Allowing Congress To Function During The Pandemic-- Despite GOP Obstructionism

Bullseye by Nancy Ohanian

It seems to be a new tenet of the Republican Party-- Trump's Republican Party-- that the pandemic isn't serious, or even a hoax, and that there's no need to take extreme precautions. These people are out of their minds and a danger to the rest of us. As John Pavlovitz noted in a post yesterday, "the real story of this disaster: the illness that will linger, the one whose cure will not be forthcoming, the one we’ll never have a vaccine for: the toxic combination of abject selfishness and contempt for science and tribal politics and white supremacy that has left people impervious to the suffering of others and unwilling to alter their lifestyles on behalf of saving a stranger." That's COVID-GOP.

Other than the White House and the Republican Party, everyone else is trying to put on their adult shoes and come to grips with how to rationally deal with this. Friday it was Congress' turn. Reporting for the Washington Post, mike DeBonis wrote yesterday that on Friday the House "approved the most radical change to its rules in generations, allowing its members to cast committee and floor votes from afar-- the culmination of a months-long struggle to adapt the 231-year-old institution to the coronavirus pandemic. Despite bipartisan frustrations with the virus’s effect on the legislative process, the changes, which include temporarily authorizing remote committee work and proxy voting on the House floor, were adopted along party lines. The vote was 217 to 189."

Ted Lieu, who has a potential co-morbidity and couldn't fly to DC for the vote, asked us, rhetorically, "Is remote voting ideal? No. But is it necessary? Yes. Congress has a responsibility to lead by example. If we are asking the rest of the nation to work from home if possible then we should be doing the same thing. It’s 2020-- I attended 25 virtual meetings from my home this week. We can certainly do the work of the House remotely in an emergency situation."

No Republicans backed it-- not even the make-believe "moderates"-- but 3 conservative Democrats who tend to back the GOP as often as they can, crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans: New Dems Elaine Luria (VA) and Rick Larsen (WA) and "ex-"Republican, now Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran (AZ).

Democratic leaders pushed forward with the changes this week after failing to come to terms in two weeks of negotiations with Republicans, who firmly opposed several key measures in the proposal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and top Democrats said the changes were temporary and tailored to the current crisis-- which has made mass gatherings of lawmakers hazardous-- but necessary to ensure that the House fulfills its constitutional obligations.

The House has sputtered for the past two months as other organs of the federal government-- most notably the Supreme Court-- and schools, localities and the private sector have embraced video technology to conduct business. The smaller, 100-member Senate returned May 4 and has relied on remote committee work for hearings, though senators still must be present for roll-call votes.

...House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) addressed the balancing act of responsibility and health risks as members returned to the Capitol on Friday to vote on the rules changes and a $3 trillion emergency relief package. Washington remains under a stay-at-home order through June 8.

“Any of us could have the virus and not even know it. We could be asymptomatic but carriers nonetheless,” McGovern said. “Convening Congress must not, must not turn into a super-spreader event. . . . What would be radical is if this House did nothing, if we made memers decide between spreading a deadly virus or legislating for the American people. That’s a false choice. We can and we should do both.”

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) pointed to a public health reality: The Washington region was a virus hot spot, and several lawmakers are under treatment for chronic medical conditions.

“The best place you can find to get the coronavirus is indoors in an enclosed room with a lot of people and a lot of talk,” he said. “That’s the definition of Congress.”

Republicans argue that the current 430-member House could instead make more-modest adaptations to its operations. They have raised several objections, including that lawmakers should report to their workplaces like other essential workers, that the rules changes erode the rights of the minority and that they represent a major break with the customs of the House.

“We are changing the power of Congress itself,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told reporters Friday. “The Founders would be ashamed of today,” he added. “This is not what they envisioned, this is not what they believed in, and this is not the action the American public believe.”

Several Republicans said Congress did not change its rules and continued to meet even as the Civil War raged fewer than 100 miles from the Capitol. Others recalled the onerous conditions the nation’s founders faced in traveling to Washington.

“Our founders used to ride days on horseback, on wagons, through unkind conditions to get to D.C.,” said Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). “Us, we only have to brave TSA lines and occasionally a delayed flight. You know, the Constitution here did not catch the virus. Why are we voting on a measure here to basically suspend it?”

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK.) said the House could take “appropriate precautions and go back to work. That’s what the executive branch is doing. That’s what the United States Senate is doing. That’s what millions of Americans do each and every day. We should be no different. The House should do the same.”

Some of the rule changes, however, largely match procedures already in use in the Republican-controlled Senate-- such as the use of videoconferencing technology at committee hearings.

The House Democrats’ proposal would go further, allowing fully virtual hearings as well as committee business meetings in which legislation can be considered, amended and advanced to the floor.

The proxy voting proposal allows any member attending a House vote to cast as many as 10 votes on behalf of colleagues who have authorized those votes by letter to the House clerk.

It remains unclear just how widely the proxy voting option will be used. Between 25 and 35 members have been absent for the House votes held amid the pandemic. But a half-dozen House Democrats polled Friday said they would continue to vote in person as long as they were able.

“This is for emergencies,” said Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI). “It’s not like, ‘I’m having a bad day and I don’t want to go to Washington.’”

But Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) said she planned to be selective about which votes she physically attends going forward, lest she expose herself and others to needless risk in her trip to and from El Paso.

“It just depends situation to situation. I am cognizant of the fact that this is a hot spot,” she said. “I have to think about those things. It’s more complex than saying, ‘Oh, I’ll be here every vote.’ . . . Really, it’s putting other people at risk.”

Democrats said they incorporated several Republican suggestions, including limiting the number of proxy votes any one member could cast, restricting virtual hearings to approved software platforms and requiring sufficient notice of any remote proceedings.

All of the provisions are temporary under the resolution, applying only to “a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus,” as declared by the House speaker.

The House session Friday is the third time that a large number of lawmakers have been called back to Washington since mid-February.

Significant social distancing measures have been undertaken on Capitol Hill, including limiting the number of lawmakers gathering on the floor by establishing a platoon system for voting and otherwise encouraging those members who are not speaking to remain in their offices.

The Rules Committee has met in the vast hearing room of the Ways and Means Committee rather than in its tiny space tucked above the House chamber, and a Thursday hearing of the House Energy Committee took place with members sitting apart.

Those adaptations, Republicans have argued, are sufficient.

“If the whole House can conduct business while adhering to health guidelines, then so too can our committees,” the top Republicans on House committees wrote in a letter Thursday, calling the Democratic proposal a “partisan assault on the rights of the House Minority and our ability to effectively represent the American people.”

West Virginia progressive, Cathy Kunkel, noted the irony of her Trumpist opponent, "Alex Mooney, "opposing proxy voting on the grounds that it would be bad for "bipartisanship," when he and his fellow Tea Party members have done more than anyone else to wreck the concept of bipartisanship in Washington. It is just common sense for the House to find new ways to work safely, and to model those ways for the rest of the country, during a pandemic."

Meanwhile, noting that her quasi-Republican opponent Tom O'Halleran was one of only 3 Democrats to vote with the GOIP on this, Arizonan Eva Putzova, told us that "Just the other day, my opponent bragged about being the most Republican Democrat on his Twitter account. So his vote is not surprising, but disappointing, as our representatives should model responsible behavior during this public health crisis that is far from over. Voting remotely and participating in committee hearings remotely would not impact the country in any way during this period other than reducing the probability of the coronavirus spread due to reduced travel of our representatives."