May 15, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 92 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages H2007-H2019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 967

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

[[Page H2008]]

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

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


                             General Leave

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

[[Page H2009]]

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

                              {time}  0915

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

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

[[Page H2010]]

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

            [From congressionalinstitute.org, May 13, 2020]

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

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


       What does the Constitution say about quorums in Congress?

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

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


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

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


 would proxy votes satisfy the constitutional requirement for a quorum?

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

[[Page H2011]]

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


        Voting Present by Proxy is an Unconstitutional Oxymoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H2012]]

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


                                                   CardozoLaw,

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

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

                              {time}  0930

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

[[Page H2013]]

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

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

  [From Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis]

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


 Virtual Committee Proceedings inhibit the ability of Members to fully 
                              participate

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


     Virtual Committee Proceedings Raise Many Parliamentary Issues

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page H2014]]

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


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

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

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

                              {time}  0945

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

[[Page H2015]]

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

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

[[Page H2016]]

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

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

                              {time}  1000

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

[[Page H2017]]

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

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

[[Page H2018]]

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

                   Amendment to House Resolution 967

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

                              {time}  1015

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

                             [Roll No. 105]

                               YEAS--219

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

                               NAYS--182

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

                             NOT VOTING--29

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

                              {time}  1121

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


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

  
  May 15, 2020, on page H2018, the following appeared: Ms. 
NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 
105.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 
Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 105.


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



[[Page H2019]]


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

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               YEAS--207

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

                               NAYS--199

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

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

                              {time}  1228

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


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

  
  May 15, 2020, on page H2019, the following appeared: Ms. 
NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 
106.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 
Madam Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote No. 106.


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




                          ____________________