[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H7137-H7139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
                          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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader, to talk about the schedule that 
will be taken up next week.

[[Page H7138]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, the 
Republican whip from the grand State of Louisiana.
  As the gentleman is aware as a result of his service in previous 
Congresses, when we get to the last days of the Congress, it is very 
difficult to predict the schedule because the reason we have not 
already passed something is because it is controversial, and we are 
trying to work out an agreement.
  In that context, Mr. Speaker, I am advising Members that they will 
not be expected to be back here to vote on any piece of legislation 
prior to Tuesday next at 6:30 p.m.
  The reason for that is because an agreement has not been reached on 
either COVID-19 legislation or the omnibus for the funding of the 
government for the balance of the year between now and September 30.
  As a result, even if an agreement were reached tomorrow, the time for 
the staff to put it in bill language and to file it would take us at 
least until Tuesday. So, there is no point in having Members here with 
nothing to do.
  However, as I know the minority whip agrees with me, we need to get 
those two bills done in one form or another. I am hopeful that over the 
next 72, 96 hours, that there will be a lot of work being done.
  I want to let the public know that in the Senate and in the House, 
both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, Members are 
working hard to resolve the differences that still exist because I 
think both sides understand the critical nature of passing COVID-19 
legislation where we have millions of people, millions of small 
businesses, millions of healthcare workers waiting for us to resolve 
these issues so that they can confront the challenges that COVID-19 has 
created both on the health side and on the economic side.
  I would say that if we can get that done, that we may vote, as I 
said, as early as Tuesday at 6:30. But I will say that we will not 
leave--when I say ``leave,'' we will not adjourn the 116th Congress 
until we get those two bills done because they have to be done.
  I thank the gentleman for the question, and that is the answer.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to continue these 
negotiations and get a resolution, and, hopefully, we will in the 
coming week, both on COVID relief and on the funding of government.
  We have agreed on caps already. Hopefully, we will maintain that and 
get that done to give certainty to all of our agencies that we know how 
much money is involved.
  It costs the Defense Department, for example, every week that we are 
in a continuing resolution, potentially billions of dollars just in 
procurement and in the loss of those efficiencies.
  I share the gentleman's optimism that we can get it done. Obviously, 
we need to continue working through these final issues.
  I do want to thank the gentleman, as we talked last week at the 
colloquy about the ALS Disability Insurance Access Act, and I thank the 
gentleman for scheduling it this week. It passed without opposition. 
This is one of those examples where we do work and come together and do 
something that actually helps people.
  This will help hundreds, possibly thousands, of people struggling 
with ALS to be able to get access to the tools that they need that 
they, under the current law, are being denied. To see the House come 
together so overwhelmingly to do that shows that we can, when we put 
our minds to it, actually help people.
  This will help people in all of our districts, and I thank the 
gentleman, again, for getting that done, getting that bill to the 
floor, and, ultimately, now all of us coming together to pass that bill 
on to the Senate and the President.
  I want to again bring up the Paycheck Protection Program bill by 
Congressman Chabot. This is a bill that we have been talking about at 
this colloquy since September. Each week that goes by, we know that 
there is a list--unfortunately, it is a long list--of areas where we 
have disagreement.
  There is also a list of areas where we have full agreement if you 
look at the number of items where we have already decided we both, 
Republicans and Democrats, want to do this. Then, there are those items 
that we are strongly opposed to on our side or that they are strongly 
opposed to on their side.
  I would just continue to emphasize that these small businesses can't 
wait for us to get agreement or never get an agreement, while there are 
things we can do to help them today, to save them today.
  And we continue to hear the heartbreaking stories. Over 100,000 
restaurants in America have closed for good. Gone. I know K-Paul's 
restaurant in New Orleans, one of the world-famous restaurants. 
International Chef Paul Prudhomme invented blackened redfish at that 
restaurant. It is gone.
  There are too many other stories to mention. We see heartbreaking 
stories of a restaurant owner in Los Angeles who is being told she 
can't operate, and literally, in the same parking lot next to her tents 
are tents of a film studio that is able to operate.
  It is not about science in those cases. It is about some government 
official picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the losers are 
America's small businesses.
  This needs to stop. I would just encourage the gentleman to bring the 
Chabot bill, a bill that has wide bipartisan support that would save 
small businesses. Today, we are going to lose, just today, about 150 
restaurants, and that number is even higher for other small businesses. 
There are hundreds a day.
  Friday, we will lose 150 restaurants. Saturday, we will lose 150 
restaurants. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, we will lose 150. We will lose 
over 700 restaurants between now and when we come back Tuesday.

  We don't have to do that. If that bill was put on the floor today, it 
would have passed overwhelmingly, maybe unanimously, because it is an 
area of agreement.
  This idea of holding hostage these small businesses that are dying on 
the vine while we try to get agreement that we haven't been able to get 
since August, why can't we just do the things that we agree on now 
while we negotiate the other things?
  Some of those things will never become law, yet it is holding up the 
things that we agree on that would save small businesses today. 150 
restaurants today will go under that shouldn't have gone under. We 
could have saved them.
  There are thousands of jobs tied to this at Christmastime that don't 
need to be gone if we just pass the things we agree on while we 
negotiate the things we don't; because we may never get agreement on 
those things. But don't let it hold these families hostage. Don't let 
it hold these small businesses hostage.
  I would just urge, again, that the gentleman bring the Chabot bill to 
the floor as soon as possible. We know it would pass overwhelmingly.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
  In fact, I am for an agreement that is being worked on right now that 
has $300 billion, a third of the $908 billion, that is set aside for 
small businesses for exactly the reasons that the whip points out, that 
we want to make sure that we can keep as many small businesses in 
business as possible, which is why we ought to pass legislation.
  But we are not holding small businesses hostage any more than we are 
holding those on unemployment hostage, any more than we are holding 
States and localities hostage, any more than we are holding schools 
hostage, any more than we are holding childcare and CDBG hostage or 
emergency assistance or farm aid or nutrition aid.
  None of those are being held hostage. What is happening is, they all 
need to get resources to meet the challenges they face. That is what we 
believe needs to happen.
  All of those need to be addressed. All of those need to be included 
in a bill that, hopefully, we will pass in the early part of next week.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push to get that 
relief, starting with the Chabot bill--hopefully, with other things. 
But at least let's bring those items that we are in agreement on to the 
floor. Millions of jobs are at stake.
  Finally, I want to ask the majority leader about reports that have 
come up about a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Swalwell, 
having some kind of ties to a Chinese spy.

[[Page H7139]]

  There are alarming issues that are being raised. We haven't gotten a 
lot of answers. I know many are asking: Was it known prior to the time 
he was put on the Intelligence Committee that there was this 
relationship with a Chinese spy?
  There are also reports that the Chinese spy also was able to 
infiltrate his office and possibly put other spies in his office.
  Was the gentleman aware? Maybe it was just the Speaker that was 
aware, but were you all aware of this tie to a Chinese spy prior to him 
being put on the committee? And why is he still on the Intelligence 
Committee?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I don't have the 
facts, but, obviously, our position is if there are facts being raised 
that ought to be looked at, they ought to be looked at.
  But I don't have the facts, and I don't want to comment on the issue 
itself because I don't know enough about it to do so. But I think all 
due diligence will be pursued.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I hope we get 
those answers. These are serious questions that have been raised. And 
we are talking about a committee that deals with the most sensitive 
intelligence information.
  In fact, most Members of Congress don't have access to that level of 
intelligence that members of the Intelligence Committee get, and 
possibly their staffs have the ability to see some of that.
  If an office was infiltrated by spies from a foreign country, 
especially China, at a time when we are investigating China and raising 
serious questions about them, these are questions that need to be 
answered, and I hope we get answers soon.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I didn't mention one bill that is still percolating. We 
passed it 335-78. The Senate passed it, I think, 86-14, or something. 
The National Defense Authorization Act is going to be going to the 
President soon. I am hopeful the President will sign it.
  If he does not sign it, that will be another issue that may be 
considered.
  On the other hand, I have indications that perhaps there will be a 
substantial number of Republicans who voted for the bill who may not 
vote to pass it over the President's veto. So, we will have that to 
consider as well.
  I hadn't mentioned that, and I wanted to mention that that is still 
on the docket.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Clearly, President Trump has expressed his concerns about some items 
in and not in the National Defense Authorization Act. Ultimately, we 
will see soon if he signs it or vetoes it. He has, obviously, got to 
weigh all of those decisions, as he is doing right now.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hope he will sign it. I know he has 
concerns about a section that Senator Inhofe said ought not to be in 
the bill. But whether it should or should not, it is not in the bill, 
and the conferees determined that it should not be in the bill.
  As the gentleman knows, this has great consequences for our national 
security and for our troops. I would hope the gentleman would, and I 
would, urge the President to sign the bill.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I will continue 
to work on these items that we need to get resolved--hopefully, will 
get resolved--in the coming days.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________