Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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.

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 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 967, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 965) authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of Representatives and providing for official remote committee proceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a pandemic, the likes of which the world hasn't seen in more than 100 years. The question before us today is a simple one: Will this institution, which has adapted to challenges and technology time and time again throughout its history, adapt so that we can continue legislating during this public health emergency. Medical experts have told us that COVID-19 is up to three times more contagious than the flu. That means, in a normal cycle of this virus, just one person with coronavirus could kick off a snowball effect that leads to up to 59,000 new infections. Now think about that. And then think about the way we normally operate here. Members travel frequently from their home States, some of which are coronavirus hot spots, to convene together here in the Capitol complex. Then we travel back home at the end of the week. And we repeat this process month after month after month. Along the way, we come in contact with fellow travelers, colleagues, the general public, press, and the hundreds and hundreds of people who help make this House operate. There is no telling who among them could have compromised immune systems, preexisting conditions, or other heightened risks for illness. But we know just how easy this virus spreads among those with strong immune systems. That is why the choices that each one of us makes are especially important--not just about protecting Members of Congress. This is about protecting all of those who come in contact with us. Now, any of us could have the virus and not even know it. We could be asymptomatic but be carriers nonetheless. Convening Congress must not turn into a superspreader event. Technology has changed considerably over the last 231 years. There are now tools available that make temporary committee proceedings and remote voting on the House floor possible--not forever, just temporarily during this emergency. Now, some on the other side seem to think that temporarily embracing technology during this pandemic is a radical idea. Well, let me say this loud and clear to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker: If anyone tells you you would be giving away your vote with remote voting by proxy, this is just a lie. Plain and simple, it is just not true. What would be radical is if this House did nothing, if we made Members decide between spreading a deadly virus or legislating for the American people. That is a false choice. We can and we should do both. At least 16 States, 10 countries, and the European Parliament have all implemented some form of remote procedures to safely conduct official proceedings during this pandemic. With this resolution, this House can finally join them. Now, let me repeat: We are not suggesting permanent changes. No one believes we do our best work in person and side by side more than me, Mr. Speaker. Remote legislating will only be utilized so long as this pandemic continues. Mr. Speaker, this is the type of adapting that this House has always done. Our Founders did not vote by electronic device, but we do. Constituents, decades ago, couldn't watch floor proceedings live on C- SPAN or listen to them on the radio, but ours can. Changes were made to our quorum requirement time and time again, including most recently after the September 11 attacks. And I could go on and on and on and on. Believe it or not, adapting is action in this institution's DNA. There are always those quick to proclaim that any change means ending the House as we know it. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? The sky did not fall, and the House continues its work. So I don't say this to make light of what we are doing here today. What we are doing is serious. It is a big deal. My State of Massachusetts has one of the oldest legislatures in the country, but even they changed their rules to allow for remote voting. You can respect tradition without blinding yourself of the need to make temporary changes when necessary, and today is one of those times. This resolution comes after careful study, months of talks, feedback from constitutional experts, and conversations among a bipartisan task force. This resolution has been strengthened by this deliberative process, and it contains many provisions suggested by my Republican friends. It is now time to act. Now, some communities have turned the corner with this virus, and I hope that continues. Medical experts tell us, however, that a second wave this fall could be even more damaging than what we are seeing now. So as we hope for the best, we must prepare for the worst. Anything less would be a dereliction of our responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in supporting this resolution. Let's adapt the way this institution has always done. And let's make sure that we can continue legislating during this pandemic, no matter what the future may bring. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke, I am not intimidated, and I am not afraid; none of us are here. This isn't about any of that. This is about doing what is sensible, what is in the public health interest. This is not about us. It is about the people you all come in contact with. Those who walk around and don't wear masks, somehow as a display of how unafraid they may be, may be carriers who are asymptomatic spreading this disease. This is a public health crisis. This is different than what happened on 9/11. This is a public health crisis; that is, somebody who is carrying this disease can spread it in a very aggressive way. So please spare me the self-righteous kind of indignation over this. We are supposed to follow the medical advice. We are supposed to practice social distancing. And yet, the Rules Committee, which is the smallest committee in the Congress, had to meet in the Ways and Means Committee room, and we took up the whole room. We have 21 standing committees; I don't know how many subcommittees. Where does the Armed Services Committee meet? Where does the Transportation Committee meet? Maybe we can meet on the House floor, maybe one committee at a time. I mean, the bottom line is, if we are going to follow the medical advice, we should not paralyze this institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), a distinguished member of this Chamber and a co-chair of the Problem Solvers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should be happy to know under the proposal we have, he can come here anytime he wants. He can be in his committee. He can be on this floor and debate. But this is for those who are in circumstances where that is impossible. It provides an opportunity for them to participate as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to provide the gentleman who just spoke with the history of the House of Representatives as to how voting rules have changed repeatedly. But this radical idea that we are talking about here today, just look to the United States Senate. I mean, they just held a hearing in their Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where some people were present, and some were remote. The chair and ranking member were remote, and administration witnesses were brought in through video conferencing. I mean, the Senate can do it. Maybe my friends are afraid of technology. We will get you the help. We will get you the help to make it comfortable for you. But the bottom line is, if the Senate can do it, if it is okay for the United States Senate, why is it not okay for the House of Representatives? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is obvious that the gentleman who just spoke didn't read the bill. Nobody is asking anybody to hand off their ability to cast a vote here. There is no discretion involved. If he reads the bill, he will figure that out. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 5 opinion piece published in The Hill from Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional law professor from the University of Virginia and former clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. [From the Hill, May 5, 2020] One Virtue of a Virtual Congress (By Saikrishna Prakash) The need for social distancing has led to new demands for distant voting. With the coronavirus in the air, Congress is awash with proposals to allow senators and representatives to cast votes away from the chamber floors on Capitol Hill. It is true that desperate times call for desperate measures, but however extreme this reform may seem, remote voting would indeed be allowed under the Constitution. This new practice could also lead to the reform of one regrettable habit of the legislative branch. The Framers likely assumed that members of the chambers would gather in a single room in order to conduct business. References to ``assemble'' and ``attendance'' in the Constitution suggest as much. Congress could easily satisfy this narrow reading of these terms if each chamber met in cavernous spaces. For instance, the Senate could meet in the baseball stadium where the Washington Nationals play, while the House could gather on the football field where the Washington Redskins play. Then legislators could easily sit several feet apart as they work. But the chambers need not be so constrained. Laws can have meaning and serve purposes without being tied to the technology of a particular era. For instance, modem presidents have signed legislation by autopen, even though this technology is somewhat new. The justification for this is that so long as the president makes a decision about whether to approve a bill, the mechanics of putting pen to parchment are irrelevant. The same holds true for the Supreme Court. The justices have reached decisions by phone, sometimes hundreds of miles away from Washington. Six justices are necessary to conduct business, and they have concluded that voting by phone on important matters satisfies that requirement. Congress could do something similar. The Framers perhaps demanded no more than for legislators to debate and collectively reach decisions in real time. The internet permits that live discussion and passing laws, either by voice vote or by roll call. With the advent of technology, one chamber can ``assemble'' virtually on Zoom, while legislators can also attend meetings in Google. A chamber can sit to conduct business online. The more general point is that if legislators are monitoring proceedings in Congress online and can vote remotely, they are in ``attendance'' and can be present for quorums. What is good for the president and the Supreme Court must be good for Congress. There are positives and negatives of remote voting, so here are two potential disadvantages. First, Congress will no longer have the excuse of being unable to conduct business when members go back to their constituencies. What was once a part time assembly may become a full time legislature, where leaders call votes during such inconvenient times for members. Many people do wish that Congress would return to its roots as a part time institution. To quote Will Rogers, ``This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.'' Second, though legislators do not have to pay attention to floor debates even when they are physically present, one might suppose that they will get more distracted if they have two browsers open, one trained on the proceedings in Congress and one centered on Sunday Night Football. A debate on a motion to recommit would suffer compared to a drive down the field in the final minute of the fourth quarter. But there would be one positive that overwhelms these drawbacks. Last week, six members exercised the collective authority of the Senate and passed the $484 billion appropriation. Though the Constitution declares that a majority of each chamber would be a quorum to do business, the Senate had nothing like a quorum for this vote. Under current practices, however, both chambers assume a quorum, an assumption that can be overcome only if some legislators will call for it. That assumption is almost as mistaken as supposing that lobbyists exist to further the public good. The Constitution decrees that the chambers can pass a bill only if there is a quorum. Members cannot just avert their gaze from this violation of the Constitution. The minimum mandate for passing legislation is not waivable. To pass legislation in a chamber, the presence of at least a majority of the voting members is required. With a move to virtual sessions, Congress could cut the embarrassment of a handful of legislators passing legislation. If bills are uncontroversial, the chambers can meet online, and the majority in each can pass them. All in all, the move to remote voting could generate a salutary reform and also eliminate at least one excrescence of the Constitution.

Mr. McGOVERN. In his piece, the professor says: The more general point is that if legislators are monitoring proceedings in Congress online and can vote remotely, they are in `attendance' and can be present for quorums. What is good for the President and the Supreme Court must be good for Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues what the minority leader did suggest, and that is that all of us get preferential treatment, in terms of testing, that we all be tested regularly when we come back here, like they do in the White House; that even though our constituents can't get tested, even though our hospital workers and those who work in homeless shelters and in food pantries can't get tested, and our first responders can't all get tested, the minority leader suggested that: You know, you are all so special here that you should move to the front of the line. Well, I don't know what people in your districts think, but my constituents think that is tone-deaf, that, quite frankly, we don't deserve preferential treatment. But that is what he suggested. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. In her letter, which I strongly recommend all of my colleagues should read in full, she says: ``I believe adopting procedures to allow for remote voting under these extraordinary circumstances is not only lawful, but essential to the maintenance of our constitutional democracy.'' The Constitution contains no specific requirements of physical presence for Members to vote. What the Constitution does instead, as the courts have repeatedly recognized, is leave it up to each House of Congress to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.'' The gentleman refers to the Spanish flu. Let me just say that that is not an example of something we want to aspire to. The Congress was basically paralyzed. They couldn't even get together to pass a bill to provide more doctors to rural areas where people were dying. They couldn't even do that. And as a result of Congress' inaction, more people died in that pandemic. So, please, I mean, let's get real here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I insert in the Record letters and statements of support for H. Res. 965 from Chairman Pallone, Representative Thompson, and Representative Peters. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, May 14, 2020. Re H. Res. 965. Hon. James P. McGovern, Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McGovern: I write to you in support of H. Resolution 965, which would authorize voting by proxy in the House of Representatives and provide for official remote committee proceedings. By temporarily enabling committees to convene official proceedings remotely, this measure ensures that the Committee on Energy and Commerce can continue to conduct its important legislative, oversight, and fact- finding work during these extraordinary times. I greatly appreciate the work of the House Rules Committee under your leadership in drafting and putting forward this very important measure. Our Committee will work diligently to ensure that each of our Members can participate remotely, to the greatest extent practicable, from different locations, at our noticed committee and subcommittee hearings, markups, depositions and other business meetings--some or all of which may be virtual in nature. Thank you in advance for any further support you can provide us in the way of Committee-specific regulations or in addressing any questions that surface as we implement and put these temporary rules and regulations into practice. Respectfully submitted, Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman who previously spoke says he wants to extend it for nurses, doctors, and teachers. He has a chance to do that in the next bill we are going talk about because there is money in there to provide them more assistance in terms of testing and treatment and tracing and more money there for PPE. But my guess is the gentleman is going to vote ``no'' on that. The same people who are out here talking about being brave and standing up with our first responders are the same people whose leader has said that his proposal is to prioritize Members of Congress ahead of all of our constituents in terms of testing so we can operate here. I don't want to have anything to do with that. My constituents who are on the front lines, the doctors, the nurses, the first responders deserve to be tested before anybody in this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).