Providing for Adoption of H. Res. Establishing A Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 938 Resolved, That House Resolution 935 is hereby adopted.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before we get into the resolution before us, I want to speak to my colleagues about an important issue.

Over the last several weeks, I have heard from Democrats and Republicans, who have expressed concern that we, as a House, are not adequately prepared to do our business during a pandemic. They are right.

Over a month ago, I prepared a report that I sent to everyone in the House--Democrats and Republicans--about possible ways that we could operate remotely. I received constructive feedback from both sides of the aisle, and this week I released text of a proposal that I hoped could have been voted on today.

The Republican leader had some objections to that proposal, and our Speaker has agreed to continue the conversation for 2 more weeks. I have always believed that, whenever possible, any changes to our rules should be bipartisan, and I still believe that.

However, the status quo, in my opinion, is unacceptable and dangerous. I am not talking about to Members of Congress; more importantly, it is dangerous to everyone we come in contact with.

The year is 2020. Technology has advanced and improved considerably over the last 231 years. And, yes, there are problems with some of the technology that exists out there, but there are low-tech approaches to dealing with remote participation by our Members, and there are higher-tech ways to deal with it. And we can work that out. There are smart people in this Congress who can figure all of this out. But I believe both sides of the aisle need to have some urgency in addressing this issue, especially in light of the statements by the head of the CDC and other medical experts, that things could be very problematic come the fall. I hope and I pray that that is not the case. But we need to be prepared so that we can do the people's business.

I also want to publicly acknowledge my ranking member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). We don't see eye-to-eye on this issue yet, but over our years-long working relationship and friendship, we have found common ground many, many times. A task force is going to be convened today that includes myself, Mr. Cole, the chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr. Davis, as well as Democratic Leader Hoyer and Republican Leader McCarthy to discuss these matters.

I have been saying this for a month, and I am going to say it again here today: If you are a Member of Congress and you care about this issue, call me. I want to hear from Members what they think about this critically important matter.

Now, back to the measure before us.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 938, providing that upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 935, which establishes a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform is hereby adopted.

Madam Speaker, we are here today as Congress continues responding to the biggest public health and economic emergency this Nation has seen in 100 years: The coronavirus pandemic.

What started just weeks ago half a world away is having a devastating impact across our country. No community has been spared:

More than 855,000 cases have been confirmed;

Nearly 48,000 lives lost as of the time we are meeting right now;

And more than 22 million initial unemployment claims filed in the past month.

Some regions of our country have now lost as many jobs over the last month as they did during the worst year of the Great Recession.

These statistics are not just numbers on a page, Madam Speaker. These are our neighbors. They are our family. They are our friends. Their health is at risk, and their economic reality has changed overnight. Since the start of this pandemic, Congress has provided more than $2 trillion in emergency relief to get small businesses the financial help that they need to survive, to help hospitals and healthcare workers on the front lines, to expand testing, to provide every American access to an affordable vaccine when it is developed. And I could go on and on and on.

We need to make sure these resources are going where Congress intended, that they are helping struggling Americans and small businesses without any rampant fraud or abuse, and that companies aren't taking part in price-gouging or profiteering.

That is what this Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus is all about. This proactive approach is what then-Senator Harry Truman spearheaded at the dawn of World War II to ensure Federal dollars spent then saved lives on the battlefield.

Well, today the battle is much different. It is against a worldwide pandemic currently without a vaccine or preventative treatment. But our aggressive oversight should be the same. Democratic governors and Republican governors all over the country are pleading for more tests, despite the billions we have allocated to provide them.

The Republican governor of Maryland has said the lack of available testing is the number one stumbling block in America. He is absolutely right.

The President talks about reopening America, but Madam Speaker, how about first testing America? Without that, we can't fully track and contain this virus. We need to make sure that the money we provided for testing is actually going to testing. We need to make sure that our hospitals have all the PPE equipment that they need.

In my home city of Worcester in Massachusetts, we recently opened up a field hospital in our convention center. The day before we opened, there was considerable anxiety because they had enough PPE maybe to last for a couple of days. Now working together with the governor and others, we were able to remedy that situation, but for so many of our healthcare institutions, for our first responders, trying to find PPE is like something out of the movie The Hunger Games. States competing with States, competing with the Federal Government, people receiving calls--I know somebody who knows somebody in China who might have lifesaving masks. Can you maybe follow up that lead? That is not the way this is supposed to work.

In the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the Earth, officials are making cold calls to try to get enough equipment to survive the next surge of patients. Relying on the goodwill of people and businesses when they should be able to count on Federal agencies. Congress provided money for this equipment. We need to make sure it is going where it is badly needed.

Madam Speaker, as we talk today about what Congress has done, I want to take a moment to talk about what it has not done, and that is provide enough for hungry families during this pandemic.

You know, the President and so many of his allies in the Senate continue to block efforts to increase SNAP benefits for hungry people trying to put food on the table for their families. The demand for food banks right now wraps around city blocks in some places. We have seen it on TV. The lines go for miles. This is a crisis of food insecurity that we haven't seen in this country since the Great Depression.

Madam Speaker, whatever happened to taking care of the neediest among us? Maybe the President doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is going to come from, but millions and millions and millions of Americans do. They are terrified.

We should be suspending this administration's SNAP cuts. We should be strengthening nutrition assistance for those impacted by this pandemic. And we should be showing the American people that ending hunger is not a partisan issue. But some on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue have chosen instead to take meals away from families.

Just yesterday the Secretary of Agriculture tried to paper over their disgraceful record by taking credit for the bill that we passed in a bipartisan way in Congress. The USDA didn't increase SNAP benefits by 40 percent; the House Democrats led that charge and, thankfully, many of my Republican colleagues supported that in the Families First bill.

And by the way, while we are at it, USDA was in court trying to kick millions of people off of SNAP through their disastrous regulatory scheme.

The only thing this administration has done is to try to push people off of nutrition assistance. I think it is coldhearted and I think it is cruel for the Senate majority leader and others to turn their backs on struggling families. That needs to be fixed, and it has to be fixed in our next bill. And I hope in this Chamber, we can come together-- Democrats and Republicans--and deal with it.

I know that it is unrelated to the underlying measure here, but hungry families are being ignored in this country. Sadly, even in the best of times, poor people oftentimes get ignored by this Chamber. I worry that in the worst of times, what we are going through right now, that these people, these individuals, these families become invisible. We cannot let that happen. I want them to know that this House is listening to them, and we will continue to fight to strengthen the programs they rely on.

Now, I don't know what is radical about that. Just as I don't understand why some on the other side are against a subcommittee that is designed to make sure that Federal dollars are spent well.

I mean, that is what this is about. That is it.

This is an extraordinary time. We have sent trillions of dollars into our communities. They should be going to small businesses and not to big corporations--our workers, not the wealthy and those already well- off. Our workers are the ones who should be our priority. We need to make sure that that is what is happening here.

If you believe this administration has done things perfectly, then you have nothing to fear. But the American people have a lot of questions and they deserve answers, and they expect us to live up to our constitutional responsibilities with regard to oversight, and they deserve to know that their tax dollars are being well spent.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, entitled, ``Democrats Pushed for Robust Oversight of the $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Package. It Hasn't Happened Yet,'' detailing the need for oversight. The article explains that rapidly approved funds are being spent quickly with little monitoring or oversight. [From TIME, April 17, 2020] Democrats Pushed for Robust Oversight of the $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Package. It Hasn't Happened Yet (By Alana Abramson)

Some of the most heated negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over last month's $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package were over who should watch how that money gets spent. It is the largest emergency relief fund the U.S. government has ever approved, and concerns over fraud and abuse were rife. In particular, Democrats were outraged that Republicans and the White House wanted to let the Treasury Department distribute $500 billion to industry and states without anyone overseeing the process, and vowed to block any bill without that safeguard in place.

``There was this idea that they put forth that there would be a $500 billion slush fund for the Secretary of the Treasury with no accountability whatsoever. Are you kidding?'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month after the bill passed the Senate. ``For all respect in the world for the Treasury Secretary, that was a complete nonstarter.''

Ultimately, the bill signed into law by President Donald Trump mandates the massive tranche of aid will be overseen through three key mechanisms: an inspector general at the Treasury Department to oversee that $500 billion Treasury fund, and Congress and executive branch panels, which will also monitor the Treasury fund and broadly oversee the law's implementation, respectively.

But more than two weeks later, after hundreds of billions of dollars have already flown out the door through the Paycheck Protection Program, the Treasury's Inspector General post has not yet been confirmed by the Senate and the two panels are not fully staffed. Congress is preoccupied with the unprecedented task of managing dueling public health and economic crises remotely, and Trump, whose administration has blocked Congressional oversight for years, has already threatened to scuttle the process. When he signed the bill into law in March, he said he would not allow the Inspector General overseeing the executive branch's committee to submit reports to Congress without his supervision, arguing it was unconstitutional.

``It's incredibly problematic . . . those oversight mechanisms don't do us much good if they aren't functioning,'' Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy at the Project on Government Oversight, wrote in an e-mail to TIME. ``This money is being spent incredibly quickly. The (Small Business Administration) has already spent the $349 billion dollars allocated to the Paycheck Protection Program. It's imperative that these oversight mechanisms are fully functional so we can have confidence that this money won't be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse.''

The group with the broadest oversight jurisdiction in the $2.2 trillion CARES Act is the executive branch panel, called the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. Glenn Fine, who was acting Inspector General at the Pentagon, was quickly appointed to lead the committee at the end of last month but was removed by Trump just a week later. The President did not provide a specific reason, but Fine's ouster was part of a broader re-shuffling of watchdogs.

Although the committee is composed of nearly two dozen inspectors general who have been appointed, the top spot remains vacant. The law mandates that Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice who heads the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, appoint a new head, but he has not yet announced Fine's replacement. A spokesperson for Horowitz did not respond to a query about when a new replacement would be named.

On April 4, Trump announced that he had appointed Brian Miller to serve as the Inspector General for the Treasury department. Miller has over 15 years of federal experience; he spent nine years as the Inspector General for the General Services Administration, working under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But since 2018, he has worked as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Counsel in the White House counsel's office. His tenure there coincided with some of the White House counsel's most high profile feuds with House Democrats in their oversight probes, including Trump's impeachment last December.

Democrats lambasted Miller's appointment, arguing that a Trump staffer would be unable to exercise the kind of independence the job requires. ``To nominate a member of the President's own staff is exactly the wrong type of person to choose for this position,'' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement after Trump's announcement. Since confirmations of presidential appointees now only require a simple majority in the Senate, it's likely that Miller will be confirmed despite Democrats' objections. But since he cannot be confirmed by unanimous consent, lawmakers have to physically be in Washington for that to happen--and they are not expected to return until May 4th at the earliest.

The final component of the oversight framework, the Congressional commission, is also incomplete. The bill mandates that the top four leaders in Congress--Schumer, Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy--each select a member for the panel. The fifth member will chair the committee and be jointly selected by Pelosi and McConnell.

Schumer has appointed Bharat Ramamurti, who previously worked for Elizabeth Warren as an economic adviser, on the panel. On Friday, McCarthy announced he had selected Rep. French Hill, McConnell announced he had chosen Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, and Pelosi selected Florida Rep. Donna Shalala. But as of Friday evening, the chair has not been selected, so the panel can't fully function. Pelosi told reporters in her weekly press conference on Thursday that she and McConnell had agreed to submit names to each other for their joint pick.

There are signs that additional oversight of the massive relief package not set up expressly in the law is also moving forward. Pelosi has appointed House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn to lead the House Select Committee on the coronavirus crisis, which she says will be a bipartisan committee dedicated to oversight of all of the funds. And McConnell announced Friday that Idaho Senator Mike Crapo will lead the Senate's efforts.

In a New York Times op-ed earlier this week, Ramamurti urged Congress to act swiftly so his specific panel can get to work. ``Our watching eyes can help ensure that the money broadly benefits American families,'' he wrote. ``There isn't time to waste.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an article, entitled, ``Congressional Oversight of the CARES Act Could Prove Troublesome,'' detailing the need for oversight. The article says oversight will help limit fraud and accelerate effective use of appropriated funds. [From Brookings, April 15, 2020] Congressional Oversight of the CARES Act Could Prove Troublesome (By Jackson Gode)

On March 27th, President Trump signed the CARES Act providing for more than $2 Trillion in federal spending in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Overseeing the outlay of relief funding from the bill will be no easy task, given its size, complexity and the backdrop of the 2020 election.

However, this is not the first time that a major government rescue package has included oversight measures. The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act created the office of the Special Inspector General for the Targeted Asset Relief Program the powers of which were strengthened by the SIGTARP Act of 2009. In just over a decade, SIGTARP has recovered $11 Billion in misspent funds and successfully convicted 380 fraudulent actors, leading many to consider it a success.

Members of Congress sought to mimic this success by including three major mechanisms to oversee spending within the CARES Act. The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee will be made up of Inspectors General from, at minimum, nine federal agencies, and be responsible for oversight of outlays for the entire bill. A new office within the Department of the Treasury, the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, will oversee the $500 billion Treasury fund for targeted loans to large businesses. Brian Miller, a White House lawyer and former GSA Inspector General, has already been selected for this role. Finally, a Congressional Oversight Commission will include four members appointed by party leadership in each chamber and a chairperson agreed to by the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. The Commission will oversee economic stability efforts by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board.

The CARES Act also includes funding increases for several preexisting oversight bodies providing more than $140 million for Inspectors General offices to investigate various aspects of the bill and $20 million in funds for the Government Accountability Office.

Even with these mechanisms and funding increases, Congress will face several unique challenges while conducting substantive oversight of pandemic relief.

First, the Trump Administration has indicated reluctance to cooperate with oversight inquiries. Immediately after President Trump signed the CARES Act, the White House released a statement outlining his constitutional concerns with the newly created Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery.

This is not the first time that Trump has questioned the legitimacy of oversight efforts. The administration is currently tied up in several court battles regarding the executive branch's ability to withhold information from Congress. On March 16th, nearly a year after the original request, the Supreme Court postponed oral arguments in a case regarding the House Ways and Means Committee's efforts to obtain President Trump's tax returns. The administration has also withheld information related to White House security clearances, natural disaster relief efforts, and other areas of potential misconduct.

Second, both the House and Senate are on recess and it remains unclear when they will return. Once members come back to Washington, the number of committee hearings they hold will likely be lower than normal with social distancing recommendations remaining in effect.

Hearings are an essential part of Congress's oversight mandate as they provide lawmakers with a public platform to question administration officials that many rank-and-file members do not receive on a day-to-day basis. In place of hearings, members will have to rely more heavily on written correspondence. While letters have the potential to be more effective than hearings at obtaining detailed information, recipients are only legally required to respond to inquiries from committee chairs.

The current administration has made a habit of ignoring written information requests and it remains too soon to tell whether COVID-19 oversight will be met with similar resistance. Documents released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee on the availability of medical supplies from the federal government's stockpile suggest that the administration is responding to at least some inquiries. Partial or private responses however, can make it difficult for committees to signal a lack of cooperation to the public.

Third, as their efforts to oversee the Trump administration response ramp up, House Democrats may find themselves confronting intra-party cooperation challenges. Due to the political visibility of the pandemic, committee chairs will likely compete to demonstrate their willingness to hold the administration accountable. Coordination among Democrats will be necessary to ensure that panels' efforts are complementary, rather than competitive.

Conflict between the parties will also create challenges. The creation of a Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic already seems to be increasing tensions between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) who indicated that Republicans will object to a unanimous consent request creating the panel. Speaker Pelosi has signaled the profile she expects the committee's work to have by naming Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) as chair. The committee will have subpoena power, but the House's experience so far this Congress with having to go to court to try to enforce subpoenas illustrates the limits of that tool.

Finally, the Trump administration has become famous for vacancies and ``acting'' officials in the highest positions of government. By tolerating a large number of acting positions, the Senate has given up one of its most important tools for influencing executive branch conduct. On April 3rd, the President nominated five individuals to Inspector General positions. However, while the Senate remains on recess, those roles will continue to be served by officials in an acting capacity.

Four of the IG offices receiving funding increases from the CARES Act are currently headed by acting officials. Notably, Glenn Fine, the Department of Defense Inspector General who was originally appointed as the Chairman of PRAC, only served in an acting capacity. On April 7th, President Trump removed him from the DOD IG role and appointed EPA Inspector General Sean O'Donnell, making Fine ineligible to be PRAC Chairman.

Congress will face many challenges protecting against fraud and helping an economy stalled by the pandemic, which may require members to find unique solutions for ensuring effective implementation of the CARES Act. With $2 trillion of taxpayer money on the line, nothing is more important than effective oversight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an April 4 ABC News article, entitled, ``Experts Warn About Big Dollar Fraud in $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package.'' [From ABC News, April 4, 2020] Experts Warn About Big Dollar Fraud in $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package (By Benjamin Siegel)

The U.S. government's historic $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid relief package recently approved by Congress is highly vulnerable to fraud and abuse, oversight experts and veteran watchdogs who investigated abuse of the government's financial system bailout more than a decade ago told ABC News.

The size of the unprecedented relief package--in the scale of spending and the number of businesses eligible for funds-- will make it difficult to verify the information from each applicant, and how they plan to use their money.

With roughly 10 million Americans filing jobless claims over the last two weeks, and millions of small businesses seeking government aid to stay afloat, the need for the government to immediately push out money to Americans and into the staggering economy could hinder efforts to filter out efforts from potential fraudsters to seek relief funds.

Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis.

``Everybody's acceptance of some or a lot of fraud is going to have to be high, because it's going to happen,'' said Earl Devaney, who served as the top watchdog of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which tracked the stimulus spending following the Great Recession in the late 2000s.

Though the legislation mandates multiple oversight bodies, if even a small percentage of the funds are misused, it could mean fraud on the scale of potentially millions, if not billions, before there are any efforts to recoup losses, according to experts.

They see the $350 billion in funding earmarked for small businesses in the form of forgivable loans as particularly susceptible to abuse. Millions of small business owners began applying to banks for the loans on Friday, though many applicants and lenders experienced problems with the program's rollout.

While the Treasury Department has said money will begin flowing immediately, some institutions, including JP Morgan Chase, said Thursday they would not be ready to receive applications by Friday.

Other veteran investigators are concerned that the review process, which leaves it up to banks to vet potential borrowers and applicants to attest to their eligibility, doesn't give authorities enough time to effectively weed out potential fraud.

``If you have fewer entities that has a lot of implications for oversight. It's fewer entities to worry about. But it also means that the processes for application can be a little more thoughtful,'' Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told ABC News.

``In contrast here, the very purpose of these programs is not to impact a relatively small number of institutions but to reach as far and wide as possible,'' he said.

The small business loan initiative, known as the Paycheck Protection Program, will be ``an extraordinarily easy program to defraud, and it will be defrauded in massive ways,'' he added.

The $2.2 trillion, 880-page CARES ACT approved by Congress last week included oversight provisions, modeled after some of the safeguards implemented to track the financial system bailout and stimulus money after the Great Recession.

It formed three major groups to lead oversight efforts: A new special inspector general, who will be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, will be responsible for oversight of the $500 billion fund administered by the Treasury Department and Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Trump plans to nominate Brian Miller, a special assistant to the president and senior associate counsel in the Office of White House Counsel, to serve as inspector general, the White House announced Friday night.

A five-member panel appointed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers will monitor the Treasury Department program and Federal Reserve's implementation of the stimulus package.

The third group, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, have the broadest mandate, aimed at rooting out waste and fraud throughout programs in the entire $2.2 trillion relief package.

Led by Glenn Fine, the acting inspector general of the Department of Defense who was part of the panel's precursor following the financial crisis, the group will be able to conduct audits, subpoena individuals and information, and refer matters to the Justice Department for investigation.

``Every time there's kind of an emergency surge in spending like this it's even more important that there's additional layers of oversight to make sure that everything is on the up and up,'' Liz Hempowicz, the director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, told ABC News.

House and Senate Democrats, who were particularly worried about how the $500 billion supervised by Mnuchin will be awarded, also pushed Republicans to add additional language into the legislation preventing President Trump, his family, top government officials and lawmakers from receiving loans or investments from the Treasury programs.

Already, there are signs that President Trump and Democrats could tangle over oversight of the massive stimulus programs as money begins to flow from the federal government to workers and businesses.

Trump's plans to nominate Miller, a former inspector general for the General Services Administration, will likely be met with criticism by Democrats. Inspectors General are typically independent and apolitical appointees; Miller played a role in rebuffing investigations into the withheld military aid to Ukraine that led to Trump's impeachment.

In a signing statement last week, Trump said he wouldn't allow the inspector general to share information with Congress without ``presidential supervision,'' objecting to the provisions of the law that require the watchdog to notify Congress when they are ``unreasonably'' denied information about the stimulus program.

Democrats criticized the comments, and on Thursday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the formation of a special select committee to provide additional oversight of the recovery funds and the administration's management of the coronavirus crisis, a move Republicans and the White House quickly condemned as redundant.

Mnuchin on Thursday said he didn't think the panel was necessary.

``Both parties wanted us to have oversight, wanted us to have transparency. We have full transparency,'' he said at the daily White House coronavirus briefing.

``It's witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt,'' Trump said of the select committee at the same briefing.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Saturday, issued the following statement on the nomination of Brian Miller to be special inspector general for pandemic recovery:

``The special inspector general needs to be independent above all. Someone who currently works in the White House counsel's office, serving a president who has tried to silence other inspector generals and announced his intention to silence this one, is not independent. It's no wonder President Trump announced this nomination late on a Friday evening.''

``While Mr. Miller has requisite experience for this position, he must clear a high bar to show the Senate he would protect the interests of the American people over the political interests of this administration.''

While it's not uncommon for both parties to snipe over the use--and potential abuse--of stimulus funds, the level of partisanship in Washington and the immediate need for the funds to be delivered to businesses and Americans make this situation much more difficult than the oversight efforts following the last recession, Devaney told ABC News.

``The atmosphere on the Hill, I thought it was acrimonious when I was there. It's a lot worse today and I suspect that whoever takes this job is going to be testifying once a week,'' he said of the eventual special inspector general.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Virginia, who served as chair of the House Oversight Committee, defended the stimulus package, given the time constraints put on lawmakers and the Trump administration.

``It's unlike anything I've ever seen in the last 50 years,'' he told ABC News. ``Emergency situations call for emergency measures. You can't sit and write layers and layers of oversight.''

``There's always going to be money going to people who shouldn't have gotten it,'' Davis said. ``The question is, what were the alternatives?

Lawmakers and coronavirus stimulus watchdogs won't just have this historic $2.2 trillion coronavirus package to police. Conversations have already started on Capitol Hill around a fourth phase of relief funding, including more money for small businesses.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this emergency surge in spending to confront the coronavirus is unprecedented, but the idea of what we are establishing is not. As I said, then-Senator Truman proposed it at the dawn of World War II. It worked then, and it will work now as well.

So if you believe that this administration has nothing to hide, then nobody should oppose this and let the American people see how their money is being spent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House, who has been an incredible leader during this pandemic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the reason why we are doing this is because the President is undercutting oversight.

Madam Speaker, I want to insert in the Record ``Trump Ousts Pandemic Spending Watchdog Known for Independence.'' [From The New York Times, April 7, 2020] Trump Ousts Pandemic Spending Watchdog Known for Independence (By Ben Protess, Steve Eder, and David Enrich)

Washington--President Trump moved on Tuesday to oust the leader of a new watchdog panel charged with overseeing how his administration spends trillions of taxpayer dollars in coronavirus pandemic relief, the latest step in an abruptly unfolding White House power play against semi-independent inspectors general across the government.

The official, Glenn A. Fine, has been the acting inspector general for the Defense Department since before Mr. Trump took office and was set to become the chairman of a new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to police how the government carries out the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill. But Mr. Trump replaced Mr. Fine in his Pentagon job, disqualifying him from serving on the new oversight panel.

The move came at a time when the president has been reasserting authority over the executive branch and signaling impatience with independent voices within the government that he considers disloyal. In recent days, he fired an inspector general who reviewed the whistle-blower complaint that led to his impeachment, nominated a White House aide to another key inspector general post, declared that he would ignore certain oversight provisions in the new relief law and attacked another inspector general who criticized virus testing shortages.

Mr. Trump even cheered the firing of the captain of an aircraft carrier for sending a letter to fellow Navy officers pleading for help for his virus-stricken crew, castigating the officer for airing unfavorable information. Only after a loud backlash over the firing and the acting Navy secretary's speech calling the captain ``stupid'' did the president partly reverse himself and say he would look into it. The acting Navy secretary, who said he had ordered the firing because he assumed Mr. Trump might have done it himself otherwise, took the hint and resigned on Tuesday.

The questions of accountability and loyalty within the government have been persistent themes in the past three years as Mr. Trump has repeatedly waged war with what he calls ``the deep state.'' He has rejected the conventional views that figures like the director of the F.B.I., the attorney general, intelligence directors, uniformed military commanders, ethics officers and now inspectors general should have a degree of autonomy.

At his daily coronavirus briefing, Mr. Trump offered no particular explanation for sidelining Mr. Fine but characterized it as part of a larger shuffle of inspectors general, some of them left over from past administrations, and cited unspecified ``reports of bias.''

Critics said on Tuesday that it sent a message to government watchdogs to tread softly. ``I cannot see how any inspector general will feel in any way safe to do a good job,'' said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group. ``They are all at the mercy at what the president feels.''

But Mr. Trump's allies said he felt burned by the investigations of his campaign and associates and therefore distrusts figures he perceives to be partisan foes within government, particularly former F.B.I. officials who obtained warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to investigate a campaign aide's ties to Russia.

``I've never heard the president express frustrations about independent oversight,'' said Cliff Sims, a former White House aide. ``But he doesn't think he should be subjected to his political enemies in supposedly apolitical oversight roles. This has been deeply ingrained in his psyche since the moment he learned that FISA had been abused to spy on his campaign.''

In removing Mr. Fine from his role overseeing pandemic spending, Mr. Trump targeted a former Justice Department inspector general who earned a reputation for aggressive independence in scrutinizing the F.B.I.'s use of surveillance and other law enforcement powers in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Replacing Mr. Fine as the Pentagon's acting inspector general will be Sean O'Donnell, who serves as the inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency and will do double duty for the time being. A group of inspectors general led by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, will determine who will replace Mr. Fine as chairman of the new pandemic oversight committee.

Created as part of the coronavirus relief bill, the committee consists of nine inspectors general from across the executive branch and will have an $80 million budget to hunt for waste, fraud, abuse and illegality in the disbursement of the $2.2 trillion approved by Congress to provide relief to Americans affected by the pandemic.

In announcing Mr. Fine's short-lived role last week, Mr. Horowitz had praised him as ``uniquely qualified'' to run oversight of ``large organizations,'' citing his 11 years as the top Justice Department watchdog and his four years serving as the top Pentagon one.

``The inspector general community recognizes the need for transparency surrounding, and strong and effective independent oversight of, the federal government's spending in response to this public health crisis,'' Mr. Horowitz said at the time.

Democrats immediately condemned Mr. Fine's sudden ouster as ``corrupt,'' in the words of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. ``President Trump is abusing the coronavirus pandemic to eliminate honest and independent public servants because they are willing to speak truth to power and because he is so clearly afraid of strong oversight,'' Mr. Schumer said.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York and the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called Mr. Trump's actions ``a direct insult to the American taxpayers--of all political stripes--who want to make sure that their tax dollars are not squandered on wasteful boondoggles, incompetence or political favors.''

Still, it is not a given that Mr. O'Donnell will toe the line at the Pentagon. At the E.P.A., he has issued reports that are critical of Mr. Trump's appointed administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, who has sought to limit Mr. O'Donnell's authority and oversight.

Only last week, after Mr. O'Donnell's office released a report concluding that the E.P.A. failed to adequately warn communities living in proximity to certain carcinogenic chemicals of their health risks, Mr. Wheeler publicly rebuked the inspector general's report for its ``tone and substance'' and demanded that he rescind it. Mr. O'Donnell refused.

Privately, some people within the government's inspector general community suggested that the appointment of Mr. O'Donnell to the Pentagon post would divert his oversight from the E.P.A., which has continued to move forward with Mr. Trump's agenda of reducing or eliminating public health and environmental regulations, even as the coronavirus rages.

Before being appointed as the E.P.A. watchdog, Mr. O'Donnell clerked for two federal judges and worked since 2005 as a career lawyer at the Justice Department, most recently in the criminal division working on cases involving fraud, corruption and national security.

At the Pentagon, Mr. O'Donnell will serve in an acting capacity pending Senate action on Jason Abend, a Customs and Border Protection official, who was nominated by Mr. Trump last week to take on the post permanently. Mr. Fine remains the No. 2 official at the Pentagon's watchdog office.

Late last month, several hours after Mr. Trump signed the $2 trillion coronavirus relief and stimulus bill with fanfare on television, he issued a signing statement challenging a key safeguard congressional Democrats insisted upon as a condition of approving $500 billion in corporate bailout funds: that a special inspector general be empowered to demand information about how the Treasury Department spends the money and who would be required to tell Congress if executive branch officials unreasonably balk.

In his signing statement, Mr. Trump effectively declared that he could control what information goes to Congress about any disputes over access to information about how and why the money is spent. On Friday, he nominated Brian D. Miller, a White House aide, to serve as the special inspector general overseeing the corporate relief.

Then late that night, Mr. Trump fired the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael K. Atkinson, whose insistence on telling Congress about the whistle-blower complaint about Mr. Trump's dealings with Ukraine prompted impeachment proceedings last fall.

At the same time, Mr. Trump also announced a slew of other inspector general nominees, including Mr. Abend as the new Defense Department inspector general, and three current and former Justice Department officials to be the new inspectors general at the C.I.A., the Education Department and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. Trump redoubled his attacks on the acting inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, Christi A. Grimm, in a statement on Twitter on Tuesday, a day after she released a report about hospitals facing severe shortages in tests as they battle the pandemic:

Why didn't the I.G., who spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!--Trump Tweet

On Monday, Mr. Trump had suggested that Ms. Grimm's report was politically biased against him. Ms. Grimm is a career official who began work at the inspector general office late in the Clinton administration and stayed there throughout the Bush and Obama administrations, taking over the role of acting inspector general in an interim capacity this year.

Mr. Trump's interest in inspectors general has grown more intense lately. Until his most recent nominations, he had failed to pick anyone for about one-third of the 37 inspector general positions that are presidentially appointed, according to the Project on Government Oversight. Those roles were temporarily assumed by other officials whose lack of job security and status typically makes them more cautious than a permanent appointee, government experts say.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also insert into the Record the President's signing statement, which is crystal clear that he is trying to undercut oversight. So we need to do our job here. STATEMENTS & RELEASES Statement by the President (Issued on: March 27, 2020) HEALTHCARE

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 748, the ``Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act'' or the ``CARES'' Act (the ``Act''). The Act makes emergency supplemental appropriations and other changes to law to help the Nation respond to the coronavirus outbreak. I note, however, that the Act includes several provisions that raise constitutional concerns.

Section 15010(c)(3)(B) of Division B of the Act purports to require the Chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to consult with members of the Congress regarding the selection of the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director for the newly formed Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. The Committee is an executive branch entity charged with conducting and coordinating oversight of the Federal Government's response to the coronavirus outbreak. I anticipate that the Chairperson will be able to consult with members of the Congress with respect to these hiring decisions and will welcome their input. But a requirement to consult with the Congress regarding executive decision-making, including with respect to the President's Article II authority to oversee executive branch operations, violates the separation of powers by intruding upon the President's power and duty to supervise the staffing of the executive branch under Article II, section 1 (vesting the President with the ``executive Power'') and Article II, section 3 (instructing the President to ``take Care'' that the laws are faithfully executed). Accordingly, my Administration will treat this provision as hortatory but not mandatory.

Section 4018 of Division A of the Act establishes a new Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR) within the Department of the Treasury to manage audits and investigations of loans and investments made by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act. Section 4018(e)(4)(B) of the Act authorizes the SIGPR to request information from other government agencies and requires the SIGPR to report to the Congress ``without delay'' any refusal of such a request that ``in the judgment of the Special Inspector General'' is unreasonable. I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the SIGPR to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required by the Take Care Clause, Article II, section 3.

Certain other provisions (such as sections 20001, 21007, and 21010 of Division B of the Act) purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds upon consultation with, or the approval of, one or more congressional committees. These provisions are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement with respect to the execution of the laws. The Congress may affect the execution of the laws only by enacting a new statute in accordance with the requirements of bicameralism and presentment prescribed in Article I, section 7. My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on prior consultation with or the approval of congressional committees.

Finally, several provisions (such as sections 3511(d)(4) and 3862 (creating section 744N(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) of Division A of the Act) purport to require recommendations regarding legislation to the Congress. Because Article II, section 3 gives the President the authority to recommend only ``such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,'' my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding. Donald J. Trump. The White House, March 27, 2020.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which establishes a new select subcommittee on the coronavirus within the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

I look forward to working closely with the distinguished majority whip from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, on this very important effort.

As the Speaker has explained, this new subcommittee is modeled directly after the Truman committee which saved billions of taxpayer dollars during World War II and helped mobilize our Nation, our industries, and our entire population for war.

Harry Truman explained at the time that it was critical during this effort to conduct oversight, to prevent the waste of taxpayer funds, rather than waiting until after they were spent.

Catching problems early and correcting them immediately saved not only money but lives. Today our Nation, our economy, and our people, face a similar mobilization effort as we engage in this war against the coronavirus. Microbes are killing more people than missiles.

And let me be clear. Right now, we are only in the first battle. This week the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that we could face a second, more deadly wave of coronavirus this fall. He warned that it could, ``Actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through.''

But our national stockpile is nearly depleted. We need protective equipment, we need critical medical supplies, we need tests, and we need new vaccines and treatments. We need all the supplies and materials necessary not only to safeguard our current medical workers but to restore our stockpiles and to build them up, so we are ready for the next battle and the one after that and whatever comes next.

This is something we all should be able to agree on. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I encourage all of my colleagues to come together, to protect the interests of the American taxpayers, and to promote the most efficient, effective, equitable, and transparent mobilization in history in response to this deadly crisis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Guidance for Members and Attendees provided to us by the Office of the Attending Physician.

While face coverings are not mandatory, they are certainly recommended. The Office of Attending Physician has also advised that ``a face cover will produce a minimal reduction in sound when using a microphone. The face covering is likely to be most useful in preventing viral spread while a person is speaking.''

So people can do whatever they want to do, but I would say, while we are all trying to show how fearless we are, we should be mindful of the people surrounding us. So until I am advised otherwise, I am going to keep my mask on. Guidance for Members and Attendees House Committee on Rules

In order to accommodate this meeting of the House Committee on Rules, the following guidelines have been developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP), the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), and the Committee on House Administration. The OAP continues to recommend teleworking for all Congressional offices and that Members and staff maintain 6-foot social distance spacing as much as practicable when in the offices or the Capitol.

The OAP, in conjunction with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends that all Members and attendees should:

1. Avoid congregating in groups upon arrival to the room;

2. Use provided hand sanitizer;

3. Apply a face cover if a face covering is not already worn (a face cover will be available for those who need them);

4. Proceed directly to their seat, maintaining proper distancing; and

5. Remain seated until the conclusion of the meeting, to the extent possible.

Use of a face covering, while voluntary, is recommended for this specific proceeding due to occasions when the six-foot separation distance may be not be possible (Member private communications with staff, document distribution if needed, witness or staff movements, etc.).

The OAP has advised that a face cover will produce a minimal reduction in sound when using a microphone. The face covering is likely to be most useful in preventing viral spread while a person is speaking.

Members are encouraged to attend without staff or to limit themselves to a maximum of one staff person per Member if necessary. Staff who do accompany their bosses are requested to sit in the audience and only approach the dais if/when needed.

Members and attendees should not engage in personal greetings such as handshakes or embraces.

Members and attendees are asked to respect markings present on chairs to prevent their use, in accordance with social distancing guidelines.

Access restrictions to the Capitol Complex remain in place. Per guidance from the SAA, House Office Buildings remain open to Members, Congressional staff, and credentialed press.

When the meeting is adjourned, departure from the room should continue to respect social distancing by avoiding congregating in groups near the exit doors, hallways, or elevators. Members and attendees should use waterless hand cleansing upon exit after removing and disposing of their face covering.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when it comes to $2 trillion, I don't think there can be enough oversight. I think our constituents expect us to make sure that that money is being spent where it should be spent, where Congress intended it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill, which was made much safer to save lives and to provide economic opportunity. But, as well, I rise to support the bipartisan, as it should be, oversight bill created by the vision of our Speaker, and I ask my colleagues to understand what oversight is in COVID-19. It is to save lives and to make sure that we focus on the needs of those like the elderly in nursing homes who need to be tested or essential workers.

Or we find out the underlying incompetence, if you will, of large companies getting money from the mom-and-pop businesses. That needs oversight.

Or we promote more testing, like the $25 billion that is in the underlying bill, and contact tracing. That is what oversight is.

Oversight is to maintain the idea that we have responsibility for the budget of this Nation, but we have the responsibility for the lives of this Nation.

I served as a staffer for the Select Committee on Assassinations when people were in dismay about the assassinations of Dr. King and John F. Kennedy. I will tell you that even that small committee in the House gave some comfort that Congress was caring about lives and about our budget.

I support enthusiastically the rule and, as well, the bipartisan Oversight Committee. Wise people will know that Congress must continue to do its work in a way that saves lives and strengthens our economy.

I ask support for this bill and the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues, one of our constitutional responsibilities is oversight. We just appropriated over $2 trillion, and I applaud the Speaker of the House for making sure that this Congress does its job and does proper oversight.

I don't know about their constituents, but my constituents are puzzled why some of the money that was designed to go to small businesses ended up going to these megabusinesses like Shake Shack or Ruth's Chris Steak House, so they want accountability.

Two trillion dollars, I mean, is that too much to ask? So I applaud the Speaker of the House for focusing us on making sure that we do our job, but we do oversight. This select committee is warranted, it is important, and I think Democrats and Republicans should overwhelmingly support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we are waiting for a couple of other speakers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are still waiting for a couple of additional speakers but let me just say one thing here again. It is hard to believe what we are hearing here.

My friends on one hand are telling the American people that we all care deeply about oversight, we all want to make sure that the money is being spent properly, but yet they are opposed to this.

It is $2 trillion that we have responded with to try to deal with the crisis that we are faced with. That is a lot of money. To object to a select committee to basically make sure that it is being spent properly as this thing is unfolding, my colleagues have such a difficult time dealing with that.

Madam Speaker, again, I applaud the Speaker of the House for her leadership during this pandemic, not only on this, but on a whole range of other issues. She has taken what my Republican friends in the Senate and what the White House has proposed and made it better and made it more responsive to average working people.

That is what this is about: making sure the money gets to the people who need it, not to the people who don't need it, not to the big corporations, not to the well-off or the well connected.

So I don't understand all of the hand-wringing over this select committee. This is an important select committee, just like the one that then-Senator Truman did to make sure that the moneys that were appropriated went to help win the war.

We want to win this war too.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am absolutely stunned over the outrage to sunshine and oversight. Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my good friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Cole--and he is my friend. I appreciate all of his counsel and advice in the Rules Committee, and I appreciate his respect for this institution.

I want to thank the distinguished Speaker of this House for her leadership. This is a moment in history that demands strong leadership, and she has risen to the occasion, and I applaud her and I appreciate that.

I also want to thank all of those who work on the Hill here: the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, the attending physician, the chief administrative officer, and all of the people who maintain this incredible building. I want to thank them. They protect us and they do an unbelievable job.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind people that more than 855,000 cases of coronavirus have been confirmed. Nearly 48,000 lives have been lost as of today, more than 22 million initial unemployment claims filed in the past month. Families will be changed forever. We are in a crisis, and we should be proud that we have come together repeatedly in a bipartisan way to move legislation forward to respond to that crisis.

Now, over $2 trillion we have approved to try to help our constituents, protect them, and help protect small businesses, but that is just part of our job. Our job is not just to appropriate the money and just hope it goes to wherever it is supposed to go. We need to do the oversight. We need to make sure that every single penny that we have appropriated goes to where it needs to go.

I don't want to be here a year from now looking back and saying: Oh, look at all of the waste and all of the abuse. Look at all of the well- connected people who benefited, but look at all the people who needed the funds who didn't.

We need to get this right. That is what this select committee is about. This should not be controversial.

Again, I am stunned by the resistance to sunshine and transparency. That is what this is about, and I hope and pray that everything goes perfectly. But we cannot take that chance. We have to make sure we live up to our constitutional responsibility.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so that we can establish this select committee.

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

The previous question was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source