Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill because we should be here tonight focused on real priorities of the American people, and that should be number one. Reopening our schools now. Mr. Speaker, we should be focused on helping our small businesses, who are dying on the vine. Mr. Speaker, we should be focused on helping put more vaccination shots in the arms of Americans. Unfortunately, that is not what this bill does. You are talking about over a trillion dollars that is still available from previous bipartisan bills that is out there. There are tens of billions of dollars to reopen schools that are available today that are not being used. We had amendments to say, any new money in this bill for schools is tied to reopening schools. Do you know that every Democrat voted against that amendment? In fact, if you look at some of the spending in this bill that has nothing to do with COVID, $350 billion to bail out failed states. California gets over $40 billion in this bill when they just announced they had a $10 billion surplus. In fact, California is going to be getting a subway for the bay area--$112 million. Mr. Speaker, I say we defund BART and give that money to those students right now who are being held back from going to school, who have mental health issues. That is what Mrs. Hinson's amendment will do. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit actually focuses on helping kids. We are holding our kids back. This bill will actually delay reopening of schools; 95 percent of the school money in this bill can't even be spent until 2022. Our kids can't wait. We ought to be focused on helping families, on helping businesses, on reopening schools, and more vaccines. If this bill did those things, they wouldn't be bringing it up at midnight on a Friday night. This bill ought to be in full public view. You don't pass this bill to find out what is in it. We need to defeat this bill and help families.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I stand here today to pay tribute to Luke Letlow. Just like earlier tonight when we stood out on the steps of the Capitol to pay respects to the 500,000 people who we have lost from COVID-19, Luke, unfortunately, is in that number. He is not somebody you would have expected. He was young, healthy, and he had his whole life in front of him. He had already lived a rich life. He had already left such a powerful impact on people in the right kind of way, like my colleague, Congressman Graves, talked about. He had a big heart, Madam Speaker. He had a servant's heart. Luke was the kind of person who you want to get into public service to do it for the right reasons, to actually believe in something and want to make people's lives better. When he would go through the rural communities of his district--which is a very rural district--he would just talk to people, strike up conversations. He would want to hear their stories and he would want to help people. He had a lot of opportunities to do that, Madam Speaker. He started working for Congressman John Cooksey out of college at Louisiana Tech. He had already garnished a desire for public service. After he worked for Congressman Cooksey, I met him in 2004, when he was working on the campaign of my predecessor, Bobby Jindal, who got elected to Congress. Luke served with him there. When Bobby got elected Governor, Luke went to serve with him in the State to make our State a better place. And then when Ralph Abraham came to Congress, Luke spent the last 6 years working for Ralph as his chief of staff, going around the rural parts of that district in northeast Louisiana, just reaching out, finding out about people. He was very much into genealogy. He wanted to know not just about people, but about their history, where they came from, what made people tick, and how he could keep making a difference. Ultimately, when Ralph retired, Luke made that decision to run. And he didn't make that decision alone. His lovely wife, Julia, was all in. They were a family that was a partnership. They were a true love story of two people who cared deeply about each other and who cared deeply about their young children: young Jeremiah; and young Jacqueline, who we also grieve for. It is heartbreaking when you think of the promise and what was lost, what we as colleagues lost. You hear members of his own freshman class who never got to serve with him--some have might not even met with him, just knew about him or heard about him--and miss him. That is the kind of person who Luke Letlow was. I got to talk to Luke a lot in those last few days and in the last few weeks before he even got COVID. He was so excited to come up here and get sworn in as a Member of Congress and to start helping people in a different way. He had already helped so many people working for others, but now was his chance to make his own mark. He was talking about what committees he wanted to be on. He wanted to serve on the Agriculture Committee. He wanted to serve on the Appropriations Committee. And he had big ideas, ideas that inspire other people to want to do better as well. So, Madam Speaker, when we remember Luke Letlow, it is that big smile that Luke had. It is that servant's heart, the heart of a person who cares about other people and wanted to make a difference for all of the right reasons. Thank God we still have people like Luke Letlow who care enough to want to get into public service for the right reasons. It is sad that we didn't get that opportunity to serve with him. I so looked forward to serving with him as a colleague in the Louisiana delegation. He was only 5 days away from getting sworn in when we lost him. So, Madam Speaker, as we remember the life of Luke Letlow, I know he is up in heaven looking down. He was a man of deep, deep faith, and that faith carried him and his family through those difficulties in the last few days when he was struggling and fighting for his life. I know that faith is what got him into heaven. He would probably be looking down and saying: Y'all shouldn't be making such a big fuss. But you know what? He deserves this kind of tribute because this would have been a richer body if we had Luke Letlow. We will all remember him and keep him in our thoughts and our prayers.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Madam Speaker, I have been clear for a long time that the comments made by Mrs. Greene prior to being elected a Member of Congress are completely inappropriate and, in fact, I have spoken directly to her to express that. And we had a long conversation, frankly, similar to the one that we just heard on the floor a few minutes ago, Madam Speaker, where we heard Mrs. Greene herself come and give a full account of things she has done in her past. In fact, at the end, she said: Jesus died on the cross to forgive me of my sins. She has actually held herself to account as many of us have as well. I wonder if that same new standard that is being talked about today is anticipated to be applied equally by the majority's side to people who have done things egregious and haven't given account and, in fact, on those things, as sitting Members of Congress, not what happened in 2018, 2019, that we all decry. But, Madam Speaker, if the things that happened in 2018 and 2019 were so egregious that they warrant the unprecedented step of removing a Member of Congress from all committees by the majority party against someone in the minority party, if that was so egregious, why then did not a single Democrat object to that last week when that issue came before this Congress on this floor and she was added to those committees? This is the resolution that added her to the committees. Not a single Democrat last week--not in 2018 or 2019--last week, not a single Democrat objected. But now this new standard seems to be applied. This morning, we continued a great tradition in this Congress, the National Prayer Breakfast, where Republicans and Democrats come together and leaders from the entire world come together to pray. Today, things like forgiveness were freely discussed. I want to read John 8:7. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Madam Speaker, we need to stop casting stones at each other and rise to the level where we are going to start spending every day on this House floor, not fighting battles of the past but fighting for the hardworking families of this country who are counting on us to come together. I ask that the leadership withdraw this resolution and let's get back to work for the American people.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Madam Speaker, our Nation still mourns the unacceptable violence and anarchy that took place in this Capitol last week. As we speak, arrests are still being made, and the anarchists who stormed our Capitol are being brought to justice, as should be the case. Emotions are still high, but in this moment, we need to be focused on toning down the rhetoric and helping heal this Nation as we move toward a peaceful transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden next week. My prayers, Madam Speaker, are still with Capitol Police Officers Sicknick and Liebengood, who we lost, as well as all the Capitol Police officers who risked their lives to keep us safe. They are true heroes, and they deserve all of our applause today. Madam Speaker, I have seen the dark evil of political violence firsthand, and it needs to stop. But all of us need to be unequivocal in calling it out every single time we see it, not just when it comes from the other side of the aisle. I oppose this rushed impeachment brought forward without a single hearing. By the way, the Senate will not even take this up until President Trump is out of office, so let's keep that in mind. It will only serve to further divide a Nation that is calling out for healing. Madam Speaker, many speakers today have invoked one of our Nation's greatest leaders, President Abraham Lincoln. Maybe we should follow some of Lincoln's wisdom that he has imparted upon us in moments like this. As Abraham Lincoln was giving his second inaugural address in March 1865, Lincoln issued us a challenge. This is what he said: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' Madam Speaker, in times like these, let us not reach out to our darkest demons, but instead, like Lincoln, seek the higher ground. May God bless this great United States of America.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to object to a number of States that did not follow the constitutional requirement for selecting electors. Madam Speaker, this is something that is clear that our Founding Fathers debated about as a fundamental decision of how we choose our President. There was a lot of back and forth, if anyone reads the founding documents of our country, about the different versions they went through to ultimately come up with a process where each State has elections; each State has a process for selecting their electors and sending them to Washington. Madam Speaker, in a number of those States, that constitutional process was not followed, and that is why we are here to object. If you look at what the requirement says, nowhere in Article II, Section 1 does it give the secretary of state of a State that ability; nowhere does it give the Governor that ability; nowhere does it give a court that ability. It exclusively gives that ability to the legislatures. In fact, in most States, that is the process that was followed. But for those States, this wasn't followed. Unfortunately, this is not new. We have seen over and over again more States where the Democratic Party has gone in and selectively gone around this process. That has to end, Madam Speaker. We have to follow the constitutional process. Now, there might be reasons why some people don't like the process laid out by a legislative body. Madam Speaker, I served on one of those legislative bodies when I was in the State legislature for 12 years. I served on the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, where we wrote the laws for our State's elections. And I can tell you, when we had to make changes, those were extensively negotiated. We would have people on both sides come. Republicans and Democrats, Madam Speaker, would get together to work through those changes, any minute change to how a precinct would function, to how a change would be made in the time of an election, signature requirements, all the many things that involve a clerk carrying out the duties in each parish, in our case. You would see people come and give testimony, Madam Speaker. Both sides could come. Clerks of court were there in the hearing rooms. It was an open process, by the way, not behind closed doors in a smoke-filled room where somebody might want to bully a secretary of state to get a different version that might benefit them or their party or their candidate. That is not what our Founding Fathers said is the process. Maybe it is how some people wanted to carry it out. But they laid out that process. So when we would have to make those changes, they were in public view; they were heavily debated; and then, ultimately, those laws were changed in advance of the election so everybody knew what the rules were. People on both sides knew how to play by the rules before the game started, not getting somewhere in the process and saying, well, you don't think it is going to benefit you, so you try to go around the Constitution. That is not how our system works. It has gotten out of hand. So President Trump has called this out, and President Trump has stood up to it. So many of us have stood up to it. In fact, over 100 of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, asked the Supreme Court to address this problem just a few weeks ago, and, unfortunately, the Court chose to punt. They didn't answer it one way or the other. They didn't want to get in the middle of this discussion. We don't have that luxury today. We have to discuss this. We have to fix this. In fact, on our first full day of this Congress, many of us brought legislation onto the House floor to start fixing the problems with our elections, to restore integrity to the election process, which has been lost by so many millions of Americans. And we had a vote. Every single Republican voted to reform the process. Every single Democrat voted against it. They don't want to fix this problem. But the Constitution is our guide, and it is time we start following the Constitution. It is time we get back to what our Founding Fathers said is the process for selecting electors: that is the legislatures in public view, not behind closed doors, not smoke-filled rooms, not bullying somebody that might give you a better ruling. Let's get back to rule of law and follow the Constitution, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly object to this Soviet-style rules package. If you look at some of the things that are being laid out here, it is all designed to take away the voice of 48 percent of this House Chamber. This is the people's House. It is one of the great things that we celebrate about serving in the United States House of Representatives, a privilege for each of us who took that oath yesterday to represent roughly 750,000 people, to bring their ideas, their hopes for America, to this House floor, to debate the things that they believe in, that we believe in, that we want to fight for. We don't always agree. We don't always see eye to eye on what that is, but the beauty is we get to bring those ideas here, have that debate here. Yet, the rules package is attempting to strip that away, to yank away more rights for hundreds of millions of Americans to be represented on this House floor. That is not who we are. That is not what the House of Representatives is all about. Yet, that is what will be voted on in this rules package. Just look at the motion to recommit. Now, if the majority were allowing us, Madam Speaker, to bring amendments to the floor on a regular basis, you might not need a motion to recommit. But less than 20 percent of all amendments allowed on the House floor in the last 2 years were Republican amendments, less than 20 percent when we represent almost 49 percent of the Members of this body. That is not what an open, democratic institution is about. That is unbecoming of the House of Representatives. Yet, taking away that ability shows that the majority wants to shut down the debate of the other side, wants to shut down the voices not just of us but of the millions of people all across this country we represent. Think about the move to get rid of paygo, pay as you go, which had been a hallmark of Speaker Pelosi's majority. She gets rid of that on things like debating the Green New Deal. What does that tell you? That tells you that, number one, they plan on bringing the Green New Deal to the House floor, but they also know that it would have devastating consequences on American families. The hardworking people--in fact, the ones who would be hit the hardest by it--are low-income families who would end up paying thousands of dollars more in household electricity costs. They want to hide that so they get rid of paygo so you don't have to show what the cost to hardworking families would be for radical ideas like that. This is not who we are. I am a proud husband, a proud father of a son and a daughter. They don't even want you to be able to say that anymore. Let's open up the people's House to real, honest discourse and debate. Let's debate our differences and settle them here on the House floor, not try to hide the views of 48 percent of this country. I oppose this Soviet-style rules package.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, we know government funding expires at midnight. Clearly, we have been working for days in a very productive way to get close to an agreement on both funding of government as well as COVID relief. We are not quite there on all of these details, but we are eager to see if we can get this resolved. As the gentleman knows, everybody, Members on both sides are very interested in finding out what the schedule will be. I appreciate that update, and I imagine that means we will stay tuned and see if, between now and 5 p.m., we can get that resolved.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I also wish my friend from New Mexico well in the next phase of his life. I thank him for his service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a bittersweet announcement, and that is to say thank you to a member of my staff who has given 31 years of his life to this great institution. I am talking about Bill Hughes. Bill Hughes has decided to retire at the end of the 116th Congress. More than one person has remarked over the years that Bill Hughes comes with the building. Bill has been my policy director since I became the Republican whip in 2014. He was my very first hire in that office. But his career was already legendary when I asked him to unretire and to join the whip team. Bill's career embodies the American Dream. He grew up in South Dakota. He didn't have connections in Washington. He just had a dream. He was drawn to public service, and his breaks came through hard work. He became an expert on the Federal budget and the legislative process. For 31 years, Bill has been part of some of the biggest policy debates, legislative achievements, and history-making events of our time. He retires still doing what he dreamed about doing as a young kid growing up in rural South Dakota. Bill has served as policy director for a Speaker of this House. He served as staff director for a committee, as Chief of Staff for a Senator, and a staff director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He began his career at OMB under David Stockman back in the Reagan administration. When I hired Bill, I hired the institutional memory of this place dating all the way back to the 98th Congress. He has an encyclopedic memory of budget accounts, past appropriations battles, Senate procedures, and, yes, also the history of American music. You can imagine some of those conversations that we have had through some of the battles we have had up here. His colleagues respect and admire him; and more than one generation of staffers have sought his advice, guidance, and mentorship. We have all been involved in dropping a bill right over there on the House floor, but very few of us have dropped a bill the way that Bill Hughes has. One day, when he was working for the legendary Bud Shuster, Bill came running down to the floor with a 1,700-page infrastructure bill to get it introduced so it could get voted on, and he literally dropped the bill on the floor. It took some time to put it back together and, of course, with Bill's attention to detail, he made sure that every page was back in the right place. But he never once ``dropped'' a bill for me. Bill is a consummate staffer and a humble public servant. He works endless hours to ensure that I have the best information and the most important facts about key legislation. He never made himself part of the story. He is that kind of person who deflects attention and credit. In doing so, Bill Hughes has earned the confidence, not only of me, but of all the leaders that he has worked with. Speaker Boehner, Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy all have sought Bill's advice and counsel during his tenure as my policy director in the whip office. I am sad to have to say good-bye to Bill. We will miss the House Republicans' ``Senate whisperer,'' as we refer to him. But very few have earned the thanks and best wishes that Bill leaves this institution with. Bill stands out among his peers and colleagues. He came to Washington nearly 40 years ago with a servant's heart. He came here for a career in public service, and he leaves the House with more than 33 years of legislative and executive branch experience. It is truly a remarkable run. Bill is retiring to spend more time with his wife and kids and the greener pastures of his cabin in the mountains. If Bill wanted to continue to work, it would be right here in the House that he loves, and the House that will be forever indebted to his sacrifice, his wisdom, and his great love for the United States of America. Bill, we were lucky to work with you, and America is a richer Nation thanks to your service. You will be deeply missed here, but you have more than earned the opportunity to enjoy this next chapter in your already rich life. Thank you to Bill Hughes, and God bless you.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to continue these negotiations and get a resolution, and, hopefully, we will in the coming week, both on COVID relief and on the funding of government. We have agreed on caps already. Hopefully, we will maintain that and get that done to give certainty to all of our agencies that we know how much money is involved. It costs the Defense Department, for example, every week that we are in a continuing resolution, potentially billions of dollars just in procurement and in the loss of those efficiencies. I share the gentleman's optimism that we can get it done. Obviously, we need to continue working through these final issues. I do want to thank the gentleman, as we talked last week at the colloquy about the ALS Disability Insurance Access Act, and I thank the gentleman for scheduling it this week. It passed without opposition. This is one of those examples where we do work and come together and do something that actually helps people. This will help hundreds, possibly thousands, of people struggling with ALS to be able to get access to the tools that they need that they, under the current law, are being denied. To see the House come together so overwhelmingly to do that shows that we can, when we put our minds to it, actually help people. This will help people in all of our districts, and I thank the gentleman, again, for getting that done, getting that bill to the floor, and, ultimately, now all of us coming together to pass that bill on to the Senate and the President. I want to again bring up the Paycheck Protection Program bill by Congressman Chabot. This is a bill that we have been talking about at this colloquy since September. Each week that goes by, we know that there is a list--unfortunately, it is a long list--of areas where we have disagreement. There is also a list of areas where we have full agreement if you look at the number of items where we have already decided we both, Republicans and Democrats, want to do this. Then, there are those items that we are strongly opposed to on our side or that they are strongly opposed to on their side. I would just continue to emphasize that these small businesses can't wait for us to get agreement or never get an agreement, while there are things we can do to help them today, to save them today. And we continue to hear the heartbreaking stories. Over 100,000 restaurants in America have closed for good. Gone. I know K-Paul's restaurant in New Orleans, one of the world-famous restaurants. International Chef Paul Prudhomme invented blackened redfish at that restaurant. It is gone. There are too many other stories to mention. We see heartbreaking stories of a restaurant owner in Los Angeles who is being told she can't operate, and literally, in the same parking lot next to her tents are tents of a film studio that is able to operate. It is not about science in those cases. It is about some government official picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the losers are America's small businesses. This needs to stop. I would just encourage the gentleman to bring the Chabot bill, a bill that has wide bipartisan support that would save small businesses. Today, we are going to lose, just today, about 150 restaurants, and that number is even higher for other small businesses. There are hundreds a day. Friday, we will lose 150 restaurants. Saturday, we will lose 150 restaurants. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, we will lose 150. We will lose over 700 restaurants between now and when we come back Tuesday. We don't have to do that. If that bill was put on the floor today, it would have passed overwhelmingly, maybe unanimously, because it is an area of agreement. This idea of holding hostage these small businesses that are dying on the vine while we try to get agreement that we haven't been able to get since August, why can't we just do the things that we agree on now while we negotiate the other things? Some of those things will never become law, yet it is holding up the things that we agree on that would save small businesses today. 150 restaurants today will go under that shouldn't have gone under. We could have saved them. There are thousands of jobs tied to this at Christmastime that don't need to be gone if we just pass the things we agree on while we negotiate the things we don't; because we may never get agreement on those things. But don't let it hold these families hostage. Don't let it hold these small businesses hostage. I would just urge, again, that the gentleman bring the Chabot bill to the floor as soon as possible. We know it would pass overwhelmingly. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I will continue to work on these items that we need to get resolved--hopefully, will get resolved--in the coming days. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Clearly, President Trump has expressed his concerns about some items in and not in the National Defense Authorization Act. Ultimately, we will see soon if he signs it or vetoes it. He has, obviously, got to weigh all of those decisions, as he is doing right now.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader, to talk about the schedule that will be taken up next week.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push to get that relief, starting with the Chabot bill--hopefully, with other things. But at least let's bring those items that we are in agreement on to the floor. Millions of jobs are at stake. Finally, I want to ask the majority leader about reports that have come up about a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Swalwell, having some kind of ties to a Chinese spy. There are alarming issues that are being raised. We haven't gotten a lot of answers. I know many are asking: Was it known prior to the time he was put on the Intelligence Committee that there was this relationship with a Chinese spy? There are also reports that the Chinese spy also was able to infiltrate his office and possibly put other spies in his office. Was the gentleman aware? Maybe it was just the Speaker that was aware, but were you all aware of this tie to a Chinese spy prior to him being put on the committee? And why is he still on the Intelligence Committee? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I hope we get those answers. These are serious questions that have been raised. And we are talking about a committee that deals with the most sensitive intelligence information. In fact, most Members of Congress don't have access to that level of intelligence that members of the Intelligence Committee get, and possibly their staffs have the ability to see some of that. If an office was infiltrated by spies from a foreign country, especially China, at a time when we are investigating China and raising serious questions about them, these are questions that need to be answered, and I hope we get answers soon.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), for bringing this legislation, the Tribal Power Act. It is an important piece of legislation to help those Tribal communities. He does, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) said, provide great leadership for Tribal issues, and this is surely one I am sure we will work with. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, for bringing this as well. Now, with my time, Mr. Speaker, and you may want to cut it short if this turns into a roast, my friend from Oregon is, as Mr. Mullin said, departing at the end of this Congress. I am not sure why you would want to leave after 22 years in Congress, but you have surely earned the right. I got to know Mr. Walden when I was a freshman coming onto the Energy and Commerce Committee back in 2009 in my first year in Congress. When you look at the dais now, it has surely changed a lot, but back in those days, I would offer, of my own good will, to make coffee for Mr. Walden. He was one of those senior members of the committee-- probably more of a junior member, but I was the most junior member. But we actually developed a really good friendship. As we do around here, we all battle it out on issues. We come up here to fight for the things that are important to our districts, important to the country from our perspective, and then you find people along the way you befriend who have that same perspective, and Mr. Walden has been one of those. I have learned a lot from him. We have really, I think, achieved so many things on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and especially during his time as chairman. I just want to mention a few of those areas where he has made this a better country, because we can all talk about the things that we want to do when we come up here and you would like to work with others, but then to be able to look back and see real, tangible achievements that make this a better country, it really does pay tribute that your time here was well spent. And for Mr. Walden, it surely was, and, you know, maybe none more obvious than what we just saw yesterday. President Trump had a summit to talk about the rollout of a vaccine for COVID-19, a vaccine that came through work that we did in this Congress and the CARES Act to give money to the administration so that they could focus on finding a vaccine, but then it takes the ability, the tools. The FDA is the gold standard in the world. The FDA has had problems over the years, and this committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, has had to come together to address some of those problems so that FDA can continue to be the gold standard that not only ensures that the trials go through the proper process, because you don't want a drug to come to market that has adverse consequences, but you also don't want government to get in the way and slow down the ability for a drug that will save lives to go through years and years of bureaucracy, and that had been going on. When we were able to pass the bill to modernize FDA approval of drugs a few years ago when Mr. Walden was chairman, some of those reforms actually are what got us to the brink of an FDA-approved vaccine for COVID-19, and that will save millions of lives in America and around the world. You have seen people like the 90-year-old woman in Great Britain who is the first person to get the vaccine. That is from the work of what we did here at the FDA. FDA is on the verge of approving that vaccine in America, and it will also, in addition to saving lives, allow us to reopen our economy fully, and I think that is another objective we all have. That doesn't happen by accident. It happened because of leadership. Again, without your leadership in reforming the FDA, we may be waiting years, not months, to get that vaccine to market. We had the SUPPORT Act to address the opioid crisis in this country. Every community in America had been touched by the opioid crisis, and Congress had to take action. Again, working, Republicans and Democrats together, under your leadership as chairman, we did just that, and there are millions of lives that are saved because of that work. The FCC modernization and reauthorization, which typically happens, but when it was done in 2018, it was named after Ray Baum, who was the staffer who ran the Energy and Commerce Committee. I believe you all served together in the legislature. Unfortunately, we lost him, and to name that important piece of legislation after Ray Baum, I know, was not only important to keep the FCC going, but also to pay tribute to someone who came up here to do good public service for the country and did. Finally, the reauthorization was to free up spectrum. This has been a challenge for years as we worked to get more spectrum, which has improved everybody's lives, to get to a 5G network. That work was done, and the leadership of Chairman Walden to get that done when even the scorekeepers here said it wouldn't really produce anything for the country, well, billions and billions of dollars later that this country has to pay down our debt came out of that legislation, as well as spectrum to allow us to get to a 5G network, spectrum to allow us to build up more rural broadband. All of the things that improve people's quality of life happened because of the leadership of Chairman Walden, during your time as chairman of the committee. You have earned the opportunity to go and enjoy the next phase of your life. But while you will be missed here, you leave a great legacy where you can point to the things you have done that make America a greater country, and for that, I thank you. I know all of us join in in applauding your time here in this great institution.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) for yielding. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), for leading on this important piece of legislation as well. I rise in strong support, Madam Speaker, of the ALS Disability Insurance Access Act. We have worked closely on so many issues with the ALS community, and this is another great example of that. I know as I was talking with the majority leader last week during our colloquy, Mr. Hoyer, we worked on getting this bill scheduled. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for bringing this bill to the floor, because at a time when you hear about Congress' disagreements--which, unfortunately, there are a number of areas where we do disagree--this is one area where we have come together; and not just today, on this issue regarding the timeline that you have to wait for ALS patients to be eligible for SSDI, a timeline that we will now eliminate, properly so, but we have been here before and Congress has come together on other areas. The Steve Gleason Act is one of those great examples, where speech- generating devices were being denied to people with ALS. It was a ruling that had come out of Medicare that we had all disagreed with, but it took an act of Congress to fix that. Congress did come together to do that, just as Congress is coming together today to right this wrong and to stand up for those ALS patients who just want to live life to the fullest. Steve Gleason is one of those examples. He is a constituent of mine and has become a dear friend, and somebody who really does live life to the fullest and doesn't let a disability define him. He actually has gone out and become a pioneer and inspired so many others to just go out and live their life and let's get government impediments out of the way. That is what we are doing here today. We are coming together as Republicans and Democrats to stand up for those people with ALS who just want that opportunity to live their life to the fullest. I want to reiterate that great motto that Steve Gleason lives by: No white flags. It means you never surrender; you just go out there every day and do the best you can. Today, we are going to help thousands of people across this country do exactly that. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Lieutenant Commander James Lyons for his faithful service to our country as an esteemed member of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives. In this capacity, Lieutenant Commander Lyons facilitated interaction between the Department of the Navy and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. These engagements included, but were not limited to, formal responses to congressional inquiries, counsel to Members and staff, and execution of congressional and staff delegations. These interactions were pivotal in providing Members and staff a greater understanding of the issues facing our Navy and its sailors. I am particularly proud to note that Lieutenant Commander Lyons planned and executed CODEL Scalise to the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility to visit key U.S. allies in Central and South America in order to update Members on the role of China in the region, bilateral trade and regional trading relationships, and the role of U.S. military, security, and humanitarian aid in improving regional stability and preserving our relationships in the AOR. I am forever grateful for his leadership, persistence, and support of CODEL Scalise. Lieutenant Lyons' distinguished career began after commissioning in the U.S. Navy from the George Washington University. After completing flight training in Pensacola, FL and Meridian, MS, Lieutenant Commander Lyons received his Wings of Gold and was assigned to Fleet Logistics Support Squadron Thirty to fly the venerable C-2 Greyhound. During his time as a ``Provider'', James deployed to 4th Fleet area of operations, logged 1000 flight hours, completed 89 carrier arrested landings and was named 2017 Pacific Fleet Greyhound Pilot of the Year. Madam Speaker, I commend and thank Lieutenant Commander James Lyons on his service to the United States of America, the House of Representatives, and my office. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing him today.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if we wanted to pass another CARES Act-type piece of legislation, as we have seen in both other CARES Act bills, you have a lot of willingness and interest on this side of the aisle, which was there on both of those votes. Clearly, there are things in Heroes that there is no bipartisan consensus on. So, our party is willing and ready to go another round on those items we agree on, and not months from now, not months ago, as it should have been done. It should be done today. Hopefully, it will be done when we return. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on those items. If the gentleman has nothing else, then I would be happy to yield back.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. There are a few items relating to legislation that I want to bring up with the gentleman, but before that, I did want to mention that it is my understanding that the floor director for the majority leader, Ms. Shuwanza Goff--the last thing I would want to do is embarrass her here on the House floor, but it is my understanding she may be leaving.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring to the majority leader the schedule for next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and the majority leader of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, too. In terms of our children, we know sending them back to school safely, the protocols are out there. Child nutrition programs are administered in our schools. That is not happening because the kids are in those systems where they are not safely reopened. Those kids aren't able to get the school lunch programs.

Mr. SCALISE. Let me remind the gentleman that in the CARES Act, we addressed many of those issues that the gentleman already brought up, starting with the States. In fact, I don't know of a single State in this country who has spent all of the money we sent them. Educational opportunities for schools to reopen safely and educate kids are being denied in some places but not in others, but it is not from a lack of money. There is not a single school system I have heard from, where we sent them the money--and by the way, they still have millions, and in some cases, billions of those dollars sitting in their account, idle, that can be used today to safely reopen schools. If the State chooses not to do it or if the school system chooses not to do it, that is on them. But they are denying those kids opportunities. We are seeing report after report, scientific studies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, talking about the damage that is being done to our young children by being denied the opportunity to go back to school in classroom and learn. It is devastating to those kids. Suicides are up and opioid abuse is up, because of all of these things, and it is the small businesses that are paying the biggest price. If you look, people that are getting unemployment insurance at the State level--we did enhanced unemployment insurance for a period of time, and in most cases we were paying people more money not to work than they were making before they lost their job. What they ask me is not that they want to stay on unemployment. They want to go back to work. They want their business to be alive when they go back to work. But if a small business closes for good, the cost to us is going to be dramatically higher. If we can right now throw that lifeline, again, to those businesses-- not with a new program, not with things that we don't agree on, like $900 billion to bail out failed States, which is the Heroes Act. We already spent hundreds of billions of dollars that we gave to States. Like I said, I think every single State has some of that money left. Some have billions of dollars of that money left. So the idea that we are going to hold up relief to small business, who are closing every day, hundreds of thousands--a third of every small business in the State of New York is gone for good. How many more need to die before this problem is recognized by this Congress? So those States are sitting on money, and the gentleman wants to hold up relief to small businesses to give another $900 billion to bail out States, not for the COVID damage, but the problems they had before. That is what the Heroes Act disagreement was about. We agreed on giving States money. They still have some of that money, and it can be used to reopen schools safely, still today. What is not there right now is relief for those small businesses. So when you look at all of these different things--the vaccine, they are not waiting on approving a vaccine based on more money coming in. We put money in the CARES Act, and President Trump spent it effectively on Operation Warp Speed to get us to the point where we have not one, but two--Pfizer and Moderna--ready to go. The FDA is about to approve two different vaccines, and it is being mass produced today. We are not waiting on money to mass produce it. The Department of Defense is actually involved in helping distribute it. Airlines have already been contracted to get it out. Some need to be air-conditioned more than others. All of that is put in place. If we need more money, we will come together and get more money. But a vaccine is not waiting on us to send them more money. We need to get it out. We need the FDA to follow their process, which they are doing. They are the gold standard in the world for approving vaccines, and it is unheard of, in the history of mankind, for a virus, that we didn't even know of until a year and two days ago in the world, to now be on the brink of not one, but two FDA-approved vaccines. That is happening because of what we did coming together with the CARES Act and then President Trump's Operation Warp Speed. These aren't items that are waiting on our relief. What is waiting is relief for small businesses. Now, the Heroes Act, again, it was a partisan exercise, not because it was mostly like the CARES Act. It was very different from the CARES Act. In the Heroes Act, there are billions of dollars in that bill to give checks to people here illegally. That wasn't part of any agreement. It wasn't in the CARES Act. That is new policy that is not going to be signed into law. If you want to negotiate and hold small businesses hostage on that, we may never get relief for small businesses. But that was one of the items in the Heroes Act where we had no agreement. But the areas where we had agreement, can we at least agree to pass the things we have agreement on? And what did we have more agreement on than anything? The PPP, proven to be so successful that literally every day we hear from small businesses that say they would not be alive today if not for the PPP. But we also hear from small businesses every day who are about to close. Some States are talking about shutting their whole State down again. We know that is going to lead to businesses that will never come back. And we have a bill ready to go that would get massive bipartisan support without a new dime of money, money sitting frozen in an account that would help those small businesses. The criteria is you have to have at least 25 percent loss. So your small businesses that are doing well today--again, we know there are some that are doing better today than they were a year ago, but we also know some are about to close for good. We can help them, not with new policy that we are not in agreement on. That is where the negotiations are continuing to go back and forth on. But if there is something we all agree on, do we really need to hold that hostage, when that means that many of those businesses will never come back? We could have done this in September. It was brought up in September. It is not a new item. How many thousands of businesses died from the day that that bill was introduced to today and will die again between now and Monday? It can be put on the schedule Monday. It is not going to stop the negotiations on the other things. There are other things that we are both in agreement on that aren't part of that bill. Bring that as a stand-alone. Let's bring each of those items that we are in agreement on. But the idea that we hold everything hostage to things that aren't going to happen, hundreds of billions to failed States, giving checks to people who aren't here legally, is that really a priority? Is that really the things we are getting called on every day? The folks that are on unemployment want to be able to go back to their job. If the company is dead and gone, there will be nothing to go back to. And so we are working on so many items that we are in agreement on. We have given money to our health experts to continue to focus on the virus, to continue to get the vaccine, and we may have another two--could be four--vaccines by the end of this year. That is something we all ought to applaud because of what we did when we came together. But here is an area where we already came together. It was so successful that that money now is frozen, and those businesses that did well are still doing well. The ones that aren't will or will not be alive in a month from now, based on whether or not we confront this. It is not new policy. It is something we already agreed on, and something we already celebrated as a success. Let's do that one more time while we negotiate on the things we are in disagreement with. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that, and I yield to the gentleman.