[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2300-H2311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 6172, USA
FREEDOM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2020
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 981 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 981
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
6172) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records,
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question.
Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII
relating to H.R. 6172 may be offered only by the Majority
Leader or his designee.
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding the order of the House of May 22,
2020, if a veto message is laid before the House on House
Joint Resolution 76, then after the message is read and the
objections of the President are spread at large upon the
Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the
joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative day
of Wednesday, July 1, 2020; and on that legislative day, the
House shall proceed to the constitutional question of
reconsideration and dispose of such question without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 981, providing for consideration of Senate
amendments to H.R. 6172. The rule makes in order a motion offered by
the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the
House concur in the Senate amendments.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary and the chair and the ranking member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. The rule provides that any motion
pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating H.R. 6172 may be offered
only by the majority leader or his designee. Finally, the rule allows
for consideration of a possible veto message on H.J. Res. 76 on July 1,
2020.
Madam Speaker, the protection of civil liberties has always been a
uniquely American value. I opposed the original PATRIOT Act and
subsequent reauthorizations because I believe they crossed the line and
compromised Americans' fundamental right to privacy.
We can prevent crime and terrorism without our government collecting
data on law-abiding citizens. I have said that whether there has been a
Republican President or a Democratic President in the White House.
This has not been a partisan notion, either. There are Members on
both sides of the aisle who have consistently said the same. When I
worked with my colleagues Mark Pocan and Tom Massie to introduce what
was called the strongest antisurveillance bill to date, it was done
with bipartisan support.
It is no surprise, then, that I don't support the underlying bill
either. Every day, we ask Americans to choose between their right to
privacy and a false sense of security. That is not a choice we should
have to make.
Having said that, other Members in this Chamber--Democrats and
Republicans--feel differently, and it is the Rules Committee's job to
advance legislation to the floor.
A FISA reauthorization recently passed this Chamber with the support
of over two-thirds of our Members. I did not support it. The Senate
strengthened the bill, but quite frankly, it is not strong enough for
me, though I do appreciate some of its reforms.
Now, each Member will have to decide where they stand. I know the
President hasn't made this process easy. He has thrown a last-minute
wrench into the process with his tweeting. If this bill passes, it will
go directly to his desk. I am not sure if he will sign it or not. I am
not sure he knows, quite frankly.
But we are giving every Member the chance to cast a straight up-or-
down vote. Ultimately, the House will have worked its will.
I have said many times that I oppose this bill. The Government of the
United States should not be able to go on fishing expeditions against
citizens who haven't even broken the law. That is not a radical idea.
To me, that is a fundamentally American idea. I don't want seemingly
unlimited and, in my view, unconstitutional powers in the hands of
President Trump and Attorney General Barr or any administration.
This Attorney General, quite frankly, has no respect for the rule of
law. That is my view. I don't trust him.
I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the White
House. We can, and we must, fight terrorism and deter wrongdoing in a
way that better respects Americans' civil liberties.
Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter. It deserves to be handled
more responsibly than by a late-night tweet.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2301]]
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my chairman is exactly right. We just came out of the
Rules Committee just about an hour ago, and we did report this rule
that does make in order a motion from the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary to concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments
do take a small step forward in making the underlying language better
than it used to be, but we had an opportunity in the Rules Committee to
consider other amendments.
We had an amendment by Mr. Gosar, for example, that asked for
additional certifications from the Attorney General. We had a
bipartisan amendment from Mr. Davidson and Ms. Lofgren that would have
gone even further in protecting civil liberties. I regret the rule we
have today makes neither of those in order.
It comes as no surprise to any of us that we have some very
successful House work product that we could have added here, and we
made the decision to accede to the Senate language.
As I mentioned, just over an hour ago, Dr. Burgess, who sits on the
Rules Committee, and I were there.
Madam Speaker, with the chairman's indulgence, I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for any
statement he may have.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I do want to point out that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978--note the first word is ``Foreign''--the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 provided authorities for
the collection of foreign intelligence information to protect the
United States from foreign threats. These authorities were expanded
after 9/11, and their use has exceeded the original intent.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court provides authorization
via court order. Inspector General Horowitz's recent report revealed
intentional abuse of the FISA process by FBI officials investigating
the Trump campaign, investigating the Trump campaign for alleged
collusion with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign. After
extensive study by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, no such connection
could be found.
In addition, agents of the FBI reportedly used official meetings with
then-President-elect Trump and incoming National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn for the purposes of gathering information on them,
intelligence information. These politically driven actions by the FBI
were highly irregular; inappropriate; and, in the case of inaccurate
FISA court applications, actually criminal.
It is not legal to lie to a FISA court judge. Yet, no one has been
held accountable. No one has stood trial. Certainly, no one has served
a sentence to account for these crimes.
Madam Speaker, what is the point of passing a law if the enforcement
agency is the one abusing it? This is malfeasance of the highest order,
and it certainly must not go unpunished.
Let's be clear: We all want to protect the American people. Part of
that responsibility includes authorizing certain activities by our
intelligence agencies to obtain critical information on foreign
targets. But, no, Americans' civil liberties should not be jettisoned
for that effort.
When the House first passed H.R. 6172, the reauthorization of the USA
FREEDOM Act, I supported the bill because of the improvements that were
made to the FISA process. But since then, we have learned details that
indicate that the abuse was much more widespread and much more
deliberate than initially reported.
Given that, rather than place some additional requirements on the
exercise of existing authorities, I think we must fully reevaluate the
FISA authorities to resolve the right balance between protecting our
Nation and the rights of the American people.
In addition, the administration does not support this bill in its
current form, which means that this is going to be yet another in a
long line of activities undertaken by the Democratic majority that is
not going to be successful.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the underlying bill. It has nothing do with
the Mueller investigation into the collusion between Trump operatives
and the Russians.
Quite frankly, I look back at that episode in our history with great
concern. A foreign power intervened in our election, and people close
to the President lied about their interaction with the Russians,
including General Michael Flynn, whom my colleague just referred to. He
lied to the FBI, but he doesn't need to worry because the President is
going to pardon him, or at least alluded to pardoning him because he is
his friend.
It is that kind of lack of respect for the law that has me concerned
about giving more power to this administration to be able to surveil
American citizens.
By the way, the Attorney General is recommending a veto on this
because he thinks it is too restrictive. He wants more power. This
Attorney General wants more power. Give me a break.
Madam Speaker, people have differences of opinion on the underlying
bill. There are Democrats who strongly support it, and there are
Democrats who oppose it. There are Republicans who strongly support it,
at least they did until the President did his tweet last night, and
Republicans who oppose it. So, people can vote however they want to
vote.
But my opposition to the underlying bill is longstanding, and I am
not going to sit here and listen to somebody try to rewrite history as
to what happened between the Russians and Trump operatives. What
happened should disturb every American, Democrat or Republican.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my
chairman, knows the great respect that I have for him--in fact, the
great affection that I have for him.
Madam Speaker, I can tell him with complete sincerity that I have no
interest in rewriting history, but I do have an interest in rewriting
the future. And as we stand here today, my support for the underlying
legislation does not wane because of a Presidential tweet; my belief
that the legislation will be signed into law wanes because of a
Presidential tweet.
Madam Speaker, whether you are on the side that says this bill is
doing too much or whether you are on the side that says this bill is
doing too little, if you are on the side that says we can do better
together, then going down a path that the President's team has said
would result in a veto advantages none of us.
Madam Speaker, it is painful. This is my last year in this
institution, and I love this institution not because of the history
that is in these walls, not because of the ancient tomes that I see
here on Mr. Griffith's desk, but because of the people who sacrifice
themselves and their families on behalf of something that is bigger
than themselves.
This idea that it is the United States of America that you and I have
the privilege of playing a small leadership role in, that is universal.
To be here on the floor of the House today, again, accentuating our
divisions on a bill that is going nowhere, is worthless to me.
Madam Speaker, I love being on the House floor with my friend, the
chairman, when he is full thunder on behalf of his ideas and his
principles and I have to take the other side. That kind of debate,
those kinds of differences of opinions among people who respect one
another but simply come at things from a different perspective, that is
exactly what this House was intended to produce.
Madam Speaker, to be here on the floor today, when my friend from
Massachusetts is having to carry a rule for a bill that he opposes and
wants to defeat, I am down here telling you that we had a great
bipartisan solution, but we are not going to be able to talk about it
on the House floor.
So, I have a bill that I support the underlying vision of but know it
is going to go absolutely nowhere, and we are just going to back folks
into their political corners. That is not what our constituents expect
from us, and it is not, I would argue, what we have come
[[Page H2302]]
to expect from ourselves. It, sadly, is what the political theater
advocates have come to expect from us.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to a new rule to suspend the proxy voting until the D.C.
Federal district court reviews a lawsuit and determines an outcome.
Madam Speaker, thinking about things that are within the walls of
this institution, all the stories these walls tell, they will never
tell a story of a single Member of Congress ever casting a vote from
outside of this room where we are standing. Never has it happened. I
would argue the Constitution flatly prohibits it. I cannot understand
how one can read the Constitution differently.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior
to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
{time} 1515
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I reference the tomes that sit on the
gentleman from Virginia's desk.
At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and,
actually, Madam Speaker, as you know, someone who has worked in a
bipartisan way, a surprising bipartisan way--never fails to surprise
Members on both sides of the aisle--to protect this institution and all
that it means to the American people.
There are many folks in this institution, Madam Speaker, I don't mind
disagreeing with; and, in fact, the fact that we are on other sides
humbly leads me to believe I am even more right than I thought that I
was. When I find myself disagreeing with the gentleman from Virginia, I
find myself having to go back and reflect on exactly why that is we
have come down on different sides. And those individuals in this
Chamber who provide us with that counsel, Madam Speaker, you know that
we hold in such high regard.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of my good
friend and colleague, and we will miss him when he goes on to do
greater things elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, if we do not pass the motion to proceed to the
previous question, we can put the proxy quorum voting rule on hold
until after the courts have time to rule on its constitutionality.
Most on this side of the aisle and a handful on the other side of the
aisle strongly believe that this proxy voting rule is unconstitutional.
Accordingly, yesterday, a suit was filed to have the rule declared
unconstitutional.
Under the suit, the court is asked to do many things, including
asking for an injunction of our Clerk from counting the proxy votes on
any measure and on counting proxies for purposes of determining a
quorum. The courts must weigh in on this controversy before we take
important votes using this new proxy quorum voting scheme.
The suit lays out constitutional requirements. Many of these
arguments were made previously. It goes through the definitions of
words like ``to meet,'' ``assemble,'' et cetera.
Madam Speaker, as you know, words are important and the meanings are
important, and the filers of this suit couldn't have made me happier.
When I was reading it, they used Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1773.
And just to let you know exactly how oddball I can be, I pulled my copy
of Samuel Johnson's of 1773 off the shelf in my office. I checked to
see what they had written down, and they got it exactly right. The term
``meet'' meant ``to encounter, to be close face-to-face.''
And in 1851, the Webster's dictionary says ``to come together or
approach near, or into company with; to assemble, to congregate.'' The
example they used in Webster's in 1851 was: ``The legislature will meet
on the first Wednesday in March.'' Clearly, they knew what it meant to
come together face-to-face.
Today, on the internet--knowing that some out there would say,
``Morgan, get yourself out of the dusty books''--it says, meet: to come
into the presence of; to come face-to-face.
And ``assemble,'' similarly, in Johnson's, it means ``to bring
together into one place''; Webster's: ``To collect a number of
individuals into one place or body''; internet, Merriam-Webster's,
today: ``To bring together, as in a particular place.''
The suit lays out the constitutional requirements. Many of these
arguments were made, as I said, previously.
Now, I know what many of you are thinking. Morgan, you have got to
get modern. Zoom is a place, as is Webex and a dozen others. Some say
that if they had only known about it during the writing of the
Constitution, they would have permitted it; but, Madam Speaker, they
had the written word and they had the ability to send letters.
They also knew about dangers. They knew about wars with other
nations, later, the burning of D.C., the Civil War.
Multiple plagues and fears have gripped the capitals of this country,
but they never contemplated sending a note or a letter by friend or by
post, saying--and can you imagine it saying: ``Hey, give my vote to
Harry Lee of Virginia or William Holman of Indiana. And not only count
my vote as a vote on the bill, but count me present as a part of the
quorum''?
Never did it, never thought they should, never thought they could.
So the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this so-called
rule is well-founded.
Also, it is important we think about how the newfangled proxy quorum
rule affects our work today. Some may say: ``Let the courts do their
thing and we will sort it out later.'' Well, that is more than just
sloppy legislating; it is dangerous.
Morgan, you say, how is that?
Let me explain. As an example, we are preparing to vote on the
reauthorization of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. On
that, or any other vote that does anything of import, no matter how
small--even the naming of a post office, because it spends money--the
vote and the action of this House, under the proxy quorum rule, is
tainted and the authority of that legislation, accordingly, called into
question.
On FISA, if we pass it and the courts rule that the proxy quorum
voting rule is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, we will have
handed either a get-out-of-jail-free card to terrorists who are enemies
of the United States or a hammer they can use against prosecutors
trying to pursue justice.
Is that really what we want to do? I know it is not. And we have
another way. We can put the proxy quorum rule on hold, suspend it until
the courts can make a final ruling on its constitutionality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. We can put the proxy quorum rule on hold. We can
suspend it until the courts can make a final ruling on its
constitutionality. Once we have that answer, we can then move forward.
But to move forward without knowing where we are going on
constitutionality is dangerous, damaging, and destructive to every act
we take in this body.
Madam Speaker, I would implore the Members of this House: Do not vote
the party line. Do not say, ``Oh, it is a previous question, it is a
throwaway vote.'' Today, the previous question is an important vote on
whether we move forward not knowing the way or whether we move forward
knowing whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.
I ask you all to vote for our great Republic and this august body.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question and put the proxy quorum rule on
hold until we have a definitive answer.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman for reading from Webster's Dictionary
to all of us, but I want to read from the Constitution. And let me
quote: ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Erwin
Chemerinsky, the renowned constitutional expert and dean of Berkeley
School of Law, discussing the view that
[[Page H2303]]
the remote voting process we are considering today would, in fact, be
constitutional.
In the letter, the dean says: ``The Constitution bestows in 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.
``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 the Congress are
not justiciable in the Federal courts. . . . 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.' ''
Berkeley Law,
May 13, 2020.
Chairman McGovern and Ranking Member Cole,
House Rules Committee, 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
Chernerinsky, 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. I include in the Record a letter from Deborah
Pearlstein, constitutional law professor from Cardozo School of Law.
In her letter, which I strongly recommend all of my colleagues read
in full, Professor Pearlstein writes: `` . . . 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 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.' ''
``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 floor.''
``Finally, the temporary remote voting procedures . . . 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 operation, and fairly and accurately reflects the
will of the American people.''
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'
[[Page H2304]]
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. Madam Speaker, about the process, let me just say, I
hear from my friends. They like to talk about the 230 years of
tradition as though the House has never made any changes to the way it
operates in these last 230 years. That is just simply not true. So many
of our most basic functions have changed drastically since the first
Congress, from the way we vote to the way we count a quorum.
If a legislative body does not have the ability to respond to the
challenges it faces, then how can it survive and how can it be
functional?
The challenge we are facing today is not permanent. I could argue
that the House has made several more sweeping and permanent changes
than this before. For one, the way we vote today looks nothing like how
our predecessors voted in 1789. Now we cast our votes in the Chamber by
electronic device.
Our predecessors recognized that the House needed to advance with
technology. For decades, they called on the House to implement a more
efficient and advanced voting system. They were afraid we would seem
archaic compared to foreign and State governments. Does that sound
familiar?
Right now, we are watching as legislatures in our States take
responsible action to respond to this pandemic by implementing remote
voting procedures and as parliaments around the world advance to meet
this challenge head-on. What are we doing? We are struggling to even
come up with an agreement that we need to do something--something.
Anything.
But voting electronically is not the only change we have made in
response to technological advancements. Now, our floor proceedings are
broadcast on C-SPAN. Members grappled with questions of how
broadcasting the House would fundamentally change this body, but the
desire for accountability and transparency won the day.
Change is not always bad. And, of course, there were safeguards
attached to this that preserved the integrity of the House: Proceedings
cannot be tampered with and cannot be used for political reasons and so
on.
Other changes we made over the years include the provisional quorum
after 9/11. And that is not the only time we made changes to our quorum
requirements.
Other changes were deciding when a quorum is required. For decades,
Members raised points of order that a quorum is not present during
debates. The House has even expanded the Speaker's ability to adjust
the numbers of the whole House to account for those living,
incapacitated, or resigned.
How we count a quorum today is not the same as how we counted a
quorum in the first Congress. We have made changes to our quorum rules
as recent as 15 years ago.
Here is the deal: What we are facing today doesn't have to prevent us
from legislating. We should not be afraid to adapt and respond to these
challenges and to do so in a safe manner. If anything, we have 230
years of precedent of us adapting to the changing world around us.
There is nothing wrong with that.
But we don't have decades to make these changes. We need to make them
now, because we are in the midst of a pandemic. Hopefully, we are
seeing the end of it, but according to this administration's own CDC,
we may see a surge in COVID-19 cases in the fall. We may be in a more
difficult situation. We need to be prepared.
So no one is suggesting any permanent rules changes here. Everything
that we are putting forth is temporary and will be tied to the duration
of this pandemic. Full stop.
Let me just say this, finally. Proxy voting is constitutional. The
experts have said so. We aren't going to stop the work of the people's
House so that another branch of government can weigh in on our internal
proceedings.
I get it. My Republican friends have another agenda. They would
prefer that we do not get work done during this difficult time. It is
in, I think, their political interests, I guess they have decided, to
slow the work down of Congress.
Well, do you know what? The American people want us to work in times
that are normal and in times like this when we are in the middle of a
pandemic. And so I would urge my colleagues to reject the motion of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and instead vote to get our
work done.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my chairman, when he was referencing
Republicans who just want to slow this place down and don't want to get
any work done, if he would except me and my colleague from Virginia
from that characterization? Because I certainly know that it doesn't
apply, and I would like to know that my chairman knows that it doesn't
apply as well.
When the chairman just stated that the reason that Republicans are
opposed to proxy voting has nothing to do with----
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me put it this way: I think there
are certain Members of your conference who are interested in slowing
the work of this democratic majority down. And I think that the
constitutional arguments are certainly on our side on this, and I think
that there is another agenda, quite frankly, that is being pursued by
some. I am not going to attribute that to you or anybody else.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, if the constitutional arguments are so clear, we
should be able to get this out of the district court in very short
order, presumptively with the decision that my chairman would like.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Virginia again--what I
have seen from Mr. Griffith, Madam Speaker, is someone who has fought
on behalf of the institution, not on behalf of Republicans, not on
behalf of Democrats. Without throwing my friend under the bus, he has
been in the minority of my conference as often as he has been in the
majority, fighting to do
[[Page H2305]]
the right thing because he thought we were on the wrong path. And he
was saying: You know what? You may think this is politically expedient
today, but you are going to regret this. And the decisions we make
aren't about politics, they are about people. They are about the
institution.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I would reiterate and thank the
gentleman for his kind comments. He is absolutely right. I come here
today not as a Republican or a Democrat. I come here as an American,
and I have no agenda today except to defend the Constitution.
And while the courts may ultimately determine that my friends on the
other side of the aisle are right, I believe they are sorely wrong,
Madam Speaker. Sorely wrong. Because we are not just talking about
voting from afar, and while I would have problems with that as well, I
will tell you it is more critical than that because the Constitution
calls on us to meet, to assemble, and to have a quorum.
The Founding Fathers debated whether or not that quorum should be a
smaller-than-50-percent amount. And they determined that was not right
because then it would tilt power into the hands of those that live
closer to the Capitol, like Mr. Beyer, who apparently is carrying at
least nine proxies. It tilts powers into those people's hands and away
from the States that are further away, like Colorado and California.
Madam Speaker, I would submit to you that there is a reason that in
231 years this has never come up, even though they could have written a
letter. As I said before, they could have easily written a letter. They
could have written a letter, and said: Hey, I can't get there right
now, give my vote to my friend. They didn't do it.
They could have said: Hey, for purposes of a quorum, count me from
afar by letter. They knew how to write. Messages were traded all the
time. But, instead, they went to wherever the Capitol was at the time,
whether it be in Philadelphia, whether it be in Washington, D.C., at a
hotel, and they did the people's business. They did not cede that
authority to anyone else. They kept it for themselves. And that is what
the Constitution calls for. And you know what, as I said before, they
never did it. They never thought they should. They never thought they
could.
Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, we go all the way back to the
Declaration of Independence, and Caesar Rodney got on his horse while
deathly ill with cancer, suffering from asthma and the gout, to ride to
Philadelphia to cast the deciding vote for his State of Delaware
because he needed to be there live in order to do it. He needed to be
at the Capitol. He needed to be at the meeting place of this country,
even in its infancy, to cast the vote, no matter what. And he rode
through a storm.
And so we continue to have the policy--because it was the Founding
Fathers' wish, and because it is the right thing to do--that if you are
going to count as a quorum, you meet in the Capitol. You may designate
a different place for that Capitol. We might designate it in Colorado,
if need be.
But wherever the Capitol is designated, this body must come together,
representing the people from the various States of this Union. And, we,
each individual, shall cast our vote, not 10 votes here by one and 8
votes there by another, but one by one, each district as determined in
the decennial census shall cast their vote on each and every measure.
When we don't do that, we don't do our job. When we don't do our job,
we cast a doubt on every action we take.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I don't even know what the heck the gentleman from Virginia is
talking about. We debated this. Nobody is ceding their power to anybody
here. We had this debate. Read the resolution.
Members who cannot be here are very much engaged and are directing
their wishes very directly, like they would by casting the vote here.
So I don't even know what the heck we are talking about here, but I
guess it is a good talking point on their side, but it just doesn't
reflect reality.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank him for his leadership of the Rules Committee and for bringing us
together so that we can present this FISA bill on the floor today.
Madam Speaker, when we come to Congress, we all take an oath of
office. We raise our right hand to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States. Protecting that, we are protecting the American
people.
Central to that defense is how we do protect and defend, it is about
our values, which are part of our strength. It is about the health,
education, and well-being of our people, our children, our future,
which is part of our strength. Our military might is part of our
strength. And our intelligence is very much a part of our strength in
order to provide force protection for our men and women in uniform when
they go out there to protect and defend our country. Force protection.
When I first started on the Intelligence Committee in the early mid-
90s, a long time ago, I would soon then rise to be the ranking member,
and I take great pride in that ex officio all these years since then.
When I started way back when, it was about force protection;
intelligence to protect our forces to anticipate any initiation of
hostilities, and also, when engaged, to have the intelligence to
protect them.
Since then, the whole world has changed with technology, and all the
rest, in that period of time. So our intelligence has had to change as
well. And one of the ways it has, has necessitated us having a FISA
bill, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act.
In the House some weeks ago we passed a bill, honchoed by our two
distinguished chairs, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler
from New York; and the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff
from California, two committees of jurisdiction. It had strong
bipartisan support. It went over to the Senate. In my view, it was
vastly improved in the Senate, and it had 80 votes.
Our bill was bipartisan. Their bill was bipartisan, too: 80 votes in
the United States Senate for the Senate bill, which was amended by the
Leahy/Lee Amendment--very, very protective of the balance that we have
to have between security and privacy, security and civil liberties.
This is the balance that we have to strike.
In my years on Intelligence, I was focused a lot on the civil
liberties part of it, establishing a board, et cetera, to ensure that
whatever we did, that balance with our civil liberties was central and
important to it.
As Benjamin Franklin said: Security and liberties, you can't have one
without the other. They go together, security and liberty.
And so now today, this Rules Committee is presenting that bill, the
USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act coming back from the Senate. Again, our
bill in the House originally was 278 to 136. It was strongly
bipartisan, with 126 Republicans voting for it. This bill coming back
from the Senate, as I said, had 80 votes over there.
So with an intelligence bill, with a FISA bill, nobody is ever really
that happy. I never was. And you always want more or less, as the case
may be, but the fact is--and I say this in all humility, because I
don't pretend to know more than my colleagues--but in all humility, we
have to have a bill. If we don't have a bill, then our liberties, our
civil liberties are less protected.
Some people say: I don't care, just let them extend this and extend
that. No. There is real value in both the House bill that we passed and
then exceptionally so in what the Senate passed. There are those that
would not like us to have a bill. Some of them in the judiciary, the
Department of Justice, just say: Don't have a bill, just give us all
the leeway in the world not to have to protect any liberties. But we
can't have that.
We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States and all the liberties contained therein as we protect the
American people.
So if anybody thinks, well, no, in order to have a bill, we have to
have a rule. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this rule to
the floor, which enables us to pass a bill. This legislation increases
the power of the Privacy
[[Page H2306]]
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to pursue its mission to protect
Americans' privacy.
After 9/11 this Congress considered the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, establishing the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Board. That was one of my top priorities all those years ago.
And the Board has done critical work in assessing the privacy and civil
liberties impact of the government's collection activities, including
under various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
So, again, this has to be a high priority for us. It was a higher
priority in the act that was passed that could get passed in the
Senate.
So, again, I am going to submit my statement for the Record that I
talk about here. But FISA is a critical pillar of America's national
security, which Congress has updated and improved over the last years
to ensure that America's privacies and civil liberties are expected.
Are we ever satisfied? Of course not. Of course not. But legislation
is just exactly that. Legislation. Our attempt to come together to
protect and defend in a way that has already passed the Senate can go
directly to the President for his signature, and I hope that that will
be the case today.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for bringing this rule to
the floor. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for this important rule
that enables us to do important things for the American people. With
that, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization
Act, a strong, bipartisan bill to reauthorize critical FISA provisions.
In March, our Members worked day and night to craft legislation that
strikes a strong, careful balance between security and privacy. We
thank Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff for their leadership and the
expertise they bring on this vital national security issue.
We were proud to have passed that bill on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan 278-136 basis, including with the support of 126 of our
Republican colleagues.
Last week, the Senate considered the House-passed FISA bill and
amended it to further expand the robust amicus curiae provisions in the
original House bill. The bill then passed also on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan basis, 80-16, supported by nearly every Republican Senator.
Yet, now, some Members on the other side of the aisle are considering
changing their minds and flipping their position, in order to score
political points with the President.
As should be clear, political gamesmanship has no place in our
national security. Reauthorizing FISA--and doing so in a timely
manner--is a matter of keeping the American people safe.
Indeed, FISA is a critical pillar of America's national security,
which Congress has updated and improved over the years to ensure that
Americans' privacy and civil liberties are respected.
After 9/11, as revelations emerged that the Bush Administration had
engaged in warrant-less electronic surveillance of the public, Congress
strengthened and updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Our action helped end this unacceptable practice and ensure that all
electronic surveillance of Americans complies with the law.
Since then, the law has been further updated, including through the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and the USA FREEDOM ACT of 2015.
The bill that the House passed in March took additional steps to
strengthen FISA, which are preserved in the Senate-amended bill:
placing new limitations on surveillance authorities while ensuring that
our intelligence and law enforcement have the tools necessary to keep
Americans safe; ending the NSA's call detail records initiative, which
the government has confirmed that it no longer uses; strengthening the
integrity of the FISA process by increasing transparency and
accountability; and expanding involvement of the court-appointed amicus
curiae in FISA cases--which was expanded in the Senate bill.
We are proud that this legislation increases the power of the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to pursue its mission to
protect Americans' privacy.
After 9/11, as Congress considered the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, establishing the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board was one of my top priorities.
The Board has done critical work in assessing the privacy and civil
liberties impact of the government's collection activities, including
under various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
As Members of Congress, we take an oath to support and defend the
Constitution, and to protect the American people.
This legislation honors that oath, as it also honors the patriotic
contributions of the men and women of the intelligence and law
enforcement communities and the privacy of the American people.
I urge Members to remember their oath and to once again support this
critical legislation to keep the American people safe.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the Speaker for her words. We do come
to a place where we sometimes are satisfied. In this case we had a
bipartisan group that was continuing to work to do even more of those
good things that the gentlewoman laid out.
They had an amendment that they had drafted together in a bipartisan
way. That amendment was not made in order on this floor. I agree with
the gentlewoman, we should never be satisfied. In this case, we have
decided to be satisfied with the Senate language instead of trying to
improve it with the House work product, and I deeply regret that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Roy.)
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity here to visit
about what we are dealing with today with respect to proxy voting with
respect to the previous question. And I notice that the gentleman from
Massachusetts--and, first of all, and our prayers go out for the
tragedy that you are dealing with in Massachusetts, at a significant
clip worse than we are in Texas, obviously, regionally very difficult.
But what we are trying to deal with here right now is trying to
protect the Constitution of the United States. And this is not
something that is about slowing down the work of this body. I am
delighted to work with my colleague, Dean Phillips from Minnesota.
Right now, together, we are all working on legislation to try to
improve the PPP, and I am delighted to do that as the cosponsor of that
legislation. I am not here to slow down what we need to be doing to
help work for the people of the United States, I can assure you.
I am here because the Constitution matters. In the various staff
reports that talked about the options for us to deal with this, I would
remind you that our Democratic colleagues acknowledge the
constitutional questions that arise from proxy voting.
{time} 1545
Let's be clear to the American people that we are not talking about
remote voting. I, too, like the gentleman from Virginia, have very
serious constitutional reservations about remote voting, but let's have
that debate. Let's have a thorough debate about that. But we are
talking about proxy voting.
For those people who are watching this back at home, understand what
that means. That means that a Member of this body who has been
delegated to them the responsibility from their constituents to vote
for them, to argue for them, to be on this body representing them, is
taking that solemn duty and handing it to another, and in some cases, 5
or 10 Members handing it to another.
That undermines our body. It dilutes the representation of our
constituent. It dilutes those of us as Members and the power and
importance that is entrusted to us to represent our constituents.
This is what is at stake, and this is what we are talking about, and
this is why we have filed litigation.
I would rather that we address this in this body, but in talking to
the Parliamentarian, I was advised there was nothing we could do, that
when the House voted 10, 12 days ago----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I was advised that we could do nothing in
this body to address the constitutional infirmity of literally
transferring our constitutionally vested authority to represent our
constituents to another. Therefore, I was told, and I believe that is
the case, we have to go to the courts, the Article III courts, to
express our concern that this is constitutionally infirm.
This is not about setting our own rules. This is about directly
opposing
[[Page H2307]]
the structure of the Constitution in which we represent our
constituents.
Keep in mind that at the time of our founding in 1793, in the heat of
yellow fever, 5,000 Philadelphians died out of a population of 50,000.
That is 10 percent. That would be 180,000 or 160,000 today. Yet, what
happened? James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson were
all working to figure out how this body could continue to meet in
person. They didn't adopt proxy voting. They figured out how to work to
meet.
There is a letter sent from James Madison to George Washington on
October 24, 1793, talking about this very issue, that in a pandemic,
this body should meet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, this body should continue to meet. That
letter from James Madison, the father of the Constitution, to the
father of our country, George Washington, expressly lays out what he is
talking about to try to protect our duty to meet as a body, the
requirement of physical presence, the requirement that we meet
together, to look each other in the eye to do our duty to represent our
constituents.
This is not about slowing down the work of this body. This is about
doing our duty to uphold the Constitution and finding a way to navigate
through the difficulties of the current moment.
We got through yellow fever. We got through world wars. We got
through the Spanish flu. We got through a Civil War. And we managed to
figure out how to do our job. Our Founders got through smallpox. I
would implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let us not
adopt this proxy voting in which we turn over our solemn duty to
another Member. Let us work together to find out how to get through
this in a way that respects the Constitution. That is why we are here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Nobody is turning over their solemn duty to another Member of
Congress, and if my friend would read the proposal which passed the
House, if he had paid attention to the debate that we had, he wouldn't
be mischaracterizing what, in fact, we are doing here.
Nobody is turning over their solemn power to anybody. Members have to
participate directly just like they would on the House floor. They have
to pay attention to the proceedings. They cannot give their votes in
advance. On a previous question, people have to respond just like they
would in real time as if they were here on the floor.
So, this is just not true. It is not accurate.
Again, we have had this debate. The House has spoken, and we are
moving forward with remote voting by proxy today.
By the way, we didn't get through the pandemic of 1918 in the way the
gentleman just kind of characterized. In fact, that was an example of
why we need to do something because, during that time, we weren't
meeting. During that time, a bill actually to try to get more doctors
to rural areas to help people get through it couldn't get passed in the
House, and a lot of people died as a result of it.
So, I don't look at the Spanish flu of 1918 as somehow a model that
we ought to employ now. That is an example of how this institution
failed, and people died as a result of it.
We are now in another pandemic. Hopefully, this is short-lived.
Hopefully, the President is right that, tomorrow, everything will be
perfect. But we are also being told that, actually, things could get
worse in the fall. That is what happened during the Spanish flu, by the
way. The fall was worse.
We need to be prepared, and that is what we are going to do. We are
going to do the people's business, and the people who can get here,
they can get here. If they can't, for whatever reason, because flights
have been canceled because they are living in areas where there has
been a terrible surge in COVID-19, we will adjust accordingly.
Again, this is temporary, and it is not meant to displace the way we
do business here on a regular basis, and it is totally constitutional.
Constitutional scholar after constitutional scholar has validated that,
so I would say to the gentleman that I reject the way he has
characterized what we have done here because it is just not accurate.
It is not accurate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the majority leader of this House.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding.
I am going to argue, and I want to talk about this rule and the bill
to which it applies, but I will take a minute, not much more, perhaps a
little more than that, to talk about what apparently the Republicans
want to talk about: proxy voting.
I will tell my friend that not a single one of my constituents, not
one, voted for me so I would vote in this machine. Not one. Not one of
them voted for me to vote in that machine. What they want me to do is
vote to represent them, and they really didn't care how I did that as
long as it was accurate.
Very frankly, I think that side of the aisle is promoting form over
substance. Of course, the gentleman mentioned Philadelphia, September
1787, the miracle at Philadelphia. You remember the debate as Member
after Member got up and said we cannot use Teams; we cannot use our
cell phones; we cannot use Webex. Remember that debate? They said you
can't use any of that, and you certainly can't use a rotary telephone.
You heard them say that. You can't do that. You need to be in this
room. Well, that room was in Philadelphia. Or you needed to be in this
room. Well, that room is in New York.
My friends, you have magnified form over substance. Our constituents
voted for us to vote their interests, and there are many ways we can do
that.
They had not the technology. That is why they couldn't schedule a
vote in 48 hours, because the horses did not fly. Form over substance.
You don't want us to meet. And the man who would be king does not
want us to meet. I get that. Because you do not like the substance,
whether it is the Affordable Care Act, whether it is trying to help
renters and mortgage people, whether it is trying to help people in
line. I get it. You don't want us to meet.
But we have an obligation and a duty to the American people to do so,
to make sure that the man who would be king is not king because our
Constitution, the people who met in that Philadelphia room, they had
had enough of kings. They wanted to have people who would represent
them. And they didn't care whether they voted on this machine, that
machine, that machine, or, very frankly, as you are sitting in the
aisle and you can't get by and you ask your friend: ``Put it in the
slot for me, will you?''
I am not going to ask you to raise your hand if you have ever done
that. But that was virtual voting. But it reflected your view, my view,
representing my constituents and your constituents.
Now, let me speak about this rule and this bill because I am
appalled, chagrined, disappointed at what is happening. We worked very
hard to deal with a very difficult subject, Mr. Blunt and I from the
House and Senator Bond and Senator Rockefeller. Ms. Pelosi was the
Speaker of the House, and I was the majority leader of the House. It
was 2008, and we were trying to deal with extending the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act to keep our people and our country safe.
Probably not very many of us on this floor know more about the
Intelligence Committee than our Speaker. She is the longest serving
member of the Intelligence Committee ever.
Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff, they work together. Mr. Nadler and his
ranking member work together. Just about 2\1/2\ months ago, we came to
this floor, and we were all present. I don't mean we had 100 percent of
membership, but we were mostly present. We debated that bill, and we
voted on that bill.
We did what the American people so pined for us doing. We voted
together as Americans; 67.7 percent of the Republicans voted aye, and
66.9 percent of the Democrats voted aye. And America said amen. That is
what they want us to do, reason together and do for the American people
and our country what is best for our people and our country.
We sent that bill to the United States Senate; 126 Republicans and
152
[[Page H2308]]
Democrats voting together. Two-thirds of the House sent that bill to
the United States Senate.
I talked to Mr. Schiff and I talked to Mr. Nadler, and they said this
House bill has the support of the United States Senate. I talked to
leaders--I won't name them--in the United States Senate who were
surprised that the Senate did not pass the House bill but sent an
extension because they didn't really vote on the House bill. They sent
it after we had left. We didn't pass that, and the Intelligence
Committee made do.
So, the Senate did, in fact, take up the bill. What did they do? Two
people who spoke, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Woodall, who voted with the
majority, with the two-thirds of Republicans who said this is a good
bill, this is a good bill for our country, for America's security, and
America's safety--as did Mr. McCarthy; as did Mr. Scalise; as did Mr.
Thornberry, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee; as did
Mr. Rogers, the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee; as
did Ms. Cheney, your Conference chair; as did Mr. Cole, the ranking
member of the Rules Committee; and 120 other Republicans.
{time} 1600
Now, there were, of course, as is not surprising, differences. This
is, as the Speaker said, a very controversial bill. It is always a
controversial bill.
My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, who vote together most of the time,
are going to vote differently on this bill. I am going to vote for it.
He believes there are not enough protections in here. But there are
more protections in here than when those named voted for it and 80
Members of the United States Senate voted for it, including 48
Republicans.
Now, what was different when they voted on it and 48 Republicans in
the United States Senate voted for it? There had not been a snap of the
fingers, ``Vote `no' ''; not an order from on high, ``Vote `no' ''; not
a President who has been beating the drum and, frankly, his supporters
have been beating the drum that somehow the law enforcement community--
the FBI, the CIA, the other this and that and the other law enforcement
agencies--broke the Constitution.
This President shows less respect for law enforcement than any
President I have seen at the Federal level. So he said, ``Vote `no.' ''
My friend with whom I work, the majority leader, called me the other
night and said: You ought to pull the bill--the minority leader.
You know why I do that? Because we were all in the majority when we
passed this bill. It wasn't a majority-minority bill; it was an
American bill.
My friend, the minority leader, said: Pull this bill.
Now, I won't go into the rest of the conversation because we have
private conversations about where we are going to go and what we need
to do.
The only thing that has changed, Madam Speaker, is that Donald Trump
has said ``Vote `no' '' to 126 people who voted with 152 Democrats for
America.
By the way, the people who are voting ``no'' also voted for America.
They voted for civil liberties, which we honor.
We can respect every person who voted because they voted out of
conviction, not out of party loyalty, not out of a ``Yes, sir.'' They
voted their conscience, they voted their conviction.
I wish this Chamber were full, but we have to be distanced. I hope
some of my colleagues are listening on both sides of the aisle.
This bill is like every bill, not perfect, but as the Speaker said,
it must pass. Why? To protect America.
We need to continue to keep making it better. My friend from
Massachusetts will make sure that we focus on that, and I honor him for
it.
So I ask my friends: Vote your convictions. Remember how critical you
were of a candidate for President who said, ``I first voted for it and
then I voted against it,'' how critical you were. But your flailing
around to find a rationalization for your change of vote is sad.
Madam Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the rule and on the bill. Vote for
your country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank you for that admonition, Madam Chair.
Madam Speaker, there is only one person on our side of the aisle who
can clear up all of that confusion in 1 minute. I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his
comments. It reminds me of the days when I was the majority leader and
he was minority whip and we used to be able to have colloquies. I yearn
for those days again.
But let me respond to much of what the majority leader has said. I
respect the gentleman greatly, but I just think he is wrong.
When I walked in the room, the gentleman said we did not want to
meet. He knows that is not true.
Simply look at the board today, how many Republicans are here and how
many Democrats. We will give the gentleman an easy answer to that
question of who wants to meet.
Or why not look to simply a month ago. Only one side put a plan out
of how to bring Congress back.
We don't have a schedule. We don't know when we are supposed to come.
One day they say ``yes,'' the next day they say ``no.''
I think it is very clear which side wants to meet. It is very clear,
and based upon 231 years of history.
For those Members not in the Chamber and sitting in their office
watching on television, they ought to pay attention to this very next
vote. They are going to do something that no Member has ever been
allowed to do before. They are going to change history, but not for the
better.
While millions of Americans are going to be tuned in to their
television to watch us put people in space, we are going to watch more
than 70 Members on the Democrat side stay home and say they could not
make it, but they still want a paycheck.
We just listened to the majority leader question the Republicans on
whether they want to meet.
I watch my home State of California. Now we get to go to church, now
we can get our hair cut today, but in Congress, what do we get? We get
no accountability.
You see, the one thing the majority leader said that is true is that
people vote for us. Yes, they do. They vote for us, expecting us to
vote for them. They do not expect us to give that vote to somebody from
another State.
Our Constitution, our country expects us to convene, just as history
has shown every time before in any crisis we have.
I heard the majority leader question, not going through the Speaker,
but one of our own Members on a speech that he gave just a few minutes
before, Congressman Chip Roy, about whether he wanted to meet. Well,
let's look at some facts.
We are called back here to vote on a bill authored by Chip Roy, the
Congressman, to help small businesses, but his name will no longer be
on it. The only reason we are going to get a vote on it is because the
Speaker had to pledge to somebody to vote for the $3 trillion bill that
we would vote on.
Once we found out everybody loved the bill, lo and behold, we can't
let a Republican have their name on the bill, so we have changed the
bill number. We didn't change the bill, but took his name off of it. He
is no longer the main author of the bill, even though it was his idea.
It is something the Members can be proud of on the other side. They
played politics well that day.
Chip Roy will tell me, though, he doesn't care who gets the credit;
he just wants to help small businesses.
I look forward to seeing the Member who took his name try to campaign
on that. That is a lot of character on the other side, by far. I hope
they are proud of that, because I don't think anybody in the country
is.
Now, let's just look at some facts.
I respect the chairman of the Rules Committee. I read his reports.
Even in April, he wrote a report about proxy voting, and he questioned
the constitutionality of it. I don't know if the Constitution changed
between then and now, but I don't believe it has.
Let's look at exactly the facts of what we have.
Now, I think many Members will say in their own States that things
are getting better. I know in my home State, we can go to church; yes,
we can get
[[Page H2309]]
our hair cut; restaurants are opening up. But 2 weeks ago, people would
probably argue it was a little worse.
At that time, only 12 Democrats couldn't make it here to vote for
their $3 trillion bill. Now there are more than 70 who are supposedly
signing something to say they physically can't make it here now. I
wonder if any of them are having a fundraiser today.
Let's go through the facts.
The Constitution requires in-person assembly.
If we hang our hat on the notion that the House can make their own
rules, then why don't we make a rule that Republicans can't vote? Why
don't we make a rule that women can't vote? We can make the rules, but
we can't make unconstitutional rules.
The Constitution deals with this and tells us we should assemble.
Yes, that is why, on August 14, after this building burned in 1812, the
War of 1812-1814, they still convened. It wasn't here, but it was in a
hotel.
Some might think, oh, modern history allows us to do this. Well, do
you know what modern history allows people to do? If the Member can't
vote on the proxy, this rule allows the staff to do it. That is
literally what the rule says.
If the other side doesn't have it, I will put it in the Record right
here. I will underline it, and I will provide it to the other side. If
they want to read it out loud, they are more than welcome.
If a Member cannot provide electronically, a staff is
allowed to put the vote across.
That is what is written. That is what was passed.
Even one proxy vote dilutes the voting power of every Member.
We have an unbelievable country. The people lend their power and
voice to Members of Congress, be it a Congresswoman or Congressman, and
they hold us accountable every 2 years.
We are going to have people on this floor voting for more than five
Members from five different States.
In California alone, the largest delegation, more than half of the
Democrats stayed home. I will guarantee they all cashed their check
this month. That means 19 million people in California will not have
their voice heard. Maybe somebody from Connecticut will vote for them.
More than 70 Members will vote by proxy. That is 49 million Americans
who did not count because we gave it to somebody else. The other side
should be proud of that.
Proxy votes have never been allowed to count towards a quorum, but
what are we going to do on this rule? There will be more bodies voting
``no'' than voting ``yes,'' but the other side is going to win because
they have got a vote in the pocket.
The Democrat plan permits a staffer to vote by proxy on behalf of a
Member who is unavailable. That is totally true. It is in the rules
right here, and I will provide it to the other side. Let me read it
into the Record since they have a hard time reading:
If a Member is unavailable to email or send a text message,
a staff member may transmit the instructions at the direction
of the Member.
Is that a staff member? Does that say anywhere in there that only a
Member can vote?
I have not yielded my time, but I have read these words.
A Member can vote by proxy while attending a political fundraiser
under this plan. A Member could be at a fundraiser watching on
television and say: Well, let me pause for one moment. I didn't want to
go back to D.C., even though you asked me to, but I need to put my vote
in. It is okay. I will get somebody from another State to do it.
The McGovern regulations state that Members can only vote using proxy
voting if they are physically unable to make it to the Capitol.
I don't know what happened in the last 2 weeks when only 12 could not
make it, but now there are more than 70. I am concerned for them. It
must be something very serious.
All Members had nearly 2 weeks' notice ahead for this vote; 2 weeks
we had to plan.
For 231 years, Members found a way to get to D.C.
If this rule or bill passes, it will only be because of proxy votes
that will make up the difference.
So my friend over there thinks someone is going to vote differently.
Yeah, they are.
Even on the Senate side, they have told us: Whatever you are passing
here under these rules is not constitutional.
If we can make this type of rule, we could make anything: People with
glasses can't vote--unheard of.
{time} 1615
Yes, we raised a lawsuit. Yes, we believe in a previous question,
that people should vote ``no'' on this.
It is a violation of the Constitution. It is a dereliction of the
duty of elected officials. It will silence the voice of people, the
same constituents that you took the oath to represent.
I think of all the things this country had challenges with. Never did
this body not find it was essential to meet. Never did they question to
change the rule to empower one over another. But they have done just
that. They have done just that.
If you are a Member of Congress, if you are home, sitting there
because you cannot make it, and you think you are going to send your
message to your staffer to send it in, you might want to change because
maybe McGovern will change the rules now.
When you were sworn in, you held up your hand to uphold the
Constitution. This is your moment. This is your time. Read Article I,
Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6. We even compel people to go gather
you to bring you to these Chambers.
What is interesting to me is that the other side is willing to
endanger our Constitution just to empower more power to the majority
itself.
It will be interesting to see those who go back to their constituents
and say, I will represent you because I can just phone it in. I deserve
to be reelected because I passed us off to another Member to vote for
you.
It is interesting to find that maybe when you raised your hand, maybe
when you thought the Constitution changed, it hasn't.
So, yes, just as the majority leader said, he wants you to look into
your heart to how you are going to vote. Do that.
I hope we all come back to this floor and we all look up. I am not
sure how the vote will go. Will you have a little P by the name that
says a proxy?
Will we be able to tell by proxy that somebody from another State
voted for you so the rest of the country can see?
How will you tell the country today that is opening up more, that is
sending astronauts to space, that you want to close Congress further,
and you want to deny their voice one last time?
This is not about opening a campus. This is about restoring the voice
to the American public that we have done for 231 years. And for you to
ever question who wants to meet, let the public just see the scoreboard
at the end of the day.
I think it is easy to answer that question, not by voice, but simply
by your feet, who is willing to show and who is willing to work for
them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. According to the rules, Members shall
address their remarks to the Chair, and the Chair will strongly
admonish all Members to do so.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have been here for a while now, and I have never quite heard
anything like that; I mean, blatant mischaracterization of what the
facts are.
The gentleman suggested, not once, but several times, that the rules
allow staff members to vote for other Members in this Chamber. That is
just not true. I mean, no matter how you want to look at it, it is just
not true. But the gentleman repeated that falsehood over and over and
over and over again.
I asked him to yield so I could read the end of the sentence that he
didn't want to finish, which is: ``And that Member must confirm the
instruction by telephone to the Member serving as proxy before the vote
may be cast on their behalf.''
The gentleman knows that that is not true but, yet, here he comes to
the floor and he repeats over and over again something that, in the
written instructions, in the guidelines that he was referring to, says
the opposite.
I mean, are things that broken here that we cannot even agree on the
basic facts?
I get it. You don't like what we are doing here, that's fine. But
let's not
[[Page H2310]]
misinterpret and twist and distort what we are trying to do here.
Yeah, the gentleman had a plan. We actually delayed moving forward on
trying to change the rules to operate remotely because the gentleman
said that he was willing to work with us to try to figure out whether
we could come to some sort of accommodation.
And you know what his plan was? His plan was we all come back, and
all the Members in this Chamber get prioritized, over all of our
constituents, and we get tested every time we come back, so that we can
operate here safely.
So my doctors, and my nurses, and my first responders, and those who
work in our grocery stores, and those who work in homeless shelters and
in food pantries, who can't get tested, we are all so special,
according to the minority leader, that we should be prioritized and go
to the top of the list. And that was part of his plan.
Forget about it. I don't know about your constituents, but my
constituents would find that totally unacceptable, and it represents a
tone-deafness that I haven't heard in a long time here.
When he talks about no accountability in this process, I don't even
know what the hell he is talking about, I really don't.
And again, the idea that somehow staff could vote for Members? That
is absolutely not true. Absolutely not true.
I don't even know how to respond to what the gentleman just said. It
makes you understand why so many people are cynical when they look at
this Chamber and they see the exchanges that go on here.
I get it; we have disagreements on issues. We have disagreements on
whether we should move forward on with FISA or not. I have
disagreements with my own leadership on that. Those are honest
disagreements, but they are based on conviction. They are based on
fact.
You can disagree with whether or not we should be able to operate
remotely during extraordinary times like pandemics. I get it. We can
argue about the constitutionality. I think we are on strong
constitutional grounds. You can argue the opposite point of view.
But to makes things up, to come down here just to twist what we have
done here, it is just unacceptable. It is unacceptable. We all ought to
be better than that.
We are trying to figure out a way to operate during a very difficult
time in our country where, probably today, over 100,000 people will
have lost their lives.
And notwithstanding the President of the United States trying to
downplay that and say, no big deal, you know, it is not much of
anything.
It is a big deal. I have lost valued members of my community to this
disease, and I know you have as well.
So we are trying to get through this and, hopefully, this is short-
lived and, hopefully, we can get back to business as normal as quickly
as possible. But if this comes back in the fall, we need to be
prepared.
So, under this proposal, if you want to be here you can come here and
we can operate in person. But as we are all finding out, that is
difficult, even in committee hearings.
The Rules Committee is the smallest committee in the House, and we
can't even meet in the Rules Committee room. We are meeting in the Ways
and Means Committee room or the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee room, which are among the biggest committee rooms in the
House because we are all trying to follow the advice of the Attending
Physician.
So we can debate whether this is the best way to move forward or not.
That is fine. But let's not make things up.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, you have heard the thundering defense of the
constitutionality of a constitutionally questionable proxy voting
procedure. That is what our motion is in the previous question.
My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely certain that every
constitutional scholar in the land is on board and believes it is
absolutely fine, which is good news for those of us who want the
district court to decide, because the constitutionality can be sorted
out in the courts in no time flat.
If it is this settled of a question, we are saying just give it a
couple of days. Let the court have an opinion. Let's go ahead and sort
this out. If it is a nonjudicial issue, then we will learn that. If it
is so clear that it is okay, why won't we allow time for the court to
take a look?
My friend from Massachusetts says we have had this debate and the
House has spoken. That is undeniably true. Now, to be fair, it spoke in
a bipartisan way against this; in a partisan way in favor of proxy
voting; in a bipartisan way against proxy voting.
Yes, the House has spoken, and, in a bipartisan way, we have serious
concerns that we would like to be addressed. If we defeat the previous
question, they will be. It is not going to slow down the underlying
bill. It is not going to slow down any other important issues on the
House floor today. It simply delays proxy voting that has never before
happened in this Chamber until the courts rule on its
constitutionality.
Madam Speaker, the underlying provision is an extension of our
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act measures. This is something, as
the majority leader said, that we have done in a bipartisan way time
and time again. I have been a part of that bipartisan coalition.
Today, we have a Senate bill in front of us, and a bipartisan House
amendment that improves that bill.
What you didn't hear from the majority leader, what you didn't hear
from the Speaker, is that the Rules Committee did not allow that
bipartisan amendment; and we have now a take-it-or-leave-it piece of
legislation from the United States Senate. I get it; that happens to us
sometimes, but it doesn't have to happen to us today.
We have a bipartisan option, a bipartisan choice. We, collectively,
if we pass this rule, will choose to ignore that opportunity, an
opportunity that, in a bipartisan way, we agree both protects national
security and protects civil liberties better than the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of my colleagues decided to show
up for the vote today. We will soon find out. Each one who is voting by
proxy is going to have to go through you and the Member they have
designated.
The two issues before us are serious issues, and they are threatened
by the underlying constitutional issue of the manner in which we will
vote, as will every single vote we take until this measure is
litigated.
Let's litigate first. Let's not throw all of this important work into
question. If my friend from Massachusetts is right and it is crystal
clear legally, we will find out in no time flat.
But if my friend from Massachusetts is wrong, then we will prevent
the next round of litigation that calls into question every single bill
this House acts on between now and then.
I want to close, Madam Speaker, by saying I don't question my friend
from Massachusetts' love of this institution or his understanding and
knowledge of the Constitution. He is in a tough spot as the Rules
Committee chairman. We have a crisis in front of us. It was his job to
move something forward.
The report he wrote earlier this year reflected his wisdom. The
measure this House passed reflected his wisdom. He has got a very
difficult job, and that is why you hear the very passionate defense he
is making of what will become known as the McGovern language.
But let it not be said by any Member of this Chamber that his intent
is anything other than serving this country and serving this House. He
is in a very difficult spot, but I know that his heart and his
intellect are 100 percent with the people of this country and in
service to this institution. I regret that we are on different sides of
this particular issue.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Defeat it. Add this litigation
timeout. If we can't do that, then I need my colleagues to defeat the
rule. Defeat the rule, and let's take a better bite at this decision
with the bipartisan amendments that we have before us.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). This is his
last
[[Page H2311]]
term and, believe it or not, I am going to miss him. He is a spirited
debater.
But I want to say, and I say this sincerely, I appreciate his
advocacy for his point of view. I usually disagree with it, but I know
it is based on principle and conviction, and he sticks to the facts. He
doesn't come to the floor and make things up. He actually sticks to the
facts. We have disagreements on those facts, and that is the way debate
should be. It should be based on what is real, what are the facts.
Madam Speaker, as you heard today, this is a difficult issue, the
underlying legislation that we are dealing with with regard to FISA. It
is one that cuts across party lines, and many Members have strong
opinions.
As I said earlier, I opposed the original PATRIOT Act and subsequent
reauthorizations. I appreciate the work of many of my colleagues in
getting reforms included in the underlying bill that are badly needed.
I think we need to do much more to truly respect all Americans'
fundamental right to privacy.
{time} 1630
I think it is a false choice to suggest that either we can fight
terrorism and wrongdoing or uphold the right to privacy.
There has been a lot of debate on both sides of the Capitol, and the
President has weighed in recently. The Attorney General has suggested
that the President should veto this bill not because the Attorney
General wants more reforms like the ones that the Senate put in or the
ones that have been suggested. It is quite the opposite. The Attorney
General doesn't want any more checks and balances put in place.
As I said earlier, that scares me because I don't trust him. I just
don't.
Now, the House will have a chance to work its will. My vote on the
underlying bill will be ``no.'' But I respect many of my colleagues who
feel strongly that we ought to move forward and approve the bill that
originated in this House then went to the Senate where additions were
made in the Senate, and now it is back to the House. So, this has been
a process that has not been short-circuited in any way, shape, or form.
But I think that given the fact that the Senate passed this with 80
percent of the Senate voting in favor of it--again, I would have voted
``no'' if I were in the Senate. But 80 percent of them voted in favor
of it. Madam Speaker, you can't get 80 percent of the Senate to agree
on lunch, yet they voted affirmatively on this.
We voted in the House. Two-thirds of this Chamber, Democrats and
Republicans, voted ``yes.'' I voted ``no.'' But the idea that somehow
there isn't strong support to move forward I think is not justified by
the facts.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we
can move forward.
I would again differ with my friends on the previous question. I
think what we did to try to accommodate the reality that we are faced
with during this COVID-19 crisis was responsible and deliberative. We
attempted to work in a bipartisan way.
In fact, many of the parts of this proposal reflect Republican
suggestions. I regret that we did not come to a conclusion that we all
could agree on, but as I said before, the minority leader's insistence
that somehow we all be prioritized in terms of testing was a
nonstarter. His insistence that he had veto power over everything and
that he would use that veto power so we couldn't operate remotely was
also a nonstarter.
We need to do our work, and we need to do it in a way where all
Members during this pandemic can participate.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 981
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. H. Res. 965 shall have no force or effect until
such time as the ongoing litigation into the
constitutionality of proxy voting is complete.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
____________________