Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman will be happy to know he will have 2 hours of debate on how to help our constituents. I have a feeling he is going to vote ``no.'' He is going to vote ``no'' to help our teachers, our first responders. He is going to vote ``no'' to help States, cities, and towns. That is unfortunate, but we are going to move it forward. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record letters and statements of support for H. Res. 965 from Representative Kildee, Representative Jeffries, and Representative Pocan. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 13, 2020. Hon. Jim McGovern, Chairman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom Cole, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole: We write today in strong support of the H. Res. 965, which temporarily implements remote voting in the full U.S. House of Representatives and remote committee proceedings during this public health emergency due to the coronavirus. Members of Congress must continue to faithfully and safely execute the duties of our office while acting in accordance with the social distancing guidelines outlined by medical experts. The suggested temporary rules would allow for Members to proxy vote on behalf of those Members who cannot safely travel to Washington, D.C. This proposed proxy voting system strictly governs the rules where a remote Member would send a letter to the Clerk designating a proxy. Members may serve as a designated proxy for up to ten Members and must receive exact written instruction on each vote. While there is no precedent on the House Floor for proxy voting, there is precedent in House Committees, where it was in place until the 104th Congress. The implementation of H. Res. 965 would allow committees to hold virtual hearings, markups, and depositions enabling Members to perform vital oversight, conduct fact finding and bring legislation to the Floor. Especially during this national emergency, Congress must continue to do the work of American people, especially overseeing the trillions of dollars allocated by the federal government so far to combat the pandemic. Members also have the responsibility to model compliance with the guidelines recommended by the leading science and health experts without dereliction of our duties. Proxy voting allows for Members to be engaged in work at the Capitol while ensuring their safety and those in their communities. As the Congress continues to find innovate ways to remain in service of the American people, I am supportive of the provision in H. Res. 965 that will direct the Committee on House Administration to study the use of technology to allow Members to vote remotely in the House. After certification has been completed determining secure and operable technology for remote voting, the Rules Committee would issue guidance and regulations for implementation that can be authorized by the Speaker to allow Members to cast their votes remotely during the time period covered by the resolution. We appreciate your hard work on this and the solicitation of advice and ideas from Members for many weeks, including members of both parties. It is our hope that these rules are only necessary for a short period of time and the House of Representatives can return to their normal functions in a safe manner to help families and workers impacted by this terrible health crisis. Additional Cosigners: Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Rep. Andy Levin, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, Rep. Brenda Lawrence. Sincerely, Daniel T. Kildee, Member of Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I insert in the Record an April 22 Washington Post article entitled, ``U.K.'s Zoom Parliament Launches With a Few Glitches But Shows Virtual Democracy May Work for a While.'' [From the Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2020] U.K.'s Zoom Parliament Launches With a Few Glitches But Shows Virtual Democracy May Work for a While (By William Booth) London.--Britain's extraordinary first ``Parliament via Zoom'' proceeded Wednesday in rather ordinary fashion, with the usual barbed questions and artful evasion by politicians, plus the addition of awkward views of oversize chins and bookshelves staged as backdrops. Everything was the same, and everything was a little odd. Breaking 700 years of tradition, the British Parliament has agreed to serve as a cradle of virtual democracy--to allow members to continue to debate, vote and legislate, but via video conferencing app, from the safety of their own homes, for the duration of Britain's coronavirus lockdown. On Wednesday, there were a few minor technical hiccups. Some lawmakers' heads were cropped at the eyebrows by the bad framing. Their mics were sometimes too close or too far away, or the Internet connection bad, and so voices sounded tinny or muffled or like Darth Vader. But all in all, for no rehearsals? Not a bad opening matinee. For centuries, it has been essential for members of Parliament to be present in the Houses of Commons or Lords to vote. That's why special ``division bells'' ring out in Westminster's offices and committee rooms--and many bars-- alerting lawmakers they have eight minutes to enter their lobbies, before doors are bolted shut. Now, instead, they will get a ping on their mobile phones. Britain is trying out ``hybrid proceedings,'' where up to 50 lawmakers can be in the House of Commons--spaced six feet apart on the green leather benches--while another 150 of the 650 members can join by Zoom. Wednesday's premiere featured the weekly thrust-and-parry session known as ``Prime Minister's Questions,'' or PMQs. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stood at the despatch box in place of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is recovering from the bout of covid-19 that put him in the hospital for a week. In the sparsely populated House of Commons, Raab was quizzed by the new leader of the opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, who was prosecutorial in his questioning, insisting the government was slow to order a lockdown, slow to do widespread testing for the virus and slow to get vital protective gowns, masks and visors into the hands of front- line medical workers. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle called on lawmakers by swiveling his head toward what appeared to be a TV monitor and shouting a version of: ``We are now going over to Stephen Kinnock.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, breaking 700 years of tradition, I also insert in the Record a March 26 Politico article entitled, ``Corona-era European Parliament: Empty Chamber and E-Voting.'' [From the Politico, Mar. 27, 2020] Corona-era European Parliament: Empty Chamber and e-Voting (By Maia De La Baume) The chamber was almost empty, even for a presidential address. One lawmaker wore a face mask. And deputies voted remotely for the first time in the assembly's 62-year history. Welcome to the European Parliament in the age of social distancing. The Parliament's special one-day plenary session on Thursday, held to pass a series of corona virus emergency measures, was a mixture of the strange, the surreal and the historic. Only a handful of the Parliament's 705 members sat in the hemicycle chamber in Brussels. The rest were scattered across the Continent, following via video-link and voting by email from their home countries. When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered a speech chastising EU member countries for thinking only of themselves at the start of the crisis, she stood meters apart from any aides and MEPs. Parliament President David Sassoli, back in the building following a fortnight working from home after a visit to his home country of Italy, called the session ``special and atypical.'' ``It is the first time that a democratic parliament uses remote participation, this has never happened before,'' Sassoli told MEPs after a first round of emailed votes. ``The European Parliament is called on to experiment with things in this way at a moment for great danger for our citizens.'' As experiments go, this one was quite radical. The Parliament's regular plenary venue of Strasbourg has been abandoned for the next few months, at least. As much as the Parliament has a physical home at all right now, it's Brussels. Plenary sessions are normally four days long. But on Thursday everything was crammed into a one-day marathon to push through three coronavirus-related measures, including freeing up 37 billion in EU funding for member governments and temporarily allowing airlines not to use their slots at airports. Some of the Parliament's usual quirks were suspended--such as the ``catch the eye'' procedure whereby MEPs signal to the president that they wish to speak, and the blue cards raised to indicate a wish to question a fellow member. Fewer ushers than usual roamed the chamber and they kept their distance from one another. Interpreters sat alone in their booths, rather than being crammed in with colleagues. Journalists were advised to stay away and watched via video stream. Among the few MEPs who attended in person, Fulvio Martusciello of Italy wore a large white face mask. A Spanish MEP sported a new beard, perhaps a result of personal confinement. In the Parliament, MEPs usually vote by raising their hands or by pushing a button on their desks to give their verdict on dozens or more amendments before adopting a final legislative proposal. But on Thursday they considered only a few amendments as legislation was rushed through under an emergency procedure. And they voted from all across Europe by printing out a form, then signing, scanning and emailing it to the Parliament. For some, such technological advances were long overdue. The chamber was almost empty, even for a presidential address. One lawmaker wore a face mask. And deputies voted remotely for the first time in the assembly's 62-year history. Welcome to the European Parliament in the age of social distancing. The Parliament's special one-day plenary session on Thursday, held to pass a series of coronavirus emergency measures, was a mixture of the strange, the surreal and the historic. Only a handful of the Parliament's 705 members sat in the hemicycle chamber in Brussels. The rest were scattered across the Continent, following via video-link and voting by email from their home countries. When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered a speech chastising EU member countries for thinking only of themselves at the start of the crisis, she stood meters apart from any aides and MEPs. Parliament President David Sassoli, back in the building following a fortnight working from home after a visit to his home country of Italy, called the session ``special and atypical.''``It is the first time that a democratic parliament uses remote participation, this has never happened before,'' Sassoli told MEPs after a first round of emailed votes. ``The European Parliament is called on to experiment with things in this way at a moment for great danger for our citizens.'' As experiments go, this one was quite radical. The Parliament's regular plenary venue of Strasbourg has been abandoned for the next few months, at least. As much as the Parliament has a physical home at all right now, it's Brussels. Plenary sessions are normally four days long. But on Thursday everything was crammed into a one-day marathon to push through three coronavirus-related measures, including freeing up 37 billion in EU funding for member governments and temporarily allowing airlines not to use their slots at airports. Some of the Parliament's usual quirks were suspended--such as the ``catch the eye'' procedure whereby MEPs signal to the president that they wish to speak, and the blue cards raised to indicate a wish to question a fellow member. Fewer ushers than usual roamed the chamber and they kept their distance from one another. Interpreters sat alone in their booths, rather than being crammed in with colleagues. Journalists were advised to stay away and watched via video stream. Among the few MEPs who attended in person, Fulvio Martusciello of Italy wore a large white face mask. A Spanish MEP sported a new beard, perhaps a result of personal confinement. In the Parliament, MEPs usually vote by raising their hands or by pushing a button on their desks to give their verdict on dozens or more amendments before adopting a final legislative proposal. But on Thursday they considered only a few amendments as legislation was rushed through under an emergency procedure. And they voted from all across Europe by printing out a form, then signing, scanning and emailing it to the Parliament. For some, such technological advances were long overdue. ``Corona drags the European Parliament into the 21st century,'' tweeted Dutch center-left MEP Lara Wolters, above a picture of her smiling as she signed a ballot paper. Bulgarian center-right MEP Eva Maydell also endorsed the innovation. But, she added, ``this way of voting is only feasible for single votes. We need another solution for longer votes.'' Some MEPs apparently doubted their colleagues were up to the challenge of the new system. German Green MEP Rasmus Andresen asked his fellow lawmakers on Twitter not to ``send your votes to all colleagues (dont push the ``reply all'' Button). It's good to be transparent, but i dont want to receive about 2000 emails with your votes in my inbox today.'' (No older MEPs shot back by criticizing his lack of apostrophes or use of upper and lower case letters.) Other MEPs complained about formatting issues with the first ballots that were sent to them, including trouble converting the documents into a PDF if they were using Apple devices. Dita Charanzova from the centrist Renew Europe group told POLITICO the Parliament should have gone entirely digital and regretted that staff such as ushers had to attend, given that people are meant to be staying at home for health reasons. ``We are now a digital Parliament, no one should have to take a risk just for a few members in an empty room,'' Charanzova said. ``It's ridiculous to see the Commission there, and some MEPs. We should have gone completely digital for this plenary and for all future plenaries until the crisis is over.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been inserting various articles into the Record showing other States and other parliaments and congresses across the world operating remotely to prove a point that it can be done. I don't know whether my Republican friends are just intimidated by technology. I mean, listening to some of them, I think they think bifocals are a radical idea. But the bottom line is: We can do this. The United States Senate had a remote hearing, and it worked out just fine. The bottom line is that we are in the middle of a health crisis, a pandemic, and we need to make sure that we can continue to do our work in a safe and orderly way. I mean, if I were cynical, I would think the reason my Republican friends are against this is to make sure we don't do anything. And I get it. They may not like the fact that we are trying to address the needs and the concerns of the American people, but we are going to do this, and I hope we get a bipartisan vote on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman who just spoke, I don't know what he is talking about, but there is nothing in this package that we are presenting that would undermine minority rights. I am happy to urge him to have his staff contact ours, but what he is talking about has nothing to do with what we are discussing here today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the gentleman doesn't have to give anything up. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just said that we had an official virtual hearing in this House. I want to know whether or not, under the rules that currently exist, is it allowed for there to be official hearings virtually or remotely?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will take it as there was not a hearing.

Mr. McGOVERN. Not a hearing.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, there is a lot that I could say, but let me just say this: In the time of this incredible tragic health pandemic and economic crisis, I don't think now is the time to kick poor people, to beat up on people who are hungry in this country. We ought to step forward, as the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, and make sure that nobody in our country goes hungry. It is shameful the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle demagogue this issue. It is shameful. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for one other speaker, but I don't think he has arrived, so I am prepared to close.