A few weeks ago I mentioned that Democrats were telling me that Pelosi wanted to adjourn Congress until after the worst of the pandemic but wouldn't act alone, afraid that Trump, McConnell and the Republicans could called her a wimp. She told intimates that she wouldn't act unless McConnell did as well. Since then more than a few House members-- and some senators-- are quarantined and at least two-- Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)-- have tested positive. Staffers on both sides of the Capitol have tested positive and it's likely that many more members would test positive as well. There is also some fear that without Congress is session, Trump could go wild. Meanwhile, they're spreading it among themselves and them among their constituents in every part of the country. As far as we know, members currently quarantined include Mark Meadows (R-NC), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA), Doug Collins (R-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Steve Scalise (R-LA), David Price (D-NC), Don Beyer (New Dem-VA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and Sharice Davids (Blue Dog-KS).Members are now pushing Pelosi and McConnell to act. CNN reported that Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH) "introduced a bipartisan resolution on Thursday to amend the rules to allow senators to vote remotely during a national crisis, giving the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders the joint authority to allow it for up to 30 days. The Senate would then vote to renew remote voting every 30 days." McConnell wants to see at least a few dead senators before he does anything like that. Most people in America hope he's the first to go.
"We live in an age where national emergencies, public health crises and terrorism can threaten the ordinary course of Senate business," said Durbin. "We need to bring voting in the Senate into the 21st century so that our important work can continue even under extraordinary circumstances. Bob Dylan was right: 'the times they are a-changin.'"But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has made clear both publicly and privately that he's against any such proposal, even though the Trump administration has advised limiting gatherings to 10 people. On Tuesday, McConnell said the chamber would "deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing the Senate rules." He said the Senate could lengthen the time for a roll call vote to limit the number of people on the Senate floor at any one time.McConnell has also pledged that the Senate will not leave town until it considers a trillion-dollar proposal from the administration to counter the coronavirus outbreak, larger than the federal government's stimulus package passed in response to the Great Recession. Some lawmakers forced to still come to work say they are getting nervous about the growing threat. One senator asked simply, "Why are we still here?"The House plans to return when a deal is reached between the administration and congressional leaders. But a bipartisan group of House lawmakers have also requested a rule change that would allow for remote voting.Like McConnell, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pushed back on the idea. In a caucus meeting last week, the California Democrat rejected calls to leave town and vote remotely, according to a source familiar."We are the captains of the ship," she said. "We are the last to leave."Rep. Dan Kildee, a Democrat from Michigan, told CNN that the House leadership is having ongoing conversations about how to limit interactions on the floor, including extending the voting period."We have had some discussions about how we will manage the floor if we need to come back," said Kildee. "It is not just about the risk for ourselves, it is about setting an example for our staffs too."Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member on the House Rules Committee, said he's skeptical of changing the rules. He argued that if negotiators achieve their goal of drafting a new coronavirus response package that can win a large consensus, remote voting won't be necessary, even with a number of members not voting because they are in quarantine."If some people can't come because they either have been exposed or in self quarantine, we still will have overwhelming numbers," Cole told CNN. "Nobody's going to throw rocks at you because you had coronavirus and couldn't come or you've been exposed to somebody and couldn't come. People will understand that, your constituents will."Proponents of remote voting believe that their leaders will ultimately relent. A rules change would require the approval of two-thirds of senators but only a majority of House members.Senators are bracing for one of their own to test positive for the novel coronavirus-- and if they do, that will almost certainly lead to the rule change, the proponents say."Once someone gets it, we're out of here," said a second senator granted anonymity.
