Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate the timeline, especially the comments about the negotiations that have been going on in a very constructive way regarding a continuing resolution. They have definitely been in good faith with Republicans and Democrats as well as with the White House. It is encouraging to hear that, potentially, tomorrow that could be filed and we fully expect to be ready to take that up next week if that does, in fact, happen. I know the differences that we have been talking about in the last few days are minor in consideration of all of the factors that are included in a continuing resolution. So I think, as people watch some of the bigger fights that are real between the two sides, to see that on something as important as properly and responsibly funding the government that we are making very good progress on at least a short- term mechanism that would stave off any kind of shutdown between now and September 30, I appreciate the work that has been done by the majority with the minority and with the White House and Senate to get to that point. Hopefully, we do get that legislation filed and are able to take it up next week. Unless the gentleman had anything else on that, there was another legislative issue I wanted to bring up. As we both know, there are conversations going on regarding a potential next relief package. We don't know if there will be an agreement reached. These negotiations have been going on for weeks and weeks since the CARES Act, the multiple pieces of legislation that we filed both before and after that we have come to an agreement on, things like the Paycheck Protection Program that both sides worked very hard on, very successfully on. Reports have come out to show over 50 million Americans' jobs were saved by the work we did as a Congress working together to save millions of small businesses and over 50 million jobs as we are struggling through this pandemic. One of the things I would like to ask the gentleman to take a look at is that we may get an agreement, but we may not on a bigger relief package, and we see multiple bills that are out there. The Senate has been trying to advance something. The House has had a position. Some House Democrats yesterday filed a separate bill with some other House Republicans to try to have a third way, and the White House has been talking about a different option. In the meantime, we clearly don't have an agreement yet on that. I would ask if the gentleman would look at H.R. 8265. This is a bill by Representative Chabot of Ohio. He is the lead Republican on the House Small Business Committee. This is a bill that would specifically target those small businesses that were part of the Paycheck Protection Program. This is not a new idea. This is taking the existing framework of a bill that we, both sides, came together to pass, a very successful bill. As the gentleman knows, the Paycheck Protection Program still has over $130 billion remaining in its account, money that wasn't spent. We were able to help every business that asked. Every business that was eligible was able to go to their local bank, didn't have to go to an SBA lender. Again, I want to thank our small community banks that played such an important role. We would not have been able to help all those small businesses stay afloat if our local community banks didn't participate in helping the customers that they usually see on a daily basis who are struggling. But as that money is sitting in that account, the program has expired, so the money can no longer be spent. We have appropriated this money. It is not new money and it is not a new program. But what Representative Chabot's bill does is it would allow those small businesses that have shown a loss--we know there are some business doing better today than they were before COVID; there are some that are doing dramatically worse after COVID. This would specifically be limited to those businesses that have experienced at least a 25 percent loss or more, that they would be able to go for a second round of Paycheck Protection loans, using existing money, not new money, the money that is locked in an account that can no longer be spent. So maybe we do get an agreement between now and then on a larger package, but if we don't, at a minimum, I would just ask the gentleman--I would think this would be something that could pass on the suspension calendar to at least help small businesses using a program we already agree upon, that we already know has been successful. It saved small businesses in every single district of this country. It is not a Republican or Democrat plan. It has been a plan that truly has been a lifeline for any of our small businesses. And, again, over 50 million jobs have been saved. I would just ask the gentleman if he would take a look at that, if we don't get an agreement, to potentially bring something like that to the floor--that could be a suspension-type bill to pass--and, at least while we are negotiating things that may or may not happen, help those businesses that we know need help. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman it is not hope that you have to have. This is all about science. Name one of these companies that would put their name on a drug that would be injected into American people based on politics or based on a timeline that would have an impact on an election? Not one of these companies would do it. I would challenge anyone to name a company that would do that, because they wouldn't do that. So it is not a hope. If the FDA approves one of these drugs or all of these drugs, it is because they work, they save lives. And we can't have an undermined confidence that they would save lives--because a vaccine is not something that a President or a candidate for President sits in a lab and figures out. It is a very serious process that the FDA, who is the most respected agency in the world for drug approval, has to sign off on every step of the way. There are three phases. These are the companies that made it all the way through. There are other companies that are in earlier stages and may actually get to an FDA-approved vaccine, as well, and they are all very well respected, too, but these are the only companies. There is no mystery company. These are the companies that are in competition, not with themselves, but they are trying to save lives. And from everything we are hearing, the results are tremendously successful. We should be applauding that. Operation Warp Speed has gotten us to this point, and while the President might not get credit--and I think it is an important point, as the gentleman talks about instilling confidence, where the President is on science. I have been in many of those meetings with Dr. Fauci, with Dr. Birx, with the whole team of the whole coronavirus task force.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we look at the various topics that the gentleman from Maryland brought up on the negotiations, if you looked at the Senate bill--and, clearly, there are multiple bills out there--ultimately, it is going to take a bipartisan bill working with the administration. Mr. Meadows has been here many times working, trying to meet, sometimes not being able to get meetings with some leaders. But at the same time, if you look at the Senate bill, they did include some enhanced unemployment. They included more money for small businesses, for families, for testing. They had $16 billion for testing, $31 billion for vaccine, which I know--I want to bring that up. They had $20 billion for farmers, $15 billion for childcare. They did have liability protection, which continues to be a very big issue many small businesses bring up. They want to make sure that, if they open safely, they are not going to be shut down by frivolous lawsuits. That is something that there has been a lot of negotiation about as well. But, ultimately, when you look at those differences, we will hopefully get that resolved. In the meantime, if that can't get broken, at a minimum, if we can look at some of the money that is unspent because, in addition to the PPP, I think the gentleman knows, we also put about $150 billion in the CARES Act toward our States to help all of our States, a formula that allowed States and, in some cases, local governments get money to help themselves through these tough times. There is not one State that has spent all that money. And I know some people want to talk about how much more money to give, but if they haven't spent the money they have already gotten, maybe we can look there as another way to help push more relief, including with schools. If a school wants to reopen safely--and I would encourage all schools, the protocols have been out there. The Centers for Disease Control have put out very good, responsible safety protocols for safely reopening schools, and it varies, depending on the kind of region you are in. If you have a spike, there is a way to handle that. If you are in an area that has not seen a prevalence of COVID, then there is a different way to handle it. But in every case, there is a way to safely reopen schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics has laid that out as well. It means following the safety guidelines, but it can be done and needs to be done. Unfortunately, in every case it is not being done, but it is not for lack of money. Any school system that needs more assistance, whether it is masks or screens for the teachers or whatever else they might need, sanitizer, the funds that we sent to the States, again, none of which have spent all of that money, can be used to help to safely reopen schools as well. So those are all conversations we will hopefully have. I do want to then talk about where we are with a vaccine, because we have been seeing a lot more reports on the progress, the tremendous progress that has been made within the medical community. And we know from the very beginning of this disease that our frontline healthcare workers have been some of the heroes, probably the biggest heroes of all of this, those hospital workers, the nurses, the doctors, but also those people working in the labs. Almost instantly after China lied to us about the origination of the disease, lied to us about even whether or not the disease could be spread from person to person they corrupted the WHO. But ultimately as we started to find out what was coming out of Wuhan, I don't know, even the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House majority had a hearing titled: ``The Wuhan Coronavirus.'' So clearly, we know where this started. It has been discussed. But at the same time, we have been working feverishly to find a cure, to find a vaccine. We have seen therapies emerge at a rapid pace. President Trump implemented Operation Warp Speed, which was a way to get red tape out of the way. Nobody is cutting corners on safety, but ultimately what we are all doing is focusing all the energy and the weight of this Federal Government behind finding a cure and a vaccine, and what we are seeing now is remarkable success in progress. Here are some of the companies that right now are in phase 3 of testing on an actual vaccine for COVID-19. These are all very respected companies, not only in America, but worldwide, globally respected. I am concerned by some of the comments we are starting to see by some people trying to undermine the public's confidence in a vaccine if it were to be approved by the FDA. And let's keep in mind, the FDA would have to approve any vaccine. You have to get approved by the FDA to go to phase 2. You have to get approved to go to phase 3, and then ultimately after testing on tens of thousands of people at a pace we have never seen before--with money, by the way, that we helped pass, and again, the gentleman and I both were part of those coalitions, Republican and Democrat, working to put money in place for that testing, for the work that is being done by these great companies to start now making the vaccine vials, a hundred million vials possibly that could be made before the drug is approved if, in fact, it then gets that approval, so that you don't have to wait to start mass producing after the approval. If the FDA does approve any or all of these drugs as a vaccine that would actually prevent COVID-19, I hope we would both encourage people, if they wanted to, to then go and get that vaccine. And this is, hopefully, not going to be a debate within the country. Hopefully, it is going to be a recognition that America has the best scientific minds in the world. We have the most respected drug companies in the world, and they are working feverishly, not cutting a single corner on safety. These would have to be safe and effective drugs for the FDA to approve them, but if any one or all of them get approved, then I would hope we would encourage people to go and protect their families, if that is what they want to do. And I know a lot of people that would want to do it. I have heard from some people, as I am sure the gentleman has, that they may want to wait a little while. But I also know that people want to be safe and secure in their homes. They want to have a confidence level that they are not going to be at risk of dying from COVID. And ultimately a vaccine and a therapy are the final answer that gets us over the hump, that gets us to where we can fully start reopening. We are seeing many States at advanced levels of opening their economy, but we also know that we are not where we need to be, and a vaccine is probably going to be that biggest determining point that helps people reopen in a much more effective way. I hope we can at least agree that if that approval comes by the FDA that it is something we can all embrace and encourage people to pursue, if that is what they feel is best for their family. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. When you think about why we are here on a Saturday, I would think if we are being brought here on a Saturday in the middle of a pandemic, it is to help those millions of families who are struggling, Madam Speaker. I would think if we are going to come here on a Saturday, it would be to help those millions of small businesses, the restaurants in south Louisiana and New Orleans that don't even know if they are going to open again because of where we are right now. In this pandemic you would think that is what we would be here for. But instead, Madam Speaker, why are we here? For a fabricated crisis. The Wall Street Journal: ``Nancy Pelosi Goes Politically Postal. Congress ought to be embarrassed by this evidence-free conspiracy theory.'' The New York Times: ``I Was a Postal Service Regulator for 18 Years. Don't Panic. The service is perfectly capable of handling election mail.'' That was a Bill Clinton-era appointee. Then you look at, again, this fabricated crisis that, oh my gosh, there are mailboxes being closed. Let's look at the record. During the Obama-Biden years--just 4 years--11,560 mailboxes removed. Where were the hearings for that? Where were the Saturday votes to decry that they were closing mailboxes? It never happened because it is not a real crisis. Even the Postmaster General just testified yesterday: ``The Postal Service is fully capable and committed to delivering the Nation's election mail fully and on time.'' That is the Postmaster General. If you would have listened to him--I know there is a hearing Monday. Maybe if you would have waited to see what he actually said Monday in this committee, Madam Speaker, you would have known that this is a fabricated crisis. But you knew that before. Madam Speaker, they knew this was a fabricated crisis. In fact, when we talk about the money, oh my gosh, the post office is going to run out of money. Well, the problem is the facts decry even that. They have got a surplus of over $12 billion sitting in the bank today and then they have got--this is the Department of Treasury, Madam Speaker, a $10 billion line of credit that they can't even access because they have too much money in the bank right now. Imagine small businesses watching on a Saturday because they can't open. They are not even sure if they are going to be in business next week because they have no money in the bank, and they are hearing about this crisis. Congress is coming in on a Saturday. Then they find out the post office has over $12 billion in the bank and they have access to a line of credit of $10 billion from Treasury that they can't get to today because they have got too much money in the bank. Right now, it is here. This is the letter from Treasury. It is so important, Madam Speaker, that 68 Democrats chose not even to show up today. Sixty-eight are not even here today because this is a fake crisis. It is a fabricated crisis. It is a shame that instead of helping small businesses and families, they are trying to scare the American people when everybody knows there is enough money to carry out the mail. Barack Obama and Joe Biden took out over 11,000 mailboxes, and it was never even a problem. We have got to vote against this.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. Maybe as we get toward the middle or end of next week, we will have a better idea where we are, and that number could change. Maybe there is an agreement by then, so we will continue this discussion. I appreciate the gentleman's candor and willingness to work with us, to try to make sure that the Members are at least aware of where they will be, if they already have plans to do other things, that they can adjust that in a reasonable amount of time to address these challenges. Finally, I would want to ask the gentleman, I know we have had a debate a number of times about this experiment with proxy voting. It was going to expire in July, and it was renewed until August. I don't know if the gentleman knows yet if the intention is to continue going on with that, but there have been a number of cases where you have had Members that were here one day and sent in a note the very same day saying they are unable to be here and then proxy-voted or were out on a boat or other things. I would hope this process ends, that we get back to voting in person. It has been very safe. The environment here is safe. Members are wearing masks when they are in close contact with one another. Obviously, we are at a very safe social distance, and you don't need to wear a mask in this kind of environment. But when you are close, you have seen the Members following the protocols. There is a lot of safety equipment around. I would just hope we could get back to the ability to be here physically. It is a much better working environment when you can see your other colleagues and share experiences and talk about best practices that we are seeing in each of our districts, people that are doing things better, that we can help other people in other districts do. It is hard to get that when you are just not here. I would hope that we would work toward getting back to as normal of a process as possible, recognizing where we are, but where we are doing that work here in the Capitol in the same place together at a safe distance, but at least here physically. I would hope we could continue to have this conversation. Clearly, there are a few more weeks and no decision has to be made yet. I don't know if the gentleman has already made a decision.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, look, obviously, we can have a disagreement over whether or not there should be a proxy voting system. But if there is going to be, I would just hope that we would see an increase in the integrity of that. I mean, for a Member to literally be here physically on the House floor, and then later in that same day, sign a document--it is not a notarized document, but you are signing a document on your stationery to the Clerk of House saying you are physically unable to be here when you were physically here that day. It reduces the integrity when we see roughly a 15 percent increase in people that are here all week that all of a sudden sign a document saying they physically can't be here on the fly-out day. It reduces the integrity. So if it is going to continue--clearly, our side does not want to see it continue, but if your side feels it should continue, I hope you would at least look at strengthening the integrity so if somebody signs a document, that you have confidence that that document is an accurate depiction to the Clerk of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I respect that, and I appreciate the gentleman discussing that. I know we have additional negotiations that will go on, hopefully, next week. And we will have a clearer picture if those will result in actual legislation we can come together on and get a clearer picture of the timeline. But at least until then, I know I appreciate the opportunity to not only be able to pay tribute to our dear friend John Lewis here in this Chamber where we served together but then to go in the rotunda, as the gentleman acknowledged, in a rare moment when a nonformer President of the United States gets to lie in that beautiful rotunda. No one is more fitting of that honor than the great John Lewis. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he has anything else.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman and thank the leader and the Speaker for providing that privilege to John, to his family, and to all of us, to be able to send him off to a much better place, where I know he already is. As it relates to the schedule, as the gentleman talked about for potentially coming back in August, the negotiations that are going on between the House and the Senate and the White House on a potential next relief package, clearly we are not in agreement yet. I know there was a House-passed bill. There is going to be a Senate bill brought forward that is probably a very different direction than the House bill. The White House has been talking about some items that the President liked. I know the President talked today about the payroll tax cut, which is something that I surely would advocate for, as a way to help get people back to work and to help families have more money in their pockets during these tough times and also an incentive to have businesses bring more workers back. He acknowledged that is probably not something that we will reach agreement on, but he also laid out the olive branch to try to find other ways we can get agreement, if we do get agreement. I would offer that. And as the gentleman talked about, whatever we do would need to be a bipartisan bill. And I agree, if there is one, it is going to have to be one where we come together, if it is going to be signed by the President. I would offer that up, as we have looked at the trillions of dollars we have already appropriated--and we came together, Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers, with the White House to send a number of relief packages that have provided dramatic help to millions of families, to millions of small businesses, and they are still struggling. But as we look at what we spent, we have identified over $500 billion of that money that still hasn't been spent that is in various accounts. You look at the Paycheck Protection Program, over $120 billion still unspent. Of course, there are limitations on each of these funds. It might be possible that we would look at making those existing funds more flexible before we look at spending new dollars, if we can get agreement on that. I would also like to suggest, as we encourage the opening of schools, where kids can go back to the classroom, there is a healthy debate going on around the country. Many school systems have already made the responsible decision to safely provide an environment where kids can come back in school and they can have that opportunity. There is a lot of data out there. The American Academy of Pediatrics has laid out strong guidelines for how you can reopen schools safely. And safety clearly has to be the top issue. But they also talk about the danger and the damage to the children, the over 50 million children in this country who do go to in-school settings, the damage that is done by not having that opportunity. They were denied it, of course, in the middle of a pandemic. Millions of parents became home-schoolers. Myself and my wife were part of that. It was quite an experience. We would be more than happy to allow our children to go back into the classroom. And in New Orleans, they are scheduled to do that. They are going to be reopening schools there, as so many other systems. But we also know there are some systems that are contemplating not allowing the children to come back in the classroom. I would just hope that we would urge all school systems to find a way to get it done safely. Others are doing it safely. It can be done safely. It doesn't mean it is easy to do it, but we know it can be done. We owe it to those children, the millions of children that would be harmed by not having that in-classroom experience. You look at the billions of dollars that are still unspent, including money we sent to the States. We sent $150 billion directly to States for COVID-19 relief. This money, without any change in law, would be eligible for those States to send to their local school systems to buy sanitizer, to buy masks, whatever else they need to safely reopen the schools. And I would encourage, if there are any limitations that States identify, I would hope they share it with us because I think we can find agreement even there. But I think we should also look at an opportunity that if school systems are not going to provide that safe environment for kids to come back in the classroom and those parents still want their children back in the classroom, we should look, at least during this pandemic, to allow the dollars to be able to go somewhere else where they are willing to safely educate those children. If the parents want to make that choice, if one school system is going to deny the children that opportunity, and there are other school systems that are willing to safely educate those children, we should give them that opportunity to be able to let those dollars follow the children so that they are not denied those opportunities as the American Academy of Pediatrics discussed. I hope we can have all of these conversations in the mix of the negotiations that are ongoing.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for laying out the course of next week, as well as what could come beyond. We will surely go through some of those items. I will start with the gentleman's schedule conversations about Monday and Tuesday, the ability for us to pay true tribute to our dear colleague that we lost, John Lewis. This week, of course, we mourn him. We look at the spot where John used to sit and think about the giant that he was. There were some wonderful tributes here on this House floor earlier this week, and it is very fitting that he will be lying in the rotunda, which is a rare tribute that we pay to special, unique people. He clearly fits that bill as a colleague, but also someone who was a legend, a giant. We got to serve with someone who we will tell our kids and our grandkids about. For that, we are all better for it. This body is better for John's service, and this country is better for what John Lewis gave, both his blood, his sweat, his passion, his ideas, and his voice. And if the gentleman wanted to add to that--I know we share those same sympathies for the family, but also the same reverence that we did get to serve with someone who truly was larger than life. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I agree. We worked very closely over a period of weeks to come up with the CARES Act, which I have heard from so many families and small businesses throughout my district, as well as through my colleagues and their districts, how much of a lifeline that was, truly saving millions of jobs, saving millions of small businesses so that they can still work to reopen safely, hopefully get back to the successes they were having before. We know we are not there yet, but with the encouraging signs we are seeing on the medical front, with both therapies as well as vaccines, showing incredible promise in the testing stages through Operation Warp Speed, where we are able to test on thousands of people. Nobody is cutting any corners, but we have a wider array of people to test now because the disease is so widespread, not only in America but throughout the world. So, that testing that is being done in a very aggressive fashion is showing incredible promise. Hopefully, that gets us to a point where we have a vaccine. But as we know, today, we are not there yet. So, hopefully, we can continue working to help those businesses get back open or stay open and help families through the tough time. That is just why I would suggest that, as we haven't gotten an agreement, whether the Senate hasn't even gotten an agreement amongst themselves, as the gentleman pointed out. The bill that came out of the House recently was not bipartisan, but we were able earlier, through the CARES Act, to have a bipartisan agreement. So, the ability is still there. But, in the meantime, while those negotiations aren't resulting in an agreement, I would just offer up that there are hundreds of billions, well over $500 billion, that we have appropriated that haven't been spent and, in some of those categories, probably won't be spent because of the limitations. Maybe we can look at providing more flexibility with existing dollars before we talk about another trillion, to allow more uses for that for the people who need it as a bridge to maybe get to another point, or a bridge to get to a healthier economy that takes off on its own. Hopefully, that would be one more option we can put on the table. I would ask if we do continue these negotiations, I know the gentleman referred to the possibility that that first week in August, we may come back. If we are to come back, and the majority decides to bring Congress back at a time that it is not currently scheduled, could we at least get a 72-hour notice, as normally is the case, so that Members can adjust their schedules and know what is ahead of us without very short notice?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), for yielding. I join with my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, who mourn the loss of John Lewis. We have so many honors to be able to serve in a job like this where we get to represent the people of this Nation, especially here in the people's House where we truly do bring all of the different elements of what makes America great into one body with people who represent every different type of background and every different kind of community, the kinds of people we get to serve with. There are giants among the people we have the honor of serving with. John Lewis was at the top of that list, and you knew it when you served with him. I remember telling colleagues years ago that, while we have our differences, it is really important to go get to know especially some of the legends, the giants we serve with in this body. I remember talking about two Members in particular: it was John Lewis and Sam Johnson, one Democrat, one Republican, two people who were just giants. Unfortunately, we have now lost both of them in the last year. Our institution is better because John Lewis was a part of this great body, but it is what John fought for his whole life. I know my colleague from North Carolina as well as my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus talked about, earlier, his mantra of ``good trouble.'' What John experienced in his life, there are so many people who have freedoms today they would never have if John hadn't gone through that. I had an honor, like so many of my colleagues, to go with John, he invited Members from both parties to go to Selma to be a part of reliving that history, which was a dark side of our history, Bloody Sunday, but one that John used as a teachable moment to bring people from all parts of this country to walk across that Edmund Pettus Bridge. I got to walk arm in arm with John. It was one of the great honors I have had as a Member of Congress to be able to do that. The whole time we were walking with him--this could be a moment that John wanted to just leave in his past because he was so brutally beaten, but he wanted to share the experiences. And as we were walking, we would round the corner, and he would point to different buildings. And he said: That is where we gathered. That is where some of the people who were trying to stop us would be. He helped organize the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, SNCC. He started at a young age in the civil rights movement, at a time when it was not only difficult, but it was possibly life-threatening. And for many, they did lose their life in that battle. And John lost blood. He shed blood for the cause. But he never took it as a moment to get down. He never took it as a moment to be bitter. He wanted to continue fighting to make America a more perfect Union, and he did. And that is what we will remember about John. We will remember his warm-hearted spirit. John was one of those very few people in a body like this where, when he stood at the podium to speak, no matter what side you were on on that issue, you stopped, you sat down, and you listened, because you knew you were listening to somebody who was larger than life. John is in a better place right now, but America is a better place because John was here. God bless John Lewis and his family.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. And when you think about where we are as a country, we are in the middle of a global pandemic. And at the beginning of this, after China lied--and let's be very clear--China lied, not only to the United States, but to the entire world about this disease that started in Wuhan. And what they did, while they were lying, they corrupted the World Health Organization, that entity that typically we all would look to for guidance, and WHO literally was regurgitating the Chinese Communist Party's talking points, saying it wasn't spread from human-to-human contact, which was a lie. And we now have evidence to show that they manipulated and deceived the rest of the world. While they were doing that, Madam Speaker, they were hoarding PPE. They were not only buying it up around the world, they make most of it in China. We need to change that, by the way. We should be spending our time here on the House floor, not limiting the President's ability to keep Americans safe, which, fortunately, President Trump was able to do. He did so effectively, properly; he stopped flights coming in from China when we knew the disease was coming from China, for goodness sake. Why would you want to stop the President from being able to keep Americans safe? What we should be spending our time on right now, Madam Speaker, is bringing more manufacturing back to America so we don't need to rely on China, because they told even American companies like 3M that were making PPE, you can't ship it back to the United States when our nurses and doctors need it. So President Trump said, we are going to use the Defense Production Act. We are going to start making more of that here in America. We need to put incentives to bring more of that back from China, so we are not relying on them. But no, we are not spending our time on that today, Madam Speaker. We are spending our time with this bill that would limit and make it more difficult for the President of the United States, any President--just because some people don't like this President, they are going to make it harder for any President to keep Americans safe, whether it is from terrorists abroad, or whether it is for health pandemics that might break out again in the future. This is lunacy that we would be trying to make it harder for a President to keep Americans safe. Thank goodness President Trump used his executive powers to act like he did to stop the disease from spreading more into this country. He saved thousands of lives. If China wouldn't have lied to him, we would have had a few more weeks. There is data that shows scientifically that tens of thousands of lives would have been saved in America. But at least the President was able to act when he had the proper information. I know people like Joe Biden said it was xenophobic, for goodness sake; criticized the President stopping people from coming in from the place where the disease started. And others criticized him for doing it as well. But it was the right thing to do. I am glad he took that action. The last thing we need to be doing in the middle of this pandemic is making it harder for the President to keep Americans safe. I urge everybody to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I think we all remember: If you like what you have, you can keep it. Remember that phrase? Probably the most broken promise in political history. Millions of people lost the good healthcare that they liked because Washington bureaucrats came in and said not ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' but ``if Washington likes what you have, you can keep it.'' And they took it away. After that, you still see, years later, they are trying to pull more people out of the private insurance market who actually like what they have, and say, ``Get back on this.'' If it works so well, by the way, Madam Speaker, wouldn't people be going in droves to it? In fact, it works so poorly that, under this bill, they have to bribe you with over $400 billion more in taxpayer money. That is how much this costs, more than $400 billion to take you off the private health insurance that you like. This is free market. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. But most people like their private health insurance, so they are going to push them onto this at the expense of over $400 billion. If that isn't bad enough, Madam Speaker, what else do they do? They pay for it--get this--by limiting the amount of drugs that will come to market. Yes. The Council of Economic Advisers has advised ``as many as 100 fewer drugs entering the United States market over the next decade, or about one-third of the total number of drugs expected to enter the market.'' Can you believe this? In the middle of a global pandemic, when we are trying and rushing to find a cure and a vaccine for COVID-19, they are going to bring a bill to the floor to stop drugs from coming to the market, over 100 of them. Let's read more. This ``would reduce Americans' average life expectancy by about 4 months.'' My God, what are we doing, bringing a bill to the floor right now when we are trying to find a cure that will make it harder to find a cure? All to push more people, including wealthy people who would be eligible under the bill that already have private insurance, onto a heavily taxpayer-subsidized program that has been failing under its own weight, failing so much they need to add $400 billion to try to entice you to take it and, in the process, limit the ability to bring lifesaving drugs, like a cure for COVID-19, to the market. This is absurd. This is psychotic that we are even debating this right now. We should be focusing on helping expedite a cure, not making it harder to bring that very cure for COVID-19 to the market. Madam Speaker, I would strongly urge a ``no.''

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Ohio for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), for her work over the years on this issue as well. Mr. Speaker, we stand at a moment in time that is so important in our country's history, a moment when we can actually come together to solve a problem that we have seen that has gone on for a long time, something that has come to light in different ways over years. But George Floyd's death, a death that never should have happened, really did awaken and create a moment in time when we can actually get something done on this issue. I hope that we rise to this moment. I hope that we work together to address the problems that we have seen while making a careful and important distinction not to undermine the important work that police officers do every day, risking their lives to keep us safe. That is really the thing that we have to focus the most on because we know there are bad cops like there are bad people in any profession. But to paint everybody with the same brush is not only unfair, it actually does a disservice to the work that they do in every community on a daily basis that is unheralded. What I would first say is that while the bill that is before us today is a bill that has some components that we support, but some components that we feel would create even more problems, there can be work done to come together. I know in committee there were many opportunities to bring that forward, to bring other amendments forward, and it is a shame that every single Republican amendment was shut down. Every single amendment was shut down in committee. Every single amendment that we brought forward was shut down on this House floor. That is not going to solve this problem. I think we all know that. If we are here to make law, which I think a lot of us are, then it is going to mean both sides coming together to bring their best ideas forward to address the problem. I was very disappointed yesterday to watch on the Senate floor our former House colleague and friend Tim Scott, who has worked on this for a long time, somebody who has actually been a victim of racial profiling himself who worked closely with a lot of people to bring a bill to the floor that had a lot of bipartisan support. Yes, maybe some people had differences with the bill, but instead of coming together and working through those differences, the Democrats in the Senate voted down the opportunity even to bring the bill on the floor. The motion to proceed is the motion to start debate on the issue; they voted it down. How is that going to solve the problem if you don't even want to debate the problem? At least here on the House floor we are having a debate. I wish we had an open amendment process where we could try to settle these differences here. That is not going to happen, unfortunately. But, I, as my colleague Mr. Armstrong, don't give up hope, but we present the opportunity to solve this problem. If you look at the bill, H.R. 7278, the JUSTICE Act, by my friend Mr. Stauber, who served as a police officer for over 20 years, he saw the good and the bad in policing. He brings that unique perspective as somebody who wants to solve the problem. He will tell you that the person who doesn't want a bad cop more than anybody is a good cop. You don't want to go on a call with a bad cop. You want to root them out, while not undermining the important work that law enforcement officers do every day. Mr. Speaker, I have seen it firsthand. I would not be here today if it wasn't for the bravery and heroism of law enforcement. I have seen them risk their lives for myself and for other people, maybe not knowing if they were going to make it home that night, and they do that every day. If there is a bad cop, let's root them out. But we want to make sure we don't undermine the ability for the good cops that are all around our communities, keeping us safe every day. They have a right not only to keep us safe, but they have a right to make it back home to see their families at the end of that night, too. Let's make sure, when we are striking that important balance, we don't forget about those two competing sides. We can solve this problem. We need to work together to get this done. Hopefully, we will do that before this moment is lost.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman on the voting and whether it is in committee, clearly, there are rooms here in the Capitol--we have seen the Rules Committee utilize the Ways and Means Committee where they are able to be spread out at distances well beyond the safe standards of social distancing, well beyond 6 feet where you can have in-person hearings where the back and forth of a debate and the votes that would go with it where a proxy vote doesn't really fit that situation can occur. I would hope that we do that. This shouldn't have been a partisan exercise. I know early on we talked about trying to find a way to conduct our business where both parties would agree, and the minority leader and the Speaker were talking about doing that, and we thought that would be how it would end up. Of course, that wasn't what happened with the proxy voting. But even my friend just mentioned that if somebody proxy voted, then it would be for health reasons. Yet, yesterday, the first time where this new experiment that has never been done in over 230 years was conducted, there were Members who voted by proxy signing a document saying that they couldn't be here to physically attend proceedings, yet it turns out they were in other places. In some cases, it took them longer to get to a rocket launch than it would have taken them to get here to the United States Capitol, in clear violation of the intent of proxy voting. That literally was just on the first day. I don't know if the gentleman is going to revisit proxy voting. But, clearly, we have seen most people can come here and do the work. Even some who chose not to could have been here. What message does that send to the country when we should be the ones leading the way to safely reopen?

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would just say that, clearly, we have a disagreement on how business should be conducted on the House floor, specifically as it relates to proxy voting and whether or not we can be here physically doing the job. And, clearly, when we are at home in our districts, we are finding other ways to get work done, to communicate with constituents, to communicate with people all around the Nation. Using technology, it has definitely helped the ability for us to do it, but it is not the same thing as when we are here. The other side of that, because one piece of it is the ability to be here--and, clearly, we have the ability to be here. There are flights. If somebody is not comfortable flying, they used to take horse and buggy. They didn't have planes, and yet they found a way to get here in tougher times. But then you look at the message that we are trying to send. And, yes, there are some places that you don't have traffic on the road because their officials have chosen not to open as aggressively as others, using safety protocols. No one is talking about compromising safety, but there are many States that have shown how to safely reopen on a much wider scale where you can get people back out doing the things that they want to do again, and that is the real issue. You are watching aspects of the private sector, you are even watching other levels of government, large cities, large States that are reopening and doing it successfully, not overrunning their hospitals. Most of our hospitals are telling us they want more patients. They want the people who normally would be getting their checkups and immunizations and even hip replacements and things that are part of their life cycle, their quality of life, and their ability to live with cancer treatments and things like that that aren't being done. There are people dying right now because they are not being tended to. In my home parish, I actually talked to my coroner about this. He took a 6-week period--just 2 weeks ago, took a 6-week period and took that exact 6-week period a year ago, and there was a 42 percent increase in non-COVID-related deaths, just in my home parish. This year, more--Madam Speaker, 42 percent increase--because people aren't going out, aren't going to the doctor. If they had chest pains, they weren't going to a doctor because the doctor's office is closed, where they could catch it, and so they were dying in their house. These are real numbers from the coroner. I mean, there is a problem that is created by not allowing people to go about their lives again in a safe way. So we ought to be leading the way, leading the way to show people how to do it. And, again, we have had votes here on the House floor before proxy voting in the midst of this pandemic, and it went very smoothly. And if there are better ways we can find to do it, we will do it. But we followed all the protocols of the Attending Physician. I didn't hear of any Members complaining about that process. Everybody went about it their own way, practicing the social distancing that we all encourage. Yet we are not doing that on a consistent basis, and that doesn't send the right message. As the gentleman reworks the schedule, and I hope it is done soon, I hope it takes into account the fact that it is important for us to show the rest of the country that we can be here doing our job. Yes, there are things that we are going to do remotely. There are things we always do remotely. If we are on a 3-week schedule in D.C. and 1 week back home in our districts, it is important that we go back home to stay in touch with the people who actually elect us, the people who make this country work so that we can come back here and represent them better. But we do have to come back here and do the work. You can't phone it in sometimes. You can't do that remotely. There are certain parts of our job where we actually have to be here. In the rough-and-tumble of a legislative process, things change on the fly; and if you are back home or going to some other event somewhere else because you choose not to come here, it is kind of hard to say you gave your proxy to somebody and then things change 2 minutes before a vote. It is going to be hard for that person to know how to change their vote by proxy when they are not here. So there are flaws in there that don't need to be there because we have proven we can be here. I just hope that that is taken into account when the new schedule is being worked out, and, again, hopefully released as soon as possible so that as other people and industries and groups are starting to show how they are going to come back safely, we can do the same thing--not last. Clearly, we are not going to be first now, but hopefully, as other people are making those decisions, we can be part of that, not at the tail end of it.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker as well for leading that tribute, and I am sure at some time in the future we will spend an appropriate amount of time here on the floor where colleagues can share those stories about someone that everybody ought to know. We know we have some giants like John Lewis and Sam Johnson who we got to serve with. Sam left and now is no longer with us. John still is and, obviously, he is going through his own battle, and we pray for John as well. But as we have our battles of the day politically, it is good to remember the special people that get to make up this body and become part of this great institution in which we have the honor to serve. So I appreciate the Speaker and the leader allowing us to have that moment.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we have worked together to help try to address the problems within our country, both economically and the health side, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, large businesses, and State and local governments. Trillions of dollars have already been spent. When you think just about the hundreds of billions of dollars that we sent to States through various means, whether it is direct aid, the $150 billion package that we have sent to States, we see that each State got a large share of that money, billions of dollars in some cases for each State. I don't know one State that has spent all of their allotment. Many are working to try to figure out if they are going to help local governments or not. It was surely our intention here that it wouldn't just be for States, that 45 percent of that money should be available for local governments as well. I would urge Governors to respect that intent of this body. Rather than continuing to look to Washington, I think States need to start looking within and saying: How can we work to safely reopen our States, and how have other States done it successfully if other States are behind? We have models out there. That is why we always say the States are the great incubators of democracy. We all have smart people in this country who are figuring this out. States that are reopening successfully that aren't seeing spikes in their hospitals have done things and used protocols working off of guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to successfully get their economies back open again. No economy is back open at the level it needs to be, and that is why we need to encourage everybody to safely reopen so that the real answer to States that have budget problems is to start getting their economies going again; get people back to work again; get people out having their checkups with their doctors again, their immunizations for the children who aren't getting immunized, the cancer treatments, the mammograms, and the colonoscopies that were being skipped for months. We are seeing studies that are coming out from very well-respected health experts who are talking about the real health danger of having shut-ins and people not getting out again. We have to weigh all of this, and we have to keep encouraging the great progress we are seeing from some of these great drug companies here in America that are working on a cure, that are finding therapies that are effective for COVID-19 with the help, by the way, of some of those trillions of dollars that we have spent here in Washington to find, hopefully, a vaccine. Even Dr. Fauci is talking about the possibility of a vaccine being available soon. We need to make sure that we are working to help ramp up production when that is found so that we can make it available to anyone who wants to take it. We need to be also focused on holding China accountable. We need to be focused on bringing production back to America of PPE, which was in short supply in those critical weeks after we found out China, while they were lying to the world about this disease, with the WHO joining in with them, was stopping and blocking the export of PPE, which they make the lion's share of, including American companies in China that weren't even allowed to sell PPE back to us when they had orders in place to do so. So, we should be investigating that. I am sorry that that is not happening here. We should be addressing how we can bring more of that manufacturing back to America to create new jobs for Americans making our own protective equipment for our frontline workers like doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, that focus hasn't been there. But the real issue is: What should Congress' role be in this? Shouldn't Congress be leading the way in showing people how to safely reopen and do our work? While we have had only a limited number of opportunities to come back here and vote directly on the House floor, it has been a smooth process. It has been a process that has been safe for Members, staggered votes where social distancing, which is still the standard that everybody should be practicing, is able to be exercised in a safe and effective way. Clearly, we had a very big difference on the proxy voting, and I think we have already seen abuses of that process. But the real issue is: When are we going to get back to a functioning, regular schedule for the House of Representatives? A major company here, Disney, announced yesterday they are going to start opening their parks again in a few weeks. You have the National Basketball Association talking about playing games again, whether or not there are fans in the stands. When you talk about a sport that can't exercise social distancing, they are working on protocols right now to test players and to allow games to go on. We all know the physical nature of a sport like basketball or even football. Hockey is talking about coming back. NASCAR is already racing again. As all of these things are happening and these ideas and these great ways to safely get different parts of our economy open again, we don't even know what the schedule of the House is and when the House will actually be back voting again. The Armed Services Committee could be in a large room in the Capitol that is sitting vacant right now, debating the National Defense Authorization Act, so we don't get caught bringing up legislation at the midnight hour. We can actually start working on that now. That work can be done here in Washington. It doesn't have to be done remotely. These are the concerns that we would ask: Is there going to be a time when the majority leader would put out a new schedule that actually shows what our voting pattern will be? We know, obviously, when you look at May, April, and even June, clearly, that has changed. But at some point, will it be mid-June? Will it be July? Again, if NBA players can be playing basketball in July, can't we have a regular schedule by then that the House will be conducting business? We have seen the Spanish flu, and people had to get here with horses and buggies, yet they figured out how to do it. Can we lead the way again in showing people how to safely do our business with a consistent schedule that right now doesn't exist?

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, if anybody wants to have a good read, his book, ``Captive Warriors,'' tells the story of those years in the Hanoi Hilton; not only the unbreakable bond of those heroes that he served in that prison with, but also the unbreakable love between he and Shirley. She never wavered from her love of him, 7 years removed, while some of that time she didn't even know if he was alive. He loved her till the day she died and till the day he died because he mourned her death every day since, and it was something for all of us--again, as we have our daily battles here--just to know the special kind of people that we get to serve with, and he was surely one.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for walking through those items. I first want to start by sharing and associating myself with the comments made by my friend from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) about the loss of our dear friend, Sam Johnson. Sam and I got to be close friends, and I can picture him sitting right over there by General Lafayette's painting, in his scooter, as he was voting and sharing stories with friends in his last few months when he served here with us with distinction for so long, and the conversations and just the understanding of a giant that we served with, someone who served our country, spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton, as we talked about. They never broke him. They probably broke every bone in his body trying, but he and those other brave men in that prison never once faltered in their love and dedication to our country and to their family. He missed his wife. We know now he is with her and in a special place, and we are all better for having served with Sam Johnson. He truly is missed and was a special friend.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I would just share the gentleman's hope that that happens. I know there was a lot of concern expressed with the resolution that authorized pro forma sessions until July 21, and I sure hope that is not the approach that the House would be taking, that instead of pro forma, we would actually be here in person doing the work of the people.