[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 131 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3849-H3852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  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. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I will say that on Monday, the House will meet at 9 
a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business, with 
votes expected to occur, Madam Speaker, approximately 12 p.m.
  On Tuesday, the House will not be in session as we pay respect to 
Congressman John Lewis while he lies in state.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 10 a.m. for legislative business.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and 10 a.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that votes on 
Thursday will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  I know that all Members would like to attend the funeral on Thursday 
of our brother and great Member and great American John Lewis, however, 
COVID-19 makes a small-group-only possible. And we will be returning, 
which is why votes will be delayed until the 6:30 hour.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Members are advised that last votes could occur later than 3 p.m.
  We got out earlier today, and I want to congratulate our floor 
director, Shuwanza Goff, who got us a schedule that is working very, 
very well.
  The suspension bills will be announced by the close of business 
today.
  The House will consider two childcare bills. H.R. 7027 would create a 
$50 billion Child Care Stabilization Fund within the existing Child 
Care and Development Block Grant. This would immediately address the 
problems childcare providers are having in staying open and covering 
their increased operating costs with limited revenue during this 
pandemic.
  The House will also consider H.R. 7327, Child Care for Economic 
Recovery Act. This bill would expand the availability of childcare by 
providing tax relief to families, providers, and employees, 
significantly increasing funds for the Child Care Entitlement to States 
programs, providing funds to improve childcare safety and 
infrastructure and ensure dependent care for essential workers during 
the pandemic and recognizing all childcare workers are essential.
  These two bills are obviously a response to the extraordinary 
challenge to childcare providers and those who need childcare services.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 7617, the 
Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, 
Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2021 appropriations bill.
  With that, we will have passed most--almost 97 percent, maybe 98 
percent, of the spending requirements of the Nation for the year to 
come.
  Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible, 
which we

[[Page H3850]]

will be discussing with the minority as well.
  Lastly, Members are further advised that conversations are ongoing 
regarding additional coronavirus relief legislation.
  Members should keep their schedules flexible for the week of August 
3. Let me remind Members that are listening, and on the floor, the week 
of August 3 was scheduled to be a week where we would begin the August 
work period. However, the Senate is not beginning its August work 
period until August 8. It is very likely, therefore, that we may not 
reach an agreement on COVID-19 until that week.
  I want to tell all Members that it is the intention of the Speaker 
and myself not to go on a work period until such time as we have passed 
legislation, hopefully, in a bipartisan way, and sent it to the 
President and the President signs it, which will help the American 
people, American businesses, and our country meet the ever-growing, 
quickly metastasizing crisis that we are confronting.
  Further information regarding the timing of a coronavirus relief bill 
will be announced as soon as possible.
  I would simply add that I will make a determination, along with 
discussions with others, including the minority, next week at some 
point in time as to exactly how we should schedule. I think it will 
depend upon where we are in the negotiations and how quickly we can 
reach an agreement on COVID-19 legislation.
  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. HOYER. I have spoken a lot about John. I spoke this morning about 
John and about his extraordinary chief of staff, Michael Collins, who 
was such a positive part of his life and who exhibits so many of the 
traits that made John Lewis a wonderful, good, decent person who loved 
all of his brothers and sisters, whoever they were, whatever color they 
had, whatever religion they pursued. John Lewis was the best of us, and 
we will honor him appropriately.
  He will be one of the few Americans who is laid in state in the 
rotunda, in the center of our democracy, in the symbol of a free 
people. John Lewis deserves that honor. He enhances that honor by being 
so honored.
  And I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  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

[[Page H3851]]

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. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  As the gentleman knows, we passed a bill on May 15th that included 
within that bill $100 billion for specific assistance--not from the 
State's excess funds, but specifically for educational institutions to 
accommodate the expenditures necessary to provide for safe schooling.
  I will tell you, I represent five counties. We only have 23 counties 
in Maryland. We have relatively few political jurisdictions in our 
State, unlike some, who have many, many and are smaller. All five of 
the counties that I represent, including one of the largest school 
districts in the country, Prince George's County, have decided through 
their elected school boards to open up virtually. And they are 
following the medical advice and the advice of scientists as to how 
that can be done.
  I think all of us hope that our children can go back to school as 
quickly as possible. I will tell the gentleman, I have three great-
grandchildren, all of them in school. My granddaughter is 
extraordinarily happy with how the teachers of those three students--
one is in pre-K, one is in third grade, and one is in seventh grade--
how well the teachers have responded to the parents and to the 
children. But everybody wants to go back to school.
  I will tell you, I received a text from my granddaughter shortly 
after the President spoke about, well, you have to go back to school, 
and she said: ``He-pop,'' which is what she calls me--``He-pop, I am 
terrified about sending our kids back to school.''

                              {time}  1345

  We need to get an agreement. We passed a bill over 2 months ago 
through this House, and unfortunately, our friends in the United States 
Senate have not passed a bill, so we don't have anything to go to 
conference with.
  Unfortunately, yesterday, we learned that the Senate can't agree with 
itself on the Republican side of the aisle and has not got an agreement 
with the administration. So at this point in time, as the gentleman 
knows, we have no alternative, frankly, to discuss. But we are hopeful 
that that will happen soon. We are hopeful that at least the Senate 
Republicans will come to an agreement on an alternative they want to 
suggest, and then we can discuss that.
  Frankly, in order for the Senate to pass something, it has to be 
bipartisan, and there has been no bipartisan agreement reached at this 
point either. So, we will wait. Hopefully, there will be an 
alternative, and hopefully, we can move forward quickly.
  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. HOYER. Madam Speaker, let me respond to my friend.
  Obviously, if there is money that we have already appropriated that 
is not needed and not disbursed, I think the gentleman is right that we 
can reallocate that and repurpose that money. So, that can be part of 
it. But we sort of need to get to some parameters that the other side, 
meaning the Senate, can put forward.
  Secondly, let me say, I did, in fact, say when we were out for some 
period of time that I would give 72 hours' notice. I can't promise that 
today. The reason I can't promise it today is because we are going to 
have literally millions of people who are without help after the 31st 
of this month.
  As you know, the unemployment insurance goes out. In the HEROES bill, 
of course, we extended that unemployment insurance until January 31 of 
next year, as you know.
  What I can say and what I have told my Members is that if in fact we 
can't get an agreement, and it doesn't appear that we can come to the 
floor Monday or Tuesday, I think that is the 3rd or the 4th of August--
I think the 1st and 2nd of August are Saturday and Sunday. So, the 3rd 
and 4th or 5th, if we can't get an agreement before then, there is no 
point in having Members sitting in their offices, twiddling their 
thumbs. I agree with that.
  I will have discussions with you and with Leader McCarthy. We will 
certainly not want to keep your Members here just waiting while 
negotiations are going on.
  I certainly will assure every Member that they will have 24 hours' 
notice. But the need for action is so great and the consequences of 
inaction so harmful, that I think we need to act as soon as we possibly 
can. And that 48 hours difference may make a difference to a lot of 
people. So, I will give an assurance that there will be 24 hours' 
notice, but I cannot give a 72-hour notice assurance.
  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

[[Page H3852]]

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. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question and 
his comments. Let me say this. I think we have a different perspective 
on where we are in this country. In point of fact, I think there is 
reason for great, great, grave concern about what we see as an 
explosion, not just of testing. If it were just testing--but it is of 
hospitalizations and of deaths.
  We have seen a geometric increase in the number of sick people, not 
just because they were tested, but because of a very heightened number 
of sick people. There are some areas of the country which, frankly, 
leadership was very vigorous in imposing what some felt were draconian 
requirements, but which did, in fact, apparently make a significant 
difference in the transmittal of the disease one to another.
  So we see the situation as more dire. We certainly agree with you 
that we are hopeful to accelerate--we have made big investments in not 
only a vaccine but therapeutics. There are some therapeutics that seem 
to be working in some respects. The sooner we can get there, the more 
confidence there will be in the American people that they can reengage, 
that we can restart and not only see one another, but do business with 
one another, and commerce can be pursued vigorously.
  We are not heartened by the figures. I know our President talks about 
things getting better, but we don't see it that way. We don't think the 
figures confirm that, which is sad for our country. Therefore, we need 
to continue to take the precautions we need. But having said that, let 
me speak to the proxy voting.
  I know your side has been very concerned about the proxy voting. A, I 
don't think the proxy voting has made any difference in the outcomes of 
the decisions we have made in this House. B, a relatively small 
number--I know the last time we met, there were some 30. I am not sure 
this time, I think it is less this time.
  Let me say, I agree with the gentleman. I have talked to some 
Members. It is not for when you have another thing to do. It is not for 
doing something you would rather do. I can name a number of Members--I 
won't--on your side and my side who have significant health problems 
and challenges, either themselves or in their families, and, therefore, 
they are concerned about not so much getting together on this floor, 
but we don't live on this floor. We have places that we live and eat, 
and we go to the cleaners.
  So, it is not just on this floor where we have wipes and sanitizer 
and a way to keep us healthy, and we do wear masks, most people wear 
masks. Unfortunately, all of us don't wear masks, and I think that is 
not good judgment.
  But the proxy voting has really not made any difference in whether 
this House has been able to act.
  How long will it go on? Right now, we are seeing an explosion of 
cases, an explosion of infections. Certainly, during that explosion, it 
is no time to say to people--and, again, I almost want to mention names 
because you will know the folks. They are not feigning it. Most of them 
are somewhere around my age who are very concerned about their health, 
the health of their families, and the health of those to whom they will 
go home from here if they come here.

  I think the gentleman is absolutely right. Speaker Pelosi, myself, 
Leader McCarthy, Leader McConnell, and I think Senator Schumer, have 
all said, as you have just said, it is better for us to be here 
together, to interchange with one another, discuss with one another, to 
make suggestions to one another, to have that personal engagement that 
I think makes for a healthier legislative environment.
  But until we can do that with safety and ensure Members that if they 
come here that they will not be a danger for themselves or for others--
and the doctors advise us that the pandemic is still a danger to us--
then we will continue to follow this rule.
  But I want to assure you that I make it very clear to Members: The 
rule contemplates a danger to health to individuals or others, and that 
is why the proxy is available to them.
  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. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, what I said to him was I agree with him on 
that point. But if Mr. Scalise wants to make it again, he can make it.
  But I made it to my Members. I agree. It is for illness. It is for 
the threat of illness. It is not for convenience.
  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. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________