Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I insert in the Record an April 14 AP news article entitled, ``Wisconsin Assembly OKs Virus Bill in First Virtual Session.'' [From the Associated Press, April 14, 2020] Wisconsin Assembly OKs Virus Bill in First Virtual Session (By Todd Richmond) Madison, Wis. (AP).--The Wisconsin Assembly overwhelmingly approved a sweeping coronavirus relief bill Tuesday during a virtual session, the first time state lawmakers have gathered since the pandemic began in the United States. The session took place in the Assembly chamber as usual, but due to concerns about spreading the virus nearly two- thirds of the body's 99 members attended via videoconference. The Senate was to hold a similar session on Wednesday to send the bill on to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. It marked the first time in Wisconsin's 172-year history that lawmakers convened a session with members participating remotely. Legislative rules require lawmakers to be present to debate and vote on bills but a 2009 law allows for virtual sessions during disasters. One section of the Assembly gallery was open to the public, with only 14 seats available and each spread out 6 feet apart. Public seating, also 6 feet apart, was available in the Capitol rotunda with speakers and TVs tuned to WisEye, the Legislature's version of C-SPAN. Two large TV screens, tuned to Skype, were set up on the Assembly chamber floor. About 35 members sat in the chamber, all spaced several seats apart. Many rows were empty. Several pages wore face masks, as did Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz. He was the only Democrat on the floor. The session got off to a slow start as Chief Clerk Pat Fuller tried to call the roll. Lawmakers joined from their kitchens, Capitol offices and home offices and struggled to unmute themselves and register their attendance before Fuller moved on to the next legislator. Some seemed amused at the setup, smiling and waving to the camera. Others initially appeared befuddled, apparently unable to hear or to figure out how to be heard. Roll call votes took minutes as Fuller asked each lawmaker individually for his or her vote. In a normal world voting is almost instantaneous as lawmakers signal their votes from their seats with the touch of a button. Moments before adjourning for a 10-minute receess, Speaker Pro Tempore Tyler August warned lawmakers not to touch their laptops during the break because if they disconnected themselves they wouldn't be able to log back in. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, one of the few legislators on the floor, said setting up the virtual session was ``extremely challenging'' and he hoped the Assembly would never have to meet that way again. The process smoothed out as the session progressed. The chamber ended up approving the bill 97-2. The legislation largely ensures that Wisconsin can capture the $2.3 billion coming to the state under the federal stimulus bill, including higher Medicaid payments and unemployment benefits. The Legislature's budget committee would be allowed to allocate up to $75 million in funding during the public health emergency and up to 90 days after it ends. The measure also would waive the state's one-week waiting period to receive unemployment for anyone who applies between March and Feb. 7, 2021; ban certain insurers from prohibiting coverage based on a COVID-19 diagnosis; ease licensing and credentialing for health care workers; reduce nurse training hour requirements; and render health providers immune from civil liability for services provided during the pandemic. Local municipalities also could choose to defer their residents' property tax payments. Evers' administration has been working closely with Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on the bill. The governor did not say Monday whether he supported the bill, saying he had not reviewed it, but he hoped it wouldn't be the last action taken by the Legislature to offer aid during the pandemic. Nineteen states had allocated more than $3 billion to respond to the pandemic as of Friday, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Wisconsin Policy Forum. As of Tuesday, COVID-19 had killed 170 people in Wisconsin and infected more than 3,500. Among those who contracted the virus and recovered is Democratic state Rep. David Bowen, of Milwaukee. Vos and Hintz were the only lawmakers who spoke about the bill prior to the vote. Hintz said the Legislature should be prepared to return to work on further legislation that helps Evers deal with the pandemic. ``We should make sure we are listening, enabling and supporting and giving (the Evers administration) the flexibility to manage this crisis,'' he said. ``I refuse to admit this is all we can do as a state.'' But Vos cautioned against giving Evers ``blank checks'' as the virus wreaks ``economic carnage'' on the state's finances. He said he was disappointed the bill didn't freeze state spending in fiscal year 2020-21 and lamented that state workers will still get an automatic 2% raise. ``We have to be just like a family were the credit card use is limited,'' Vos said. ``Think before we spend. Make investments that are wise but not wanting.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a May 6 Boston Globe article entitled, ``For the First Time in 400 Years, Mass. Lawmakers Vote Remotely.'' [From the Boston Globe, May 6, 2020] For the First Time in 400 Years, Mass. Lawmakers Vote Remotely (By Matt Stout) With lawmakers dialing in from across the state, the Massachusetts House of Representatives on Wednesday voted remotely for the first time in the body's near 400-year history, and officially relaunched formal lawmaking amid the novel coronavirus pandemic. The historic session, which lasted roughly an hour, included one substantive vote: a 157-0 roll call approving a bill that would allow the state to borrow billions of dollars over the next eight weeks to help pay its bills. It came amid a surreal scene. As a smattering of people, including House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, held court in a mostly empty chamber, dozens of representatives called in to a network of conference call lines, where other lawmakers gathered and recorded their votes. A livestream offered a view inside, showing a half-circle of stanchions surrounding the rostrum to separate DeLeo, House clerk Steve T. James, a court officer, and others--all of whom were wearing masks--from the rows of seats where representatives would otherwise be stationed. Where they actually were ran the gamut. Representative William Driscoll Jr., a Milton Democrat, tweeted a photo from his car parked in the Blue Hills Reservation, the livestream playing from a phone propped up on his dashboard. Representative Tram T. Nguyen shared a picture of her logged in from a kitchen countertop. Representative Susannah Whipps showed off a plate of vegetables on her Twitter feed. House leaders discussed for weeks how to relaunch formal legislative sessions amid the spread of COVID-19, after spending the better part of two months moving bills through informal gatherings with no debate and where a single ``no'' vote could stall legislation. The set of emergency rules was approved Monday, but only after a heated, partisan dispute that started when House minority leader Bradley H. Jones blocked the rules package, arguing that it effectively limited how often most representatives would be allowed to speak. He had accused DeLeo of using the crisis to ``achieve more power,'' while the Winthrop Democrat lashed out at what he called the Republicans' ``recklessness and fiscal irresponsibility.'' (The House couldn't pass the borrowing bill unless the House held a formal vote.) Jones and DeLeo ultimately agreed to a revision this week that allows some Republicans, including Jones, more chances to speak during legislative debates under the new rules, which could remain in effect until as late as January. Such back-and-forth was largely absent from Wednesday's otherwise smooth session, though it included some awkward but harmless hiccups as lawmakers adjusted to their new remote reality. Shortly before DeLeo opened the session, a voice fluttered through on the livestream. ``Hello?'' a lawmaker asked. Another voice quickly cut in, informing him he had accidentally called a number connected to a microphone within the chamber. ``You're actually dialed into the rostrum line,'' he was told. Later, when Representative Denise Garlick called in to speak on the borrowing bill, a delayed feedback from the session was audible over the livestream--trailing the chamber by several moments and causing Garlick to pause for several moments after DeLeo recognized her. When she wrapped her testimony, a long pause again settled over the line, and the phrase ``[Audio difficulties]'' popped up on the livestream feed. ``Is the representative finished with her remarks?'' DeLeo eventually asked. ``Yes,'' Garlick said. Representative Harold P. Naughton was the only lawmaker not to cast a vote, but the Clinton Democrat had a good excuse: A lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, he was activated roughly a month ago and is reporting to Hanscom Air Force Base through May 31, he said Wednesday. ``I've been pushing back information that I feel my colleagues need from the vantage point of the National Guard,'' he said in a phone call, adding he did listen to the session. ``It was pretty historic.'' The Legislature owes its roots to Colonial times, when the ``General Court'' gathered for the first time in 1629 in London and later became the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Amid its various iterations, members have met in person to cast votes, and House leaders initially questioned whether the state's constitution even allowed it to conduct remote voting. The House's emergency rules try to limit who could be in the chamber to DeLeo and Jones; Aaron Michlewitz, DeLeo's budget chairman; eight ``monitors'' who would tally votes from members on conference call lines; and a few other Republicans, Democrats, and staff. The bill the chamber passed Wednesday allows the state treasurer to borrow any ``necessary'' amount this fiscal year and pay it back by June 2021. Donning a gray mask, Michlewitz said from the House floor that the amount could be ``in the range of $3 billion,'' though it will depend on how the state's finances weather the pandemic. The legislation was first filed by Governor Charlie Baker amid fears the state could face a budget gap after pushing its April 15 tax filing deadline into July, potentially diverting huge chunks of money it would otherwise collect now into next fiscal year. That appeared to already be happening. Massachusetts tax revenues plummeted last month, dropping more than 50 percent below what the state collected at this time a year ago. The $1.98 billion in taxes the state collected in April-- typically the biggest tax month--was more than $2 billion below state projections. ``A staggering number to say the least,'' Michlewitz said. So, after Garlick and Representative Todd Smola, a Warren Republican, spoke in support of the bill, DeLeo teed up a roll call. Minutes later, he documented the 157-0 tally to officially move the bill to the Senate, where leaders are weighing their own rules to hold a remote session. ``Congratulations,'' DeLeo said to representatives watching and listening in. And he rapped the gavel to close the session.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an April 1 Courier Journal article entitled, ``Kentucky House Dramatically Limits In- Person Voting on Bills Due to Coronavirus Concerns.'' [From the Louisville Courier Journal, Apr. 1, 2020] Kentucky House Dramatically Limits In-Person Voting on Bills Due to Coronavirus Concerns (By Joe Sonka) Frankfort, Ky.--For the first time in the history of the Kentucky General Assembly, a large majority of House members voted on bills remotely by texting photos of their paper ballot via phone. The move is part of rule changes adopted Wednesday out of concern about the coronavirus pandemic. The change was agreed on by leadership of the Republican majority and Democratic minority of the House in order to keep members from being in close proximity on the floor of the chamber, as the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Kentucky continued to increase. On Monday, lawmakers learned that a legislative staffer had tested positive for the coronavirus, though no legislators had announced testing positive as of Wednesday. In a press release announcing the rules change shortly before the House gaveled in on Wednesday, House Speaker David Osborne, R-Prospect, said the pandemic is a historic challenge to the state, and his chamber ``is willing to take equally historic steps to meet our Constitutional obligations to the people of Kentucky.'' ``I appreciate the support of our Caucus members, House Minority Leadership, and our staff in making it possible to use every tool available to us in order to finish our work'' Osborne stated. In order to adopt the rules change to allow remote voting, House leadership allowed members to enter in groups of 25 to cast their vote as present and in favor of amending the rules. Under the rules change, members could text a photo of their paper ballot vote to designated members of their party who remained on the House floor and cast their votes. Following the approval of the rules change, members voted 89-1 to adopt Senate Bill 249--freezing the pension contribution rate of local government employers--in a nearly empty chamber. The three Democratic leadership members remained on the floor as vote designates, while three Republicans remained as vote designates along with Osborne and two other GOP members of leadership. Two Democratic House members--Reps. Terri Branham Clark and Nima Kulkarni--were seen casting their votes on the bill from their cars in the parking lot outside the Capitol Building. Part of the reason Democratic leadership agreed to the change was a pledge they received from Republicans that the House would take up only vital budget and revenue bills on the floor Wednesday, and not unrelated bills. After the passage of SB 249, Rep. Chris Harris, D- Pikeville, entered the chamber and spoke in praise of Osborne's move to change the voting rules--noting that two weeks earlier he spoke on the floor denouncing House Republicans' decision to remain in session and vote on bills that were not related to a state budget or responding to the coronavirus crisis. ``I thank you for taking these historic and unprecedented measures to protect not only our members, but our families and communities,'' Harris said. ``I was critical when I felt you weren't getting it right, so I want to be just as vocal in complimenting you today.'' The House later used the same voting method to approve a one-year state budget for the executive branch and other appropriations and revenue bills that passed the Senate earlier in the day.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The distinguished minority leader asked the question: Why should we be treated differently from anyone else in this country? That is actually a very good question, and that is why we rejected his proposal and his idea that Members of Congress get preferential treatment, that we move to the front of the line with regard to tests at a time when our doctors and our nurses and our teachers and volunteers in homeless shelters and in food banks can't get a test, but somehow we are so special that we should move to the front of the line. We rejected that. And quite frankly, it is one of the reasons why people have a bad feeling sometimes about Congress because of when they hear those kinds of suggestions. Quite frankly, I am ashamed that even that idea was brought forward in a serious way. I know they do this at the White House, but the idea that we would step ahead of everybody else doesn't make any sense. Mr. Speaker, to hear some of my Republican friends, you would think this House conducts its business today, in 2020, just as it did in 1798. But that is just not true. A lot has changed these last 230 years, from the way we vote to the way we count a quorum. Americans are watching and they are listening to this debate live right now because of actions Congress took decades ago to adapt to new technology. The changes that we are talking about here aren't permanent ones like that. These are temporary, to be used only during this pandemic. Once it is over, we go back to working side by side and in person. State legislatures and governments around the world have already acted to make remote voting possible. I really don't know why some people here believe that this House is somehow different. We can't afford to let this pandemic stop our legislative work in its tracks. And I would say to the minority leader: We want to do our work, and we want to do the oversight to make sure that the administration appropriates the money that we fought to get to the American people the right way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 938 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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, before we get into the resolution before us, I want to speak to my colleagues about an important issue. Over the last several weeks, I have heard from Democrats and Republicans, who have expressed concern that we, as a House, are not adequately prepared to do our business during a pandemic. They are right. Over a month ago, I prepared a report that I sent to everyone in the House--Democrats and Republicans--about possible ways that we could operate remotely. I received constructive feedback from both sides of the aisle, and this week I released text of a proposal that I hoped could have been voted on today. The Republican leader had some objections to that proposal, and our Speaker has agreed to continue the conversation for 2 more weeks. I have always believed that, whenever possible, any changes to our rules should be bipartisan, and I still believe that. However, the status quo, in my opinion, is unacceptable and dangerous. I am not talking about to Members of Congress; more importantly, it is dangerous to everyone we come in contact with. The year is 2020. Technology has advanced and improved considerably over the last 231 years. And, yes, there are problems with some of the technology that exists out there, but there are low-tech approaches to dealing with remote participation by our Members, and there are higher-tech ways to deal with it. And we can work that out. There are smart people in this Congress who can figure all of this out. But I believe both sides of the aisle need to have some urgency in addressing this issue, especially in light of the statements by the head of the CDC and other medical experts, that things could be very problematic come the fall. I hope and I pray that that is not the case. But we need to be prepared so that we can do the people's business. I also want to publicly acknowledge my ranking member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). We don't see eye-to-eye on this issue yet, but over our years-long working relationship and friendship, we have found common ground many, many times. A task force is going to be convened today that includes myself, Mr. Cole, the chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr. Davis, as well as Democratic Leader Hoyer and Republican Leader McCarthy to discuss these matters. I have been saying this for a month, and I am going to say it again here today: If you are a Member of Congress and you care about this issue, call me. I want to hear from Members what they think about this critically important matter. Now, back to the measure before us. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 938, providing that upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 935, which establishes a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform is hereby adopted. Madam Speaker, we are here today as Congress continues responding to the biggest public health and economic emergency this Nation has seen in 100 years: The coronavirus pandemic. What started just weeks ago half a world away is having a devastating impact across our country. No community has been spared: More than 855,000 cases have been confirmed; Nearly 48,000 lives lost as of the time we are meeting right now; And more than 22 million initial unemployment claims filed in the past month. Some regions of our country have now lost as many jobs over the last month as they did during the worst year of the Great Recession. These statistics are not just numbers on a page, Madam Speaker. These are our neighbors. They are our family. They are our friends. Their health is at risk, and their economic reality has changed overnight. Since the start of this pandemic, Congress has provided more than $2 trillion in emergency relief to get small businesses the financial help that they need to survive, to help hospitals and healthcare workers on the front lines, to expand testing, to provide every American access to an affordable vaccine when it is developed. And I could go on and on and on. We need to make sure these resources are going where Congress intended, that they are helping struggling Americans and small businesses without any rampant fraud or abuse, and that companies aren't taking part in price-gouging or profiteering. That is what this Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus is all about. This proactive approach is what then-Senator Harry Truman spearheaded at the dawn of World War II to ensure Federal dollars spent then saved lives on the battlefield. Well, today the battle is much different. It is against a worldwide pandemic currently without a vaccine or preventative treatment. But our aggressive oversight should be the same. Democratic governors and Republican governors all over the country are pleading for more tests, despite the billions we have allocated to provide them. The Republican governor of Maryland has said the lack of available testing is the number one stumbling block in America. He is absolutely right. The President talks about reopening America, but Madam Speaker, how about first testing America? Without that, we can't fully track and contain this virus. We need to make sure that the money we provided for testing is actually going to testing. We need to make sure that our hospitals have all the PPE equipment that they need. In my home city of Worcester in Massachusetts, we recently opened up a field hospital in our convention center. The day before we opened, there was considerable anxiety because they had enough PPE maybe to last for a couple of days. Now working together with the governor and others, we were able to remedy that situation, but for so many of our healthcare institutions, for our first responders, trying to find PPE is like something out of the movie The Hunger Games. States competing with States, competing with the Federal Government, people receiving calls--I know somebody who knows somebody in China who might have lifesaving masks. Can you maybe follow up that lead? That is not the way this is supposed to work. In the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the Earth, officials are making cold calls to try to get enough equipment to survive the next surge of patients. Relying on the goodwill of people and businesses when they should be able to count on Federal agencies. Congress provided money for this equipment. We need to make sure it is going where it is badly needed. Madam Speaker, as we talk today about what Congress has done, I want to take a moment to talk about what it has not done, and that is provide enough for hungry families during this pandemic. You know, the President and so many of his allies in the Senate continue to block efforts to increase SNAP benefits for hungry people trying to put food on the table for their families. The demand for food banks right now wraps around city blocks in some places. We have seen it on TV. The lines go for miles. This is a crisis of food insecurity that we haven't seen in this country since the Great Depression. Madam Speaker, whatever happened to taking care of the neediest among us? Maybe the President doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is going to come from, but millions and millions and millions of Americans do. They are terrified. We should be suspending this administration's SNAP cuts. We should be strengthening nutrition assistance for those impacted by this pandemic. And we should be showing the American people that ending hunger is not a partisan issue. But some on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue have chosen instead to take meals away from families. Just yesterday the Secretary of Agriculture tried to paper over their disgraceful record by taking credit for the bill that we passed in a bipartisan way in Congress. The USDA didn't increase SNAP benefits by 40 percent; the House Democrats led that charge and, thankfully, many of my Republican colleagues supported that in the Families First bill. And by the way, while we are at it, USDA was in court trying to kick millions of people off of SNAP through their disastrous regulatory scheme. The only thing this administration has done is to try to push people off of nutrition assistance. I think it is coldhearted and I think it is cruel for the Senate majority leader and others to turn their backs on struggling families. That needs to be fixed, and it has to be fixed in our next bill. And I hope in this Chamber, we can come together-- Democrats and Republicans--and deal with it. I know that it is unrelated to the underlying measure here, but hungry families are being ignored in this country. Sadly, even in the best of times, poor people oftentimes get ignored by this Chamber. I worry that in the worst of times, what we are going through right now, that these people, these individuals, these families become invisible. We cannot let that happen. I want them to know that this House is listening to them, and we will continue to fight to strengthen the programs they rely on. Now, I don't know what is radical about that. Just as I don't understand why some on the other side are against a subcommittee that is designed to make sure that Federal dollars are spent well. I mean, that is what this is about. That is it. This is an extraordinary time. We have sent trillions of dollars into our communities. They should be going to small businesses and not to big corporations--our workers, not the wealthy and those already well- off. Our workers are the ones who should be our priority. We need to make sure that that is what is happening here. If you believe this administration has done things perfectly, then you have nothing to fear. But the American people have a lot of questions and they deserve answers, and they expect us to live up to our constitutional responsibilities with regard to oversight, and they deserve to know that their tax dollars are being well spent. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, entitled, ``Democrats Pushed for Robust Oversight of the $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Package. It Hasn't Happened Yet,'' detailing the need for oversight. The article explains that rapidly approved funds are being spent quickly with little monitoring or oversight. [From TIME, April 17, 2020] Democrats Pushed for Robust Oversight of the $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Package. It Hasn't Happened Yet (By Alana Abramson) Some of the most heated negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over last month's $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package were over who should watch how that money gets spent. It is the largest emergency relief fund the U.S. government has ever approved, and concerns over fraud and abuse were rife. In particular, Democrats were outraged that Republicans and the White House wanted to let the Treasury Department distribute $500 billion to industry and states without anyone overseeing the process, and vowed to block any bill without that safeguard in place. ``There was this idea that they put forth that there would be a $500 billion slush fund for the Secretary of the Treasury with no accountability whatsoever. Are you kidding?'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month after the bill passed the Senate. ``For all respect in the world for the Treasury Secretary, that was a complete nonstarter.'' Ultimately, the bill signed into law by President Donald Trump mandates the massive tranche of aid will be overseen through three key mechanisms: an inspector general at the Treasury Department to oversee that $500 billion Treasury fund, and Congress and executive branch panels, which will also monitor the Treasury fund and broadly oversee the law's implementation, respectively. But more than two weeks later, after hundreds of billions of dollars have already flown out the door through the Paycheck Protection Program, the Treasury's Inspector General post has not yet been confirmed by the Senate and the two panels are not fully staffed. Congress is preoccupied with the unprecedented task of managing dueling public health and economic crises remotely, and Trump, whose administration has blocked Congressional oversight for years, has already threatened to scuttle the process. When he signed the bill into law in March, he said he would not allow the Inspector General overseeing the executive branch's committee to submit reports to Congress without his supervision, arguing it was unconstitutional. ``It's incredibly problematic . . . those oversight mechanisms don't do us much good if they aren't functioning,'' Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy at the Project on Government Oversight, wrote in an e-mail to TIME. ``This money is being spent incredibly quickly. The (Small Business Administration) has already spent the $349 billion dollars allocated to the Paycheck Protection Program. It's imperative that these oversight mechanisms are fully functional so we can have confidence that this money won't be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse.'' The group with the broadest oversight jurisdiction in the $2.2 trillion CARES Act is the executive branch panel, called the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. Glenn Fine, who was acting Inspector General at the Pentagon, was quickly appointed to lead the committee at the end of last month but was removed by Trump just a week later. The President did not provide a specific reason, but Fine's ouster was part of a broader re-shuffling of watchdogs. Although the committee is composed of nearly two dozen inspectors general who have been appointed, the top spot remains vacant. The law mandates that Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice who heads the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, appoint a new head, but he has not yet announced Fine's replacement. A spokesperson for Horowitz did not respond to a query about when a new replacement would be named. On April 4, Trump announced that he had appointed Brian Miller to serve as the Inspector General for the Treasury department. Miller has over 15 years of federal experience; he spent nine years as the Inspector General for the General Services Administration, working under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But since 2018, he has worked as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Counsel in the White House counsel's office. His tenure there coincided with some of the White House counsel's most high profile feuds with House Democrats in their oversight probes, including Trump's impeachment last December. Democrats lambasted Miller's appointment, arguing that a Trump staffer would be unable to exercise the kind of independence the job requires. ``To nominate a member of the President's own staff is exactly the wrong type of person to choose for this position,'' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement after Trump's announcement. Since confirmations of presidential appointees now only require a simple majority in the Senate, it's likely that Miller will be confirmed despite Democrats' objections. But since he cannot be confirmed by unanimous consent, lawmakers have to physically be in Washington for that to happen--and they are not expected to return until May 4th at the earliest. The final component of the oversight framework, the Congressional commission, is also incomplete. The bill mandates that the top four leaders in Congress--Schumer, Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy--each select a member for the panel. The fifth member will chair the committee and be jointly selected by Pelosi and McConnell. Schumer has appointed Bharat Ramamurti, who previously worked for Elizabeth Warren as an economic adviser, on the panel. On Friday, McCarthy announced he had selected Rep. French Hill, McConnell announced he had chosen Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, and Pelosi selected Florida Rep. Donna Shalala. But as of Friday evening, the chair has not been selected, so the panel can't fully function. Pelosi told reporters in her weekly press conference on Thursday that she and McConnell had agreed to submit names to each other for their joint pick. There are signs that additional oversight of the massive relief package not set up expressly in the law is also moving forward. Pelosi has appointed House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn to lead the House Select Committee on the coronavirus crisis, which she says will be a bipartisan committee dedicated to oversight of all of the funds. And McConnell announced Friday that Idaho Senator Mike Crapo will lead the Senate's efforts. In a New York Times op-ed earlier this week, Ramamurti urged Congress to act swiftly so his specific panel can get to work. ``Our watching eyes can help ensure that the money broadly benefits American families,'' he wrote. ``There isn't time to waste.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an article, entitled, ``Congressional Oversight of the CARES Act Could Prove Troublesome,'' detailing the need for oversight. The article says oversight will help limit fraud and accelerate effective use of appropriated funds. [From Brookings, April 15, 2020] Congressional Oversight of the CARES Act Could Prove Troublesome (By Jackson Gode) On March 27th, President Trump signed the CARES Act providing for more than $2 Trillion in federal spending in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Overseeing the outlay of relief funding from the bill will be no easy task, given its size, complexity and the backdrop of the 2020 election. However, this is not the first time that a major government rescue package has included oversight measures. The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act created the office of the Special Inspector General for the Targeted Asset Relief Program the powers of which were strengthened by the SIGTARP Act of 2009. In just over a decade, SIGTARP has recovered $11 Billion in misspent funds and successfully convicted 380 fraudulent actors, leading many to consider it a success. Members of Congress sought to mimic this success by including three major mechanisms to oversee spending within the CARES Act. The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee will be made up of Inspectors General from, at minimum, nine federal agencies, and be responsible for oversight of outlays for the entire bill. A new office within the Department of the Treasury, the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, will oversee the $500 billion Treasury fund for targeted loans to large businesses. Brian Miller, a White House lawyer and former GSA Inspector General, has already been selected for this role. Finally, a Congressional Oversight Commission will include four members appointed by party leadership in each chamber and a chairperson agreed to by the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. The Commission will oversee economic stability efforts by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board. The CARES Act also includes funding increases for several preexisting oversight bodies providing more than $140 million for Inspectors General offices to investigate various aspects of the bill and $20 million in funds for the Government Accountability Office. Even with these mechanisms and funding increases, Congress will face several unique challenges while conducting substantive oversight of pandemic relief. First, the Trump Administration has indicated reluctance to cooperate with oversight inquiries. Immediately after President Trump signed the CARES Act, the White House released a statement outlining his constitutional concerns with the newly created Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery. This is not the first time that Trump has questioned the legitimacy of oversight efforts. The administration is currently tied up in several court battles regarding the executive branch's ability to withhold information from Congress. On March 16th, nearly a year after the original request, the Supreme Court postponed oral arguments in a case regarding the House Ways and Means Committee's efforts to obtain President Trump's tax returns. The administration has also withheld information related to White House security clearances, natural disaster relief efforts, and other areas of potential misconduct. Second, both the House and Senate are on recess and it remains unclear when they will return. Once members come back to Washington, the number of committee hearings they hold will likely be lower than normal with social distancing recommendations remaining in effect. Hearings are an essential part of Congress's oversight mandate as they provide lawmakers with a public platform to question administration officials that many rank-and-file members do not receive on a day-to-day basis. In place of hearings, members will have to rely more heavily on written correspondence. While letters have the potential to be more effective than hearings at obtaining detailed information, recipients are only legally required to respond to inquiries from committee chairs. The current administration has made a habit of ignoring written information requests and it remains too soon to tell whether COVID-19 oversight will be met with similar resistance. Documents released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee on the availability of medical supplies from the federal government's stockpile suggest that the administration is responding to at least some inquiries. Partial or private responses however, can make it difficult for committees to signal a lack of cooperation to the public. Third, as their efforts to oversee the Trump administration response ramp up, House Democrats may find themselves confronting intra-party cooperation challenges. Due to the political visibility of the pandemic, committee chairs will likely compete to demonstrate their willingness to hold the administration accountable. Coordination among Democrats will be necessary to ensure that panels' efforts are complementary, rather than competitive. Conflict between the parties will also create challenges. The creation of a Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic already seems to be increasing tensions between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) who indicated that Republicans will object to a unanimous consent request creating the panel. Speaker Pelosi has signaled the profile she expects the committee's work to have by naming Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) as chair. The committee will have subpoena power, but the House's experience so far this Congress with having to go to court to try to enforce subpoenas illustrates the limits of that tool. Finally, the Trump administration has become famous for vacancies and ``acting'' officials in the highest positions of government. By tolerating a large number of acting positions, the Senate has given up one of its most important tools for influencing executive branch conduct. On April 3rd, the President nominated five individuals to Inspector General positions. However, while the Senate remains on recess, those roles will continue to be served by officials in an acting capacity. Four of the IG offices receiving funding increases from the CARES Act are currently headed by acting officials. Notably, Glenn Fine, the Department of Defense Inspector General who was originally appointed as the Chairman of PRAC, only served in an acting capacity. On April 7th, President Trump removed him from the DOD IG role and appointed EPA Inspector General Sean O'Donnell, making Fine ineligible to be PRAC Chairman. Congress will face many challenges protecting against fraud and helping an economy stalled by the pandemic, which may require members to find unique solutions for ensuring effective implementation of the CARES Act. With $2 trillion of taxpayer money on the line, nothing is more important than effective oversight.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an April 4 ABC News article, entitled, ``Experts Warn About Big Dollar Fraud in $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package.'' [From ABC News, April 4, 2020] Experts Warn About Big Dollar Fraud in $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package (By Benjamin Siegel) The U.S. government's historic $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid relief package recently approved by Congress is highly vulnerable to fraud and abuse, oversight experts and veteran watchdogs who investigated abuse of the government's financial system bailout more than a decade ago told ABC News. The size of the unprecedented relief package--in the scale of spending and the number of businesses eligible for funds-- will make it difficult to verify the information from each applicant, and how they plan to use their money. With roughly 10 million Americans filing jobless claims over the last two weeks, and millions of small businesses seeking government aid to stay afloat, the need for the government to immediately push out money to Americans and into the staggering economy could hinder efforts to filter out efforts from potential fraudsters to seek relief funds. Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis. ``Everybody's acceptance of some or a lot of fraud is going to have to be high, because it's going to happen,'' said Earl Devaney, who served as the top watchdog of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which tracked the stimulus spending following the Great Recession in the late 2000s. Though the legislation mandates multiple oversight bodies, if even a small percentage of the funds are misused, it could mean fraud on the scale of potentially millions, if not billions, before there are any efforts to recoup losses, according to experts. They see the $350 billion in funding earmarked for small businesses in the form of forgivable loans as particularly susceptible to abuse. Millions of small business owners began applying to banks for the loans on Friday, though many applicants and lenders experienced problems with the program's rollout. While the Treasury Department has said money will begin flowing immediately, some institutions, including JP Morgan Chase, said Thursday they would not be ready to receive applications by Friday. Other veteran investigators are concerned that the review process, which leaves it up to banks to vet potential borrowers and applicants to attest to their eligibility, doesn't give authorities enough time to effectively weed out potential fraud. ``If you have fewer entities that has a lot of implications for oversight. It's fewer entities to worry about. But it also means that the processes for application can be a little more thoughtful,'' Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told ABC News. ``In contrast here, the very purpose of these programs is not to impact a relatively small number of institutions but to reach as far and wide as possible,'' he said. The small business loan initiative, known as the Paycheck Protection Program, will be ``an extraordinarily easy program to defraud, and it will be defrauded in massive ways,'' he added. The $2.2 trillion, 880-page CARES ACT approved by Congress last week included oversight provisions, modeled after some of the safeguards implemented to track the financial system bailout and stimulus money after the Great Recession. It formed three major groups to lead oversight efforts: A new special inspector general, who will be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, will be responsible for oversight of the $500 billion fund administered by the Treasury Department and Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Trump plans to nominate Brian Miller, a special assistant to the president and senior associate counsel in the Office of White House Counsel, to serve as inspector general, the White House announced Friday night. A five-member panel appointed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers will monitor the Treasury Department program and Federal Reserve's implementation of the stimulus package. The third group, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, have the broadest mandate, aimed at rooting out waste and fraud throughout programs in the entire $2.2 trillion relief package. Led by Glenn Fine, the acting inspector general of the Department of Defense who was part of the panel's precursor following the financial crisis, the group will be able to conduct audits, subpoena individuals and information, and refer matters to the Justice Department for investigation. ``Every time there's kind of an emergency surge in spending like this it's even more important that there's additional layers of oversight to make sure that everything is on the up and up,'' Liz Hempowicz, the director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, told ABC News. House and Senate Democrats, who were particularly worried about how the $500 billion supervised by Mnuchin will be awarded, also pushed Republicans to add additional language into the legislation preventing President Trump, his family, top government officials and lawmakers from receiving loans or investments from the Treasury programs. Already, there are signs that President Trump and Democrats could tangle over oversight of the massive stimulus programs as money begins to flow from the federal government to workers and businesses. Trump's plans to nominate Miller, a former inspector general for the General Services Administration, will likely be met with criticism by Democrats. Inspectors General are typically independent and apolitical appointees; Miller played a role in rebuffing investigations into the withheld military aid to Ukraine that led to Trump's impeachment. In a signing statement last week, Trump said he wouldn't allow the inspector general to share information with Congress without ``presidential supervision,'' objecting to the provisions of the law that require the watchdog to notify Congress when they are ``unreasonably'' denied information about the stimulus program. Democrats criticized the comments, and on Thursday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the formation of a special select committee to provide additional oversight of the recovery funds and the administration's management of the coronavirus crisis, a move Republicans and the White House quickly condemned as redundant. Mnuchin on Thursday said he didn't think the panel was necessary. ``Both parties wanted us to have oversight, wanted us to have transparency. We have full transparency,'' he said at the daily White House coronavirus briefing. ``It's witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt,'' Trump said of the select committee at the same briefing. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Saturday, issued the following statement on the nomination of Brian Miller to be special inspector general for pandemic recovery: ``The special inspector general needs to be independent above all. Someone who currently works in the White House counsel's office, serving a president who has tried to silence other inspector generals and announced his intention to silence this one, is not independent. It's no wonder President Trump announced this nomination late on a Friday evening.'' ``While Mr. Miller has requisite experience for this position, he must clear a high bar to show the Senate he would protect the interests of the American people over the political interests of this administration.'' While it's not uncommon for both parties to snipe over the use--and potential abuse--of stimulus funds, the level of partisanship in Washington and the immediate need for the funds to be delivered to businesses and Americans make this situation much more difficult than the oversight efforts following the last recession, Devaney told ABC News. ``The atmosphere on the Hill, I thought it was acrimonious when I was there. It's a lot worse today and I suspect that whoever takes this job is going to be testifying once a week,'' he said of the eventual special inspector general. Former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Virginia, who served as chair of the House Oversight Committee, defended the stimulus package, given the time constraints put on lawmakers and the Trump administration. ``It's unlike anything I've ever seen in the last 50 years,'' he told ABC News. ``Emergency situations call for emergency measures. You can't sit and write layers and layers of oversight.'' ``There's always going to be money going to people who shouldn't have gotten it,'' Davis said. ``The question is, what were the alternatives? Lawmakers and coronavirus stimulus watchdogs won't just have this historic $2.2 trillion coronavirus package to police. Conversations have already started on Capitol Hill around a fourth phase of relief funding, including more money for small businesses.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this emergency surge in spending to confront the coronavirus is unprecedented, but the idea of what we are establishing is not. As I said, then-Senator Truman proposed it at the dawn of World War II. It worked then, and it will work now as well. So if you believe that this administration has nothing to hide, then nobody should oppose this and let the American people see how their money is being spent. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House, who has been an incredible leader during this pandemic.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues, one of our constitutional responsibilities is oversight. We just appropriated over $2 trillion, and I applaud the Speaker of the House for making sure that this Congress does its job and does proper oversight. I don't know about their constituents, but my constituents are puzzled why some of the money that was designed to go to small businesses ended up going to these megabusinesses like Shake Shack or Ruth's Chris Steak House, so they want accountability. Two trillion dollars, I mean, is that too much to ask? So I applaud the Speaker of the House for focusing us on making sure that we do our job, but we do oversight. This select committee is warranted, it is important, and I think Democrats and Republicans should overwhelmingly support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am absolutely stunned over the outrage to sunshine and oversight. Give me a break. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Guidance for Members and Attendees provided to us by the Office of the Attending Physician. While face coverings are not mandatory, they are certainly recommended. The Office of Attending Physician has also advised that ``a face cover will produce a minimal reduction in sound when using a microphone. The face covering is likely to be most useful in preventing viral spread while a person is speaking.'' So people can do whatever they want to do, but I would say, while we are all trying to show how fearless we are, we should be mindful of the people surrounding us. So until I am advised otherwise, I am going to keep my mask on. Guidance for Members and Attendees House Committee on Rules In order to accommodate this meeting of the House Committee on Rules, the following guidelines have been developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP), the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), and the Committee on House Administration. The OAP continues to recommend teleworking for all Congressional offices and that Members and staff maintain 6-foot social distance spacing as much as practicable when in the offices or the Capitol. The OAP, in conjunction with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends that all Members and attendees should: 1. Avoid congregating in groups upon arrival to the room; 2. Use provided hand sanitizer; 3. Apply a face cover if a face covering is not already worn (a face cover will be available for those who need them); 4. Proceed directly to their seat, maintaining proper distancing; and 5. Remain seated until the conclusion of the meeting, to the extent possible. Use of a face covering, while voluntary, is recommended for this specific proceeding due to occasions when the six-foot separation distance may be not be possible (Member private communications with staff, document distribution if needed, witness or staff movements, etc.). The OAP has advised that a face cover will produce a minimal reduction in sound when using a microphone. The face covering is likely to be most useful in preventing viral spread while a person is speaking. Members are encouraged to attend without staff or to limit themselves to a maximum of one staff person per Member if necessary. Staff who do accompany their bosses are requested to sit in the audience and only approach the dais if/when needed. Members and attendees should not engage in personal greetings such as handshakes or embraces. Members and attendees are asked to respect markings present on chairs to prevent their use, in accordance with social distancing guidelines. Access restrictions to the Capitol Complex remain in place. Per guidance from the SAA, House Office Buildings remain open to Members, Congressional staff, and credentialed press. When the meeting is adjourned, departure from the room should continue to respect social distancing by avoiding congregating in groups near the exit doors, hallways, or elevators. Members and attendees should use waterless hand cleansing upon exit after removing and disposing of their face covering.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).