Rep Lesko (R- AZ-8) Comments May 15 on HR 6800

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, both bills under this rule are absolutely

terrible and should be rejected.

First of all, you have the proxy voting and remote voting. This has

never been done in the history of the United States–not during the

Civil War, not during previous pandemics, and we shouldn't do it now.

When you have nurses going to work, when you have grocery store workers

going to work, when you have everybody else going back to work, we are

setting a terrible example by saying: ``You don't have to show up to

work. Just give your voting card over to somebody else.'' It is

terrible.

And then when I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday

saying, ``Okay, if you don't show up to work, you don't get the travel

allowance in your MRA,'' that was rejected by every single Democrat

Member on the Rules Committee.

And then Speaker Pelosi's bill, I call it the Keep People Unemployed

Act, because that is what it is. It will incentivize people to stay

unemployed. It extends the $600-per-week unemployment payment through

January 31 of next year. It mandates all businesses continue the Family

Medical Paid Leave Act for another year, and it says that when you

apply for SNAP, food stamps, that the $600 per week that you are

getting doesn't count towards income. So now you are going to have

people that are sitting at home getting paid more than they did when

they worked and getting food stamps.

I already have businesses in my district that say we need to hire

back these people because Arizona is back open. They can't hire the

people because the people are getting paid more to sit at home.

In addition, it gives $1,200 to people that are here illegally. Why

are we not prioritizing U.S. citizens? It lets criminals who are

convicted of murder and rape, just because they are 50 years old or

older, out of prison. And it federalizes elections, mandating that

there is same-day voter registration and that everyone is mailed a

ballot.

This is a ridiculous bill in this combined rule, and I ask my Members

to vote ``no.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, there is a lot that I could say, but let

me just say this: In the time of this incredible tragic health pandemic

and economic crisis, I don't think now is the time to kick poor people,

to beat up on people who are hungry in this country.

[[Page H2013]]

We ought to step forward, as the United States of America, the

richest country in the history of the world, and make sure that nobody

in our country goes hungry. It is shameful the way my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle demagogue this issue. It is shameful.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2020/05/15/house-section/article/H2007-7

(HRes 967 allowing proxy voting was passed without a quorum and allowed proxy voting to constitute a quorum to vote on HR 6800. HRes is repugnant and violates Article I Section 5 Clause 1 of the Constitution and Rules of the House XX.)

>>9200863

Rep Jordan (R- OH-4) Comments May 15 on HR 6800

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, the Attorney General of

the United States said this: ``The Constitution is not suspended during

a crisis.'' Amen to that.

And guess who agreed with him, or at least used to agree with him?

Last month, April 9, the Speaker of the House said: ``There is a

constitutional requirement that we vote in person.'' But, oh, how that

has changed.

Today we are, in fact, suspending the Constitution. We are allowing

proxies to establish a quorum and do the business of the American

people. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this. In the Ballin

decision, the Court said Members have to be present by stating: ``All

that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when

that majority are present the power of the House arises.''

You have got to be there. Actually, you have got to be here. You have

got to be here to do the business of the people. You can't phone it in.

You can't mail it in. This bill would allow one Member to have 10

proxies in their back pocket. Think about that. 22 Members with 10

proxies in their back pocket could do the business of 330 million

people in this great country.

We all take an oath to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 of the

Constitution mandates that Congress must ``assemble at least once in

every year.'' That is when we start the session.

Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to physically congregate and

vote to change where it is going to sit; frankly, what is happening

today.

Section 5 also requires a recorded vote on any question at the desire

of one-fifth present.

Article I, Section 6 mandates and protects Members from arrest during

travel to and from their attendance at a session of their respective

House.

You would think if you could mail in your vote, the Constitution

wouldn't protect you on traveling to the vote. All of these provisions

envision Members physically traveling and being present at the seat of

the Federal Government.

As Mrs. Lesko said earlier, farmers are planting crops, truckers are

moving goods, grocers are stocking shelves, frontline healthcare

workers haven't missed a day. They can't phone it in. They can't mail

it in. They can't proxy their work in. They have to be there and do it,

and we should do the same.

The example this sends, the precedent this sets, is so darn wrong.

And I encourage a ``no'' vote on H. Res. 965.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2020/05/15/house-section/article/H2007-7

>>9200863

Rep Cole R-OK-4 Comments May 15 on HR 6800

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for a spirited debate. We

certainly had one yesterday, and we had one again today, and I know we

will have one in a few minutes.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule. I oppose

both the change in House rules that is being proposed today, and I

oppose the massive and unwarranted 1,800-page, $3 trillion Democratic

wish list that the majority is proposing as well.

The rules changes that this resolution proposes will fundamentally

change the nature of the institution. I know that is not the intent of

my friends, but I think that is the impact of the rule.

I am deeply concerned with how these changes will actually work in

place, and I am concerned that we are doing so without regard to the

fact that a change like this is likely to lead to litigation and may

place in jeopardy legislation that we pass in a bipartisan manner.

After reaching a bipartisan agreement on $2.5 trillion in spending

over the last 6 weeks, the majority is now seeking to spend $3 trillion

more, regardless of the actual needs of the Nation and, frankly,

without any input from the Republican side of the aisle.

My friends talk about the urgency of the moment. I agree. This is an

urgent moment. But I also agree that we are going to have to work in a

bipartisan fashion to actually pass something. So if this makes my

friends feel better, that is fine; and if the intent is to set out a

negotiating position, I guess that is legitimate; but if you think this

is going to end up as law, you are sadly mistaken. The Senate has

already said it will not take up the bill. The President has already

said that, if it reaches his desk, he would veto it.

So let's do what we have done four times in a row: Sit down; work

together; craft a bipartisan bill. We have proven we can do it, and we

can do it again.

I am just mystified why my friends have felt the need to inject a

clearly partisan bill and think this is going to move us down the road

in the right direction. It is not. They are going to cement a lot of

Members in on both sides of the aisle to positions that will make it

more difficult to reach a common agreement when that is the appropriate

thing to do.

This really is an exercise in legislative futility. H.R. 6800 will

never become law. Democrats know that, and they are not going to be

able to jam it through.

So they can come down here and talk about it as much as they want,

and there are certainly some parts of it I could support, but as a

package, it is going nowhere, and it is not moving us toward a

solution.

I implore my colleagues to return to what they have done in the

previous four bills where we worked together, brought a product that

was bipartisan to the floor, and passed it overwhelmingly with almost

no dissent. That was the formula for success. The formula they are

pursuing now will not succeed. They know it will not succeed.

I have never been convinced as to why deliberately launching out

something you know won't pass is useful.

[[Page H2018]]

Both sides do it, by the way, from time to time. We have certainly done

it, so I don't want to suggest this is strictly a partisan exercise.

This bill will not succeed. I urge rejection of the rule.

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

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2020/05/15/house-section/article/H2007-7