[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 161 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4530-H4536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of 
the majority leader the schedule for next week.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader.


        Honoring Retiring Parliamentarian Thomas J. Wickham, Jr.

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before we begin the colloquy, let me make some remarks about someone 
who has made a real difference in this House.
  Madam Speaker, every society that wants to be a successful society 
has to have rules. Thomas Jefferson, one of the great political 
thinkers of the centuries, observed that there had to be both comity 
and fairness if we were going to come together and have a democracy 
that was operational.
  Dick Gephardt used to say that the legislative process was a 
substitute for armed confrontation, that the resolution of differences 
in a democracy needed to be done in a civil way, pursuant to rules.
  Madam Speaker, we are losing, in a short period of time, a gentleman 
who has made a difference for this House, this Congress--House and 
Senate--has made a difference to the civility of this House, a 
gentleman who, by the way, is not responsible in any way for the lack 
of civility that, from time to time, breaks out in this House.

                              {time}  1430

  I refer, Madam Speaker, to our Parliamentarian, Tom Wickham. I have 
had the privilege of knowing him all of his days in the House of 
Representatives. He has been here for a significant period of time and 
has served as our Parliamentarian for essentially four Congresses, 8 
years.
  He stands--or sits, at this point in time--a short, at least 6 feet, 
distance, with his mask on, which is a unique experience for him, from 
the Speaker's rostrum. He is there to ensure that we play by the rules. 
He is there to ensure us that we do not take advantage of one another, 
but that we resolve, in pursuit of the rules, the differences that we 
may have and do so in a way that, for centuries, essentially, have 
governed how we process in the legislative arena.
  It is a nonpartisan role. Obviously, he served when there were 
Republican Speakers, and obviously, he is serving now with a Democratic 
Speaker. It is nonpartisan, but it is sometimes thankless, particularly 
when you have to make a ruling, particularly that the majority party 
does not like.
  I must say that there is probably not a Member among us who hasn't at 
some point in time said either, ``Gee, I am sorry Wickham made that 
ruling,'' or, ``I don't agree with Wickham.'' Therefore, it is a tough 
job because we are all pretty powerful people. We all think we are 
pretty smart people, and we know this, that, and the other. So, you 
have to have the courage of your convictions as well as the 
intellectual reasoning to go behind your decision. Tom Wickham has had 
that every day he has served in this House.
  It is hard to be a referee because the calls don't always go the way 
people want. One of the hallmarks of the Parliamentarian's Office, and 
Tom Wickham in particular, is they call them as they see them. No 
matter the effect of those rulings, they make the ruling that they 
believe is correct. You can disagree, but what you cannot disagree with 
is that the Parliamentarian's Office prides itself on calling them as 
they see them.
  Now, it was difficult, I am sure, for every Parliamentarian, and the 
Parliamentarian's Office, to conduct this role. But they have done so 
in a manner, all the time I have been here, which I am in my 40th year, 
that has been a credit to the House of Representatives, a credit to our 
democracy, a credit to Thomas Jefferson's perception of trying to 
create rules and ways of doing things that credited democracy, that did 
not undermine it.
  Tom was also the Deputy Parliamentarian and the Assistant 
Parliamentarian, so he has had a lot of experience. He has spent a 
quarter of a century working for this House.
  I will miss him. We will miss him. This Congress will miss him.
  He will be succeeded by somebody who has experience and depth and 
will, I know, in the tradition of all the Parliamentarians with whom I 
have worked over those 40 years, be fair and unflinching in calling it 
as he sees it.
  We will miss Tom's good humor and kind nature. I know my staff will 
miss working closely with him every day to ensure the smooth and proper 
running of the floor.
  On behalf of Democrats, and I know Mr. Scalise will speak on behalf 
of his party as well, I want to thank you, Tom, for your service, for 
your dedication to this institution, for the temperate way in which you 
dealt with all of us, even when we were not temperate. You were steady, 
thoughtful, fair.
  Also, as I said, I want to congratulate Deputy Parliamentarian Jason 
Smith, who will succeed Tom as Parliamentarian of the House. He will, 
as every Parliamentarian with whom I have served, be fair, be honest, 
and call them as he sees them. My staff and I look forward to working 
with him in his new role.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Obviously, we will have an opportunity to continue, as we should, 
this tribute to Tom Wickham.
  So, Tom, congratulations on what you have done to preserve the 
integrity of this institution.
  We come here as Republicans, Democrats, as Americans first, but 
people who all have their own views. Even if you are Republican, we 
don't all think exactly the same way, as Democrats don't always think 
the same way. But we come here to achieve certain things, to make this 
a more perfect Union in the ways in which our districts--our 750,000, 
roughly, people elect us to come and be part of this democracy, the 
world's greatest democracy.
  You come and work with other people. Sometimes, you battle with other 
people in the arena of legislative ideas. It is not physical 
confrontation, as the majority leader pointed out. But sometimes, you 
have to persuade. Sometimes, you have to fight for your beliefs.
  But ultimately, if you are going to achieve the things you came here 
to do, you have to change legislation. It takes an act of Congress, as 
they say. When you do that, you have to follow the rules.
  The Jefferson Manual that goes back to 1801 are the rules that govern 
this great House. If there is a bill on the floor and you wish to make 
a change to that bill, you want to offer an amendment to the bill, 
bring a motion to recommit on the bill, you have to work within the 
rules. Those rules are interpreted not by the majority, not by the 
minority, but by the Parliamentarian.
  The job you have done for 25 years in the Parliamentarian's Office, 
but especially since 2011 as the House Parliamentarian, you don't 
always tell people what they want to hear, but you tell people what is 
the right way to do something according to the rules that we have 
established so that there is a fair process.
  A lot of people don't see this back and forth. If the Parliamentarian 
rules against you, it is not a personal thing. In many cases, a Member 
will go to the

[[Page H4531]]

Parliamentarian, Republican or Democrat--I have done this myself--and 
said, ``This is what I would like to achieve.''
  Sometimes, they tell you that you can't do it on that bill because 
there are germaneness issues. But sometimes, there is that gray area 
where if you are trying to do it this way, it won't work, but if you 
try to do it another way, it actually would work. That is really the 
art of the ability of a Parliamentarian, to work with Members of 
Congress to help them achieve the things they are trying to do. We 
still have to go and get the votes, but at least allowing a Member that 
opportunity to go fight it out and make their case.

  In many cases, that case wouldn't be able to be made if the 
Parliamentarian wasn't fair in offering that guidance to Members of 
Congress, whatever they are trying to achieve, whatever their 
background, whatever their district, to be fair and to at least give 
them that opportunity to come here on the House floor and fight that 
battle, hopefully right that wrong, and advance the things that they 
were elected to go do to make this a more perfect Union.
  So thank you, Tom, for that fairness.
  I know as Jason takes on this role in a few weeks, he will have a 
great legacy to build upon and to look toward somebody who did the job 
right and served this country in a very proud and respected way.
  I know Heather is probably watching on C-SPAN. I am not sure how many 
other people are, but Heather, hopefully, is, your wife. She will have 
more time to work with you. I am not sure who the parliamentarian of 
your house is. I am the House Republican whip, but in my house, 
Jennifer is the one who plays that role.
  But in your house, hopefully, Heather sees you more, because you are 
here when we are here, and sometimes those are late hours, and 
sometimes those are long weekends.
  We appreciate the sacrifices you have made. Hopefully, in this next 
role in your life, you will be able to enjoy more time with your wife, 
Heather, and your family.
  We truly do thank you for playing this part of your role in history 
and adding to what is great about this great democracy.
  Do you mind standing up so everybody in the Chamber here can see you 
and pay the proper tribute?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I might wryly observe, Madam Speaker, that I have not seen the 
Parliamentarian pass you a note to instruct the gentleman to address 
the Chair.
  Tom, I am going to address you.
  Mr. SCALISE. As I was addressing it to the Speaker, of course.
  Mr. HOYER. Tom Wickham, for those who are watching, is a wonderful 
example of the extraordinary patriotism, loyalty, and talent that has 
contributed to this House's operation by all of our staff. He is one of 
the best, but we have the best.
  Tom, I know you treated all the staff, certainly on my staff--and I 
know all the staff--with great respect because you knew how important 
they were. We all know how important you have been to the operations of 
this House.
  I don't know what you will be doing. But assuming that you, at this 
young age of yours--I told you that you were way too young for us to 
let you go, but you are going--you will be doing other things, and you 
will bring great value to whatever enterprise you pursue.
  We have been blessed for a quarter of a century with your service, 
and we thank you for that service. Godspeed.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Madam Speaker, we all appreciate Tom's service to our country and 
especially to this Chamber.
  Now, if I may inquire of the majority leader the schedule for next 
week, and I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. 
for legislative business. No votes are expected in the House on Monday.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 
11 a.m. for legislative business.
  I would remind Members that Monday is expected to be a travel day 
following the holiday. So, Monday we will have business on the floor, 
but we will have no votes on the floor.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-
hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills, Madam Speaker, under suspension of 
the rules, a large number of suspension bills, in fact. The complete 
list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business 
tomorrow.
  The House will consider, as well, next week a continuing resolution 
for fiscal year 2021.
  Madam Speaker, the House has passed 10 of its appropriations bills of 
the 12 appropriations bills we have.
  Sadly, the Senate has not passed a single bill out of committee, has 
not voted on a single appropriations bill in its committee. As a 
result, clearly, we will not be able to conclude the appropriations 
process, and we will have to have a CR to make sure that government 
stays serving the American people.
  Hopefully, we can reach a bipartisan agreement, and there will not be 
a controversial continuing resolution. I know Democrats and Republicans 
and the administration are working toward that end.
  I expect and hope a bill to be filed tomorrow. That is our hope. But 
we do expect to consider that bill next week.
  The CR, as I said, is necessary to avert a shutdown that would only 
further damage our economy and undermine our efforts on COVID-19.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4447, the Clean Economy 
Jobs and Innovation Act. This bill, Madam Speaker, is a package of 
legislation reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee to invest in energy innovation 
and clean energy development.
  In addition, the House may consider H.R. 6270, the Uyghur Forced 
Labor Disclosure Act, and H.R. 6210, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention 
Act.
  Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible.
  I yield back to my friend, the Republican whip.

                              {time}  1445

  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

[[Page H4532]]

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. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Of course, the Paycheck Protection Program was a very, very important 
program. I was pleased that the committees came up with that program 
and we had bipartisan support for that program.
  I will tell the gentleman that that is an important effort for us to 
take, but I would also say it is very important for us to act on behalf 
of millions of people who still do not have a job or are on 
unemployment and need the supplemental unemployment that they were 
receiving to survive and keep their families going.
  We have millions of people who are suffering from food shortages, the 
inability to keep their family fed. We need to pass, we believe, the 
supplemental nutrition program.
  We need to make sure that States, in my view, have the ability to 
function. They are hemorrhaging revenues because of COVID-19, because 
of the decrease in the economy. States, cities, municipalities, 
counties are suffering, and many other aspects, including testing, 
which is one of the critical components of us confronting COVID-19.
  So while I agree with the gentleman that the program that he talks 
about--of course, we created that program and we passed it in a 
bipartisan fashion, and it was very bipartisan in the Senate. I know 
Mr. Cardin and Mr. Rubio were both involved in that. It was very 
important to pass that.
  But I will tell the gentleman that I was pleased that the President 
indicated that we need to invest very significant sums, which he then 
said would come back to the U.S. or help the U.S. economy. I think that 
was a positive step forward.
  I would also observe, as the gentleman observed, that Speaker Pelosi 
and Secretary Mnuchin reached four major deals, compromises--four. One 
was, we thought, very big at the time, $8.3 billion, which now looks 
somewhat small. But we reached four of those. We brought them to the 
House floor, the Senate floor, and they passed overwhelmingly in 
bipartisan votes.
  Secretary Mnuchin and the Speaker have been discussing trying to get 
to, for 4 months now--now, Mr. Meadows is also in the room. Mr. Meadows 
and I have a very positive relationship, but my observation has been, 
through the years, Mr. Meadows is more about stopping deals than making 
deals.
  But I agree with the gentleman, we need to act. I am hopeful that the 
administration and the Senate and the House will reach agreement ASAP, 
not only on the PPP, which I agree with the gentleman on, not only on 
the PPP, but all the other programs that I mentioned and many more that 
are in the HEROES bill.
  The Speaker has indicated we are certainly prepared to negotiate what 
the expenditure is, and she has indicated a willingness to come down 
very, very substantially to try to reach an agreement, which is what 
compromise is all about. That hasn't happened yet, but I am hopeful 
that it will happen in the near term, because I agree with the 
gentleman, we need to act. I am urging the administration and all of us 
to come to an agreement.
  Unfortunately, in the Senate, their efforts have not been successful 
in passing a bill. So we have no alternative bill beyond the HEROES 
bill that passed, as I said, 4 months ago, so we have nothing to 
conference because there is no Senate bill.
  In fact, Mr. McConnell went from a trillion down to a half a 
trillion, which almost every economist, either at a trillion or half a 
trillion, says is not sufficient for health reasons and economic 
reasons and family reasons to confront the enormity of the challenge 
that still confronts us as a result of COVID-19.
  So I thank the gentleman for mentioning Mr. Chabot's legislation. He 
is right, of course, there is $130 billion in the pot. I think we ought 
to purpose that to either a continuation of PPP or a continuation of 
PPP and other things. But I think we ought to do it, and what we are 
trying to do is a comprehensive package that deals with all the 
challenges confronting American families, particularly the unemployment 
insurance.
  As of July 31, as the gentleman knows, the supplemental payment 
lapsed. To some degree, the President has tried to put additional sums 
in there. Some States are pursuing it and some States have effected it.
  But I hope that the bottom line is, in the next week, in the near 
term, and I think the President's statement was helpful, and I hope, 
frankly, the Senators take that to heart, that we need to invest much 
more than they suggested if we are going to meet the scope of the 
problem that exists.
  I thank the gentleman bringing to the House's attention that 
particular bill, and certainly it will be under consideration as well, 
I think, by those who are negotiating, mainly Secretary Mnuchin and 
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. McConnell has chosen not to participate in those 
discussions, as you know. Mr. Schumer does, and I think Mr. McCarthy 
does--I am not sure all the time, but I am sure he does as well.
  We want to get an agreement. We want to do what we have done four 
times: reached an agreement, passed it overwhelmingly in both Houses 
for the people, because the people are hurting and we need to act and 
meet that challenge of their hurt and their need to support themselves, 
their families, and, as you point out, their businesses.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H4533]]

  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.

                              {time}  1500

  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. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the whip mentioned undermining confidence. 
I will tell the whip with all due respect; nobody has undermined 
confidence in the healthcare system more than the President of the 
United States. No one has diverted more attention from the experts; no 
one has denigrated the experts, which undermines confidence in their 
advice and counsel, than the President of the United States. And no one 
in the health community said that the coronavirus was a hoax.
  We have just seen that Mr. Woodward heard in late January that the 
President thought this was a very serious matter. And then, frankly, he 
conveyed to the American people, don't worry about it, it is going to 
go away. In a few days, a few weeks, it is going to go away.
  No one has undermined the confidence of the American people in the 
CDC or the FDA or the NIH more than the President of the United States. 
He said they are wrong.
  And I say that because confidence needs to be built by leadership. 
And if the vaccine can come out next month, hooray, if it can be done 
consistent with what the medical experts and the pharmaceutical experts 
tell us can give the American people confidence.
  But I will tell my friend Mr. Caputo substantially undermined 
confidence because he wanted to tell the experts what to say apparently 
consistent with what the administration's policy was as opposed to what 
the scientific evidence was.

[[Page H4534]]

  And so when you mention confidence, some people were trying to 
undermine confidence; we have had six, seven, eight months of 
undermining confidence.
  And it is a shame. Because the gentleman is absolutely right. People 
are going to need confidence. And they are going to have to take the 
vaccine because that is the only way this economy is going to get back 
to where it needs to be. People having confidence in the safety for 
themselves, their husband, their wife, their children to be about the 
business of America and their own personal business.
  So I would hope that the President would leave it to the experts, not 
to his judgment, to the experts as to when a vaccine is ready to 
deliver to the public. And then I think all of us ought to have that 
confidence to--I certainly am going to get the vaccine when the medical 
experts tell me this is safe to take, and I am going to urge my family 
to do the same. And I am sure you have just indicated you would do the 
same. I think we will, hopefully, do that.

  But the instilling of confidence, I would tell my friend, starts at 
the top and with all of us, as well, because people respect us in some 
respects sometimes, and they think we have knowledge that they may not 
have, and therefore, they want to have confidence that, yes, this is 
good; no, it is not, don't do it.
  So I would simply say to my friend, I hope that we get a vaccine. I 
hope we get it as soon as possible. And I hope that the election has 
nothing to do with the vaccine. I hope the decision has everything to 
do with science and medicine. And I think all Americans hope that, as 
well.
  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. HOYER. How about Dr. Redfield?
  Mr. SCALISE. He has been in some of those meetings, too. And as the 
gentleman knows, not all doctors agree.
  Mr. HOYER. Did you see what happened in the last 48 hours?
  Mr. SCALISE. There are some doctors who will say this is the way to 
do it, and there are some doctors who say that is the way to do it. You 
get 10 attorneys in a room; you might get 10 opinions. The saying ``go 
get a second opinion,'' that is because maybe not all doctors agree.
  But when you are President of the United States you don't have the 
luxury of waiting for every doctor to be in agreement. If there is an 
inflection point on a decision, and some doctors are over here, and 
some doctors are over there, guess what, it is the President who has to 
make that final call, not because he has ignored science, but because 
he has looked to the science, and ultimately, he has to make that 
decision.
  Dr. Fauci himself was in a committee hearing by the Select 
Subcommittee that the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, chairs. I am the lead 
Republican on that committee. We had Dr. Fauci in our committee. I 
asked him specifically, I went down the line on major decisions that 
had to be made by this President and whether or not science was used or 
not and whether or not it worked. I started, by the way, with the 
decision of whether or not to stop flights from China when we found out 
after China lied that they, in fact, did have this disease spreading 
widely in China, and President Trump made that decision to stop flights 
from China.
  I know the Democrat nominee for President was against that decision, 
but President Trump worked with the experts. Dr. Fauci was part of 
that.
  I asked him, I said, Was that the right decision by President Trump?
  He said, Yes, it was.
  I said, Did that decision save American lives?
  He said, Yes, it I did.
  And we went down the line on decision after decision, and they were 
all science-based. At no point was the President trying to undermine 
science.
  In fact, some people were trying to suggest that Dr. Fauci was being 
sidelined, and yet, he was at the hearing, under oath, speaking on 
behalf of his role in the administration, and he said he has never been 
sidelined. He was actually asked that question, Have you been 
sidelined? He said, ``no'' under oath.
  Now, is he always in agreement with the other doctors in the room? 
No, he is not. Does that mean he is wrong? No. But maybe he is. But, 
again, doctors can disagree because that is what science is. It is not 
two plus two equals four every time because you are dealing with some 
very complicated issues of a disease we knew nothing about less than a 
year ago.
  Fortunately, with Operation Warp Speed, President Trump put together 
the best scientists, not just in America, but I would argue in the 
world, to figure out how to solve this, how to come up with things like 
hydroxychloroquine, which some people might say doesn't work. I have 
talked to many doctors who use it successfully to save lives even 
today. That should be the doctor's decision. Some people want 
government to control all those decisions. I would rather the doctor 
being the one to work with his patient.
  You look at the other drugs that are out there today, but again, now 
we talk about a vaccine, there is not one company on this list--these 
are the only companies right now in phase 3. And if any of them are 
approved by the FDA, I hope nobody would question the integrity of that 
drug.
  Do you think any of these companies would put their name on a drug 
that they don't stand behind as a safe and effective vaccine for this 
disease? And that is really the point.
  It is all about science here. It is all about science and some people 
are trying to undermine that. And we need to get away from that because 
that will cost lives. If somebody is reluctant to take one of these 
drugs because they heard somebody that said, well, don't trust it if it 
comes from this President or that candidate, that is a dangerous game 
because lives would be lost if people didn't take that vaccine because 
they didn't have that confidence. We all need to have that confidence. 
We all work with science.
  We have all had doctors who told us one thing, and maybe you wanted 
to go get that second opinion, but at the end of the day, you have got 
to make that choice, and you make it based on all the science that is 
available, and not all the time do all the scientists agree. In fact, 
many times on the complicated issues you get different opinions from 
different scientists. This President has worked with some of the best 
in the world.
  And according to Dr. Fauci himself, by and large, the President has 
followed even Dr. Fauci's advice and has made the right decisions up 
and down the line based on science. And most importantly, President 
Trump's decision following the science has saved American lives, 
starting with that very first decision, which Joe Biden himself was

[[Page H4535]]

against. How many American lives would have been lost if we didn't ban 
the flights from China; if we didn't ban the flights from Europe, when 
it was breaking out in Europe; if we didn't do 15 days to stop the 
spread, which President Trump did on the advice of his scientist? After 
that they said we need to go another 30 days. President Trump did that, 
too. Every one of those decisions was based on science. Every one of 
those decisions saved American lives.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This President doesn't take responsibility for anything other than 
good things. If anything bad happens, this President does not take 
responsibility. He points to somebody else.
  What I interrupted the gentleman on was he says, ``the scientists.'' 
Redfield is a scientist. He is a medical doctor. He is the head of the 
CDC. He made a comment, his best judgment as to when vaccines were 
going to be available, widely available.
  The President contradicted him on both points he made just a few days 
ago, as he has done with Fauci, as he has done with Hahn, as he has 
done with others.
  My confidence in those three companies is that they will come to the 
referee and will say: ``Is this ready to go?'' The referee, in this 
case the FDA, that the gentleman says is so respected has that 
responsibility.
  What I don't have confidence in, what I think so many of the American 
people don't have confidence in, is they will get a call from the White 
House that says: ``This is the judgment you are going to make.''
  We have seen, over and over and over again, decisions modified 
because of White House direction. In fact, Caputo was there for exactly 
that reason at HHS, not CDC, but overseeing CDC.
  I tell my friend, Madam Speaker, yes, we need to have confidence, but 
we need to be truthful with them. We need to tell them the truth. We 
need to take direction from the experts, not substitute our judgment.
  The gentleman talks about hydroxychloroquine. Obviously, Fauci didn't 
think that was a great recommendation to make. That was for doctors to 
make, but the President made it. In fact, most of the doctors thought 
that was not a good recommendation.
  Certainly, Clorox was even less than that, I say as an aside. Maybe 
it was tongue in cheek, but unfortunately, when the President speaks, 
people don't necessarily think it is tongue in cheek, and it becomes 
dangerous.
  I will say to my friend, hopefully, that this vaccine issue will be 
resolved by the experts and give confidence to the American people that 
they can, in fact, rely on the experts and their doctor to take the 
vaccine because, hopefully, it will be in a position where, in fact, it 
will give the confidence and the result that is promised.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman, with 
all due respect to Dr. Redfield, he is not the head of the FDA.
  The FDA is the agency that approves drugs, and in fact, the FDA is 
the agency working every day with these companies. There is a very 
strict protocol for going through phases of testing.
  Now, one thing that is important to point out on the testing, 
because, again, some people wonder because Operation Warp Speed has 
gotten us to a point quicker, maybe in the history of the world, at 
finding a vaccine for a disease we knew nothing about 8 months ago, but 
the reason they are doing it is not because they are cutting corners. 
No one in science that I have heard has suggested that they are cutting 
corners because they are not. They have strict protocols.
  What they are doing, number one, the President put real money in 
place behind making sure that each of these drug companies has direct 
communication with the FDA every step of the way so they know if tests 
need to be run on more people or different demographic groups, as is 
done with other drugs, they can do it quickly. They have a wide range 
of people willing to be tested.
  To the tribute of all Americans, over 300,000 Americans have signed 
up for these tests. This isn't being tested on just a few people. 
Sometimes, a drug takes years and years to get to market for a lot of 
reasons. One is red tape.
  President Trump has done a great job of getting the red tape out of 
the way to let the scientists actually do their job in real time. 
Something could sit on somebody's desk for months, in many cases, 
delaying lifesaving drugs. We have gotten that red tape out of the way.
  Frankly, we ought to look at working together as Republicans and 
Democrats at making that the norm, not the exception, to actually be 
able to get red tape out of the way to help save lives.
  But as they are doing it, they are testing it on more people than is 
normally the case. Sometimes, you might only have a few thousand people 
who are willing or in a position to be tested. Today, you have hundreds 
of thousands of people who are being tested.
  If they make it through each step, it is not based on who is in the 
White House. It is based on what the doctors at the FDA, working with 
the smart people in these drug companies, have come up with based on 
the test results. If they test people and there are problems, it 
doesn't even make it to phase 2.
  These are all in phase 3. They are all showing tremendous promise, 
but if one of them makes it through or if all of them make it through, 
it is not because somebody rushed it. It is because the doctors and the 
scientists said it works. Not one of these companies would put their 
name on that vaccine, not one of them.
  Again, I would challenge anybody, Madam Speaker, if they think any of 
these companies would cut a corner, please let us know right now 
because that is not the case. That narrative shouldn't be out there 
because that narrative would be a false narrative and would cost 
American lives. If that narrative were to get out, then there might be 
people who wouldn't take the vaccine who otherwise would and should, 
where it could save their life, because this will save American lives.
  And it is through American ingenuity. We ought to be proud of this.
  We should put the politics aside and say thank God America is the 
leader in healthcare to the point where we have great American 
companies partnering, in this case, with a German company here in 
America, testing at a level we have never seen before on more people 
because we took the priority, through Operation Warp Speed, to put 
all the focus of these great agencies on finding a cure for COVID-19.

  We are on the brink of doing it. It may not happen if the science 
doesn't match. But if the science does say these work, we all ought to 
applaud that and encourage people to explore, in a conversation with 
their doctor, whether or not they should take it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am not going to prolong this. The only 
thing I would say is, under the gentleman's theory, Madam Speaker, we 
wouldn't need the FDA because, clearly, these companies would not do 
anything just because of profit. And I don't allege that they would do 
that.
  But we have an FDA because we need a referee to look at it without 
thinking of the consequences of a yes or no answer but a scientific 
answer. That is the only observation I would make.
  I get it. I get that the companies are reputable companies.
  I support them. They do great work. But we have an FDA because we 
need somebody who is an independent arbiter, not just because no 
company would do this. Because if no company would do it, we wouldn't 
need the FDA.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I never suggested that. In fact, I said 
at the outset that these companies are in direct communication with the 
FDA on a regular basis. That is what Operation Warp Speed is.
  In the old way of doing things, these companies would have submitted 
their data and would have waited months while some faceless bureaucrat 
let it sit on a desk and nothing happened.
  Instead, what the President did was said there will be direct 
contacts where they can communicate with the FDA. They are not the 
enemy.
  These companies aren't the enemy. The FDA is not the enemy. But it 
shouldn't be viewed as you are on one side and you are on the other 
side.
  They are both working together because they are both part of the 
smartest scientific community in the world.

[[Page H4536]]

They work together because the FDA wants to get it right and these 
companies want to get it right.
  We saw one of them just a few days ago. They had a pause, which is 
the protocol. That is the safety protocol because there was a question 
in the testing, and they addressed it. I am sure there were many. I 
don't know directly, but I am sure there were many conversations with 
the FDA.
  But then they started up again, which means there wasn't a problem. 
But it meant they followed the protocols, which say, if you see 
something that you need to go review, you hold off, and then you go 
check that out. That is what one of these did, and now they are back on 
track.
  The others continue to go through, all of them, working with the FDA. 
That is really what this is about. It is about a partnership because 
the FDA has to sign off.
  I am sure the gentleman would agree. You want to make sure you have 
multiple people looking at it. You don't just want the company that is 
making the drug looking at it. You want the regulator looking at it as 
well because, ultimately, they have to sign off on it.
  They are not doing it blindly. No one suggests that. But they are 
doing it with a much sharper focus. It is the top priority, I think we 
would all agree. This needs to be the priority to get our country back 
on track, and it has to be done right. But it is not going to get 
signed off if it is not right. So, it is a partnership, and it is 
working incredibly well.
  Again, this new partnership ought to be the model in the future. It 
shouldn't be the exception just because of COVID. It is working 
incredibly well.
  We worked together to pass the 21st Century Cures Act, which 
ultimately will find a cure for cancer, for Alzheimer's, for ALS, for 
other diseases. It is because we put a sharper focus over at the 
National Institutes of Health, and we put additional resources over at 
the National Institutes of Health.
  That priority, what we are learning from this, ought to be replicated 
to help find a cure for some of those other diseases so that maybe we 
can find even more cures for people who are living today, not just for 
somebody 30 years from now, but for somebody struggling today with one 
of those terrible diseases.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have nothing left to say.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I know we will continue this 
conversation. Hopefully, the bill gets filed tomorrow, and we can 
resolve more of these issues next week. I look forward to seeing the 
gentleman and working with him on all of these.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________