the work is being done by video
conference. So even they are doing things differently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Peters).

{time} 1300

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 965 to
authorize remote voting and to continue committee proceedings remotely
during the public health emergency of COVID-19.
Governors and mayors across the Nation have ordered Americans to stay
home, to work from home, and avoid travel. Until we have adequate
testing or a vaccine to protect ourselves and prevent our healthcare
system from being overwhelmed, the best we can do here is to follow
that advice.
We in Congress must do what we have asked of our constituents and
what others have ordered of them. Some argue--and we have heard this
just recently--that because we are asking our frontline heroes to show
up at work, we lawmakers should be required to convene here in D.C. But
that argument misses the point and dishonors our frontline workers,
particularly those healthcare workers who are begging people to stay
home, to avoid nonessential travel in order to slow the spread of this
deadly disease. They ask others to stay home so that some day they can
go home.
We in Congress are not first responders or frontline healthcare
workers, although our frontline responders are certainly counting on us
to provide them the resources they need. But we can hold our meetings
and conduct our communications electronically. And because of the space
limitations created by the need for physical distancing, working
remotely is probably the only way that all of our committees can
function at the same time.
Like everyone else, I don't want to give up the opportunity to work
with my colleagues in person. Our interactions are too productive, and
our relationships are too valuable. But in the face of this once-in-a-
lifetime global pandemic, we need to overcome our default position.
Remote voting is not cowardice. It is leadership. Let's live by the
same rules we impose on our fellow citizens. Let's show by our actions
that we ourselves take this threat seriously.
I want to thank the leadership of Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lofgren and
all of the other folks who have worked on this, including my friend,
Mr. Cole, and I urge support of this resolution.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member
of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Armed Services
Committee are privileged to work around, with, and for the men and
women who serve in the military. Every one of them is a volunteer.
Every one of them expects reasonable precautions with their health and
safety and well-being. But every one of them knows that in carrying out
their duties, there is some risk that goes with it, and they carry out
their duties admirably.
What a contrast to what we are seeing with this resolution. I think
one of the proudest times I have had in this House over the last 25
years has been on 9/11 and the days thereafter. That very evening,
Members gathered on the steps of the Capitol, and in the days
thereafter we went right back to work and passed the legislation that
was needed to deal with the terrorist threat.
We were not even intimidated when many of our offices were attacked
by anthrax in the days thereafter. It was not just about showing
resolution to the terrorists; it was about showing the

[[Page H2023]]

country that we can come together and get our work done. What a
contrast to what we are seeing with this resolution.
Through the Civil War, 1918 flu, World War II, 9/11, throughout our
history, there has never been proxy voting on this floor. Members
accepted the risk and carried out their duties to the best of their
ability. It was not about technology; it was about trust and integrity.
Were our predecessors so much braver than we are? Were they more
ignorant about the risk or more careless with their own safety? Was
their sense of their responsibility to the American people greater than
ours? None of this makes sense.
But what makes the least sense of all, Mr. Speaker, is that any
Member of either party would support a resolution that allows any of us
to vacate, even temporarily, the trust placed in us by voters and
undermine the very foundation of this representative democracy.
Our history is better than that. The voters deserve better than that.
To me, Mr. Speaker, it is sad, rather despicable, and one of the
darkest days in this institution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke, I am not
intimidated, and I am not afraid; none of us are here. This isn't about
any of that. This is about doing what is sensible, what is in the
public health interest. This is not about us. It is about the people
you all come in contact with.
Those who walk around and don't wear masks, somehow as a display of
how unafraid they may be, may be carriers who are asymptomatic
spreading this disease.
This is a public health crisis. This is different than what happened
on 9/11. This is a public health crisis; that is, somebody who is
carrying this disease can spread it in a very aggressive way.
So please spare me the self-righteous kind of indignation over this.
We are supposed to follow the medical advice. We are supposed to
practice social distancing.
And yet, the Rules Committee, which is the smallest committee in the
Congress, had to meet in the Ways and Means Committee room, and we took
up the whole room. We have 21 standing committees; I don't know how
many subcommittees. Where does the Armed Services Committee meet? Where
does the Transportation Committee meet? Maybe we can meet on the House
floor, maybe one committee at a time.
I mean, the bottom line is, if we are going to follow the medical
advice, we should not paralyze this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Gottheimer), a distinguished member of this Chamber and a co-chair
of the Problem Solvers.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Congress adapts for this
pandemic so that we can represent our constituents and shape
legislation during this crisis and do so safely in line with CDC
guidelines.
This resolution includes remote committee participation and proxy
voting, which are essential reforms during this pandemic and key to
giving the American public the accountability and transparency they
deserve. I am hoping remote floor debate and voting are next, and this
paves the way. The Supreme Court is doing it, and so can we.
State legislators, including Oklahoma, and in my State of New Jersey,
and legislators around the world are doing it. We are behind here, and
it is time we step up. There is nothing extreme about working this way
and adapting during an emergency, just like all Americans have.
I am very grateful to Chairman McGovern, my good friend, a true
statesman and institutionalist, and Representative Lofgren, who has
done an incredible job, for working with us in the Problem Solvers
Caucus, with Democrats and Republicans, as we have continued making
strides towards a truly remote system.
This debate and work are key for my district in north Jersey, which
is at the epicenter of this crisis. Today's bill also includes full
reinstatement of the SALT deduction, giving New Jersey a long-needed
tax cut, something I have been fighting for for years. It also helps
small businesses make ends meet, for workers who aren't sure they will
get another paycheck, and for every other single county and community
so they can support teachers, cops, EMS, and firefighters.
But it starts with making sure our system is built so we can do it,
and today's proposal does just that. We should all support this
legislation to defend this institution, to protect it, and to ensure
that accountability and transparency in this institution lives on
forever in the greatest country in the world.
I know we will get through this together if we put country ahead of
party.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Hagedorn), my good friend and a distinguished Member of
this body.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a bad idea for this
institution and a terrible example for the Nation. I recommend a ``no''
vote.
You know, it is ironic that as our Nation opens up and people go back
to work safely and responsibly into their jobs, the House is making a
move to shut down, for all intents and purposes.
You know, tens of millions of Americans throughout this outbreak,
this pandemic, have been out delivering and producing our energy, our
food, helping with people in hospitals, policing our neighborhoods.
They have been doing their jobs, and we should be doing our jobs in
person moving forward.
You know, some might question why a Member of Congress like myself,
who is dealing with stage 4 cancer, getting treatment the last year at
the Mayo Clinic, why I would be the one passionately wanting everyone
to travel and work in this Chamber, work in our committees. And it is
because it is a bad idea for this House. It is a bad idea that we don't
do our jobs in person. We are setting a terrible example.
Personally, though, I can tell you this: This is the job that I
signed up for. This is the job that I asked the people of southern
Minnesota for. And this is the job that I want to do. It is an honor to
serve them. I think we should do it in person, work in committee in
person, and do our jobs. And we can do it safely and responsibly.
I recommend a ``no'' vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should be happy to know
under the proposal we have, he can come here anytime he wants. He can
be in his committee. He can be on this floor and debate. But this is
for those who are in circumstances where that is impossible. It
provides an opportunity for them to participate as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Stevens).
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the activity of the
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, as we work through
extraordinary circumstances to deliver for the American people.
The Science Committee, under the leadership of Chairwoman Johnson and
Ranking Member Lucas, has been holding briefings on topics such as
infrastructure, energy jobs, vaccine developments, through the great
technologies available to us over the worldwide web. Each has been
bipartisan.
One important focus has been our domestic manufacturing role,
retooling production lines to make the medical supplies needed to
respond to the ongoing health crisis. This has been of particular
importance for the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, which I
chair, along with Ranking Member Baird.
How do we open platforms and utilize digital technologies for
industrial collaboration to solve big problems and streamline our
supply chain to get the medical supplies to those who need them now?
The Science Committee will continue to do the work it has always done
to meet the needs of the American people, to propel American
manufacturing innovation forward.
I urge my colleagues to support this fabulous resolution that will
enable us to continue to do our work under great and trying
circumstances.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my very good friend, and the distinguished
Republican ranking member of the Budget Committee, and a fellow member
of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, born from the people, the work of Congress

[[Page H2024]]

is an integral part of our Nation. Or is it? Judging from the
legislation that is before us right now, I am not so sure.
But tracing back to the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War
II, 9/11, and many others, the House's business has never ceased, even
in the toughest times in our country, and it should not cease today.

But instead of working safely, bringing back Members to the House,
Speaker Pelosi has decided to pursue proxy voting.
Senators are back at work. Our military is on point right now
defending our country in all corners of the world. Doctors, nurses,
grocery workers, truck drivers, delivery personnel, they are showing up
every day. They are not shirking from their duty. Shouldn't the House
lead by example?
New House procedures might very well be necessary, but any change to
the centuries-old rules that could fundamentally alter this institution
should never be done without bipartisan support. And we are not seeing
that.
This proposal runs counter to the Constitution, and it marginalizes,
in my strong opinion, Mr. Speaker, the lawmaking process.
We need transparency, accountability, not procedures that further
centralize the decision-making of our country into the hands of a
select few. We must get back to regular order, and this is not the path
back to regular order.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am happy to provide the gentleman who just spoke with the history
of the House of Representatives as to how voting rules have changed
repeatedly.
But this radical idea that we are talking about here today, just look
to the United States Senate. I mean, they just held a hearing in their
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where some people
were present, and some were remote. The chair and ranking member were
remote, and administration witnesses were brought in through video
conferencing.
I mean, the Senate can do it. Maybe my friends are afraid of
technology. We will get you the help. We will get you the help to make
it comfortable for you. But the bottom line is, if the Senate can do
it, if it is okay for the United States Senate, why is it not okay for
the House of Representatives?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 965. Today,
there are more than 1.45 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and more than
86,000 related deaths in the United States, and these numbers continue
to increase.
Our job in Congress is to provide help and leadership in this crisis.
It is critical that we continue serving our constituents. But requiring
Members of Congress to travel back and forth to Washington to vote and
participate in official business in person during this pandemic puts
the health of our constituents and ourselves at greater risk.
All this traveling by so many Members of Congress will worsen the
crisis we are working to mitigate. If you don't agree with the rule
changes, I urge you to reconsider. If you care about the health of your
constituents, if you care about the health of yourself, your
colleagues, and your staff, and if you really want to mitigate this
crisis, then support the temporary rule and vote ``yes'' on H. Res.
965.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock), my very good friend.

{time} 1315

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the word ``congress'' literally means
the act of coming together and meeting. The Constitution calls for
representatives to attend, to assemble, and to meet. Congress is a
deliberative body, and by its very nature, that requires the people's
representatives to interact with each other, both through formal
proceedings as well as through the countless informal conversations
that are the unique product of coming together and meeting.
Fulfilling that duty, Congress has met throughout every war and
pandemic that has come before us. We expect grocery clerks to show up
at 4:00 in the morning to restock the shelves, but the House of
Representatives is going to phone it in?
Each of us is the proxy for our constituents. They expect us to speak
and vote for them, and answer to them, not hand off that trust to
someone entirely unaccountable because we are too lazy or too scared to
show up for work.
Good God, what are we doing to our country?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is obvious that the gentleman who just spoke didn't read the bill.
Nobody is asking anybody to hand off their ability to cast a vote here.
There is no discretion involved. If he reads the bill, he will figure
that out.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 5 opinion piece published
in The Hill from Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional law professor
from the University of Virginia and former clerk to the late Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

[From the Hill, May 5, 2020]

One Virtue of a Virtual Congress

(By Saikrishna Prakash)

The need for social distancing has led to new demands for
distant voting. With the coronavirus in the air, Congress is
awash with proposals to allow senators and representatives to
cast votes away from the chamber floors on Capitol Hill. It
is true that desperate times call for desperate measures, but
however extreme this reform may seem, remote voting would
indeed be allowed under the Constitution. This new practice
could also lead to the reform of one regrettable habit of the
legislative branch.
The Framers likely assumed that members of the chambers
would gather in a single room in order to conduct business.
References to ``assemble'' and ``attendance'' in the
Constitution suggest as much. Congress could easily satisfy
this narrow reading of these terms if each chamber met in
cavernous spaces. For instance, the Senate could meet in the
baseball stadium where the Washington Nationals play, while
the House could gather on the football field where the
Washington Redskins play. Then legislators could easily sit
several feet apart as they work.
But the chambers need not be so constrained. Laws can have
meaning and serve purposes without being tied to the
technology of a particular era. For instance, modem
presidents have signed legislation by autopen, even though
this technology is somewhat new. The justification for this
is that so long as the president makes a decision about
whether to approve a bill, the mechanics of putting pen to
parchment are irrelevant. The same holds true for the Supreme
Court. The justices have reached decisions by phone,
sometimes hundreds of miles away from Washington. Six
justices are necessary to conduct business, and they have
concluded that voting by phone on important matters satisfies
that requirement.
Congress could do something similar. The Framers perhaps
demanded no more than for legislators to debate and
collectively reach decisions in real time. The internet
permits that live discussion and passing laws, either by
voice vote or by roll call. With the advent of technology,
one chamber can ``assemble'' virtually on Zoom, while
legislators can also attend meetings in Google. A chamber can
sit to conduct business online.
The more general point is that if legislators are
monitoring proceedings in Congress online and can vote
remotely, they are in ``attendance'' and can be present for
quorums. What is good for the president and the Supreme Court
must be good for Congress. There are positives and negatives
of remote voting, so here are two potential disadvantages.
First, Congress will no longer have the excuse of being
unable to conduct business when members go back to their
constituencies. What was once a part time assembly may become
a full time legislature, where leaders call votes during such
inconvenient times for members. Many people do wish that
Congress would return to its roots as a part time
institution. To quote Will Rogers, ``This country has come to
feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby
gets hold of a hammer.''
Second, though legislators do not have to pay attention to
floor debates even when they are physically present, one
might suppose that they will get more distracted if they have
two browsers open, one trained on the proceedings in Congress
and one centered on Sunday Night Football. A debate on a
motion to recommit would suffer compared to a drive down the
field in the final minute of the fourth quarter.
But there would be one positive that overwhelms these
drawbacks. Last week, six members exercised the collective
authority of the Senate and passed the $484 billion
appropriation. Though the Constitution declares that a
majority of each chamber would be a quorum to do business,
the Senate had nothing like a quorum for this vote. Under
current practices, however, both chambers assume a quorum, an
assumption that can be overcome only if some legislators will
call for it.
That assumption is almost as mistaken as supposing that
lobbyists exist to further the public good. The Constitution
decrees that the chambers can pass a bill only if there is

[[Page H2025]]

a quorum. Members cannot just avert their gaze from this
violation of the Constitution. The minimum mandate for
passing legislation is not waivable. To pass legislation in a
chamber, the presence of at least a majority of the voting
members is required.
With a move to virtual sessions, Congress could cut the
embarrassment of a handful of legislators passing
legislation. If bills are uncontroversial, the chambers can
meet online, and the majority in each can pass them. All in
all, the move to remote voting could generate a salutary
reform and also eliminate at least one excrescence of the
Constitution.
Mr. McGOVERN. In his piece, the professor says: The more general
point is that if legislators are monitoring proceedings in Congress
online and can vote remotely, they are in `attendance' and can be
present for quorums. What is good for the President and the Supreme
Court must be good for Congress.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I
have been really amazed at what I have heard from the other side. They
said the military goes into battle, or is ready to go, and they don't
let these things bother them.
The military doesn't have a great majority of their members who are
65 years of age and older. And when they do have members that are 65
years of age and older, and they have morbidity systems or past
incidents that make them more likely to get a disease, they don't send
them into battle. They take care of them. They don't put them out there
in harm's way.
Some people talked about the Senate. Lamar Alexander came up, and he
got exposed to coronavirus from a staff member, so he had to go back to
Maryville. Rand Paul came up. He got exposed, took a test, still swam
in the Senate pool, exposed everybody over there to COVID, and came
back positive.
So, it is not about the Senate. This makes good sense.
One of our best epidemiologists said that the best place you could
find to get the coronavirus is indoors in an enclosed room with a lot
of people and a lot of talk. That is the definition of Congress.
Washington is a hot spot; it is under a stay-at-home order; and you are
not supposed to meet in groups of more than 10 people. We are more than
10. And if they expand it, we will be up to the level of 50, which is
maybe the next level.
We are just protecting our Members and protecting their loved ones
and protecting their constituents.
This is a good law. It gives people a chance to vote. We have Members
who are going through chemotherapy now. The great John Lewis is going
through chemotherapy. That means he cannot come up here and vote. That
should not be the facts.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule
change.
Rather than taking time to implement a bipartisan plan to safely open
this House and our work on the Hill, as suggested by the Republican
leader, the House majority is taking the lazy way out.
The U.S. Constitution and 200 years of precedent require a physical
presence to establish a quorum to protect all Members' rights and the
rights of the Americans who vote for these Members.
If we pass this rule change today and make attendance optional, we
are taking away the fundamental nature of our government of elected
Members of the House representing our citizens.
Since the first Congress, through it all--bad roads, bad weather,
invasion, and the burning of this very Capitol, Civil War, and
depression--Members have assembled to do the people's business.
Our Founders intended that legislating be hard but fair. Our Founders
compelled the people's representatives to assemble, to collaborate, to
find a way forward. This rule will only make it harder to find that
consensus during these times.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this unnecessary
change to the House rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues what the
minority leader did suggest, and that is that all of us get
preferential treatment, in terms of testing, that we all be tested
regularly when we come back here, like they do in the White House; that
even though our constituents can't get tested, even though our hospital
workers and those who work in homeless shelters and in food pantries
can't get tested, and our first responders can't all get tested, the
minority leader suggested that: You know, you are all so special here
that you should move to the front of the line.
Well, I don't know what people in your districts think, but my
constituents think that is tone-deaf, that, quite frankly, we don't
deserve preferential treatment. But that is what he suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I salute the chairman for his determination
to keep the American Government going through this period, and that is
what this resolution is about, the continuity of Congress and the
continuity of government. We are here to keep the great American
experiment in democratic self-government alive through the pandemic,
through the crisis.
The first sentence of the Constitution, the Preamble, says:

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve
to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, do
hereby ordain and establish the Constitution of the United
States.

The very next sentence vests all legislative power to us, in Article
I, in the Congress, and gives us the right to determine the rules of
our own proceedings.
That is what the Supreme Court calls a political question. It cannot
be second-guessed by the Senate. It cannot be second-guessed by the
President. It cannot be second-guessed even by the Supreme Court. It is
up to us what our rules of proceeding are going to be.
Mr. Speaker, I have watched the debate, and one can only regard with
amazement the full outrage summed up by our colleagues who display
great reservoirs of self-righteousness. And it is amazing to me because
the same Members have been operating for many years, for term after
term, under the current rule, first adopted by a Republican-majority
House, which allows two Members to form a working quorum.
I repeat: The current rule, which this body has ratified repeatedly,
was adopted by a Republican majority, allowing two Members to
constitute a working quorum.

So, how can anyone who has blithely accepted that state of affairs,
when it would have been very easy to do something about it--there was
no pandemic and no plague let loose on the land, with 86,000 people
dead and tens of millions of unemployed. They did nothing about it, but
now they want to suddenly turn on the proposal necessary to guarantee
the continuity of the U.S. Government in which the numerical quorum
majority rule is scrupulously observed through the well-known and well-
accepted proxy system. This rule preserves the vote and the voice of
each and every Member of the House.
Unlike the two-Member quorum rule, which was put into place by a
Republican majority, our rule is based on effectuating the will and the
vote of every Member. The proxies must be cast in strict accordance
with the will of the Member, with no discretion, and no room for
judgment.
Mr. Speaker, I expect to be a proxy because I live about a half hour
away from here. I will cast the proxy vote exactly as given to me. And
if I were to decide I know better than the person I am voting for, that
should be the subject of ethical proceedings. I am nothing more than a
letter carrier.
This is what the Congress needs to do. The American people expect
nothing less from us. Let's keep the Government of the United States in
business.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gohmert), my great friend and distinguished Member.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, let me just read from the Constitution.
Article I, Section 5: ``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.''

[[Page H2026]]

You can't pass a bill on this floor with proxies and have it upheld
unless you change the Constitution, and this doesn't do it.
Now, some here say: But if it saves one life, it is worth it. How
about the million Americans who laid down their lives not for a wishy-
washy, ``Oh, maybe we should be afraid. We might get something and
die.'' They didn't do that in the Spanish flu days. They didn't do it
in the Civil War. But now we are going to do it. Come on.
There were people that died, saying things like: ``Live free or
die.'' And now, we are going to amend the Constitution with a House
rule. That is ridiculous.
If you are going to destroy 40 million lives and livelihoods, at
least have the courage to come here and do it in person.
You didn't let the Member from Georgia do it years ago. You denied
that, and I felt like you were right. We have to preserve the
Constitution, not abuse it with a House rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record a letter from Deborah Pearlstein, a
constitutional law professor from Cardozo School of Law.

Cardozo Law,

April 16, 2020.
Dear Chairman McGovern: Thank you for your statement today
recommending the implementation of temporary remote voting
procedures in Congress during this tragic pandemic. As a
professor of constitutional law, and a scholar who has
written extensively on separation of powers issues in U.S.
Government, I believe adopting procedures to allow for remote
voting under these extraordinary circumstances is not only
lawful, but essential to the maintenance of our
constitutional democracy. Recognizing that specific
procedures for remote voting may still be in development, the
analysis offered here focuses foremost on the broad scope of
Congress' constitutional authority to regulate its voting
procedures.
As with much else in the Constitution, the description the
text provides of how Congress is to fulfill its legislative
``duties'' once members have been elected is relatively
brief. Article I, Section 5 provides that there must be ``a
Quorum to do business,'' which the Constitution defines as
constituting simply ``a Majority'' of each House. The same
Section likewise specifies that each House must keep a
``Journal of its Proceedings,'' which must be published
``from time to time,'' and which may, if a sufficient number
of members desire, reflect how every member voted ``on any
question.'' The Constitution adds that neither House can
adjourn for more than three days, or move the session to some
other place, without the consent of the other House--a
provision designed to prevent a single House from thwarting
all congressional action by simply absenting themselves
indefinitely.
There can be little question that the Framers imagined the
legislature would do its work while assembled in some
physical location. In 1787 when the Constitution was drafted,
they could scarcely have imagined any other functional way of
proceeding. Various other constitutional provisions thus
refer to Congress as ``meeting'' (Art. I, Sec. 4) or
``assembling'' (Art. I, Sec. 3), and one even provides a
mechanism by which members can compel ``the Attendance of
absent Members,'' (Art. I, Sec. 5) meaning presumably those
members not otherwise present where Congress is meeting. Of
course, none of the clauses in which those terms appear
address how Congress casts or counts its votes. Indeed,
neither the document itself nor any Supreme Court decision
defines what counts as ``attendance'' or ``assembling,'' much
less how such ``attendance'' may be taken, or such
``assemblage'' may be accomplished. The Constitution equally
contains no specific requirement of physical presence for
Members to vote. What the Constitution does instead--as the
courts have repeatedly recognized--is leave it up to each
House of Congress to ``determine the Rules of its
Proceedings.'' (Art. I, Sec. 5) As the Supreme Court
explained in United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), so
long as there is a ``reasonable relation between the mode or
method of proceeding established by the rule and the result
which is sought to be attained,'' the content of those rules
are ``beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.''
Indeed, it is just such constitutional flexibility that has
enabled Congress to embrace the various informal solutions it
has adopted over the years to ``do business,'' including
relying on members to give ``unanimous consent'' to a vote
even if something less than an actual majority of members is
physically present on the House floor. But while such well
settled procedures are surely constitutional, they may not
always function to advance the system of majority rule the
Constitution so plainly contemplates. As we recently saw when
Congress enacted a substantial stimulus bill just last month,
it is possible for one House member, acting alone, to single-
handedly defeat the manifest preference of the bipartisan
majority by insisting upon an actual demonstration that a
majority of members were ``present'' (a term contained in
House Rules, not in the Constitution itself). This forced
House leaders to make a choice the Constitution cannot be
understood to compel--between surrendering the will of the
majority to the demands of a single man, or insisting, as
they did, that Members jeopardize their safety (and thus
their ability to effectively represent their constituents
going forward) by defying lawful public health restrictions
to travel and meet in Washington, D.C.
It is precisely in order to avoid such absurd results that
Congress has embraced a variety of measures throughout its
history to adjust to developing technologies and changing
demands. Thus, for example, current House Rules provide that
in the event the existing electronic voting system is
``inoperable,'' the Speaker may direct the vote to be
conducted through alternative methods, including through the
use of ``tellers'' designated by the Speaker to ``record the
names of the Members voting on each side of the question.''
The teller system was an innovation put in place before the
current electronic system was available, one among key
reforms designed to strengthen Congress' ability to maintain
a public record of Members' votes. The particular challenge
of ensuring that Congress could continue to operate during
the outbreak of infectious disease was indeed the subject of
one of Congress's first efforts to provide for alternative
rules of operation. Following Congress' return after the
yellow fever epidemic that devastated the then-capital of
Philadelphia in the summer of 1793, Congress adopted a law
providing that in circumstances when ``the prevalence of
contagious sickness'' made it ``be hazardous to the lives or
health of the members to meet at the seat of Government,''
the President could ``convene Congress at such other place as
he may judge proper.'' If Congress can delegate to the
President the power to move congressional operations
entirely, surely it can reserve for itself the lesser power
to make whatever far more modest amendment to process is
required to ensure Congress is able to vote in the same,
extraordinary circumstances.
Finally, the temporary remote voting procedures as you have
sketched them thus far appear to bear an entirely
``reasonable relation'' to the goal you aim to achieve,
namely, ensuring that Congress preserves the ability to vote
in a way that maintains the institution's representative
character, protects the transparency of its operations, and
fairly and accurately reflects the will of the American
people. By keeping remote voting procedures tied as closely
as possible to the existing system, the proposed approach
protects Members' ability to participate in votes regardless
of geographic location, technical knowledge or means;
minimizes the risk of foreign or other unlawful interference
in the vote; and maximizes Congress's ability to fairly
reflect the will of the majority of the people even during
the present crisis. The proposed approach contains essential
safeguards to ensure that Members' preferences are fully and
accurately recorded; as you emphasized in your recent
statement, Members designated to submit voting cards on
behalf of other elected Representatives may only act pursuant
to the direct, express instruction of the elected
Representative, retaining no discretion in carrying out the
ministerial function they play in the modified voting
process. As ever, Members remain subject to all the
disciplinary powers the House possesses to ensure the
appropriate exercise of their duties.
In short, with limited reforms that maximize Members'
ability to represent the wishes of their constituents, while
minimizing disruption and confusion in House operations,
Congress can succeed in preserving the essential
constitutional function of the legislative branch even amidst
an unprecedented pandemic. It is a critically important
initiative in these extraordinary times.
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. In her letter, which I strongly recommend all of my
colleagues should read in full, she says: ``I believe adopting
procedures to allow for remote voting under these extraordinary
circumstances is not only lawful, but essential to the maintenance of
our constitutional democracy.''
The Constitution contains no specific requirements of physical
presence for Members to vote. What the Constitution does instead, as
the courts have repeatedly recognized, is leave it up to each House of
Congress to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.''
The gentleman refers to the Spanish flu. Let me just say that that is
not an example of something we want to aspire to. The Congress was
basically paralyzed. They couldn't even get together to pass a bill to
provide more doctors to rural areas where people were dying. They
couldn't even do that. And as a result of Congress' inaction, more
people died in that pandemic. So, please, I mean, let's get real here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin).

[[Page H2027]]

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend Chairman
McGovern for overseeing this deliberative and well thought-out process.
The proposed changes to the House rules are absolutely necessary to
ensure that Members of Congress can continue our vital legislative and
oversight functions while protecting public health.
Now, I strongly believe that we need a more comprehensive, full e-
Congress capability to be developed for conducting congressional
business in the future only in times of emergency if we are unable to
meet in Washington, D.C. However, I also believe that there are very
real cybersecurity concerns that must be addressed before such a system
will go live.
In the meantime, this resolution appropriately allows for in-person
proxy voting during the duration of this public health emergency, and
it holds open the possibility of remote voting if a secure system can
be developed and verified for full House floor proceedings.
In the meantime, this step, of course, cannot be the end of our
conversations on continuity of Congress. We do need a permanent
framework that will account for remote congressional operations in the
event or possibility of death or incapacitation of a significant number
of representatives.
This is the 21st century. We should be able to do this in the future.
I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman McGovern to address
this issue going forward.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose).
Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, today, I am standing up
for those who have stood up for this Nation throughout the current
crisis: nurses, doctors, farmers, truck drivers, food service workers,
distribution and supply chain workers, the millions of Americans who
can't stay home and expect our country to survive.
Haven't we learned our lesson about outsourcing? Apparently not. Now,
some of the Members of this House want to outsource their votes as
well.
I will be voting ``no'' on this resolution, and I would encourage
those ready to hand over their votes to someone else to just go ahead
and hand over their seats to someone else.
With unemployment the way it is, I would bet that there are more than
a few people back home in your district who would gladly accept your
$174,000-a-year job and find a way to get to Washington and push a
button.
I will vote ``no.''

{time} 1330

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I insert in the Record letters and statements of support for H. Res.
965 from Chairman Pallone, Representative Thompson, and Representative
Peters.
House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2020.
Re H. Res. 965.

Hon. James P. McGovern,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern: I write to you in support of H.
Resolution 965, which would authorize voting by proxy in the
House of Representatives and provide for official remote
committee proceedings. By temporarily enabling committees to
convene official proceedings remotely, this measure ensures
that the Committee on Energy and Commerce can continue to
conduct its important legislative, oversight, and fact-
finding work during these extraordinary times.
I greatly appreciate the work of the House Rules Committee
under your leadership in drafting and putting forward this
very important measure. Our Committee will work diligently to
ensure that each of our Members can participate remotely, to
the greatest extent practicable, from different locations, at
our noticed committee and subcommittee hearings, markups,
depositions and other business meetings--some or all of which
may be virtual in nature.
Thank you in advance for any further support you can
provide us in the way of Committee-specific regulations or in
addressing any questions that surface as we implement and put
these temporary rules and regulations into practice.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2020.
Hon. Jim McGovern,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern: I write to express my strong
support for proxy voting and allowing for flexibility, during
these unprecedented times.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created never before seen
challenges to the operation of government and the ability of
the House to conduct business. Not only are Member's health
and safety at risk but the security and integrity of the
House of Representatives, is as well. I commend you and your
committee for diligently addressing these challenges with
integrity and the dedicated intent to ensure the House can
conduct the People's business in a safe and secure manner.
This pandemic has drastically changed how our communities
operate. Many local governments and small business have
adjusted their operations and the House of Representatives
must do the same. Again, I commend you and your Committee for
your work and I wholeheartedly support proxy voting and
allowing for flexibility, during these extreme times.
Sincerely,
Mike Thompson,
Member of Congress.
____

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2020.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Chairman, House Rules Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Cole,
Ranking Member, House Rules Committee,
Washington, DC.
Chairman McGovern, Ranking Member Cole, and Members of the
Rules Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on
the very important proposals for remote voting.
Today we face a health crisis unknown in our lifetimes--a
virus that spreads easily among us, that can hide itself as
asymptomatic for a time can suddenly turn deadly. We have no
vaccine to create herd immunity, nor a treatment nor cure,
nor even enough tests to tell us who's got it and who
doesn't. So all we can do to protect ourselves now and for
the foreseeable future, and to keep our health care system
from being overwhelmed, is to separate ourselves. That's how
we lower the chance that the virus spreads. That's why
governors and mayors across the country have ordered us to
stay at home, to work from home, and to avoid travel if we
can.
That's exactly what Congress did when we passed the CARES
Act on March 27th. Our leadership from both parties worked to
pass the bill on unanimous consent, and when one member
objected, we achieved a quorum with members who could travel
safely, often by driving alone in their cars. We encouraged
other members to stay away from planes and airports and each
other. By the way, that conveyed to the public that we in
Congress understood the health challenge--we were aware that
every time Members of Congress travel from across the country
to Washington, DC, we put each other, our staff, Capitol
Police and other workers, our families and ultimately our
constituents at risk of infection.
Since then, conditions in Washington DC have become more
dangerous--it's one of our nation's COVID hot spots. It's
high time for us to do what we've asked--and others have
ordered--our constituents to do. Figure out how to work from
home.
I've heard the argument from Senate Leader McConnell and
from some Democrats that because we ask people on the front
lines to go to work, that we lawmakers have to show up in DC
to work. But that argument misses the point. Some people--
essential workers--can't stay home. If you are a doctor or a
nurse, or someone who cleans hospital rooms, you have to go
to the hospital to do your job. If you are a grocery clerk or
checker, you have to go to the grocery store to do your job.
If you are a fire fighter, or a police officer or an EMT, you
have to go where people are in harm's way to do your job.
But if you're an accountant, or a lawyer, or a billing
clerk or any other office worker--your job is still very
important--but we've ordered you to stay home, because the
technology available today makes it possible for you to do
your job from your home. It's not great, but it's a way
Americans have stepped up to make it work, and not to become
vectors for the spread of this disease.
We in Congress are not first responders. Fundamentally, we
have office jobs--very important office jobs that a lot of
people depend on--but office jobs, consisting of phone calls,
meetings, and more meetings. Like the rest of America, we can
have our meetings electronically. We should live by the same
rules we impose on other American office workers.
We are public servants, a concept reflected in the joint
statement by Speaker Pelosi and Leader McConnell to reject
the President's offer to supply Congress with test kits. Of
course, Congress should not take test kits from hospital
workers, first responders or grocery workers. Nor should we
continue to travel and meet in a way that heightens the risk
for those same people. We should follow the lead of American
businesses, nonprofits, religious institutions and families
who have found ways to communicate effectively and to make
decisions over the phone, or in a variety of computer forums.
Tradition can be honorable, as it is in Congress. But
tradition can be a dinosaur and can hurt and slow progress.
Some traditions

[[Page H2028]]

should never be abandoned. I would never give up the
opportunity in the ordinary course of our business to see you
all face to face, to work with you in committees, to see you
twice a day on the House floor, and even to grab dinner after
work. But in the face of this once in a lifetime global
pandemic, we need to overcome the default position--that the
way we've always done it is the only way it can be done.
Congress has adapted to jet travel, to electronic voting and
to making our work public on CSPAN. We can adapt to remote
work.
It will be difficult, but not as difficult as we might
imagine. Just look at how the remote skeptics propose we
conduct our business. We would fly from across the country,
making connections and taking transportation from Dulles
Airport or Baltimore Washington International. Then we would
isolate ourselves in our DC residences. Then, if we live too
far to walk or don't have a car in DC, we would take transit
or be driven to our offices, and we would isolate there. And
to participate in our committees, we would make a phone call
from our office in Rayburn or Longworth or Cannon to the
committee room. Yet all of us have phones in our homes in our
districts, and any of us could call the committees from
there.
We've also heard that in person committee meetings will
take up a tremendous amount of physical space. For our larger
committees, like Transportation and Infrastructure or Armed
Services, only the House chamber is big enough. If all of our
committees were to meet in person, it would be impossible for
them to meet at the same times. Remote participation is
probably the only practical way to allow all committees to
function at the same time, and thereby for all members to
participate in the legislative process on behalf or their
millions of constituents.
Remote voting is not cowardice. It's leadership. In the
face of this pandemic, getting Congress to work remotely is
an example for the rest of the country that meets this
moment. Let us live by the same rules we impose on our fellow
citizens. Let's find a way that allows all of our
constituents to have a voice. Let's show by our action that
we ourselves take this threat seriously.
I thank you for your leadership in this difficult moment.
Sincerely,
Scott H. Peters,
Member of Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman who
previously spoke says he wants to extend it for nurses, doctors, and
teachers. He has a chance to do that in the next bill we are going talk
about because there is money in there to provide them more assistance
in terms of testing and treatment and tracing and more money there for
PPE. But my guess is the gentleman is going to vote ``no'' on that.
The same people who are out here talking about being brave and
standing up with our first responders are the same people whose leader
has said that his proposal is to prioritize Members of Congress ahead
of all of our constituents in terms of testing so we can operate here.
I don't want to have anything to do with that. My constituents who are
on the front lines, the doctors, the nurses, the first responders
deserve to be tested before anybody in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Mrs. Trahan).
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, this public health crisis has been
devastating. Nearly 1.5 million Americans have contracted COVID-19 and,
tragically, more than 85,000 people have died.
We have asked small business owners and workers in our districts to
close up shop and stay home for months to do their part to slow the
spread of this virus.
Across the country, workplaces are innovating and figuring out how to
operate while keeping pace with commonsense public health guidelines.
Like them, Congress has an obligation to do the same. This moment
requires us to lead by example, to show that in the face of a highly
infectious disease we can change how we do business and still get our
constituents the much-needed relief they desperately need, while also
conducting proper oversight.
I support this rule change to temporarily allow committees to conduct
meetings remotely and to provide my colleagues with the opportunity to
make their constituents' voices heard.
This is the 21st century. We have an opportunity to show that we can
use the tools at our disposal to continue congressional operations at
full capacity while also practicing what we preach.
This is common sense, and I would urge my colleagues to support this
change as well.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy), my very good friend.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding.
I just ask my colleagues here: What are we doing? We have 40 million
Americans out of work. We have serious problems we have got to address,
and we are going to pass a bill tonight that is a clear political bill
filled with political promises from my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that has no chance of being passed in its current form. And
why aren't we debating and doing the job of this body? We have no
debate.
My friend from Maryland, Chairman Raskin, we served together working
to try to protect the Constitution, and he says that we have this rule
in here for a quorum can be two people. I agree, that is a problem.
I don't care who is in charge of this body. We shouldn't operate that
way. The American people want us to do our job and debate and work.
The Constitution is pretty clear about what constitutes a quorum. You
can trot out various words from some professors around the country that
say otherwise, but a quorum means presence. We should be here debating.
It matters. It matters that we look each other in the eye. It matters
that we are here talking to each other when there are 40 million
Americans without jobs while we sit here in Congress and don't do ours?
We are not doing our job. While truckers carry food products, while
people go to grocery stores, while first responders do their job, why
aren't we doing ours? I would posit that the Constitution contemplates
our physically being here looking each other in the eye to do our job.
If we want to have debates about committee work being remote or
virtual, okay, but the actual act of voting, our solemn duty to
represent hundreds of thousands of people who put their trust in us to
do our job, we are supposed to be here. We are supposed to work with
each other.
I have got a bipartisan bill right now that would help solve the
problems, the PPP Flexibility Act, with my friend Dean Phillips from
Minnesota. Let's debate and vote on it. Let's offer amendments. Let's
actually have a debate in this body.
It is supposed to be the people's House--the people's House. It is
our job, Mr. Speaker. This is not constitutional.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman will be happy to know he will have 2 hours of debate on
how to help our constituents. I have a feeling he is going to vote
``no.'' He is going to vote ``no'' to help our teachers, our first
responders. He is going to vote ``no'' to help States, cities, and
towns. That is unfortunate, but we are going to move it forward.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record letters and statements of support
for H. Res. 965 from Representative Kildee, Representative Jeffries,
and Representative Pocan.
Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2020.
Hon. Jim McGovern,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Cole,
Ranking Member, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole: We write
today in strong support of the H. Res. 965, which temporarily
implements remote voting in the full U.S. House of
Representatives and remote committee proceedings during this
public health emergency due to the coronavirus.
Members of Congress must continue to faithfully and safely
execute the duties of our office while acting in accordance
with the social distancing guidelines outlined by medical
experts. The suggested temporary rules would allow for
Members to proxy vote on behalf of those Members who cannot
safely travel to Washington, D.C. This proposed proxy voting
system strictly governs the rules where a remote Member would
send a letter to the Clerk designating a proxy. Members may
serve as a designated proxy for up to ten Members and must
receive exact written instruction on each vote. While there
is no precedent on the House Floor for proxy voting, there is
precedent in House Committees, where it was in place until
the 104th Congress.
The implementation of H. Res. 965 would allow committees to
hold virtual hearings, markups, and depositions enabling
Members to perform vital oversight, conduct fact finding and
bring legislation to the Floor. Especially during this
national emergency, Congress must continue to do the work of
American people, especially overseeing the trillions of
dollars allocated by the federal government so far to combat
the pandemic.

[[Page H2029]]

Members also have the responsibility to model compliance with
the guidelines recommended by the leading science and health
experts without dereliction of our duties. Proxy voting
allows for Members to be engaged in work at the Capitol while
ensuring their safety and those in their communities.
As the Congress continues to find innovate ways to remain
in service of the American people, I am supportive of the
provision in H. Res. 965 that will direct the Committee on
House Administration to study the use of technology to allow
Members to vote remotely in the House. After certification
has been completed determining secure and operable technology
for remote voting, the Rules Committee would issue guidance
and regulations for implementation that can be authorized by
the Speaker to allow Members to cast their votes remotely
during the time period covered by the resolution.
We appreciate your hard work on this and the solicitation
of advice and ideas from Members for many weeks, including
members of both parties. It is our hope that these rules are
only necessary for a short period of time and the House of
Representatives can return to their normal functions in a
safe manner to help families and workers impacted by this
terrible health crisis.
Additional Cosigners: Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Rep. Andy Levin,
Rep. Alan Lowenthal, Rep. Brenda Lawrence.
Sincerely,
Daniel T. Kildee,
Member of Congress.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2020.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern: Thank you for your ongoing
leadership during this time of crisis. Please see my
statement below in support of remote voting by proxy:
As the House continues its work during this trying time, we
must have a safe, secure and reliable way of conducting our
most essential duty--passing legislation on behalf of the
American people. Remote voting by proxy offers a temporary,
commonsense solution that will allow the House to operate
safely and effectively during this crisis. The proposal
crafted by Chairman McGovern allows committees to continue
their important work remotely, while also providing Members
with the ability to vote on legislation without the threat of
hacking or undue influence from bad actors. I stand in strong
support of the proposal and believe it is the best path
forward as we continue to confront this pandemic.
Best,
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries,
Chairman, House Democratic Caucus.
____

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2020.
Hon. Jim McGovern,
Chairman, House Rules Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McGovern: I write in support of efforts to
ensure Members of Congress are able to vote on essential
legislation while not physically present in Washington, D.C.
during the coronavirus pandemic. Numerous states, including
the Wisconsin Legislature, and other nations, including the
British Parliament, have already instituted successful
virtual legislative meeting procedures.
While I intend to be physically present and voting this
week, I know several of our colleagues will be unable to vote
in person due to health or travel difficulties. Foreseeing
this eventuality, the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued
a Whip Question to its Members several weeks ago to measure
support for instituting virtual voting in the House of
Representatives. Responses from the Caucus were
overwhelmingly in support.
I support remote voting efforts in Congress in whatever
form they may take, and plan to vote in favor of implementing
legislation when it is presented to the full U.S. House of
Representatives. I thank you for your friendship and look
forward to continuing to work together on this and other
matters.
Sincerely,

Mark Pocan,

Member of Congress,
Co-Chair, Progressive Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We cannot do and cannot do--and how many times can I say it?--we
cannot stand here and do nothing.
The Constitution has no provision that prohibits this body from doing
something to avoid a catastrophe of not being able to govern this
Nation.
My friends who were here during the heinous tragedy of 9/11 remember
that we had a continuity committee and put in a provision of the rules
under Republican leadership of what would constitute a quorum.
But let me say this, my friends. No one is telling you not to be
present, but what it does say is that we are prepared, we will not
panic. We are prepared in case a catastrophic resurgence of COVID-19
comes in the fall as the scientists have said.
And, no, no proxy is going to dominate this floor. A proxy is
directed by the Member, and they must specifically, on each vote, tell
you what to do. Those directions are specific.
At the same time, no Member is prohibited, as I said, from coming to
this floor. Eleanor Roosevelt said: ``One thing I believe profoundly:
We make our own history.'' That is what we are doing. We are making our
history so that we can serve the American public.
Do you think truck drivers and first responders want us to collapse
and not pass a bill that provides for them so they will not be
furloughed and fired? They want us to do our job.
Thomas Paine said, ``times that try men's souls.'' This is a
constitutional process. It allows for us to proceed and govern this
Nation without an interruption.
We have seen Members who are COVID-19 positive. It can happen to a
predominant number of Members. How, then, will we respond? We need to
respond with the exact idea that has been promoted and put forward in
this resolution.
Let me also acknowledge the fact that 36 million have filed for
unemployment; 85,000 have died. It is projected 134,000 will die. That
is why we have done prison dollars. That is why we put the heroes money
in so that we don't have people seeking to eat.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled ``City
Staring Down $169 Million Budget Gap'' and an article from the Houston
Chronicle entitled ``Universal testing for coronavirus is a national
security issue.

[From houstonchronicle.com, May 13, 2020]

City Staring Down $169M Budget Gap

(By Jasper Scherer and Dylan McGuinness)

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, facing an economy hammered
by the coronavirus pandemic and collapsing oil prices, on
Tuesday proposed to close an upcoming budget gap by
furloughing about 3,000 municipal workers, deferring all
police cadet classes and exhausting the city's entire $20
million ``rainy day'' fund.
The proposals are in response to an estimated $169 million
revenue shortfall for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
Emptying the rainy day fund ``leaves the city in a
precarious state for the upcoming hurricane season,'' the
mayor acknowledged in a message to city council members that
accompanied his budget plan. The account hold money in
reserve for emergency situations, such as cash flow shortages
and major disasters.
The city had just recently replenished the fund after using
all $20 million in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. It will not
have that option if a storm hits Houston this year.
``The dollars from the economic stabilization fund are
gone,'' Turner said. ``There is no rainy day fund.''
Under Turner's plan, the city also would draw $83 million
from its cash reserves to balance the budget.
The city's tax- and fee-supported general fund, which
covers most basic city operations, would spend $2.53 billion
under Turner's plan, a decrease of about 1 percent from the
current budget. Despite the narrow spending cut, the city
would be left with a general fund balance that dips below the
amount required by city ordinance.
Turner said the rule makes an exception ``in the event of
economic instability beyond the city's control.''
Houston is expected to lose nearly $100 million in sales
tax revenue during current fiscal year and the one beginning
in July, due in part to a precipitous drop in oil prices,
along with the closure of bars, restaurants and other
businesses during the pandemic.
The overall city budget, including services that are funded
by dedicated fees and utility charges, is $5.1 billion, a
slight increase from the current budget.
The proposed spending plan, which is subject to approval by
city council, only says that the city would furlough
``thousands of municipal employees.'' At a news conference
Tuesday, Turner said the number would be around 3,000 of the
city's nearly 21,000 employees. The workers would forego 10
days of paying the city roughly $7 million.
Turner did not specify which departments would be required
to send workers home without pay, though he said the city
would not place anyone on furlough from the police, fire and
solid waste management departments.
The city will implement any cuts until the new fiscal year
begins July 1, Turner said.
The bulk of the city's operating budget is devoted to
paying roughly 5,200 police officers and nearly 3,800
firefighters. Public safety would account for 59 percent of
the general fund under the proposal, and usually about 90
percent of the police and fire departments' costs are devoted
to personnel. Both departments would see modest increases of
about 2 percent in spending under Turner's plan, with police
climbing to $930.6 million and the fire department to $516.9
million.
The departments seeing the biggest cuts in their operation
budgets include Public

[[Page H2030]]

Works ($4.5 million, or 14.3 percent of its budget); Parks
and Recreation ($10.4 million, 13 percent); and Solid Waste
($4.5 million, 4.8 percent).
Turner's budget plan could undergo significant changes, the
mayor said Tuesday, if Congress allows local governments to
spend COVID-19 stimulus funds to make up for lost tax
revenue. Houston received $404 million from the roughly $2
trillion coronavirus stimulus package and for now is barred
from spending it on previously budgeted expenses, though city
officials may identify some public safety expenses related to
the pandemic that can be covered with federal aid, Turner
said.
``More than likely you will see additional dollars flowing
into this budget in the next couple of weeks,'' Turner said.
The mayor already is proposing to use federal COVID-19
funds to cover the city's roughly $10 million annual contract
with the Houston Zoo, which is paid out of the general fund.
Turner said he also has directed the fire and police chiefs
to determine which of their recent operations were devoted to
COVID-19--spending that could be eligible for federal aid.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington, D.C., also have sought
more money for state and local governments in Congress' next
stimulus package, though such plans have met skepticism in
GPO ranks.
Even if Congress gives Houston officials more flexibility
to spend the funds, Turner said the $404 million will not
cover all the city's COVID-19 expenses and lost revenue. The
city already is projected to spend about $200 million on
testing, contact tracing and other health expenses, Turner
said, while putting additional funds toward rental assistance
and programs to help homeless Houstonians.
``The $404 (million), though it seems like a big number,
it's not big at all considering the needs that exist,''
Turner said. ``Just because we may be able to pull dollars
from what we have received, it doesn't mean that there will
be sufficient dollars to do it.''
If the federal government does provide more money, Turner
said his first priority would be to reinstate the police
cadet classes, which would cost $14 million. Next on the list
would be eliminating furloughs and refilling the city's
reserves.
Cities across the country already have slashed large chunks
of their payrolls, placing workers on furlough, laying off
employees and implementing hiring freezes. As many as 1
million municipal workers may be laid off or placed on
furlough, according to the National League of Cities.
____

[From the Houston Chronical, May 6, 2020]

Universal Testing for Coronavirus Is a National Security Issue

(By Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee)

Most Americans are not fully aware how up to now the United
States has been so effective at preventing, combating, and
mitigating outbreaks of infectious disease. We have been able
to do this because of the expertise and responsiveness of
superb institutions, independent agencies and offices
throughout the federal government that effectively dealt with
Ebola, H1N1, Zika, SARS and MERS.
I was alarmed by news reports in late December 2019 of a
new or novel coronavirus. By January, the machinery of
government with its unparalleled ability to project power
globally, galvanize our allies, and coordinate peer
competitors in the field of science and technology should
have activated to provide all needed resources and assistance
to China to contain the disease. This was not a China
problem; it was a global threat requiring a global response.
So early the next month, on Feb. 10, I held a press
conference to raise public awareness on the emerging threat
posed. Two weeks later, on Feb. 24, I called another press
conference to urge that testing be given the highest priority
in battling the spread of the new coronavirus and the
sickness it causes called COVID-19. And I continue to
champion testing as the tool that federal, state, tribal and
territorial governments must embrace to support our COVID-19
economic recovery.
We are at the beginning of May and testing is still
urgently needed. There cannot be further delay in acting. If
we cannot see COVID-19 there is no way to stop it. If we do
not dramatically increase testing, we will remain prisoners
of COVID-19 until we have a vaccine widely available, which
is not expected to occur until early 2021.
As the nation does battle with COVID-19 it is not the role
of public policy makers to determine acceptable losses of
civilian lives. Although in military battles commanders must
calculate acceptable losses as part of battle plans, none of
these calculations are based on the intentional sacrifice of
lives. Any commander thought to have unnecessarily cost the
lives of soldiers or civilians through their actions or
decisions would face severe consequences. If the decisions
are not driven by public health, but by economic interest,
this is the wrong calculation. The economic injury caused by
COVID-19 is because there has been and continues to be
insufficient testing to check its spread.
Decisions to open state economies seem to want to place
responsibility upon small business owners who decide to
reopen without making clear what the consequences may be to
them if even one case of COVID-19 occurs among their
employees or customers.
For this reason, I have partnered with Houston hospitals,
local public health agencies, local businesses and
international corporations to promote the provision of
community-based COVID-19 testing sites to assist in this
critical first step in stopping COVID-19's unchecked spread
in local communities.
The economic and health security of the nation hinges on
getting testing in every community so that we can shine a
light on where COVID-19 is and where it is not present. The
lack of testing early on and the continued lack of testing is
costing trillions in lost economic output and it will
continue to cost much more as we struggle to save lives
through social distancing and providing adequate universal
access to COVID-19 medical treatment, equipment and PPE to
protect medical personnel as well as essential workers.
The United States needs to meet or exceed the recovery rate
of other nations around the globe so that our national
economy can benefit as the global economy recovers. This will
happen once we demonstrate that our nation can do the hard
work of implementing successful testing, contact tracing and
social distance programs. Other nations including our own
will not tolerate reinfections once they are under control
because a COVID-19 infection anywhere is a threat to people
living everywhere.
The virus that causes COVID-19 is less than five months old
and it has rocked the world with its arrival. If this new
coronavirus is under active transmission in communities, it
could continue to evolve. This is the reason we must do the
hard job of stopping this virus and do it sooner than later.
There are six actions that can be taken before the end of
the summer to make it possible for children to return to
school in the fall:
1. The president should use the Defense Production Act to
produce enough of the COVID-19 15-minute test recently
approved by the FDA for use in high risk areas like urban,
rural, and Native American communities and environment such
as food processing, warehouses, production lines or
factories;
2. Target COVID-19 pandemic aid to communities based upon
mortality not just known infections;
3. Equip health care professionals with enough PPE to
provide home health visits to the elderly who will need more
engagement than telemedicine can provide to ensure their
health and welfare;
4. Provide 100 percent paid medical leave for persons who
themselves or someone in their household have one or more of
the known risk factors that make COVID-19 a deadly threat;
5. Implement robust contact tracing efforts to ensure that
every infection is tracked and those who may have been
infected are identified; and
6. Prepare contingencies to address public emergencies such
as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires in conjunction with
COVID-19 for known seasonal high-risk disaster areas of the
nation, such as along the Gulf Coast, the Mid-Atlantic,
Tornado Alley and fire-prone California and the Caribbean.
A greater commitment to universal testing will save the
lives of hundreds of thousands of people and cost far less
than the economic stimulus that is very necessary as the
economy stagnates under the weight of COVID-19 stay at home
orders and quarantines. A misstep at this point can have dire
consequences for the lives of families, their children and
the elderly; and result in an even deeper impact on the
local, state and national economy.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we need rural, city, local, and State
funding and $15 million in rental assistance. We need to do this
resolution and pass the HEROES legislation now.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary,
and on Homeland Security, and the Budget, I rise in strong support of
H. Res. 965, which authorizes the Speaker, in consultation with the
Minority Leader, to temporarily implement remote committee proceedings
and remote voting in the House when she has been notified by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, of a
public health emergency due to the coronavirus.
When exercised, that authority lasts for 45 days but can be extended
if the public health emergency persists or there is a resurgence.
Mr. Speaker, in the 231 years since the first Congress met in New
York City on March 4, 1789, our nation has undergone and overcome many
crises and challenges, from the presence of British troops in the
capital city during the War of 1812, to the Civil War, World Wars I and
II, the Spanish Flu of 1918, the Great Depression, and the Great
Recession of 2008.
Through it all, Americans have persevered and America has flourished
because Americans do not give up hope or give in to despair.
Instead of cursing the darkness, we light candles.
Our national history is one of pride in our democracy, in a
government of, for, and by the people, and our willingness to sacrifice
to keep it and our ability to adapt to changing times to sustain it.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in the midst of one of those `times that try
men's souls,' as Thomas Paine put it two centuries ago.
As of yesterday, there were at minimum 4,405,688 cases of COVID-19
across the

[[Page H2031]]

globe and 1,400,500 in the United States, resulting in more than
300,000 deaths worldwide and more than 84,985 in the United States.
With just 4 percent of the world's population, the United States has
one-third of the total COVID-19 cases and nearly 30 percent of deaths
from COVID-19 globally.
Mr. Speaker, the necessary measures taken to slow the pandemic and
'flatten the curve' so as not to overwhelm the nation's health care
system has also delivered a severe shock to economic activity in the
United States.
Yesterday, the Department of Labor reported that the number of first-
time unemployment insurance claims exceeded 2.85 million, bring the
total number of unemployed to 36 million, shattering by orders of
magnitude all previous marks.
So, Mr Speaker, it is essential that this Congress act and act now to
put in place measure that will address the public health crisis, stem
the economic onslaught, and ameliorate the suffering and deprivation of
individuals and communities.
But requires that we first ensure that the Congress discharge the
duties delegated it under the Constitution in a way that does not
needlessly endanger Members, their staff, or any of the thousands of
Capitol Hill personnel.
That is the purpose and intent of H. Res. 965; to allow Members from
across the country to continue legislating on behalf of the American
people while adhering to the advice of medical experts and protecting
public health.
First, the resolution authorizes remote committee proceedings during
the pandemic.
During the public health emergency period, committees are authorized
to hold virtual hearings, markups, and depositions so Members can
perform oversight, conduct fact-finding, and prepare legislation for
the House floor.
Committee chairs can choose to hold entirely virtual proceedings,
with Members participating from any location, or they can hold
proceedings in the hearing room with some Members participating
remotely.
Members participating remotely will count towards a quorum and be
able to vote.
Committees are required to use software platforms approved by the
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for remote participation.
Second, H. Res. 965 authorizes and implements procedures for remote
voting on the House floor during the pandemic.
Specifically, the resolution allows for remote voting by proxy on the
House Floor during the public health emergency period.
All Members voting remotely will be counted toward a quorum.
After sending a letter to the Clerk designating a proxy, Members are
permitted to vote remotely on any vote.
Members voting remotely will be given 24-hours' notice before any
final passage vote to ensure they can secure a proxy if they have not
yet designated one.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that this is not a general
proxy, rather proxies must receive exact written instruction from the
Member voting by proxy on each vote and are required to follow that
instruction precisely.
To ensure transparency, a list of designated proxies will be posted
on the Clerk's website and a list of Members voting remotely will be
printed in the Congressional Record following each vote.
In addition, Members' votes will be read aloud during the vote.
Additionally, no Member can serve as a designated proxy for more than
ten Members.
Finally, the resolution provides for remote voting through technology
during the pandemic, after a system is developed and certified.
The resolution directs the chair of the House Administration
Committee to study the feasibility of using technology to vote remotely
in the House, and to provide certification upon a determination that
there is operable and secure technology for remote voting.
After the certification, the chair of the Rules Committee is directed
to issue regulations on the implementation of remote voting and the
Speaker is then authorized to notify the House that Members may cast
their votes remotely during the public health emergency period covered
by the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in this moment of national crisis Americans are looking
to their government to be there for them and enact policies and take
action that will see us through this pandemic as safely and as quickly
as possible.
To ensure that the House, the first branch of the co-equal but
preeminent body vested by Article I with the power to investigate,
legislate, and appropriate in further of the general welfare and
national defense, remains able to discharge its constitutional duty, I
urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H. Res. 965.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend and former Rules Committee
member.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution states that
only a majority can constitute a quorum in order to do the business of
the people's House. As a former member of the House Rules Committee, I
have a deep appreciation and a commitment to the precedence and
procedures of this hallowed body.
But under this democratic proxy voting scheme before us today, only
22 House Democrats would need to be present in this Chamber to pass any
and every single bill moving forward. This is a forced consolidation of
power to a select few insiders, and it simply does not reflect the
values of our constitution, our history, and our Nation.
The constituents of my Washington's Fourth Congressional District did
not vote for their Representative to simply defer to a proxy and shirk
the duties of serving as a U.S. Representative.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve more, and I urge a ``no''
vote on this terribly ill-advised and unconstitutional resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I insert in the Record an April 14 AP news article entitled,
``Wisconsin Assembly OKs Virus Bill in First Virtual Session.''

[From the Associated Press, April 14, 2020]

Wisconsin Assembly OKs Virus Bill in First Virtual Session

(By Todd Richmond)

Madison, Wis. (AP).--The Wisconsin Assembly overwhelmingly
approved a sweeping coronavirus relief bill Tuesday during a
virtual session, the first time state lawmakers have gathered
since the pandemic began in the United States.
The session took place in the Assembly chamber as usual,
but due to concerns about spreading the virus nearly two-
thirds of the body's 99 members attended via videoconference.
The Senate was to hold a similar session on Wednesday to send
the bill on to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
It marked the first time in Wisconsin's 172-year history
that lawmakers convened a session with members participating
remotely. Legislative rules require lawmakers to be present
to debate and vote on bills but a 2009 law allows for virtual
sessions during disasters.
One section of the Assembly gallery was open to the public,
with only 14 seats available and each spread out 6 feet
apart. Public seating, also 6 feet apart, was available in
the Capitol rotunda with speakers and TVs tuned to WisEye,
the Legislature's version of C-SPAN. Two large TV screens,
tuned to Skype, were set up on the Assembly chamber floor.
About 35 members sat in the chamber, all spaced several seats
apart. Many rows were empty. Several pages wore face masks,
as did Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz. He was the only
Democrat on the floor.
The session got off to a slow start as Chief Clerk Pat
Fuller tried to call the roll. Lawmakers joined from their
kitchens, Capitol offices and home offices and struggled to
unmute themselves and register their attendance before Fuller
moved on to the next legislator. Some seemed amused at the
setup, smiling and waving to the camera. Others initially
appeared befuddled, apparently unable to hear or to figure
out how to be heard. Roll call votes took minutes as Fuller
asked each lawmaker individually for his or her vote. In a
normal world voting is almost instantaneous as lawmakers
signal their votes from their seats with the touch of a
button.
Moments before adjourning for a 10-minute receess, Speaker
Pro Tempore Tyler August warned lawmakers not to touch their
laptops during the break because if they disconnected
themselves they wouldn't be able to log back in. Assembly
Speaker Robin Vos, one of the few legislators on the floor,
said setting up the virtual session was ``extremely
challenging'' and he hoped the Assembly would never have to
meet that way again.
The process smoothed out as the session progressed. The
chamber ended up approving the bill 97-2.
The legislation largely ensures that Wisconsin can capture
the $2.3 billion coming to the state under the federal
stimulus bill, including higher Medicaid payments and
unemployment benefits. The Legislature's budget committee
would be allowed to allocate up to $75 million in funding
during the public health emergency and up to 90 days after it
ends.
The measure also would waive the state's one-week waiting
period to receive unemployment for anyone who applies between
March and Feb. 7, 2021; ban certain insurers from prohibiting
coverage based on a COVID-19 diagnosis; ease licensing and
credentialing for health care workers; reduce nurse training
hour requirements; and render health providers immune from
civil liability for services provided during the pandemic.
Local municipalities also could choose to defer their
residents' property tax payments.
Evers' administration has been working closely with Vos and
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on the bill. The
governor did not say Monday whether he supported the bill,
saying he had not reviewed it, but

[[Page H2032]]

he hoped it wouldn't be the last action taken by the
Legislature to offer aid during the pandemic.
Nineteen states had allocated more than $3 billion to
respond to the pandemic as of Friday, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures and the Wisconsin
Policy Forum.
As of Tuesday, COVID-19 had killed 170 people in Wisconsin
and infected more than 3,500. Among those who contracted the
virus and recovered is Democratic state Rep. David Bowen, of
Milwaukee.
Vos and Hintz were the only lawmakers who spoke about the
bill prior to the vote. Hintz said the Legislature should be
prepared to return to work on further legislation that helps
Evers deal with the pandemic.
``We should make sure we are listening, enabling and
supporting and giving (the Evers administration) the
flexibility to manage this crisis,'' he said. ``I refuse to
admit this is all we can do as a state.''
But Vos cautioned against giving Evers ``blank checks'' as
the virus wreaks ``economic carnage'' on the state's
finances. He said he was disappointed the bill didn't freeze
state spending in fiscal year 2020-21 and lamented that state
workers will still get an automatic 2% raise.
``We have to be just like a family were the credit card use
is limited,'' Vos said. ``Think before we spend. Make
investments that are wise but not wanting.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a May 6 Boston
Globe article entitled, ``For the First Time in 400 Years, Mass.
Lawmakers Vote Remotely.''

[From the Boston Globe, May 6, 2020]

For the First Time in 400 Years, Mass. Lawmakers Vote Remotely

(By Matt Stout)

With lawmakers dialing in from across the state, the
Massachusetts House of Representatives on Wednesday voted
remotely for the first time in the body's near 400-year
history, and officially relaunched formal lawmaking amid the
novel coronavirus pandemic.
The historic session, which lasted roughly an hour,
included one substantive vote: a 157-0 roll call approving a
bill that would allow the state to borrow billions of dollars
over the next eight weeks to help pay its bills.
It came amid a surreal scene. As a smattering of people,
including House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, held court in a
mostly empty chamber, dozens of representatives called in to
a network of conference call lines, where other lawmakers
gathered and recorded their votes.
A livestream offered a view inside, showing a half-circle
of stanchions surrounding the rostrum to separate DeLeo,
House clerk Steve T. James, a court officer, and others--all
of whom were wearing masks--from the rows of seats where
representatives would otherwise be stationed.
Where they actually were ran the gamut. Representative
William Driscoll Jr., a Milton Democrat, tweeted a photo from
his car parked in the Blue Hills Reservation, the livestream
playing from a phone propped up on his dashboard.
Representative Tram T. Nguyen shared a picture of her logged
in from a kitchen countertop. Representative Susannah Whipps
showed off a plate of vegetables on her Twitter feed.
House leaders discussed for weeks how to relaunch formal
legislative sessions amid the spread of COVID-19, after
spending the better part of two months moving bills through
informal gatherings with no debate and where a single ``no''
vote could stall legislation.
The set of emergency rules was approved Monday, but only
after a heated, partisan dispute that started when House
minority leader Bradley H. Jones blocked the rules package,
arguing that it effectively limited how often most
representatives would be allowed to speak.
He had accused DeLeo of using the crisis to ``achieve more
power,'' while the Winthrop Democrat lashed out at what he
called the Republicans' ``recklessness and fiscal
irresponsibility.'' (The House couldn't pass the borrowing
bill unless the House held a formal vote.)
Jones and DeLeo ultimately agreed to a revision this week
that allows some Republicans, including Jones, more chances
to speak during legislative debates under the new rules,
which could remain in effect until as late as January.
Such back-and-forth was largely absent from Wednesday's
otherwise smooth session, though it included some awkward but
harmless hiccups as lawmakers adjusted to their new remote
reality.
Shortly before DeLeo opened the session, a voice fluttered
through on the livestream.
``Hello?'' a lawmaker asked.
Another voice quickly cut in, informing him he had
accidentally called a number connected to a microphone within
the chamber. ``You're actually dialed into the rostrum
line,'' he was told.
Later, when Representative Denise Garlick called in to
speak on the borrowing bill, a delayed feedback from the
session was audible over the livestream--trailing the chamber
by several moments and causing Garlick to pause for several
moments after DeLeo recognized her.
When she wrapped her testimony, a long pause again settled
over the line, and the phrase ``[Audio difficulties]'' popped
up on the livestream feed.
``Is the representative finished with her remarks?'' DeLeo
eventually asked.
``Yes,'' Garlick said.
Representative Harold P. Naughton was the only lawmaker not
to cast a vote, but the Clinton Democrat had a good excuse: A
lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard,
he was activated roughly a month ago and is reporting to
Hanscom Air Force Base through May 31, he said Wednesday.
``I've been pushing back information that I feel my
colleagues need from the vantage point of the National
Guard,'' he said in a phone call, adding he did listen to the
session. ``It was pretty historic.''
The Legislature owes its roots to Colonial times, when the
``General Court'' gathered for the first time in 1629 in
London and later became the government of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony. Amid its various iterations, members have met in
person to cast votes, and House leaders initially questioned
whether the state's constitution even allowed it to conduct
remote voting.
The House's emergency rules try to limit who could be in
the chamber to DeLeo and Jones; Aaron Michlewitz, DeLeo's
budget chairman; eight ``monitors'' who would tally votes
from members on conference call lines; and a few other
Republicans, Democrats, and staff.
The bill the chamber passed Wednesday allows the state
treasurer to borrow any ``necessary'' amount this fiscal year
and pay it back by June 2021. Donning a gray mask, Michlewitz
said from the House floor that the amount could be ``in the
range of $3 billion,'' though it will depend on how the
state's finances weather the pandemic.
The legislation was first filed by Governor Charlie Baker
amid fears the state could face a budget gap after pushing
its April 15 tax filing deadline into July, potentially
diverting huge chunks of money it would otherwise collect now
into next fiscal year.
That appeared to already be happening. Massachusetts tax
revenues plummeted last month, dropping more than 50 percent
below what the state collected at this time a year ago. The
$1.98 billion in taxes the state collected in April--
typically the biggest tax month--was more than $2 billion
below state projections.
``A staggering number to say the least,'' Michlewitz said.
So, after Garlick and Representative Todd Smola, a Warren
Republican, spoke in support of the bill, DeLeo teed up a
roll call. Minutes later, he documented the 157-0 tally to
officially move the bill to the Senate, where leaders are
weighing their own rules to hold a remote session.
``Congratulations,'' DeLeo said to representatives watching
and listening in. And he rapped the gavel to close the
session.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an April 1 Courier
Journal article entitled, ``Kentucky House Dramatically Limits In-
Person Voting on Bills Due to Coronavirus Concerns.''

[From the Louisville Courier Journal, Apr. 1, 2020]

Kentucky House Dramatically Limits In-Person Voting on Bills Due to
Coronavirus Concerns

(By Joe Sonka)

Frankfort, Ky.--For the first time in the history of the
Kentucky General Assembly, a large majority of House members
voted on bills remotely by texting photos of their paper
ballot via phone.
The move is part of rule changes adopted Wednesday out of
concern about the coronavirus pandemic.
The change was agreed on by leadership of the Republican
majority and Democratic minority of the House in order to
keep members from being in close proximity on the floor of
the chamber, as the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in
Kentucky continued to increase.
On Monday, lawmakers learned that a legislative staffer had
tested positive for the coronavirus, though no legislators
had announced testing positive as of Wednesday.
In a press release announcing the rules change shortly
before the House gaveled in on Wednesday, House Speaker David
Osborne, R-Prospect, said the pandemic is a historic
challenge to the state, and his chamber ``is willing to take
equally historic steps to meet our Constitutional obligations
to the people of Kentucky.''
``I appreciate the support of our Caucus members, House
Minority Leadership, and our staff in making it possible to
use every tool available to us in order to finish our work''
Osborne stated.
In order to adopt the rules change to allow remote voting,
House leadership allowed members to enter in groups of 25 to
cast their vote as present and in favor of amending the
rules.
Under the rules change, members could text a photo of their
paper ballot vote to designated members of their party who
remained on the House floor and cast their votes.
Following the approval of the rules change, members voted
89-1 to adopt Senate Bill 249--freezing the pension
contribution rate of local government employers--in a nearly
empty chamber.
The three Democratic leadership members remained on the
floor as vote designates, while three Republicans remained as
vote designates along with Osborne and two other GOP members
of leadership.

[[Page H2033]]

Two Democratic House members--Reps. Terri Branham Clark and
Nima Kulkarni--were seen casting their votes on the bill from
their cars in the parking lot outside the Capitol Building.
Part of the reason Democratic leadership agreed to the
change was a pledge they received from Republicans that the
House would take up only vital budget and revenue bills on
the floor Wednesday, and not unrelated bills.
After the passage of SB 249, Rep. Chris Harris, D-
Pikeville, entered the chamber and spoke in praise of
Osborne's move to change the voting rules--noting that two
weeks earlier he spoke on the floor denouncing House
Republicans' decision to remain in session and vote on bills
that were not related to a state budget or responding to the
coronavirus crisis.
``I thank you for taking these historic and unprecedented
measures to protect not only our members, but our families
and communities,'' Harris said. ``I was critical when I felt
you weren't getting it right, so I want to be just as vocal
in complimenting you today.''
The House later used the same voting method to approve a
one-year state budget for the executive branch and other
appropriations and revenue bills that passed the Senate
earlier in the day.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my very good friend.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will bring up three things that are very
wrong with proxy voting that I don't think have been brought up today.
First of all, one of the problems we have in this building is, even
though we all represent 700,000 people, there are some Congressmen who
are a great deal more powerful than others, and this bill will greatly
increase the power of leadership.
Right now, people run into each other in the halls, talk to each
other in the Cloakroom, question parts of the bill, and sometimes
question leadership's narrative. This bill says everybody is going to
be back at home, which greatly strengthens the power of leadership
because people aren't around to question the bill.
Secondly, it lessens bipartisanship. When we are gone, we do have
conference calls with other Republicans, but I find I talk to Democrats
much more when we are in this building; and by taking people out of
this building, you will decrease bipartisanship as you make proxy
voting the norm.
Finally, you are penalizing the press. We should all be available to
the press after these votes so they get a variety of perspectives. We
are going to work our way down to the point where it is the Speaker and
a few other Democrats around, and the press are not going to be able to
talk to us all. It is an insult to the press.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I insert in the Record an April 22 Washington Post article entitled,
``U.K.'s Zoom Parliament Launches With a Few Glitches But Shows Virtual
Democracy May Work for a While.''

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2020]

U.K.'s Zoom Parliament Launches With a Few Glitches But Shows Virtual
Democracy May Work for a While

(By William Booth)

London.--Britain's extraordinary first ``Parliament via
Zoom'' proceeded Wednesday in rather ordinary fashion, with
the usual barbed questions and artful evasion by politicians,
plus the addition of awkward views of oversize chins and
bookshelves staged as backdrops.
Everything was the same, and everything was a little odd.
Breaking 700 years of tradition, the British Parliament has
agreed to serve as a cradle of virtual democracy--to allow
members to continue to debate, vote and legislate, but via
video conferencing app, from the safety of their own homes,
for the duration of Britain's coronavirus lockdown.
On Wednesday, there were a few minor technical hiccups.
Some lawmakers' heads were cropped at the eyebrows by the bad
framing. Their mics were sometimes too close or too far away,
or the Internet connection bad, and so voices sounded tinny
or muffled or like Darth Vader.
But all in all, for no rehearsals? Not a bad opening
matinee.
For centuries, it has been essential for members of
Parliament to be present in the Houses of Commons or Lords to
vote. That's why special ``division bells'' ring out in
Westminster's offices and committee rooms--and many bars--
alerting lawmakers they have eight minutes to enter their
lobbies, before doors are bolted shut.
Now, instead, they will get a ping on their mobile phones.
Britain is trying out ``hybrid proceedings,'' where up to
50 lawmakers can be in the House of Commons--spaced six feet
apart on the green leather benches--while another 150 of the
650 members can join by Zoom.
Wednesday's premiere featured the weekly thrust-and-parry
session known as ``Prime Minister's Questions,'' or PMQs.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stood at the despatch box in
place of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is recovering from
the bout of covid-19 that put him in the hospital for a week.
In the sparsely populated House of Commons, Raab was
quizzed by the new leader of the opposition Labour Party,
Keir Starmer, who was prosecutorial in his questioning,
insisting the government was slow to order a lockdown, slow
to do widespread testing for the virus and slow to get vital
protective gowns, masks and visors into the hands of front-
line medical workers.
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle called on lawmakers by swiveling his
head toward what appeared to be a TV monitor and shouting a
version of: ``We are now going over to Stephen Kinnock.
STEPHEN KINNOCK!''
Shouting at a television being a time-honored tradition
everywhere.
And then Kinnock, a Labour lawmaker from Wales, popped on
the screen for those watching on Parliament TV--including
Washington Post reporters--from their homes.
At one point, Hoyle shouted for David Mundell, a Scottish
Conservative, who didn't answer.
``Unable to connect,'' the speaker said, perhaps creating a
new meme, like the famous ``orrrrrder, orrrrder!'' from past
days. So they moved on.
In another exchange, Peter Bone, a Conservative from
Wellingborough, was complaining about his constituents having
to live off their overdraft accounts. ``What on earth is
going on?'' Bone demanded. ``When are the banks going to work
in the nation interest and . . .''
Then his Zoom link went dead.
Raab said, ``I got the gist,'' and answered anyway.
Legislatures around the world are sorting out how to
proceed during the pandemic. Some--such as the German
Bundestag and Irish Dail--are continuing to meet in person
but with social distancing measures. Canada's Parliament is
trying a mix of in-person and virtual, while the U.S. House
of Representatives is fighting over a proxy voting proposal.
The Brits showed that it was possible to carry on.
The Guardian newspaper's Andrew Sparrow observed: ``PMQs
without 400-odd MPs in the chamber makes everything quieter,
calmer, more intelligible and more grown-up. . . . Without
the jeering and the aggro, it lacked gladiatorial edge, and
frankly it was probably a bit more boring than the old PMQs.
But boring is a much underrated virtue in governance.''
Raab was questioned pointedly about the government's
performance during the outbreak.
Labour lawmaker Barry Gardiner stated that the government's
scientific advisory group on emergencies recommended a
lockdown at the end of February. ``The government claims it
has followed scientific advice,'' he said. ``But it hasn't,
has it?''
Starmer asked Raab how it will be possible to go from the
current 18,000 coronavirus tests a day to the 100,000
promised by the government by the end of the month.
Raab sought to correct Starmer, pointing out that the
``capacity'' stands at 40,000.
Starmer wasn't having it. ``I didn't need correcting
because I gave the figure for actual tests being carried out,
which is 18,000,'' he said.
At the end of the session, Raab was asked by a Labour
lawmaker if Britain would be ``drawn into the U.S.
president's disgraceful vendetta against the World Health
Organization.''
President Trump has cut off funding to the WHO because he
says the international body sides too closely with China,
where the virus first exploded onto the scene.
Raab said Britain supported international efforts and was a
``leading player, whether it's on vaccines or supporting
vulnerable countries, in helping to get through what is a
global crisis.''
He said the WHO has ``has a role to play. It's not perfect,
no international institution is--we do need to work to reform
it. But we made clear we consider it an important part of the
international response.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, breaking 700 years of tradition, I also
insert in the Record a March 26 Politico article entitled, ``Corona-era
European Parliament: Empty Chamber and E-Voting.''

[From the Politico, Mar. 27, 2020]

Corona-era European Parliament: Empty Chamber and e-Voting

(By Maia De La Baume)

The chamber was almost empty, even for a presidential
address. One lawmaker wore a face mask. And deputies voted
remotely for the first time in the assembly's 62-year
history.
Welcome to the European Parliament in the age of social
distancing.
The Parliament's special one-day plenary session on
Thursday, held to pass a series of corona virus emergency
measures, was a mixture of the strange, the surreal and the
historic.
Only a handful of the Parliament's 705 members sat in the
hemicycle chamber in Brussels. The rest were scattered across
the

[[Page H2034]]

Continent, following via video-link and voting by email from
their home countries.
When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
delivered a speech chastising EU member countries for
thinking only of themselves at the start of the crisis, she
stood meters apart from any aides and MEPs.
Parliament President David Sassoli, back in the building
following a fortnight working from home after a visit to his
home country of Italy, called the session ``special and
atypical.''
``It is the first time that a democratic parliament uses
remote participation, this has never happened before,''
Sassoli told MEPs after a first round of emailed votes. ``The
European Parliament is called on to experiment with things in
this way at a moment for great danger for our citizens.''
As experiments go, this one was quite radical.
The Parliament's regular plenary venue of Strasbourg has
been abandoned for the next few months, at least. As much as
the Parliament has a physical home at all right now, it's
Brussels.
Plenary sessions are normally four days long. But on
Thursday everything was crammed into a one-day marathon to
push through three coronavirus-related measures, including
freeing up 37 billion in EU funding for member governments
and temporarily allowing airlines not to use their slots at
airports.
Some of the Parliament's usual quirks were suspended--such
as the ``catch the eye'' procedure whereby MEPs signal to the
president that they wish to speak, and the blue cards raised
to indicate a wish to question a fellow member.
Fewer ushers than usual roamed the chamber and they kept
their distance from one another. Interpreters sat alone in
their booths, rather than being crammed in with colleagues.
Journalists were advised to stay away and watched via video
stream.
Among the few MEPs who attended in person, Fulvio
Martusciello of Italy wore a large white face mask. A Spanish
MEP sported a new beard, perhaps a result of personal
confinement.
In the Parliament, MEPs usually vote by raising their hands
or by pushing a button on their desks to give their verdict
on dozens or more amendments before adopting a final
legislative proposal.
But on Thursday they considered only a few amendments as
legislation was rushed through under an emergency procedure.
And they voted from all across Europe by printing out a form,
then signing, scanning and emailing it to the Parliament.
For some, such technological advances were long overdue.
The chamber was almost empty, even for a presidential
address. One lawmaker wore a face mask. And deputies voted
remotely for the first time in the assembly's 62-year
history.
Welcome to the European Parliament in the age of social
distancing.
The Parliament's special one-day plenary session on
Thursday, held to pass a series of coronavirus emergency
measures, was a mixture of the strange, the surreal and the
historic.
Only a handful of the Parliament's 705 members sat in the
hemicycle chamber in Brussels. The rest were scattered across
the Continent, following via video-link and voting by email
from their home countries.
When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
delivered a speech chastising EU member countries for
thinking only of themselves at the start of the crisis, she
stood meters apart from any aides and MEPs.
Parliament President David Sassoli, back in the building
following a fortnight working from home after a visit to his
home country of Italy, called the session ``special and
atypical.''``It is the first time that a democratic
parliament uses remote participation, this has never happened
before,'' Sassoli told MEPs after a first round of emailed
votes. ``The European Parliament is called on to experiment
with things in this way at a moment for great danger for our
citizens.''
As experiments go, this one was quite radical.
The Parliament's regular plenary venue of Strasbourg has
been abandoned for the next few months, at least. As much as
the Parliament has a physical home at all right now, it's
Brussels.
Plenary sessions are normally four days long. But on
Thursday everything was crammed into a one-day marathon to
push through three coronavirus-related measures, including
freeing up 37 billion in EU funding for member governments
and temporarily allowing airlines not to use their slots at
airports.
Some of the Parliament's usual quirks were suspended--such
as the ``catch the eye'' procedure whereby MEPs signal to the
president that they wish to speak, and the blue cards raised
to indicate a wish to question a fellow member.
Fewer ushers than usual roamed the chamber and they kept
their distance from one another. Interpreters sat alone in
their booths, rather than being crammed in with colleagues.
Journalists were advised to stay away and watched via video
stream.
Among the few MEPs who attended in person, Fulvio
Martusciello of Italy wore a large white face mask. A Spanish
MEP sported a new beard, perhaps a result of personal
confinement.
In the Parliament, MEPs usually vote by raising their hands
or by pushing a button on their desks to give their verdict
on dozens or more amendments before adopting a final
legislative proposal.
But on Thursday they considered only a few amendments as
legislation was rushed through under an emergency procedure.
And they voted from all across Europe by printing out a form,
then signing, scanning and emailing it to the Parliament.
For some, such technological advances were long overdue.
``Corona drags the European Parliament into the 21st
century,'' tweeted Dutch center-left MEP Lara Wolters, above
a picture of her smiling as she signed a ballot paper.
Bulgarian center-right MEP Eva Maydell also endorsed the
innovation. But, she added, ``this way of voting is only
feasible for single votes. We need another solution for
longer votes.''
Some MEPs apparently doubted their colleagues were up to
the challenge of the new system. German Green MEP Rasmus
Andresen asked his fellow lawmakers on Twitter not to ``send
your votes to all colleagues (dont push the ``reply all''
Button). It's good to be transparent, but i dont want to
receive about 2000 emails with your votes in my inbox
today.'' (No older MEPs shot back by criticizing his lack of
apostrophes or use of upper and lower case letters.)
Other MEPs complained about formatting issues with the
first ballots that were sent to them, including trouble
converting the documents into a PDF if they were using Apple
devices.
Dita Charanzova from the centrist Renew Europe group told
POLITICO the Parliament should have gone entirely digital and
regretted that staff such as ushers had to attend, given that
people are meant to be staying at home for health reasons.
``We are now a digital Parliament, no one should have to
take a risk just for a few members in an empty room,''
Charanzova said. ``It's ridiculous to see the Commission
there, and some MEPs. We should have gone completely digital
for this plenary and for all future plenaries until the
crisis is over.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Walden), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member and
former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, the current
Republican leader of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
We are in unprecedented times, and unprecedented times do call for
unprecedented actions. But using these times to smash a wrecking ball
into the foundation of democratic lawmaking by making government more
remote, more isolated from the people by dramatically centralizing even
more power with those few at the top in the majority while giving the
range of the House to fewer than 25 Members who show up with votes,
with proxies, seems like a return to boss politics.
This is not to say there is never room for improvement in the way the
House conducts its business.
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, I led the transition effort for House
Republicans, and we looked at ways that we could modernize Congress and
improve its operations.
But I knew these were matters not to be taken lightly and we needed
an inclusive, bipartisan approach, and I took great care to solicit
input from Democrats and Republicans alike. We even put up a suggestion
box.
What we did was good work. The changes were relatively small, but the
process was robust. Unfortunately, the reverse is true of this
proposal.
``Regular order,'' ``accountability,'' ``transparency''--for the most
part--``bipartisanship,'' these are words that govern the Energy and
Commerce Committee, the Republicans and Democrats. As the Republican
leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am concerned what this
proposal means for the committees.
How do we preserve the rights of all Members on both sides of the
dais from top to bottom as we Zoom through hearings and markups?
How do we preserve the integrity of the proceedings?
What if there is a technology failure?
What if somebody makes a mistake using the technology, like
accidentally muting another Member or themselves? Haven't we all, by
now, experienced the inadequacies of video conferencing?
No serious legislator can believe that remote hearings, remote
meetings, and remote markups are improved by these changes.
Moreover, this rules change further dehumanizes our processes. We all
know social media has become a cancer on civility. Further distancing
Members will not improve our relationships.

[[Page H2035]]

Think of what gets worked out between Members here on the floor or in
the committees.
We need more bipartisan dialogue in this country, not less, so I urge
my Democratic colleagues to withdraw this proposal and work with us to
preserve the great democratic traditions of the U.S. House that will
work in this challenging time.

{time} 1345

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been inserting various articles into the Record
showing other States and other parliaments and congresses across the
world operating remotely to prove a point that it can be done.
I don't know whether my Republican friends are just intimidated by
technology. I mean, listening to some of them, I think they think
bifocals are a radical idea. But the bottom line is: We can do this.
The United States Senate had a remote hearing, and it worked out just
fine.
The bottom line is that we are in the middle of a health crisis, a
pandemic, and we need to make sure that we can continue to do our work
in a safe and orderly way.
I mean, if I were cynical, I would think the reason my Republican
friends are against this is to make sure we don't do anything. And I
get it. They may not like the fact that we are trying to address the
needs and the concerns of the American people, but we are going to do
this, and I hope we get a bipartisan vote on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), our distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind us today of President Lincoln's words
to Congress. He said this: ``The dogmas of the quiet past are
inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with
difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so
we must think anew and act anew.''
So said President Abraham Lincoln. So it is today.
This occasion is piled high with difficulty, but we must rise to the
occasion. Our challenges are piled high, and this House must rise to
meet them.
We find ourselves in new and unprecedented circumstances, so, Mr.
Speaker, we must think anew and act anew.
The House has a duty to the American people to do its job, even in a
crisis like this one that nobody on this floor has ever experienced.
The House has a duty to the American people to do its job, especially
in a crisis like this.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker--I want my colleagues to hear
me on this--that there is no substitute for personal interaction of
Members in a committee room or on the House floor. I share that view,
Mr. McCarthy shares that view, Ms. Pelosi shares that view, Mr.
McConnell shares that view.
But when that is not possible because it poses a mortal danger--
86,000 plus of our fellow citizens have died because they contracted
COVID-19. It poses a mortal danger to the health of Members, staff,
press, and the public, and therefore, we must provide an alternative
way to do the people's business.
Now, let me say that we had a bipartisan task force. At the first
task force meeting, Rodney Davis, Republican from Illinois, said, ``We
want the Congress to be able to work.''
My colleague said that, cynically, we could observe that perhaps for
those who may not be able to garner a majority for what we pass,
perhaps they don't want us to work.
I hope that is not the case.
I know the administration does not want us to do oversight, but that
is our responsibility.
This resolution will enable the House to conduct its work in full
without risking the health and safety of Americans and communities
across the country from which Members come and to which they will
return.
It allows committees to use remote technology to conduct hearings and
mark up legislation, technology already in use safely and effectively
by millions of Americans, including the Supreme Court, nine people who
have decided they ought to be separated and are therefore doing what
has never been done in history. It is not a revolution. They are using
technology to do the same thing they could do in the hearing chamber of
the United States Supreme Court, period.
The United States Senate, as so many of my colleagues have observed,
held a virtual hearing. The chairman was not there. He was quarantined.
The witnesses were not there. They were quarantined.
Now, there were, as Mr. McCarthy has suggested, Members in the
hearing room. So it is what Mr. McCarthy refers to as a hybrid hearing.
This rule provides for that.
It will also permit the use of proxy voting on the House floor and
takes steps toward adopting remote voting once a platform has been
deemed secure.
I had hoped that Democrats and Republicans could move forward with
such changes on a bipartisan basis.
I absolutely reject any theory that the character of the House is
being changed by this rule, absolutely reject it. My friend is shaking
his head, ``No, it is.''
Nothing changes. The same people vote, the same issues will be
considered, the same witnesses will be heard, the same committee rules
will be followed. The only thing that changes is the technology that is
available to us.
By the way, when that board was lit up, there were some who people
thought that was a radical change: ``I ought to be able to stand on the
floor and say `aye' or `nay.' '' And when C-SPAN was introduced: Oh,
my. How radically that would change the House.
I reject, I say again, that this is any kind of radical change. What
it is is the use of technology to accommodate the crisis we confront.
We had many productive discussions through our bipartisan task force,
and, Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole, I thank Mr. Davis, I thank Minority
Leader McCarthy. I congratulate Jim McGovern, the chairman of the
Rules Committee, for his fairness and for his attentiveness to
everybody's position.

We didn't reach agreement. I am sorry that we didn't reach agreement.
But we took a lot of the ideas that our friends on the Republican side
of the aisle suggested. They were good suggestions, and we incorporated
them in what we are doing.
We are including in this resolution the requirement that any software
platforms are to be approved by the chief administrative officer, so
some technology that is not accepted or proved to work would not be
used, and allowing committees to hold hybrid hearings, which I just
referred to, with both remote and in-person participation
simultaneously.
However, Mr. Speaker, we were unable to reach a consensus on adopting
21st century tools that would allow the House to meet its
constitutional responsibilities during this emergency, which is why
Democrats are bringing this resolution to the floor today.
I hope, however, with this resolution now on the floor, that
Republicans will join us in voting for it, and I urge them to do so.
If, in fact, you want the Congress to be able to act and exercise our
responsibilities, you will vote for this rule, because it simply
enables us to do what we have historically done: held hearings, voted
on bills, brought them to the floor, had amendments, and passed them,
the only difference being that there will be some people, maybe many
people, who will be doing so, as technology enables us to do,
virtually.
We know that remote technologies work, because the committees have
already been using them to hold meetings, host forums, and engage in
discussions about legislation.
Many State legislatures, Mr. Speaker, and foreign parliaments have
already adopted these technologies successfully. By the way, one of
them is Kentucky, for what it is worth.
The Washington metro area is still experiencing a high rate of
infections, which has not yet peaked.
So our doctor, on whom we have relied for some of our health needs,
says the best practice would be not to come together in one room,
whether it be a committee room or the floor of the House, but would be
to have people have the opportunity to vote remotely.
That is why the Capitol physician has cautioned us against bringing
Members to Washington.
At the same time, more than half of those employed here as staff or
support

[[Page H2036]]

workers commute to the Capitol complex on public transit, and they are
concerned. We have an obligation to protect them and their families as
well.
This change is not permanent. This is to meet a temporary catastrophe
that confronts our country which we have not seen the likes of for over
a century.
It will not advantage or disadvantage either party. There is no
partisan advantage in this rule; none, zero, zip.
It does not fundamentally alter the nature of the House or how it
operates. Let me repeat that. It does not fundamentally alter the
nature of the House or how it operates.
There is no dangerous precedent here, only a commonsense solution to
an unprecedented crisis that demands our ingenuity and adaptability as
an institution.
Now, I said it hasn't happened for more than a century. 1918, during
the Spanish flu, they passed many, many pieces of legislation with two
or three people on this floor.
Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that is
better than the 432 others by technology saying, ``I vote aye,'' ``I
vote nay,'' whether it is in committee or, frankly, on this floor.
Indeed, to paraphrase Lincoln: This is how to think anew and act
anew. That is all we are doing.
We need to have a system in place not only to deal with the current
crisis, but future emergencies, including the possibility that another
surge of COVID-19 is going to happen this fall.
If we fail to act now, as we failed to act after 9/11, we may be in a
lot of trouble come September, without the capacity to join us all
together in this Chamber, but still with the capacity to join us all
together and participate pursuant to the rules of this House, even
though we do so virtually.
This resolution isn't just about adopting remote working tools for
the House. It is about ensuring that the House of Representatives, the
people's House, conducts its constitutional duties of policymaking and
oversight effectively and safely.
I am not sure the executive department is shedding any tears that we
are not here.
Hear me: It is about making sure that our system of checks and
balances remains fully in place by keeping the House functioning to the
full extent of its abilities even, as I said, it does so virtually.
Frankly, when I say something to people on some of this technology,
whether it is Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, WebEx, or any other technology of
that type, very frankly, when I am looking at Tom Cole on that, as we
did a couple of times, I see him on the screen, I know it is Tom
Cole, and when Tom Cole says something, I know that that is what
Tom Cole is saying.
There is no secrecy here. There are no smoke and mirrors. There is no
advantage to either party by this. That is why I do not understand why
this isn't a bipartisan piece of legislation enabling this body to work
in an effective way, albeit virtually.

{time} 1400

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren from the House
Administration Committee and Chairman McGovern from the Rules Committee
for their tireless efforts on this resolution, and I want to thank all
of the Members who have been patient while we negotiated with
Republicans through the bipartisan task force, hoping to produce a
resolution that was bipartisan in its authorship.
Having said that, there is a very fundamental difference. I
understand that.
Mr. Cole, at the hearing, offered a scholar's opinion that it would
be unconstitutional to do this. Mr. McGovern offered another scholar's
opinion that it was fully constitutional to do this.
If that is the fundamental difference, I understand. But it is not
because it radically changes the way this House works or radically
changes the votes of the majority or the minority, or radically in any
other way changes this House of Representatives to a body that is not
represented. This resolution remains bipartisan in its ideas, and I
hope it will be bipartisan in its adoption.
Once it has passed, I would ask my colleagues to familiarize
themselves with its new proxy voting requirements and to adhere
strictly to them. That will allow the Clerk's office to more
effectively fulfill its role of recording and counting Members' votes
with utmost accuracy.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me and many
others in supporting this resolution and permitting the House to do its
work safely and in compliance with social and physical distancing
practices urged by all of our medical personnel.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been extraordinarily restrained in this debate
because I have a lot of speakers that need to have time on the floor to
express their feelings. Sometimes when the other side repeatedly says
things that are either out of context or deserve a rebuttal, you have
got to respond. To my good friends on the other side who have cited the
Senate committee, they know in negotiations we said we would be happy
to do exactly that. We just want markups to be in person. So please
don't use the Senate committee as if we somehow were opposed to that.
Second, my friend said we are intimidated by technology. We are not
intimidated by technology. Heavens.
We respect tradition and we think there is a better way to do this.
As my friends know, we moved toward them in the course of that
discussion.
Finally, my very good friend, the chairman, said this was a plot
maybe to do nothing. We have passed four bipartisan pieces of
legislation working together. We have done a lot in the last few weeks,
and to suggest that we would deliberately sabotage the operation of the
House simply because we disagree with you is wrong.
Quite frankly, doing nothing is bringing a bill to this floor--which
you are getting ready to do in H.R. 6800--that you know the Senate
won't pick up and you know the President won't sign. That is doing
nothing.
We have proven that working together we can do a lot. All we ask is,
let's return to that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers), the distinguished ranking Republican Member on the Homeland
Security Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Oklahoma for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 965. This
blatant, partisan move to fundamentally alter the way the House and
committees operate completely undermines the rights of the minority and
over 200 years of precedent.
As ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am
particularly concerned how this resolution overrides the rules of our
committee. At the beginning of the Congress our committee negotiated
with the majority a set of rules that protected minority rights. Now
those rules are being thrown out and replaced by regulations written by
the chairman of the Rules Committee, regulations that the minority
first saw only hours ago.
I don't understand why Speaker Pelosi doesn't trust her chairmen and
chairwomen to negotiate with their ranking members on ways to
accommodate committee business during this pandemic. But, apparently,
she just doesn't trust them.
One of the things that concerns me most about this resolution is that
nothing guarantees that Republican Members are going to properly be
notified and able to fully participate in virtual committee hearings.
That may sound petty to you, but, unfortunately, on my committee, it is
already the reality. For the last 2 weeks, Homeland Security Democrats
have been holding virtual hearings without notifying Republican
Members. To make matters worse, they restricted participation to only a
handful of their Members. I fear this resolution will only further
empower the misconduct on my committee and cause it to spread to
others.
Worst of all, this is being done for the short-term benefit of the
majority, and not the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from all ranking
members opposing this resolution.

Washington, DC,

May 14, 2020.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Majority Leader of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer: We write in regards to H. Res.
965, which proposes partisan changes that facilitate remote
and virtual committee operations while the House remains in
recess.

[[Page H2037]]

When the Majority first released proposed rule changes a
few weeks ago, we couldn't possibly imagine it could get any
worse for the House as an institution. Yet, somehow, the
Majority managed to write an even more egregious package of
rules changes and seems hellbent on pushing these changes
through without bipartisan consensus.
Upending more than 200 years of precedent through partisan
fiat will jeopardize the deliberative process of the House of
Representatives and our ability to represent our
constituents. The House will be in session this week with
debate being held and votes being cast. If the whole House
can conduct business while adhering to health guidelines,
then so too can our Committees.
The work of committees should be prioritized to ensure that
we are producing thoughtful legislation to support the
continuing response to COVID-19 and to foster a robust
economic recovery for the American people. Properly
prioritizing this work will ensure greater flexibility in
scheduling and increase our ability to follow all applicable
health guidelines.
Congress has already demonstrated that we can come together
during this crisis to address the needs of the American
people. Unfortunately, many of the proposed changes in H.
Res. 965 are only necessary if you seek to move partisan
measures or legislation un-related to the COVID-19 response.
The proposed resolution gives unilateral authority to
Chairman McGovern to determine how committees manage their
business. Currently, committees are required to vote to
ratify proposed committee rules, but this new superpower will
allow a single Member of the House to determine the rules of
the road for all without amendments and without a vote.
The issuance of a subpoena and conducting a deposition are
serious matters. To allow remote depositions underscores how
unserious H. Res. 965 truly is. A deposition is an important
tool for committees to use and it should not be subject to
the uncontrolled environment of an untested virtual setting.
The rights of the Minority in the House must be protected.
Without the ability to ensure the rights of our Members are
secured, we cannot support your efforts and will oppose any
attempt to alter the rules.
As Ranking Members of all standing and select committees,
we oppose this partisan assault on the rights of the House
Minority and our ability to effectively represent the
American people.
Sincerely,
Michael Conaway, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Agriculture; Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member, House
Committee on Armed Services; Virginia Foxx, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Education and Labor; Kenny
Marchant, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ethics;
Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Foreign Affairs; Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Committee on House Administration; Kay Granger, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Appropriations; Steve
Womack, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Budget;
Greg Walden, Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy
and Commerce; Patrick McHenry, Ranking Member, House
Committee on Financial Services; Mike Rogers, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Homeland Security.
Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Committee on Judiciary,
House Committee on Oversight and Reform; Rob Bishop,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources;
Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Science, Space and Technology; Sam Graves, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; Kevin Brady, Republican Leader,
Committee on Ways & Means; Garret Graves, Ranking
Member, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis; Tom
Cole, Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules; Steve
Chabot, Ranking Member, House Committee on Small
Business; Phil Roe, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs; Devin Nunes, Ranking Member,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Tom Graves,
Ranking Member, Select Committee on the Modernization
of Congress.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are
showing up to work every day; from grocery store clerks, to nurses,
doctors, policemen, and first responders. If the House had the resolve
and the courage to do the same, we wouldn't need this partisan
resolution. This is disgraceful. I urge all Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 13 letter from Norman
Ornstein, a current resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute in support of our plan here.
May 13, 2020.
Dear Chairman McGovern: I want to commend you for the
careful and thoughtful report you have issued and on which
the House will soon act to provide the first important and
meaningful steps to allow the House to operate during a dire
emergency that may leave large numbers of members unable to
work and be present in the Capitol to meet, vote and do other
important business, including crafting and marking up
legislation and doing important oversight.
As you know, I have been focused since 9/11 on making sure
we have a functioning Congress at times of emergency;
Congress is the first article in the Constitution, the first
branch, for a reason, and it is essential for our freedom and
our system of democracy that it be working and acting at all
times, but especially during crises. The alternative is
government by executive fiat, or no government at all. That
spurred the creation of the Continuity of Government
Commission, co-chaired by the late Lloyd Cutler and former
Senator Alan Simpson, and which I have served as senior
counselor.
My first interests, of course, stemmed from the terrorist
attacks in 2001, but they were broadened by the anthrax scare
that followed shortly thereafter. If it had been more
directed and concerted, it could have resulted in widespread
deaths and incapacitations of lawmakers in the House and
Senate, meaning no quorum to meet the express Constitutional
requirement and therefore no Congress for months or longer.
That set of events also meant that in our Continuity of
Government Commission, we had to consider the possibility of
a crisis that could include a bio-attack, a pandemic, or a
natural disaster. One of the things we discussed and
considered, especially reflecting the interest of your
colleague Jim Langevin, was the need to have a capability for
Congress to debate and vote remotely if members were
scattered across the country and could not meet together face
to face in the Capitol or another designated forum.
Unfortunately, Congress, in the nearly 20 years since 9/11,
took no significant steps to deal with these issues. Now they
are back in a very serious way. COVID-19 is deadly,
especially for older Americans and especially so when large
numbers of people congregate closely together physically,
which is a characteristic of Congress. As the congressional
physician noted, meeting together in the traditional way is
currently dangerous for lawmakers, their staffs, all those
working in the Capitol complex, and all those they come into
contact with. Travel on common carriers like airlines or
trains is also dangerous, and it is possible that airlines
will be shut down or curtailed enough that lawmakers back
home would not be able to get back to the Capitol if there
were an urgent need to meet to act for the benefit of the
American people.
So the steps you have proposed, along with Majority Leader
Hoyer and House Administration Chair Lofgren are thoughtful,
balanced and sensitive to the need to create a plan to meet
and vote remotely, while also understanding that this is a
big step, given both the traditions of the House and the
imperatives built into the Constitution. You commendably
recognize that this first set of steps should be temporary,
triggered only when absolutely necessary, and can and should
be followed by additional action when we are confident that
there are secure and usable technologies to allow remote
voting, remote debate and deliberation, remote markups in
committees, and so on. And you have pledged that you will
write regulations that will balance the needs of majority and
minority, be transparent, and avoid the kinds of manipulation
that can occur with unlimited proxy voting.
I hope the House, in a bipartisan fashion, will endorse
your plan and make sure we have a functioning House
throughout this terrible crisis, to do what the Framers
expected from the people's house, and to protect the
interests and liberties of all of us.
Sincerely,

Norman Ornstein,

Resident Scholar,
The American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman who just
spoke, I don't know what he is talking about, but there is nothing in
this package that we are presenting that would undermine minority
rights. I am happy to urge him to have his staff contact ours, but what
he is talking about has nothing to do with what we are discussing here
today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my very good friend.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding
to me.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are sacrificing on the front lines.
It has already been discussed about the truck drivers, the nurses, and
all of that.
I was going to go on to that, but then when I sat on this floor and
listened to things that were being said--remember, I come from the
State of Illinois where over a long period of time, about 35 years, we
have seen small moves that sounded so good at the time, giving all of
their power to the Speaker--all of their power given away, which is not
what our Founding Fathers said.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this bill has said on several occasions
that he would like to insert this statement into the Record and this
article into

[[Page H2038]]

the Record. Well, they do not change the facts of Article I, Section 5
that are so clear, that this is unconstitutional.
I hope for the sake of the people who I represent or the people who
each one of us represent that the Members will stand against this
proposed rule, a rule that gives more power to one person instead of
the individuals that we have here the way it was originally set up.
Mr. Speaker, as I direct my comments toward you and the Chair, I
would like to say this: If you believe that I, as a Member, am going to
give up by proxy the ability to represent my 720,000 people, it will
not happen.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the gentleman
doesn't have to give anything up.
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), my very good friend.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 965, which is a flagrant
disregard to the Constitution and House traditions.
Proxy voting has previously been deliberated in this body. In 1970,
an amendment was offered to ban all forms of proxy voting in
committees. It argued committee members should be present in person to
listen to debate, discuss, and vote. Proxy voting tends to add to the
cloud of suspicion hanging over Congress.
The use of proxy voting on important bills gives up a Member's voice
and adds to the appearance of secrecy. In 1974, an amendment was
offered to entirely ban proxy voting. It was adopted by this House but
later overturned by the Democratic Caucus. A CRS report gave the
opponents' views to proxy voting by stating that it contributes to the
domination of committee chairs, contributes to absenteeism, and
detracts from the care necessary to formulate sound legislation.
A history maxim states that he who forgets the past is condemned to
repeat it. Learn from our past and vote ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member
from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my good friend.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders used to ride days on horseback, on wagons,
and through unkind conditions to get to D.C. to do their jobs for all
of us at the time. We only have to brave TSA lines and occasionally
delayed flights.
The Constitution here did not catch the virus. Why are we voting on a
measure here to basically suspend it? These rules have been in place
since basically 1789.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents elected us to come to Congress and do
our job and be their voice in Washington, D.C. This would only mute
their voice.
Just as ballot harvesting in my State has led to some shady and even
fraudulent outcomes, Members of Congress should not have to be here to
be possibly coerced by certain other Members to how their votes should
be shaped. We need to be able to show up. It is not that hard, really,
at the end of the day.
We have a higher calling to come here and do our job and be present
to have these interactions, to have these conversations, especially
when we are talking about possibly $3 trillion of new spending that is
going to be debt for the grandkids that we are still trying to be
helpful to in our future generations.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this and we need to stop and think of what we
are doing here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, why is it not too big of a health concern
to call us back from all across the country to vote on a useless
messaging bill that will wither on the vine outside this Chamber, but
it is too much to ask us to come back and hold committee hearings?
Proxy voting shouldn't happen; not now, not ever. If Members of
Congress are unwilling to do their job, they should step down and let
someone else do it. If politicizing a process weren't enough, the
Speaker is now weakening the core foundations of Congress.
Already, House Democrats have demonstrated their expertise at
crafting partisan bills behind closed doors. And on the Natural
Resources Committee, they have been holding partisan virtual hearings
disguised as roundtables with no Republican input.

I will concede to my colleagues across the aisle that proxy voting
will keep the process moving: the wrong process, the wrong direction,
and for all the wrong reasons. I am not only concerned about how we
will be voting; I am also concerned about what we will be voting on.
Is the plan now for a handful of Members to come back to D.C. every
other week to vote on yet another messaging bill from the Speaker? This
is wrong and none of us should stand for it. Republicans are ready to
get back to real work. I ask Speaker Pelosi to please quit playing
games with the rules and let us do our jobs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the majority leader talk
about a statement that Abraham Lincoln made. He made it in his annual
report to the Congress on December 1, 1862. In that message, he
proposed one of the dumbest ideas that has ever been put forth in this
Congress and that was: instead of freeing the enslaved people in this
country, we would round them up and put them on boats and take them
back to Africa. That is what was in his message.
He talks about the tired dogmas of the past. The Constitution is not
dogma. It is the fundamental law of this country.

{time} 1415

Remember, on December 1, 1862, this Congress was in this room. Fifty
miles away, 10 days later, a fierce and awful battle took place in
Fredericksburg, with 18,000 casualties. If it hadn't been winter, the
Confederate Army could have come here and taken this building. Yet,
they continued to meet here, through pandemics of yellow fever and
malaria. This was the hottest spot in the country for typhoid fever for
over 15 years, and the Congress still met in this room.
Millions of Americans go to work every day, doing their jobs, and
they expect us to do the same. Instead of adopting this very ill-
considered rule, we should all get to Washington, do our jobs, and take
care of the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, this isn't about changing the rules to get
things done. This is about changing the rules to hide what is done and
who has done it.
This rule would change what is going to happen shortly here, which is
a bill that provides another $1 trillion to State and local governments
in addition to the funds provided under the CARES Act. Now, much of the
$1 trillion already sent to the States has yet to be spent.
Take my home State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, where the Governor
there has withheld CARES Act funding and extorted the counties to go
along with his indefinite shutdown, the untimely deaths of hundreds and
thousands in nursing homes, and the bankruptcy of many of our citizens.
This unnecessary and unconstitutional mandate has resulted in 1.8
million Pennsylvanians losing their jobs. We are fifth in population,
number one in unemployment, and one or two in untimely deaths in
nursing homes.
Despite all the CARES Act funds that we have already given, 41 days
is what it takes, on the average, for somebody to receive unemployment
benefits run by the State.
More money isn't going to help anything here, Mr. Speaker, not one
more cent.

[[Page H2039]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I had an experience just last week, in a
virtual hearing, when it came my turn to push the ``mute off'' button
on the microphone, it didn't work. I was passed over. Then, when I
texted in to find out why, I was told, basically: That is too bad. We
will catch you at the end.
The only place for us to be in this Congress is where we are supposed
to be, and that is here. We ought to be doing our work together.
Let me read you a quote from General Omar Bradley, a famous general
who understood the cost of leadership. He said, of the Athenians:

In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted
security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it
all--security, comfort, and freedom. When the freedom they
wanted most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens
ceased to be free.

Mr. Speaker, together, we work for the freedom of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that if I am not willing to do
what is necessary to be here, then it is time for me to consider
turning over to somebody else. I would suggest that that ought to be
for all of us who are privileged to represent people in this august
body, which is not like any other parliamentary body in the world, not
like a State legislature. This is the U.S. Congress. Let's act like it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just said that we had an
official virtual hearing in this House.
I want to know whether or not, under the rules that currently exist,
is it allowed for there to be official hearings virtually or remotely?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair doesn't advise on committee
proceedings.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will take it as there was not a hearing.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, may I respond. Education and Labor
Committee last week.
Mr. McGOVERN. Not a hearing.
Mr. WALBERG. Witnesses.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today that the Republican
plan was simply to prioritize testing for Members of Congress.
Actually, it is a great deal more than that, as my friends know. It is
much more expansive and much more complete.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Republican plan authored by
the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and myself.

A Plan for the People's House

Four Strategies to Reopen Congress and Restore America's Voice

(By Kevin McCarthy)

Benjamin Franklin once said, ``If you fail to plan, you are
planning to fail.''
Recently, we called on Speaker Pelosi to establish a clear,
safe, and effective plan for reopening the House of
Representatives. This follows the White House and America's
governors releasing their own detailed plans for a phased
reopening of society, and now, both the United States Senate
and Democratic Speaker of the California State Assembly
calling their members back into session.
In the interim, a bipartisan taskforce has been convened--
on which we are all serving--to further explore ways in which
Congress can operate during this challenging time. While
differences remain, it has become clear through our initial
meetings that all members of our taskforce share several
fundamental beliefs.
First, the business of the People's House is ``essential
work'' that must not be sidelined or ground to a halt.
Second, there is intrinsic value in a Congress--a physical
meeting of people and ideas--that should be dutifully
guarded.
And third, any changes to centuries-old rules and
precedents of the House should be done in a deliberate and
bipartisan way.
As we enter this indeterminate period between outright
mitigation and a return to normalcy, everyone recognizes that
our typical ways of doing business will need to adjust.
Simply put, Congress will look and feel different.
However, we believe there is a pathway forward that enables
the House to fully perform its key functions without
compromising our shared values or sacrificing bedrock norms.
To that end, we offer four strategies that should form the
basis of any plan to reopen Congress and restore America's
voice. These strategies are based on the advice of public
health professionals, as well as guidance from parliamentary
experts with decades of combined House experience.
We believe embracing this approach would achieve the
necessary balance between health and institutional concerns--
and hopefully build a more resilient and productive
legislative branch in the process.

Strategy 1: Modify Existing Practices and Structures

The Rules Committee majority staff report on voting options
during the pandemic states: ``By far the best option is to
use the existing House rules and current practices'' (
emphasis original).
Already, Congress has demonstrated its ability to adapt and
to do so responsibly.
Earlier this month, the Rules Committee successfully
convened an in-person business meeting in accordance with
health guidelines developed by the Attending Physician and
Sergeant at Arms. Likewise, over 50 members participated in a
hearing on COVID-19 response efforts hosted by the Committee
on Small Business. And this week, the Labor-HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee will hold an in-person hearing on
the coronavirus pandemic.
Beyond committee business, nearly 400 members came to the
House Floor on April 23 in an orderly and physically distant
fashion to record their votes on two consecutive measures, a
process that Speaker Pelosi characterized as having been
executed ``fabulously.''
Moving forward, we should expand these protocols to reduce
density and congestion in every facet of our work.
House office buildings and individual office floor plans
should be assessed to provide new provisional occupancy
levels--with an eye towards possible reconfigurations to
accommodate physical distance.
Additionally, measures should be explored to engineer
temporary controls or barriers in locations where physical
distance is difficult to achieve, as is currently happening
in grocery stores and other places of public accommodation
across America. For example, plexiglass dividers could be
installed in high trafficked areas, like security
checkpoints, or possibly in committee hearing rooms along the
dais to provide further separation between members.

Strategy 2: Employ a Phased Return with Committees

Just as our states are employing a phased reopening
approach, Congress should do so as well--beginning with
committees and subcommittees as the engines of regular order.
Currently, the average total membership of a standing House
Committee is approximately 40 members, with average
subcommittee membership in the teens.
Each committee should present an outline to the Majority
Leader detailing their projected business meetings for the
month ahead, along with estimated attendance levels.
Working backwards, this information could be used to
generate a staggered business calendar, with rotating use of
larger committee hearing rooms where necessary. Precedence
should be given to bipartisan COVID-19 response measures and
other high-priority legislative items, such as the National
Defense Authorization Act, Water Resources Development Act,
and FY21 appropriations measures.
By directing committees to focus on legislation that has
bipartisan and bicameral appeal, we can make the most of each
member's time and effort, thereby making the House more
productive.
This system would also ensure greater transparency and
regular order for all members--as opposed to centralized
decision-making by a select group of leadership and staff
that reduces the role of representative to merely voting
``yea'' or ``nay'' on pre-drafted proposals.
At the start, we do not envision routine recorded votes
occurring in the House every day or perhaps even every
session week. Instead, our voting schedule should be
reimagined in the near-term, with postponement authority
providing a structure to queue up bills at the end of a week
or work period.
Lastly, regular morning hour time should be restored so all
members have the opportunity give one- and five-minute
speeches from the House Floor, an essential forum that has
not been available now for over a month.

Strategy 3: Deploy Technology in a ``Crawl, Walk, Run'' Progression

The rules change proposal introduced by Chairman McGovern
would enable sweeping use of technology for every element of
committee business.
This is concerning for a variety of reasons--many of which
are catalogued in the Rules Committee majority staff report--
including untested assumptions that members have ``reliable,
connected technology, knowledge of how to use that
technology, access to round-the-clock technical support, . .
. [and] secure connectivity with the capacity to transmit
potentially large amounts of data,'' just to name a few.
From a security standpoint, the House averages 1.6 billion
unauthorized scans, probes, and malicious attempted network
cyber-connections per month. Earlier this month, our
colleagues experienced this kind of incident firsthand with
hackers interrupting a House Oversight Committee video event
multiple times.

[[Page H2040]]

In our view, technology should only be deployed in a
``crawl, walk, run'' progression. Before we rush to discard
over 200 years of precedent, we should require that rigorous
testing standards be met, ample feedback be provided, and
bipartisan rules of the road be agreed upon and made public
to truly safeguard minority rights.
We believe ``hybrid'' hearings--an idea initially proposed
by Democrats on the taskforce--could serve as a useful proof-
of-concept to consider, similar to the model currently being
used in the United Kingdom to facilitate virtual question
time in the House of Commons.
For the purposes of these hybrid hearings, in-person quorum
requirements should remain in place (most committee rules
require only two members be present to hear testimony), with
allowances for committee and non-partisan support staff to
guide the proceedings and troubleshoot any technical
problems. For the reasons outlined above, virtual
participation should not become the default--but should
instead be reserved for members in at-risk categories or who
are otherwise unable to travel to D.C.
Under this proposal, committees that regularly handle
sensitive and classified materials, including Intelligence
and Ethics, would still be required to meet in-person.
We cannot recommend using virtual platforms for committee
markups, given the mountain of unanswered questions regarding
how more complex and involved procedural maneuvers would work
in a remote setting.

Strategy 4: Accelerate Active Risk Mitigation Practices

Thanks to the efforts of the Attending Physician, in
coordination with the House Administration Committee, the
fourth strategy has already been set in motion.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits--including gloves,
facemasks, and alcohol-based hand sanitizers--have been
provided to each member office and committee, with additional
supplies available on-demand.
Hand sanitizing stations are now ubiquitous around the
Capitol campus--including on the House Floor--while enhanced
cleaning procedures have become the new standard, with areas
ripe for surface contamination having been limited or
removed.
Staffing has been kept to a minimum through continued use
of teleworking procedures, while the Capitol remains open to
only members, required staff, and credentialed press.
Even so, these mitigation practices can be accelerated in
several key ways.
Measured screening procedures should be considered,
consisting of either selfreported medical diagnostic
assessments, at-home temperature monitoring, touchless
thermal temperature checks at office entry points, or any
combination thereof.
A uniform ``return-to-work'' policy--in accordance with
existing CDC guidelines--should be adopted for any staffer
experiencing signs of illness.
Finally, our ongoing and iterative testing regime should be
scaled as test availability increases nationwide. This plan
should progress to incorporate asymptomatic randomized
testing, and eventually, FDA authorized rapid antigen tests.

Conclusion

We fully appreciate the extraordinary nature of the
challenge before us. However, when it comes to fundamentally
altering how the House operates--in this case, potentially
abandoning the Capitol for the remainder of the 116th
Congress under the introduced Democratic proposal--every
avenue should first be explored that preserves enduring
institutional rules while prioritizing member health.
As Chairman McGovern recently wrote, ``decisions we make
today will influence the choices made in this chamber 100
years from now.''
We agree--and firmly believe it is our job as leaders of
our respective parties to ensure the most reasoned voices
prevail on this critical matter, not simply the loudest ones.
This pandemic has claimed too many lives and livelihoods
already. We must not allow the institution we are tasked with
safeguarding to be the next.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his work, and Rodney Davis' as well. Unfortunately, it
did not come to the place where we could have a bipartisan agreement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, today isn't just a day for debate. It is also a day
for remembrance. It is Peace Officers Memorial Day and the second-to-
last day of Police Week. So, before I begin, I want to say thank you to
everyone who serves as a police officer or is a family member of a
police officer, including our wonderful Capitol Police and their
families who do an incredible job protecting this campus, its
employees, and its visitors. As the guardians of peace, they are on the
front lines every day. Despite the danger, they are undeterred from
performing their duty.
As the son of a firefighter, I know that they do not do their job for
recognition or praise, but they truly deserve our gratitude, especially
now. So, I thank them for everything they do, from a very grateful
Congress.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the work of our frontline heroes is the definition
of ``essential.'' It cannot be done remotely or by proxy.
Why should Congress be any different? We are supposed to represent
the people. We should strive to show a level of determination in our
important work that is worthy of the police officers we honor today.
The American people expect us to do our part to defeat this virus just
like they are doing on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, Speaker Pelosi said in this exact Chamber just a few
weeks ago: ``We are captains of the ship. We are the last to leave.''
But proxy voting calls on Congress to abandon the ship and be the
first to leave for months or possibly for the rest of the session. The
Speaker is on the brink of launching the most significant power grab in
the history of Congress. It runs counter to 230 years of House rules
and even the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders would be ashamed that we aren't assembling.
I want every American to understand what it means for their Member of
Congress to whom they lend their voice in Washington. It means that you
can stay home for the rest of the year but still get paid for the rest
of the year. Many Americans will not be paid.
It means that they can let someone else--Speaker Pelosi--consolidate
power and do their job for them when they could do it for themselves.
It means that they will participate only in legislative theater while
shutting your voice out for the real lawmaking process.
A virtual Congress would be a Congress that is connected to the
internet but disconnected from the American people. That isn't fair to
our constituents, our colleagues, or our country. It undermines the
very purpose of representative democracy as our Founders designed it.
Roger Sherman, the only Founder to sign all four great state
documents, said, in 1789: ``When the people have chosen a
representative, it is his duty to meet others from the different parts
of the Union and consult and agree with them to such acts as are for
the general benefit of the whole community.''
Sherman was right. Especially in a pandemic, our presence here, our
Congress together, matters. It matters to our constituents; it matters
to our institution; and it matters to all those who will come after us.
This pandemic has claimed too many lives and livelihoods already. We
must not allow this great body that we are charged with safeguarding to
be the next casualty if you pass this bill.
In fact, aren't we proving today that we don't need a virtual
Congress?
In the middle of this virus, the House is conducting its business
while following the health guidelines. We can do that at a committee
level, too.
Our Republican colleagues, Mr. Cole and Mr. Davis, had submitted that
``Plan for the People's House'' for the committees to work in a safe
manner. It is the only side that has produced a plan, and it was a
bipartisan plan to move forward. It is about more than reopening a
campus. It is about restoring America's voice.
We don't have to choose between the health of our Capitol community
and the health of this institution. We can continue to work in a safe
and effective manner without overturning 230 years of constitutional
and legislative tradition. Remote voting should be the final and last
option, not the first and only.
Unfortunately, rather than allowing the most reasoned voices to
prevail on this crucial matter, my friends across the aisle have
surrendered to the loudest voice.
Mr. Speaker, as I look at this reckless proposal, I am reminded of
what the great American author James Fenimore Cooper said in 1838. He
said that the most dangerous attacks on freedom are made by ``the
largest trustees of authority, in their efforts to increase their
power.''
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is worth hearing again. It was said in
1838 that the most dangerous attacks on freedom are made by ``the
largest trustees of authority, in their efforts to increase their
power.''
Cooper was correct, and that should concern each and every one of us

[[Page H2041]]

today. By changing the rules to increase the power of a select few,
Democrats will forever alter our institution for the worse.
That will be the legacy that is left this Congress, a Congress that
is a voice of people who have lent their voice throughout this Nation
to 435 Members that will now shrink to 20. We were warned that the
dangers of freedom will come from those who are the trustees of
authority. We were warned so maybe today would never happen, but now we
are witnesses of it. In a few minutes, we will be given the opportunity
to make that choice.
Mr. Speaker, will your legacy be what Cooper had warned the Nation
about? I hope it will not.
Mr. Speaker, if you are okay with overturning 230 years of tradition
and allowing 20 Members to control Congress, then vote for this
resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if you enjoy being cut out of the lawmaking process,
then vote for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, if you ran to get a title but are willing to give your
vote in return, then vote for this resolution. But if you think our
Congress still matters, and if you think the people's voice still
matters, then I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I know each and every one of you will honor the police
for doing their job. Each and every one of you will honor all those in
the medical community for doing their job. I know Members will honor
the delivery driver, will honor the cashier, and will honor those who
are behind the check stands at Home Depot or in the grocery store
because Members think what they are doing is essential.
I hope that Members look deep in their hearts because when they asked
their constituents to vote for them because they believed the job they
were running for was essential for the Nation--because I think it is--I
want them to look at their vote.
Because, Mr. Speaker, if you believe 20 should have the power, if you
believe you should have the title and not do the job, and if you
believe you should be paid while you stay home, I think we have a
difference of opinion.
I believe our work is essential, and I believe we are proving we can
do it. I believed the Speaker when she said just a few weeks ago that
we are captains of the ship and that we will be the last to leave, not
the first to abandon it like you will today.
A vote for this resolution is a vote to abandon this House, to
abandon the Constitution, to abandon 230 years of tradition. You will
still have your title. You will have no power. And worst of all, your
constituents will have no voice.

{time} 1430

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The distinguished minority leader asked the question: Why should we
be treated differently from anyone else in this country? That is
actually a very good question, and that is why we rejected his proposal
and his idea that Members of Congress get preferential treatment, that
we move to the front of the line with regard to tests at a time when
our doctors and our nurses and our teachers and volunteers in homeless
shelters and in food banks can't get a test, but somehow we are so
special that we should move to the front of the line.
We rejected that. And quite frankly, it is one of the reasons why
people have a bad feeling sometimes about Congress because of when they
hear those kinds of suggestions.
Quite frankly, I am ashamed that even that idea was brought forward
in a serious way. I know they do this at the White House, but the idea
that we would step ahead of everybody else doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Speaker, to hear some of my Republican friends, you would think
this House conducts its business today, in 2020, just as it did in
1798. But that is just not true. A lot has changed these last 230
years, from the way we vote to the way we count a quorum. Americans are
watching and they are listening to this debate live right now because
of actions Congress took decades ago to adapt to new technology.
The changes that we are talking about here aren't permanent ones like
that. These are temporary, to be used only during this pandemic. Once
it is over, we go back to working side by side and in person.
State legislatures and governments around the world have already
acted to make remote voting possible. I really don't know why some
people here believe that this House is somehow different. We can't
afford to let this pandemic stop our legislative work in its tracks.
And I would say to the minority leader: We want to do our work, and
we want to do the oversight to make sure that the administration
appropriates the money that we fought to get to the American people the
right way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 965, a
measure to ensure that the House can continue to govern during the
coronavirus pandemic. The proposals before us offer new ways to conduct
our legislative business. In some respects, they present new tools for
governing--but they are within our authority to implement and they are
not intended to replace our regular order. To the contrary, they
present a fallback option to ensure that the House can continue to lead
during this crisis, and as the resolution makes clear, they are
intended to be used only during extraordinary circumstances.
And there can be no doubt that these are extraordinary times. We know
that to date, about 1.4 million Americans have already contracted this
deadly virus. To put this in perspective, that's more than the entire
population of my hometown, San Jose, California, which is the tenth
largest city in the country.
In just three months, more Americans have died from the coronavirus
than were killed in all the wars we have fought in more than a half
century combined--including in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
According to one model, which the White House has relied on, by
August of this year the toll could be as high as 147,000 deaths. That's
nearly twice as many as the same model forecast only two weeks ago.
At the same time, we face dire economic conditions. In the past eight
weeks, more than 36.5 million unemployment claims have been filed, and
the unemployment rate has quadrupled, soaring to 14.7 percent. It has
previously been estimated that the nation's highest ever unemployment
rate was 24.9 percent, during the Great Depression in 1933. Yesterday,
California's Employment Development Department released new data which
show that the unemployment rate in my state may already be 24.4
percent.
The coronavirus pandemic has affected nearly every aspect of our
daily lives, upending businesses and grinding our economy to a halt.
This crisis demands legislative action and oversight.
However, the health guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the advice of the Attending Physician show
that there are significant challenges to the House operating as if
nothing has changed, including the need for social distancing, use of
masks or facial coverings, cancelling any gatherings of more than 250
individuals or more than 10 individuals in a high-risk category, and
others.
Moreover, we are still learning about how this highly contagious
deadly virus is spread and what steps can be taken to mitigate its
further spread. I represent Santa Clara County, which experts now
believe suffered the first death from the coronavirus in the United
States. But experts did not know until mid-April that a death which
occurred on February 6 was actually a result of the coronavirus.
I am mindful that many people are putting themselves at risk by
working on the frontlines every day: from doctors and nurses, to police
officers, firefighters, and paramedics, to transit workers and truck
drivers, among others. As the daughter of a truck driver and a
cafeteria cook, I deeply appreciate everything all of these people are
doing to support their communities and the country, even at risk to
their own health.
However, we in Congress have an option that most of these vital
frontline workers do not: we can do our work remotely in a safe,
secure, online format. It is clear that we need rules that allow the
House to conduct oversight of the coronavirus response, mark up
legislation, and take votes on the House Floor without needlessly
putting Members, Capitol Police, staff, press, and non-partisan
institutional staff at risk.
The resolution before us would provide mechanisms to do just that,
both at the committee level and on the House floor.
A series of events this week prove that the highest levels of our
government recognize the need to adapt our work to the 21st century--
and that we can do so in a safe, secure, and transparent way.

[[Page H2042]]

The Supreme Court--which has long resisted modest attempts to
increase transparency and public access to its proceedings--heard oral
arguments by conference call, as it has done during the pandemic. Those
important cases involve critical congressional oversight prerogatives.
The Senate held a hearing that included remote participation, as it
has done during the pandemic. This time, it included an entire panel of
witnesses testifying remotely, as well as a Chairman and Ranking Member
who led the hearing remotely, in addition to other Senators.
For its part, the executive branch recognized the legitimacy and need
for these virtual proceedings by participating in the proceedings of
both the legislative and judicial branches--including by having high
ranking members of the White House Task Force testify remotely in a
Senate hearing about the Administration's response.
Expanding congressional activity online ensures that we can continue
to act, while reserving precious testing equipment and supplies for
frontline workers who don't have jobs that can be performed remotely.
The House has not always been quick to adopt technology to its
legislative procedures. It is not unusual for any institution steeped
in history and precedent to resist technological change. That was the
case for the House when it came to advances like electronic voting and
televising our proceedings--both of which we take for granted today.
The first bill to permit a form of electrical and mechanical voting was
introduced in 1886, but the House did not take its first electronic
vote until 1973, nearly 90 years later. Similarly, it took more than 40
years from the time Members of the House first appeared on live
television to the time that cameras were allowed to broadcast live
proceedings on the House floor.
Resistance to technological change for governing has not been unique
to the House. The Senate took another seven years after the House to
permit television coverage of its proceedings, and it still does not
permit electronic voting. Even today, the Supreme Court does not
televise its proceedings.
Yet, as we have seen this week, both of those institutions have
recognized that we are living in extraordinary times, and that it is
essential to change the way they operate.
We can--and we must--act swiftly to ensure that Congress can continue
its legislative and oversight work online during these unique and
extraordinary times. Working with Leader Hoyer, Chairman McGovern, and
the staffs of the Rules and House Administration committees, together
we have prepared a proposal that encompasses two distinct components:
remote, directed voting on the House floor, and remote committee
hearings and markups to ensure that we can continue to develop
additional legislative solutions and carry out oversight of the
Administration's response.
For committee operations, the resolution provides for the use of
suitable, secure online platforms for committee proceedings. The intent
of the resolution is not to provide an advantage to either the majority
or the minority, but to permit committees' proceedings to have the same
status and significance as if they were held entirely in-person.
For voting on the floor, we will rely on a secure email system,
coupled with Member-driven, remotely-directed authorizations. This
system would use secure email for proxy votes: a solid, well known,
resilient technology with very low bandwidth requirements that we
understand very well from a cybersecurity standpoint.
These new provisions build on steps we have already taken to expand
the use of technology during the pandemic to promote social distancing
and other safeguards consistent with the advice of the Attending
Physician and the CDC.
For example, last month the Speaker directed the creation of an
electronic hopper to permit the virtual submission of all Floor
documents--including bills, resolutions, co-sponsors and extensions of
remarks--via a dedicated and secure email system. Since the policy took
effect, 489 measures have been filed, and of those, 482 measures were
filed electronically and just 7 were filed using the old process.
And in my capacity as Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Printing,
I directed the GPO to accept for publication in the Congressional
Record extensions of remarks submitted with a Member's electronic
signature. Under this new, more convenient system Members have filed
356 extensions of remarks by email.
I represent Silicon Valley, which has become synonymous around the
world for technology and the spirit of innovation. We in Congress must
adopt the entrepreneurial spirit and openness to new technology that
made that community a global leader and apply it to the procedural and
logistical challenges we face in our legislative operations--as well as
to a strategy to respond to and overcome the coronavirus.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, the American people, our constituents, are
keeping this country afloat during this emergency.
They are looking at the representatives to lead--not only through the
legislation we debate and pass, but through the example we set.
I support H. Res. 965 because it will allow the House to do the
People's business in a thoughtful and safe way.
We are in the midst of the unprecedented crisis--we cannot operate as
if things are business as usual when all the science tells us that
``business as usual'' could mean hundreds of Members, staff, and
employees of the Capitol get sick.
We need to change how the People's House operates until we ensure
that America's frontline workers have access to adequate testing and
PPE--and then can provide that same access to Members, staff, and
Capitol employees.
Because as we all know--that is the only way to dig our way out of
this health crisis.
H. Res. 965 would allow Members to designate a proxy to cast floor
votes if it's considered too dangerous to travel to Washington and
would allow for our Committees to continue their work in holding
hearings and marking up legislation.
Over the past two months, Congress has passed 4 bills to provide
much-needed relief to the close to 40 million of newly unemployed
Americans, and the 1.45 million Americans that have tested positive for
COVID-19.
Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle say, Congress
is working and will continue to work to meet the health and economic
challenge in front of us.
H. Res. 965 gives us the ability to do that as we fervently do what
is necessary to ensure this health emergency passes.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this usurpation of
the rights and responsibilities of the members of Congress. And I
emphasize the responsibilities of every member of Congress to do the
job they were elected to do. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas
Mr. Westerman. If you are not able to do the job you should consider
stepping aside and letting someone else do the job. No one in this
House is indispensable . . . no one.
One of my Democrat colleagues referred to this resolution as our
rule, there is not one Republican in support of this resolution . . .
it is your rule, not our rule.
I have heard multiple citations of history. Here is one I would like
to cite. Caesar Rodney was one of the three delegates from Delaware to
the Continental Congress. Despite suffering from facial cancer and
asthma, Rodney rode 80 miles through a severe storm to cast his vote
for Independence. He did not ask one of his Delaware colleagues to be
his proxy. Despite his condition, he rode all night to cast his vote.
I stand in the spirit of Rodney Caesar and all others before us who
valued upholding their responsibilities above their own self-interest
and well-being, to call on all members of good faith who value this
institution to vote `No' on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 967, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________