Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as we face the crisis that COVID-19 has confronted us with, the House must do its duty in full and do so in a way that contributes to the safety and welfare of our people, not in a way that harms it. Members are advised there will be no votes expected in the House next week. Members are further advised that an updated 2020 legislative calendar will be released in the coming days. I expect conversations to continue on additional legislation addressing COVID-19 and the legislation we passed honoring our heroes. In the event that an agreement is reached on a bipartisan or partisan bill--I don't know how an agreement can be reached on a partisan bill, but a bipartisan bill--then we will make sure that the House has 72 hours before they need to come back to vote on that legislation. I am disappointed that Leader McConnell said, when asked about the next phase of coronavirus relief, he said, I think that's a decision to be made a month from now. As we know, we have a lot of people in crisis. We see food lines that are very, very long. We see unemployment rising steeply. There are many people in this country that think waiting is not appropriate. I am pleased the House has adopted a resolution to allow the committees to work remotely, Madam Speaker. I expect to use the coming weeks to get our committees back up and running so that they can begin having hearings and markups on critical legislation. As my friend, Mr. Scalise, knows, we have a number of must-pass bills that need to be addressed; the National Defense Authorization Act, the 12 appropriation bills, the surface transportation bill, and the WRDA bill as well. As committees begin consideration of these bills, I will be in touch with Members about when they will be scheduled this summer. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to echo the gentleman's comments. Although the Congressman, the patriot, the hero, did not always vote with me, nor I with him, we became good friends. And I shared with the gentleman and others in this body a deep respect for who he was as a person, a decent man, a patriotic man, a good man and, obviously, as the gentleman pointed out, a very courageous man as well. He served many missions, was shot down, imprisoned, but they did not break Sam Johnson, nor did they break the love he had for his country, and we honor the service he gave. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I think the country is distancing itself as well. I don't know whether my friend drove to work today, but there are hardly any cars on the street. There are hardly any cars on the street in New York. The reason is because people are taking the advice of the government and practicing social distancing. We think that makes sense. We think that is consistent with medical advice, and that is what we have been doing. It is very nice to say, well, they could have been here, but there are a lot of West Coast Members who have to get on airplanes. Some of those airplanes now, because there are so few flights, are very crowded, and people are concerned because they are not practicing social distancing. When I am speaking, I don't wear a mask. But if you see me in the Capitol and getting into my car, I have a mask on. I think we are setting an example. I think we are setting an example of how you distance here on this floor, which we are all practicing right now. So, I think the House is setting a good example of understanding that it is not business as usual. When you walk down the street and people are wearing masks, you know it is not business as usual. You know it is not the America of 3 or 4 months ago, Madam Speaker. In any event, I think we are going to proceed. We have provided to do the business of the American people. We did that just in the last 2 days. We passed a number of very important bills, important bills to small business in particular. I was sorry that we didn't resolve the FISA question, but we did go to conference. We will see what happens on that. We have passed, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, extraordinary legislation through this House over the last 2 months to ensure that the American people got the help they needed and that the economics of our country will undergird it to the extent we could. So, we have done a lot of work. I want to say this: I think we do a disservice to our Members and to this institution if we go home and pretend that Members somehow aren't working because they are not physically in this room. I don't know, I presume my friend's Members--but I tell you, Madam Speaker, the Members on my side of the aisle are working around the clock and communicating around the clock. That bill that we passed in a bipartisan way, we took a lot of time, days and days and days and days of hours- and hours- and hours-long conversations to get to a consensus on what ought to be in that bill, and we passed it in a bipartisan way. So, my presumption is my friend did the same. I don't know; I was not on my friend's phone calls. But you do a disservice, I think--I don't mean you personally. But we do a disservice to allow the President or anybody else--nobody is on vacation. People are working harder now than if we didn't have this coronavirus is my observation. I am hopeful that we will move on. I am hopeful that we will be back to business as usual and as soon as possible--``possible'' is the operative word--with the advice of our Capitol physician, with the advice of the administration, and my own Governor. My friend talked about States. I have a Republican Governor, Governor Hogan, whose father was one of my predecessors. I know he is still very cautious and urging caution for our citizens. Madam Speaker, unless the gentleman has something further, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I am going to argue, and I want to talk about this rule and the bill to which it applies, but I will take a minute, not much more, perhaps a little more than that, to talk about what apparently the Republicans want to talk about: proxy voting. I will tell my friend that not a single one of my constituents, not one, voted for me so I would vote in this machine. Not one. Not one of them voted for me to vote in that machine. What they want me to do is vote to represent them, and they really didn't care how I did that as long as it was accurate. Very frankly, I think that side of the aisle is promoting form over substance. Of course, the gentleman mentioned Philadelphia, September 1787, the miracle at Philadelphia. You remember the debate as Member after Member got up and said we cannot use Teams; we cannot use our cell phones; we cannot use Webex. Remember that debate? They said you can't use any of that, and you certainly can't use a rotary telephone. You heard them say that. You can't do that. You need to be in this room. Well, that room was in Philadelphia. Or you needed to be in this room. Well, that room is in New York. My friends, you have magnified form over substance. Our constituents voted for us to vote their interests, and there are many ways we can do that. They had not the technology. That is why they couldn't schedule a vote in 48 hours, because the horses did not fly. Form over substance. You don't want us to meet. And the man who would be king does not want us to meet. I get that. Because you do not like the substance, whether it is the Affordable Care Act, whether it is trying to help renters and mortgage people, whether it is trying to help people in line. I get it. You don't want us to meet. But we have an obligation and a duty to the American people to do so, to make sure that the man who would be king is not king because our Constitution, the people who met in that Philadelphia room, they had had enough of kings. They wanted to have people who would represent them. And they didn't care whether they voted on this machine, that machine, that machine, or, very frankly, as you are sitting in the aisle and you can't get by and you ask your friend: ``Put it in the slot for me, will you?'' I am not going to ask you to raise your hand if you have ever done that. But that was virtual voting. But it reflected your view, my view, representing my constituents and your constituents. Now, let me speak about this rule and this bill because I am appalled, chagrined, disappointed at what is happening. We worked very hard to deal with a very difficult subject, Mr. Blunt and I from the House and Senator Bond and Senator Rockefeller. Ms. Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and I was the majority leader of the House. It was 2008, and we were trying to deal with extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to keep our people and our country safe. Probably not very many of us on this floor know more about the Intelligence Committee than our Speaker. She is the longest serving member of the Intelligence Committee ever. Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff, they work together. Mr. Nadler and his ranking member work together. Just about 2\1/2\ months ago, we came to this floor, and we were all present. I don't mean we had 100 percent of membership, but we were mostly present. We debated that bill, and we voted on that bill. We did what the American people so pined for us doing. We voted together as Americans; 67.7 percent of the Republicans voted aye, and 66.9 percent of the Democrats voted aye. And America said amen. That is what they want us to do, reason together and do for the American people and our country what is best for our people and our country. We sent that bill to the United States Senate; 126 Republicans and 152 Democrats voting together. Two-thirds of the House sent that bill to the United States Senate. I talked to Mr. Schiff and I talked to Mr. Nadler, and they said this House bill has the support of the United States Senate. I talked to leaders--I won't name them--in the United States Senate who were surprised that the Senate did not pass the House bill but sent an extension because they didn't really vote on the House bill. They sent it after we had left. We didn't pass that, and the Intelligence Committee made do. So, the Senate did, in fact, take up the bill. What did they do? Two people who spoke, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Woodall, who voted with the majority, with the two-thirds of Republicans who said this is a good bill, this is a good bill for our country, for America's security, and America's safety--as did Mr. McCarthy; as did Mr. Scalise; as did Mr. Thornberry, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee; as did Mr. Rogers, the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee; as did Ms. Cheney, your Conference chair; as did Mr. Cole, the ranking member of the Rules Committee; and 120 other Republicans. Now, there were, of course, as is not surprising, differences. This is, as the Speaker said, a very controversial bill. It is always a controversial bill. My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, who vote together most of the time, are going to vote differently on this bill. I am going to vote for it. He believes there are not enough protections in here. But there are more protections in here than when those named voted for it and 80 Members of the United States Senate voted for it, including 48 Republicans. Now, what was different when they voted on it and 48 Republicans in the United States Senate voted for it? There had not been a snap of the fingers, ``Vote `no' ''; not an order from on high, ``Vote `no' ''; not a President who has been beating the drum and, frankly, his supporters have been beating the drum that somehow the law enforcement community-- the FBI, the CIA, the other this and that and the other law enforcement agencies--broke the Constitution. This President shows less respect for law enforcement than any President I have seen at the Federal level. So he said, ``Vote `no.' '' My friend with whom I work, the majority leader, called me the other night and said: You ought to pull the bill--the minority leader. You know why I do that? Because we were all in the majority when we passed this bill. It wasn't a majority-minority bill; it was an American bill. My friend, the minority leader, said: Pull this bill. Now, I won't go into the rest of the conversation because we have private conversations about where we are going to go and what we need to do. The only thing that has changed, Madam Speaker, is that Donald Trump has said ``Vote `no' '' to 126 people who voted with 152 Democrats for America. By the way, the people who are voting ``no'' also voted for America. They voted for civil liberties, which we honor. We can respect every person who voted because they voted out of conviction, not out of party loyalty, not out of a ``Yes, sir.'' They voted their conscience, they voted their conviction. I wish this Chamber were full, but we have to be distanced. I hope some of my colleagues are listening on both sides of the aisle. This bill is like every bill, not perfect, but as the Speaker said, it must pass. Why? To protect America. We need to continue to keep making it better. My friend from Massachusetts will make sure that we focus on that, and I honor him for it. So I ask my friends: Vote your convictions. Remember how critical you were of a candidate for President who said, ``I first voted for it and then I voted against it,'' how critical you were. But your flailing around to find a rationalization for your change of vote is sad. Madam Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the rule and on the bill. Vote for your country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about how there was no consultation on this bill. One of the reasons was because Senator McConnell, of course, said: Let the States go bankrupt. We are not going to meet. We will wait. We will see. Let the municipalities go bankrupt. There was no energy on the other side of the aisle to engage once more. However, the President, Secretary Mnuchin, and others said when they signed the last bill that we needed another bill. So all this talk about not cooperating, I think, is correct, but I think it is incorrect as to who didn't cooperate, who didn't come to the table, who said let's wait, who said let the States go bankrupt. So let's not try to change the scenario here as to who wouldn't come to the table. Today, more than 85,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, and that number grows every day. Wait, delay, pretend that this crisis has abated--that is not what the American people expect of us. More than 36 million Americans have applied for unemployment insurance over the past 8 weeks, which is more than one in every five workers in America. That is why we need to act. This is a public health and economic crisis like no other this Nation has faced. The people who are being hurt were not at fault. As one of the Republican Members said, and I agree with him, the economy was shut down. It didn't go into recession or depression; we shut it down. When I say that ``we shut it down,'' the President of the United States said we needed to stay at home. He was a little late to that, but he finally said it. It is clear, therefore, that Congress has a duty to act. We have already enacted four major laws to address the impacts of this pandemic, and today, the House is moving forward with its next major legislative package. By the way, when Secretary Mnuchin called Senator McConnell, he didn't have a conference with us. He put a $250 billion bill Mr. Mnuchin wanted on the table. We said: Fine. Let's talk about it. But by the way, the hospitals need money; we need more testing; and we need to take care of some other people. Finally, after offering the bill and having it fail on the Senate floor, then, and only then, was there a bipartisan discussion. The HEROES Act will dedicate $1 trillion toward assisting our frontline heroes by providing grants to States, cities, counties, territories, and Tribal areas. If you talk to any one of them, they will say they are hemorrhaging revenues and need help now. As State and local government revenues decline sharply, this will not only directly support first responders and healthcare workers, but it will also keep teachers from losing their jobs as they contribute to this great national effort by blazing trails in virtual learning. Our bill would provide an additional $75 billion to ramp up a national, coordinated effort for testing and contact tracing, which we should have had 3 months ago and, indeed, perhaps before that. That will be critical to any effort to reopen our economy so that we aren't back here over and over again, confronting the fallout from this pandemic. It would also require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, to establish a clear and enforceable standard within 7 days to require workplaces to develop and implement plans to keep workers safe on the job. We admire and thank all those who showed up so we could stay home to try to defeat this virus. But we need to prevent employers from retaliating against people who say, ``It is not safe, Mr. Employer. Make sure it is,'' which is what we are doing on this floor. The HEROES Act allocates $175 billion to help renters and homeowners afford their monthly payments and utility bills as they deal with lost incomes. Why did they deal with lost income? Because we shut the government down. I mean the Governors and the President shut it down to try to defeat this virus. Very frankly, we are wearing masks to try to defeat this virus. It is a different environment. It increases SNAP benefits by 15 percent to help those facing hunger. All of us have seen these long lines in our districts of people who are fearful that they won't have food to put on their tables. It is time to act today for those people. It protects our democracy by allocating additional resources to protect the 2020 Census and secure our elections as well as ensuring the Postal Service provides its essential service. Mr. Speaker, as this crisis continues, the HEROES Act will provide direct payments to give additional help to those who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to pay their bills and support their families now--not tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow but now. It extends for 6 additional months the unemployment compensation program created under the CARES Act, including its additional $600 per week and expanded eligibility to the self-employed, contract workers, and gig workers, while providing needed funding to State agencies to handle the historic influx of new unemployment claims. They are overwhelmed, and they need help now. It strengthens the Payroll Protection Program by making sure it can benefit underserved communities and nonprofits of any size as well as provides $10 billion toward small business loans through the EIDL program. This bill protects the independence of inspectors general. That is an important aspect for the American people, so they can still strengthen oversight without the fear of reprisals from this administration. Mr. Fine was fired, essentially, because they feared his neutrality and fairness. The HEROES Act also protects healthcare coverage by expanding COBRA subsidies so people have their health insurance by allowing a special open enrollment period in the Federal and State health insurance marketplace created under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, this is the legislation that the American people need as they face this crisis. It is a bold response to an unprecedented challenge. So far, up to this time, we have demonstrated unity in responding to those people who have been hurt so badly. I tell my Republican colleagues, with all due respect, it is not time to abandon them now. So, hopefully, we will reestablish that unity. Again, I point out it was not us who didn't come to the table. It was our Republican friends who said: Not now. Let's wait. Let's let some time go by. In the HEROES Act, we can say in one voice to the American people: We are in this together, you and us, you and the Congress of the United States. When the House passes this bill, I urge the Senate to work with us and with the White House. Some people say this bill won't pass in this fashion. I think that is probably right. But we have set forth proposals. It is time, and hopefully, we will do it quickly, negotiate our differences, and pass legislation to help those people without their jobs, faced with rent, faced with mortgage payments, and faced with paying their bills. Let's make sure they know that we are in this together with them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Vote for the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. We expect a good turnout of Members on both sides of the aisle to be in the Chamber when we meet. We do know, however, there are Members who, for health reasons--either their own health or the health of one of their family members--transportation issues, as you know, are more difficult now with the pandemic going on, but our expectation is there will be a good number of Members. We do not expect there to be 20 Members here. We expect there to be many more. And as the gentleman knows, when asked to come to the House to pass critically important legislation, Members on both sides of the aisle have been here in large numbers. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, May 27 and 28.

Mr. HOYER. I have already said, but I will repeat it. We will be considering FISA legislation, I believe, on May 27, and we will be considering other COVID-19-related bills, if they are ready. We have not specifically identified those bills, but on May 27 and 28, we will be meeting 2 days on that week. It is, as you know, Memorial Day on Monday of that week.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, what I think, Mr. Whip, is that we are showing that we intend to do our work and we intended to do it with concern for the safety of our Members, with the safety of our staff, the safety of witnesses who appear before our committees, and the safety of committee members as they proceed. I will tell you that Mr. Smith and I had a discussion, as I said a little earlier, and he is going to be talking to his ranking member. I expect them to have a markup, and I expect that markup to be in person.

Mr. HOYER. We are in session now, of course, and I expect us to be in session on May 27 and 28. I expect, in the interim, committees will be considering legislation so that we will have product to do. We are behind schedule. I still want to accomplish much of the work that we need to do as a regular order of business in the near term.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I apologize for not mentioning that. There will be pro forma sessions, and at the pro forma session on Tuesday, we will swear in the two new Members. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am going to be yielding to the Republican whip in just a second, but I will announce the schedule for the weeks to come. As we face the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House must do its duty in full and do so in a way that contributes to the safety and welfare of our people and not in any way that harms it. I want to thank each Member of the House for returning to D.C. today to vote on this important legislation. Madam Speaker, Members are advised that no votes are expected in the House next week. Members are further advised that the House will be in session on Wednesday, May 27, and May 28. As everyone knows, the Senate has amended the House-passed FISA bill, a very important piece of legislation that will require the House to act again. I expect that to be considered on the 27th. I also expect conversations to continue on additional legislation addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. The House could vote on COVID-19- related bills on May 27 and 28. I am pleased that the House has adopted a resolution to allow the committees to work remotely. I look forward to getting our committees back up and running so they can begin having hearings and markups on critical legislation. Clearly, the House, as it moves forward, needs product. I have talked to the appropriators. I know that the WRDA bill is also a bill that we are looking at moving forward. The National Defense Authorization Act is a bill that we want to see marked up. I talked to Mr. Smith tonight so, hopefully, we will be moving ahead, getting product, and we will be considering that. We have adopted some rules, not only for committees but for the floor, that will facilitate not only working on legislation but also the safety of our Members and staff. As the gentleman knows, we have a number of must-pass bills that I have just mentioned. I think I did not mention the surface transportation bill, but I did mention WRDA. As committees begin consideration of these bills, I will be in touch with Members about when they will be scheduled. Beyond May 27 and May 28, I want all Members to know that they will be given 72 hours' notice of when they would need to be returning to Washington, D.C., for any additional votes. I would simply say one of the reasons that we are not meeting next week, we are going to give the staff, not only of the committees but of the House, the opportunity to determine exactly how the new rules can be carried out--not in any way to adversely affect either our Republican side of the aisle or the Democratic side of the aisle--and to reflect accurately the votes of Members, whether they are able to get to Washington during this pandemic or not. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my friend.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind us today of President Lincoln's words to Congress. He said this: ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.'' So said President Abraham Lincoln. So it is today. This occasion is piled high with difficulty, but we must rise to the occasion. Our challenges are piled high, and this House must rise to meet them. We find ourselves in new and unprecedented circumstances, so, Mr. Speaker, we must think anew and act anew. The House has a duty to the American people to do its job, even in a crisis like this one that nobody on this floor has ever experienced. The House has a duty to the American people to do its job, especially in a crisis like this. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker--I want my colleagues to hear me on this--that there is no substitute for personal interaction of Members in a committee room or on the House floor. I share that view, Mr. McCarthy shares that view, Ms. Pelosi shares that view, Mr. McConnell shares that view. But when that is not possible because it poses a mortal danger-- 86,000 plus of our fellow citizens have died because they contracted COVID-19. It poses a mortal danger to the health of Members, staff, press, and the public, and therefore, we must provide an alternative way to do the people's business. Now, let me say that we had a bipartisan task force. At the first task force meeting, Rodney Davis, Republican from Illinois, said, ``We want the Congress to be able to work.'' My colleague said that, cynically, we could observe that perhaps for those who may not be able to garner a majority for what we pass, perhaps they don't want us to work. I hope that is not the case. I know the administration does not want us to do oversight, but that is our responsibility. This resolution will enable the House to conduct its work in full without risking the health and safety of Americans and communities across the country from which Members come and to which they will return. It allows committees to use remote technology to conduct hearings and mark up legislation, technology already in use safely and effectively by millions of Americans, including the Supreme Court, nine people who have decided they ought to be separated and are therefore doing what has never been done in history. It is not a revolution. They are using technology to do the same thing they could do in the hearing chamber of the United States Supreme Court, period. The United States Senate, as so many of my colleagues have observed, held a virtual hearing. The chairman was not there. He was quarantined. The witnesses were not there. They were quarantined. Now, there were, as Mr. McCarthy has suggested, Members in the hearing room. So it is what Mr. McCarthy refers to as a hybrid hearing. This rule provides for that. It will also permit the use of proxy voting on the House floor and takes steps toward adopting remote voting once a platform has been deemed secure. I had hoped that Democrats and Republicans could move forward with such changes on a bipartisan basis. I absolutely reject any theory that the character of the House is being changed by this rule, absolutely reject it. My friend is shaking his head, ``No, it is.'' Nothing changes. The same people vote, the same issues will be considered, the same witnesses will be heard, the same committee rules will be followed. The only thing that changes is the technology that is available to us. By the way, when that board was lit up, there were some who people thought that was a radical change: ``I ought to be able to stand on the floor and say `aye' or `nay.' '' And when C-SPAN was introduced: Oh, my. How radically that would change the House. I reject, I say again, that this is any kind of radical change. What it is is the use of technology to accommodate the crisis we confront. We had many productive discussions through our bipartisan task force, and, Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole, I thank Mr. Davis, I thank Minority Leader McCarthy. I congratulate Jim McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his fairness and for his attentiveness to everybody's position. We didn't reach agreement. I am sorry that we didn't reach agreement. But we took a lot of the ideas that our friends on the Republican side of the aisle suggested. They were good suggestions, and we incorporated them in what we are doing. We are including in this resolution the requirement that any software platforms are to be approved by the chief administrative officer, so some technology that is not accepted or proved to work would not be used, and allowing committees to hold hybrid hearings, which I just referred to, with both remote and in-person participation simultaneously. However, Mr. Speaker, we were unable to reach a consensus on adopting 21st century tools that would allow the House to meet its constitutional responsibilities during this emergency, which is why Democrats are bringing this resolution to the floor today. I hope, however, with this resolution now on the floor, that Republicans will join us in voting for it, and I urge them to do so. If, in fact, you want the Congress to be able to act and exercise our responsibilities, you will vote for this rule, because it simply enables us to do what we have historically done: held hearings, voted on bills, brought them to the floor, had amendments, and passed them, the only difference being that there will be some people, maybe many people, who will be doing so, as technology enables us to do, virtually. We know that remote technologies work, because the committees have already been using them to hold meetings, host forums, and engage in discussions about legislation. Many State legislatures, Mr. Speaker, and foreign parliaments have already adopted these technologies successfully. By the way, one of them is Kentucky, for what it is worth. The Washington metro area is still experiencing a high rate of infections, which has not yet peaked. So our doctor, on whom we have relied for some of our health needs, says the best practice would be not to come together in one room, whether it be a committee room or the floor of the House, but would be to have people have the opportunity to vote remotely. That is why the Capitol physician has cautioned us against bringing Members to Washington. At the same time, more than half of those employed here as staff or support workers commute to the Capitol complex on public transit, and they are concerned. We have an obligation to protect them and their families as well. This change is not permanent. This is to meet a temporary catastrophe that confronts our country which we have not seen the likes of for over a century. It will not advantage or disadvantage either party. There is no partisan advantage in this rule; none, zero, zip. It does not fundamentally alter the nature of the House or how it operates. Let me repeat that. It does not fundamentally alter the nature of the House or how it operates. There is no dangerous precedent here, only a commonsense solution to an unprecedented crisis that demands our ingenuity and adaptability as an institution. Now, I said it hasn't happened for more than a century. 1918, during the Spanish flu, they passed many, many pieces of legislation with two or three people on this floor. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that is better than the 432 others by technology saying, ``I vote aye,'' ``I vote nay,'' whether it is in committee or, frankly, on this floor. Indeed, to paraphrase Lincoln: This is how to think anew and act anew. That is all we are doing. We need to have a system in place not only to deal with the current crisis, but future emergencies, including the possibility that another surge of COVID-19 is going to happen this fall. If we fail to act now, as we failed to act after 9/11, we may be in a lot of trouble come September, without the capacity to join us all together in this Chamber, but still with the capacity to join us all together and participate pursuant to the rules of this House, even though we do so virtually. This resolution isn't just about adopting remote working tools for the House. It is about ensuring that the House of Representatives, the people's House, conducts its constitutional duties of policymaking and oversight effectively and safely. I am not sure the executive department is shedding any tears that we are not here. Hear me: It is about making sure that our system of checks and balances remains fully in place by keeping the House functioning to the full extent of its abilities even, as I said, it does so virtually. Frankly, when I say something to people on some of this technology, whether it is Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, WebEx, or any other technology of that type, very frankly, when I am looking at Tom Cole on that, as we did a couple of times, I see him on the screen, I know it is Tom Cole, and when Tom Cole says something, I know that that is what Tom Cole is saying. There is no secrecy here. There are no smoke and mirrors. There is no advantage to either party by this. That is why I do not understand why this isn't a bipartisan piece of legislation enabling this body to work in an effective way, albeit virtually. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren from the House Administration Committee and Chairman McGovern from the Rules Committee for their tireless efforts on this resolution, and I want to thank all of the Members who have been patient while we negotiated with Republicans through the bipartisan task force, hoping to produce a resolution that was bipartisan in its authorship. Having said that, there is a very fundamental difference. I understand that. Mr. Cole, at the hearing, offered a scholar's opinion that it would be unconstitutional to do this. Mr. McGovern offered another scholar's opinion that it was fully constitutional to do this. If that is the fundamental difference, I understand. But it is not because it radically changes the way this House works or radically changes the votes of the majority or the minority, or radically in any other way changes this House of Representatives to a body that is not represented. This resolution remains bipartisan in its ideas, and I hope it will be bipartisan in its adoption. Once it has passed, I would ask my colleagues to familiarize themselves with its new proxy voting requirements and to adhere strictly to them. That will allow the Clerk's office to more effectively fulfill its role of recording and counting Members' votes with utmost accuracy. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me and many others in supporting this resolution and permitting the House to do its work safely and in compliance with social and physical distancing practices urged by all of our medical personnel.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Kweisi Mfume, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, all of us, of course, were deeply saddened by the passing of our friend, Elijah Cummings, last year. He was a giant of moral strength and unquestioned integrity. In his 24 years in office, Elijah built a reputation for legislative skill, excellence in constituent service, an unyielding energy for rooting out corruption in government, and fighting tirelessly for justice, equality, and opportunity. He served his constituents in Maryland's Seventh Congressional District well. And today, Madam Speaker, they are sending someone to take his place whom I believe is an excellent choice. As the dean of the Maryland Congressional delegation, it is my honor today to welcome the House's newest Member, Representative Kweisi Mfume. However, he is not new to the House. He is a veteran of this body, a skilled and experienced legislator, who represented Maryland's Seventh District from 1987 to 1996. When he left to become the national president of the NAACP, Elijah Cummings was chosen to succeed him. Now, as we continue to mourn Elijah's passing, we welcome Representative Mfume back to his old seat to carry on the work that he and Elijah have both been engaged in for many, many years. The voters of the Seventh District, to their credit, replaced great intellect with great intellect, a passion for justice, equality, and opportunity, with a successor who mirrors and shares that passion and history of commitment. Their shared work has been to ensure that the promise of America is kept for all Americans equally, regardless of race or faith or gender or sexual orientation or national origin; to break down disparities in justice and access to opportunity; to address the tragic and unacceptable disparities in access to quality, affordable healthcare, which the COVID-19 tragedy has made so starkly evident; to make certain that every child in this country can go to a good, safe public school and receive a quality education that leads to a rewarding career. That is what Representative Mfume fought for as a member of the Baltimore City Council and as a Member of this House. It is what he worked hard to achieve as a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and as the NAACP national president. I speak on behalf of our delegation, but all who served with him here in the Congress of the United States, we are pleased that he is back with us. And I know that those who were not Members when he last served will find him to be a wonderful colleague, a man of wisdom, thoughtfulness, depth, and whose experience can help guide this House and our majority as we navigate challenges both longstanding and new. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating Representative Mfume on his election to represent Maryland's Seventh Congressional District once more and in welcoming him back to the House. I am now honored, Madam Speaker, to yield to my friend of longstanding, my colleague, and my fellow Marylander, Kweisi Mfume.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have heard a number of people, including my friend, the minority leader, stand up and say we need to act in a bipartisan fashion, and the next statement is a partisan attack on one of our Members. It is either schizophrenia or a lack of understanding of what this Congress has been doing over the last few weeks. I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but I have been working 6 hours, 7 hours on the phone and another 3 or 4 hours reviewing the materials that have gotten us here today. Why did it take so long? Because it took 2 weeks for my Republican colleagues--and this is a partisan statement, I understand that, but I think we ought to all be realistic. We are all trying to get to a place where America and Americans are safe and where our economy is working, because the statistics we see are statistics of pain and of fear and of anxiety about tomorrow. So what have we been doing? We have been on the phone with one another. I have talked to the minority leader numerous times over the last 2 weeks, not only on this particular piece of legislation, but on the process going forward. So if anybody on that side is saying that Congress is not working, they must be speaking for themselves, because every one of these colleagues on my side of the aisle--and I believe on their side of the aisle--has been working very hard: in touch with their local government, in touch with their Governor, in touch with their healthcare delivery people, anybody who works in a hospital or a healthcare center or a federally qualified health center. They are working hard. Let us not denigrate ourselves or this institution or our commitment to the American people because that is blatant partisanship. We waited 2 weeks, Madam Speaker, that is correct. What for? So that the proposal that we made 2 weeks ago--or 3 weeks ago--which has now effectively been accepted by the Republicans would be accepted. That is what we waited for. And what did we get? $120 billion additional money for small business. And be assured, we are talking about for the small business. What this bill does is puts $120 billion, in addition, $370 billion, for small business. Now, we are talking about bipartisanship. The first bill we did dealing with coronavirus on this floor passed 415-2. It doesn't sound like partisanship to me. It sounds like we came together and agreed on how we could help. And it wasn't enough. And then on phase two, which we passed on March 14, 10 days later, is Congress not working? Ten days later, we passed 363-40. It doesn't sound like partisanship to me. And then phase three we passed on March 27, 13 days later, on a voice vote, with only one Member in the Senate or the House demurring. It doesn't sound like partisanship to me, Madam Speaker, and I don't think today's vote will be a partisan vote. I certainly hope it will not be. Why? Because for the last 2 weeks, we have been working with one another to try to get to a place where we think we are giving the needed resources, because we think the initial request was shortchanging hospitals, shortchanging testing. It still shortchanges our States and local government, and so we will need another bill to try to get there. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Senate came together to pass this legislation in a bipartisan way. Now, unlike the House, no Senators came to the floor except three or four. They did it by unanimous consent. We are not able to do that--although I think this bill will pass overwhelmingly--because some of our Republican friends wanted to vote. Fine. We are here. We are wearing masks. I am not wearing a mask while I am speaking, but as soon as I stop speaking, I am going to put my mask back on as I turn around to go among us. Congress is doing its job. And I want to tell the American people one more time: Members are working daily to respond to the coronavirus that is putting our people and our country and our economy at risk. Last month, we enacted emergency legislation that included more than $2 trillion in assistance for workers, veterans, small businesses, healthcare systems, and communities dealing with the spread of coronavirus. One of the programs we created together was the Paycheck Protection Program to try to keep people on a payroll, even if they could not go to work because health professionals say don't congregate. The Paycheck Protection Program provides loans to small businesses that will be forgiven--that will be forgiven--if they keep their workers on the payroll. The need was so great that the initial $350 billion, as has been pointed out, in funding, Madam Speaker, was exhausted in a matter of days. So, today, we are providing another $310 billion for that program, and an additional $60 billion for the most at-risk small businesses. Critically, $60 billion of that, as I just said, will be set aside for smaller banks where they focus on community development financial institutions that service businesses in rural and minority communities that were left out of the initial program. I bet if you ask your small businesses or rural people, your hospitals or those State officials who are saying testing is essential, I bet they would say: I am glad you waited because you got us resources that we needed. That wasn't in the initial proposal, of course, that came from the administration, and it was objected to, and the leader in the Senate would not provide for such sums. More help is still needed, of course, for nonprofits as well as small and minority-owned businesses, those in underbanked communities and the self-employed. Those must be, Madam Speaker, priorities in the next bill that, clearly, is going to be necessary. In addition to the increased funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, Democrats insisted on recapitalizing economic injury disaster loans as well, providing an additional $60 billion for this program, which can be leveraged to $300 billion. Yes, we asked for, we worked for, we negotiated to get small businesses, minority businesses, businesses that couldn't get into the system that the other bigger businesses got in--some so big that they were ashamed and gave the money back. We are also providing an additional $75 billion for hospitals and, crucially, $25 billion for testing. I guarantee you, not one of your hospitals is going to call you up and say: You should have acted sooner and not had the hospitals in there--not one of them. And no Governor or county executive or mayor or county commissioner or county council person is going to say: Gee whiz, we didn't want that money for testing. We will not be able to return our economy to normal operations, Madam Speaker, without a robust testing system in place to know we can safely go to work without putting workers at risk and to identify those who have coronavirus so we can take necessary steps to isolate them and trace those with whom they came in contact, because that is how we win this battle. This bill is an interim step, the fourth interim step as we continue to work on the next major piece of legislation. I hope we can include, by the way, Madam Speaker, in the next bill, provisions that, unfortunately, we were unable to secure in this bill. First of all, we shortchanged--we are all in the Nation's Capital. Millions of Americans come here, and we gave Wyoming and Vermont--small States, less population than the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, to which millions of your constituents will come. We shortchanged them by giving them 40 percent of what we gave the smallest States, smaller than the District of Columbia. We wanted to add that $700 million in this bill. Unfortunately, we couldn't get agreement on that. I think that was penny-wise and pound- foolish for those of us who want our constituents to visit Washington to see their government. We also must include more help for State and local governments. They have been on the front lines of fighting this scourge and, as a result, have spent a lot of resources they budgeted for other issues, including employees, including police and fire and health workers. We need to do that. We wanted to do it in this bill. But those of you who argue for delay, I will bet that you are going to vote in the next tranche for additional State and local help--maybe not all of you. Why you are delaying that help is beyond me. This, by the way, is not an abstract accounting problem. We are talking about States and counties across the country being able to keep teachers, first responders as tax revenues collapse due to the necessary social distancing. This pandemic, Madam Speaker, has shown a spotlight on the stark disparities in health status and treatment of African Americans in particular and minority communities in general. That reality is an indefensible and unacceptable one. While we do include new ways of tracking certain data relating to racial disparities in this pandemic, there is more we must do, not simply for those who are at greater risk, but for all of us who wear a mask; not because we don't want to be with one another, but because this pandemic has made us a risk to others, to our neighbors, our friends, our family. Furthermore, we need to do more to protect our elections. My Governor has ordered that an election that is coming up next Tuesday be all by mail. Now, in Wisconsin, the Governor tried to do that and Republicans fought us. The Republican speaker of the Wisconsin House was covered from head to toe in a gown, super mask, and gloves. Do we want to ask all of our citizens to be so at risk because they are exercising their franchise to vote in America? I surely think that is not the case. And so we need some additional money to facilitate, because they didn't plan on it, because they didn't plan on this pandemic, to allow our citizens to vote, to encourage them to vote, to facilitate their vote, to welcome their vote, and to provide for a way that they can do it safely without endangering themselves or others. Furthermore, we need to do more to protect our elections in this administration. I am glad that the House is moving forward today with the creation of a select committee to oversee the coronavirus response. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle had eight different partisan commissions overseeing what happened in Benghazi where four American lives were tragically lost. 44,575 Americans have lost their lives. Is it too much to ask that we would have a special committee to make sure that the money that we are appropriating in historic amounts is spent correctly? Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the extraordinary sums we have authorized and appropriated are disbursed efficiently and consistent with our intent. Such great sums can not only be a source of economic recovery, but, surely, everyone on this floor knows that that sum of money on the table can also be a magnet for waste, fraud, abuse, and, yes, criminality. We owe the American people, as we appropriate unbelievable sums, to make sure that the American people are the ones advantaged. Any time Congress spends taxpayer money, particularly in such large amounts, we owe it to the American people to know where that money is going and to ensure that it is being spent as directed. Now, I know the President of the United States said he is going to do the oversight. I don't think that is what the Framers had in mind in terms of checks and balances. And in the most efficient and ethical ways possible, we must know which programs are working best, which aren't, and that way we can modify what we do in the future. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi. I want to thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, and I want to thank the chair of the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank the chair of the Education and Labor Committee. I want to thank Mr. Neal, who is on the floor, and many other chairs, Mr. Peterson, who is very nervous about not having a nutrition program in this bill, which we wanted. That would have delayed it further because, of course, we didn't get support on the other side of the aisle for that. But people are in incredibly long food lines because their nutritional health, as well as their psychological health, is at risk because they can't get food. I thank Speaker Pelosi for having the courage and the wisdom to stand up and say, ``We need these items.'' And we have gotten a lot of them. We asked for $500 billion total. This is $484 billion total. My, my, my, you held out for 2 weeks for a $16 billion savings. I also thank our Members who have been working--let me repeat this once again, Madam Speaker. These Members, those Members, have been working round-the-clock to make sure their communities are safe, to make sure their hospitals are getting what they need, to make sure that their teachers are teaching kids at home. Everybody has been working hard. You may not see us, but millions and millions and millions of Americans are working at home. They are teleworking. That is essentially what we have been doing--teleworking. And don't tell them they are not working, because they know they are working. They have been a credit to their districts. Every Member--Republican, Democrat--I presume, and I only know about the Democrats--225 of our 234 have been on the phone 2\1/2\ hours a day talking back and forth between one another to see what policies we need. They have been a credit to their districts, to the institutions of the House and this Nation, spending hours on the phone, through videoconference, making sure that Congress is doing its job, and talking to State and local leaders and healthcare providers. Let me thank the Members and staff who volunteered to be here on the floor. We will go off the floor and we won't be as exposed as they are. They are all wearing masks. They are wearing masks because they know there is a risk. Perhaps not as great a risk as those courageous individuals who work in our hospitals and our healthcare providers in many different modes, but courageous and patriotic, nonetheless. Thank you, staff. I thank those who are working in our grocery stores, our police, our fire, our truck drivers, who are getting food and products from here to there; EMS personnel who respond to emergencies; delivery workers. And every time I go to the grocery store--and I hope all of you do it--I thank those people who are stocking the shelves. I thank those people who are checking us out. I thank those people who are putting the carts where they need to be. They are the best of America, and we owe it to them to do all we can to bring this pandemic to an end as quickly and safely as possible. We all want to go back to work in the regular fashion. The Democratic-led House will continue to do everything possible, working with our Republican friends, who we believe want the same objective, a safe America, a working America. We want to help small businesses, workers, and their families get through this crisis, and to ensure that our courageous healthcare workers who are on the front lines have all the support necessary to win this fight against COVID-19. Madam Speaker, I hope, and I pray that every Member of Congress will vote for America and Americans, and vote for this bill. We may need more, but we certainly need to do this this day and get more assistance to the American people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify a provision in the bill we passed this morning, the Cares Act, that provides relief to states. With state revenues decreasing at the same time that demand for services is rising, there has been broad agreement in the House that something needs to be done to help states cope with funding shortfalls. Our legislation creates a Coronavirus Relief Fund to provide additional resources to states, local governments, and tribes to address costs incurred responding to the coronavirus pandemic. I am pleased that the final legislative language gives states broad flexibility in how they spend the money they will receive. Some state leaders have expressed concern that a provision requiring that funds be spent only on newly identified needs could prevent states from using this new funding for legitimate needs relating to the current public health emergency just because the state's regular budget addresses similar spending needs. That is not the intent of the language in our bill. To be clear, we intended for the language to give states, localities, and tribes broad flexibility to address needs arising from the coronavirus pandemic, regardless of whether the need arises directly from new spending related to the outbreak or indirectly as a result of collapsing state revenues, as businesses shut down to support social distancing and protect public health. I am encouraged that the Treasury Department has indicated that it appreciates the importance of providing this funding to states quickly, flexibly, and with a minimum of paperwork. It is critically important that the federal government give states the tools they need simultaneously to address the public health crisis as well as the economic damage it is causing. In this same vein, I would be remiss if I did not, once again, express my profound disappointment that this provision treats the District of Columbia as a territory rather than a state. This misguided decision by the Senate will shortchange the District by hundreds of millions of dollars, hurting the National Capital Region's coordinated effort to fight the coronavirus. I am committed to fixing this issue in whatever legislation we consider next to address the coronavirus.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 911, I call up the bill (H.R. 748) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we meet at a challenging time in our country and in the global community. This session will be different than most, where we come together and reach out our hands. We hug one another in affection and thanks for the collegial work with us on the people's business. People who can see the Chamber now will see that we are keeping distance from one another, not out of hostility, but out of love for one another, that we may keep one another healthy and safe. It will, therefore, be an unusual session, but a critical session. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a bipartisan resolve to meet the coronavirus challenge head-on. It represents a focus on families and workers, with the objective of making them safer and economically supported. It will protect workers and their families in our economy as we all do our part to flatten the curve. Public health officials have made it clear that the only chance we have to prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed by this pandemic, as it is threatened to be, is for as many Americans to stay home as possible. It is, however, necessary for us to be here to pass legislation to respond on behalf of the American people to this daunting challenge. The closure means that large parts of our economy must be temporarily shut down, causing severe disruption for businesses and workers. We saw the impact of this yesterday, when new unemployment insurance claims increased by more than 3 million people, 3 million individuals, 3 million who are in families who rely on them for support and contributions to the support of their families and their children. Today, the House is taking action on phase three of our response to this unprecedented challenge. We initially responded, Mr. Speaker, to the immediate need of our Nation with $8.3 billion in appropriations to meet the immediate health needs of our people. A little over 2 weeks ago, we acted to meet the continuing health and economic needs of our people. That was phase two. This bill, Mr. Speaker, which is phase three of our effort, will increase unemployment insurance benefits to those furloughed or laid off while expanding eligibility to include the self-employed and contract workers, and send checks to most Americans to help them get through this difficult period. Mr. Speaker, I am personally disappointed that Senate Republicans insisted on shortchanging the 700,000 people of the District of Columbia by $700 million, treating the District as a territory and not as a State for the purposes of allocating stabilization funds, as is so often the case. This jeopardizes the entire national capital region as we work together to prevent further spread of coronavirus. I will be working with Delegate Holmes Norton and our colleagues to enact legislation correcting this injustice, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish that objective. As the number of coronavirus cases in our country rises above 85,000 of our fellow citizens and continues to increase exponentially, we must take swift action to ensure that people can stay home to slow the spread of this deadly virus, and that our economy can be supported so that it can rebound when the medical experts and scientists say it is safe to do so. I thank the Speaker and the committee chairs who have worked tirelessly to bring this agreement to fruition, including Chairwoman Nita Lowey, Chairman Frank Pallone, Chairman Richard Neal, Chairman Bobby Scott, Chairman Peter DeFazio, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, as well as other chairs who have participated in forging this legislation with a bipartisan coalition in the United States Senate. I thank, as well, the extraordinary staff--the extraordinary staff-- who have worked around the clock in a very short period of time, knowing full well the crisis that confronts us and that time is of the essence. Thank you, staff. The staff of each of our committees, our Members, and the leadership, the staffs of all three of those entities, and the Members have been working around the clock, literally, Mr. Speaker, around the clock to determine needs and priorities and meet them. The House continues to stand ready to take additional steps when and as they are needed to win this battle for the safety and health of our people and our Nation. Together, Democrats and Republicans, together, we Americans, we Americans will work together to do our part in fighting against the coronavirus. Mr. Speaker, all of us stand in awe and deep gratitude to the millions of Americans who have shown courage and commitment at this dangerous and challenging time: our doctors, our nurses, our medical personnel, our police, our firefighters, and our emergency medical response teams; those keeping our pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and other critical facilities open; and so many in the private and public sectors who are daily showing up to serve the needs of their neighbors and fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, they reflect the best of the ``home of the brave.'' It is in times like these that we remind the world and ourselves that we are truly one Nation, under God, indivisible, working together to overcome the greatest challenge with the greatest resolve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), one of the senior Members of the Congress and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.