[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1334-H1338]
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 yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House, for the purpose of 
inquiring as to the schedule for next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-
hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no 
earlier than 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and noon for legislative business.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at noon for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, 
with the last votes no later than 3 p.m.
  Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the 
rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the 
close of business Friday.
  In addition, we will consider two bills to honor Women's History 
Month, including the Violence Against Women Act. This legislation is 
essential to help stamp out domestic abuse, violence against women and 
girls, and sexual harassment, and to provide victims and survivors with 
the resources to recover and seek justice. In addition to that, the 
House will consider a resolution to remove the deadline for 
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
  The House will also consider two bills to address our broken 
immigration system. The first, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise 
Act, is to protect Dreamers and those with TPS and DED status. In 
addition, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act is to create a pathway 
for agricultural workers to earn legal status and to reform the H-2A 
program, a bill which enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  Additionally, the House will consider a bill to ensure that we 
preclude cuts to Medicare, as well as farm supports and other programs 
implicated by sequestration.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate 
the update on the schedule.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, we have been 
getting a number of concerns expressed from Members on our side--and I 
would imagine on the gentleman's side as well--about the erratic floor 
schedule, the changes that have occurred. This week, we were supposed 
to be here Tuesday to Friday. It was changed to Monday to Thursday. 
Next week, initially, the calendar showed that it was a week for 
Members to be in their districts.
  Madam Speaker, we all have challenges in our districts. There are 
small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat. Many Members are 
working with their local school boards to try to encourage schools to 
reopen. And all the other challenges that people have, whether it is 
trying to get water or spread distribution of the vaccine, as they set 
those meetings in their districts, when the floor schedule changes 
here, it disrupts their ability to properly represent their districts.
  I know the schedule is laid out for the year for a reason, so that 
Members can manage both the schedule here--and we all represent 750,000 
people, roughly, back home--and the ability to properly meet with and 
represent constituents who aren't even allowed to come to this Capitol 
to meet with us, so we want to go meet with them back home. It is hard 
to do that when the schedule continues to change.
  If the gentleman would address the concerns that have been raised, 
rightfully so, about those erratic changes, I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree with the Members, and I regret that we have had such a 
necessity on too many occasions to change the schedule. We did so, of 
course, to accommodate not only work done but also the very, very 
unusual start that we have had to this session, a tragic start that we 
have had to this session, dealing with issues that we would have 
preferred not to deal with, but we had to as a result of the 
insurrection that occurred on January 6, and other actions, including 
the security that the gentleman referred to. That concerns us all.
  As somebody who represents the Washington metropolitan region, the 
openness of our Capitol is of particular concern to me because my 
constituents all live within driving distance, an hour or less. So, I 
share the view.
  Madam Speaker, I want to assure Members that we are going to make 
every effort and that we are trying to now finalize. We already have 
April, May, June, and July as the schedule. I think that will not be 
changed in any dramatic fashion. But when we have the final, I hope to 
make sure that everybody, next week, before we leave here, knows what 
is going to happen in April, May, June, July, before the August break. 
Because I understand, when the schedule is changed, for whatever 
reasons, however justified they may be, it does disrupt.

  Although I heard some criticism last Wednesday that we didn't come in 
Thursday, no Member came up to me complaining that we didn't come in 
Thursday. I did hear some political rap about it, but I didn't hear any 
Members say, ``Oh, jeez, I really wanted to come in Thursday.'' That 
usually is the case.
  Madam Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman that we got all of our 
work done last week. All that was scheduled was done.
  I will assure the gentleman that we are working very hard so that, 
the next 4 months, Members can rely on it when they see on the calendar 
that they have to be here or they don't have to be here, or that we are 
going to consider this, that, and the other.
  We are going to try to hew very, very closely to that because I do 
appreciate that when you change the schedule, it is very disruptive for 
people's lives, for people's businesses, for our constituents.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  I appreciate the acknowledgment about the concerns and the 
disruptions of schedules as Members try to meet the needs of their 
constituents back home, as well as doing the work up here. Clearly, 
getting our work done is the first and most important priority to 
addressing those needs.
  Hopefully, as we look toward our return after we come back in April, 
the appropriations process will begin. We would surely like to see us 
get back to a more regular order for doing appropriations bills, where 
we can have bills

[[Page H1335]]

go through committee, go through a markup process, with bipartisan 
input, which we haven't seen, but, ultimately, be able to bring those 
bills to the floor with a typical, traditional amendment process.
  Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman is well aware of this. 
Historically, when appropriations bills come to the floor, there are 
many amendments. Sometimes, it is a completely wide-open amendment 
process, which we would surely encourage.
  I know many of those years when we were in the majority and bills 
would come to the floor that were appropriations, a Member literally 
could write their amendment on a piece of paper and turn it in and that 
amendment would be debated and voted on, on the House floor. Sometimes, 
you would see over 100 amendments on a single appropriations bill, 
which are all important and should be debated, so we would go to 2-
minute votes.
  The question I would have is, now that we have seen--from reports I 
have seen, and maybe you have too--that roughly 75 percent of all 
Members in this House have had a vaccination for COVID-19, there is a 
strong desire to get back to a regular floor schedule here on the 
floor, where we are conducting our business and have the ability to 
interact with each other as colleagues.
  It is a much different experience than when people have to trickle 
in, trickle out, limiting the number of people, the ability to debate 
things, 45-minute votes for every bill. If you have 100 amendments on a 
bill, this House can't function at 45 minutes per vote. To get back to 
a 15-minute, 5-minute, and 2-minute voting schedule--again, CDC 
guidance just came out this week, saying if someone is vaccinated, they 
don't even have to have a mask to be around other people.
  The Senate doesn't require masks on their floor. There is no reason 
why we would have to have a mask to have this conversation. The 
President of the United States doesn't wear a mask when he is giving 
speeches, or his Press Secretary when she is meeting with the press.
  Can we get back to a regular floor operating schedule where we can 
meet as colleagues in person? If somebody doesn't want to be around 
others, maybe a voting station can be set up. But for anybody else who 
wants to interact following CDC guidance, recognizing the vaccination 
rate, and getting back to the ability to have a voting schedule that 
allows us to conduct business the way we are going to need to when we 
start taking up those appropriations bills, I would ask the gentleman 
if he has a plan for that, if he could lay that out.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that would 
certainly be the ideal. There is no doubt about that. We would like to 
get to that position.
  We continue to consult the Capitol physician on his advice on what we 
ought to be doing. It would be a lot simpler if every Member had been 
vaccinated, I will tell my friend. Although, obviously, the information 
as to who gets a vaccination and who does not is privileged and private 
information, as it should be, I would ask my friend to urge his Members 
to get the vaccination so that both sides will know that all of our 
Members have been vaccinated. That will facilitate getting to where the 
gentleman wants to get and where, I share his view, I want to get and 
the Speaker wants to get. So, we will continue to talk about that.
  Although we have a regular schedule, it is not the old schedule. It 
is not the 15-minute vote or 17- or 20-minute vote that we had, which 
was much more efficient, as you may have seen me quoted in the paper 
the other day about virtual, that we prefer to come together in this 
Chamber, in committee rooms, on this campus, to discuss with one 
another, to work with one another. We think that is the ideal, and we 
hope to get there as soon as possible.
  We are making progress, obviously. We are getting a lot of Americans 
vaccinated. We are not anywhere close to the 75 percent yet, but, 
hopefully, we will be there soon.
  I would think and hope we could get to 100 percent of Members and 
make sure that our staff is vaccinated as well. The sooner we do that, 
the sooner we can accomplish what the gentleman wants to accomplish.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I hope the gentleman is not suggesting 
that it would take a 100 percent vaccination rate. I know with the rest 
of the country, when States make decisions to reopen, when CDC issues 
guidance, I have never seen any guidance that said 100 percent 
vaccination is the standard for bringing something back.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would yield because I would suggest 
that if we are at 75 percent now, you also have Members who have 
antibodies, who may have had COVID months ago and who have even taken 
the test that shows they have antibodies. Whether they have taken the 
vaccine or not, the antibodies can fight off COVID.

                              {time}  1245

  But at 75 percent, is there a number higher than that that the 
gentleman is setting as a standard?
  I would hope it wouldn't be 100, but I would also hope we could have 
a conversation together to work through what that standard should be so 
we can get to a place where we have a normal operating process both in 
the House and in committees.
  The committee work being done virtually is a true disservice to the 
ability for us to collegially work on issues. Many of our committees 
deal with not the high-profile issues that are the battleground issues 
where we are on our own sides, but in many cases it is where one sees 
the kind of collegiality where Congress can come together and work, and 
that isn't happening either.
  I would hope we could come up with a standard that is not 100 
percent. If we are at 75, then it has got to be somewhere at a 
different place to get back to a House floor functioning schedule, as 
well as a committee structure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me make a few comments. First of all, the gentleman mentioned 
about the White House and the President. I am going down with the 
President, who is going to sign the American Rescue Plan tomorrow, an 
extraordinary piece of legislation that we are very excited about and 
that is going to help literally millions and millions of Americans and 
our entire economy, our families, and our children. So we are very 
excited about that.
  I was required to have a test. Now, I have had two shots, but I was 
required to have a test this morning by the Capitol physician before I 
went down to the White House. The gentleman says that you don't wear a 
mask, but one has to have a test before one gets into the room.
  Now, with respect to the 100 percent, I think we ought to have 100 
percent. I think everybody in this body and every one of our staff 
ought to have the vaccine to make sure that we are safe and that others 
who deal with us are safe. The CDC guidelines, by the way, recommend 
that people be vaccinated but that they avoid medium and large crowds.
  Now, depending upon what the gentleman says, Madam Speaker, if you 
have 300 people on this floor, that is a reasonably good-sized crowd, 
and we are in great proximity to one another because of the size of 
this Chamber.
  The CDC also says--the Senate has not listened to the CDC. The CDC 
says wear masks. So in terms of the gentleman's suggestion about the 
CDC changing its rules, that is true, but they haven't changed their 
rule on masks. They say wear a mask and try not to congregate in large 
crowds.
  However, having said that, we want to get to the same objective that 
the gentleman references, and we are working towards that with the 
consideration of the safety of our staff, the safety of our Members, 
and the safety of security folks. We hope to get there sooner rather 
than later, and we are working on it.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the gentleman's offer to work. Obviously, 
when one looks at the way the Senate operates, they have said that to 
speak, especially, you don't need to wear a mask.
  I don't see the science that would say that the gentleman and I have 
to wear masks to have this conversation.

[[Page H1336]]

Again, I would direct my friend to when the President is giving a 
speech, he is not wearing a mask. If there are other people around, 
then they might be wearing a mask; but when they speak, they take off 
their mask. Just look at those protocols as well and just try to inject 
some of those commonsense measures to try to get back to doing our job.
  One final point, I hope, again, we would all want everyone who has 
the interest in getting the vaccine to have access to the vaccine. But 
if one Member out of 435 felt they didn't want to have the vaccine, 
then I would hope that wouldn't be enough to prohibit the rest of us 
from carrying out more normal functions on the House floor and in 
committee.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. My point on the White House was that a Member may decide 
that. And if they don't want to get a test, then they can't go to the 
White House, for the safety of everybody there.
  Mr. SCALISE. If maybe a requirement of a test once a week when we 
come in or something like that would help get us to a better place 
where we can have in-person, on the floor, and in-committee processes 
and meetings--the testing capability is now there in the Attending 
Physician's office. If it needs to be widened more, I know there are 
other rooms that are doing some of the testing--then that would be a 
suggestion, I think, worth us discussing if it helps us get back to a 
more functioning Congress, especially a more functioning House on the 
floor and in committee.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, everybody in America wants to get back to 
normal. Everybody in America. We agree with them, and we are hopeful 
that we will get there sooner rather than later, and we are making good 
progress.
  We just, yesterday, invested a large number, billions of dollars, to 
facilitate getting to where we want to be. And Americans want to be in 
testing, vaccination, and tracing. So I don't want to have anybody 
think we are in disagreement. We want to get there. We want to get 
there safely. We want to get there consistent with good health 
practices and the advice of the scientists and the physicians who treat 
us. But we are talking about it as we were here this week, and we are 
going to be talking about it next week because we all want to get to 
the same place.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that.
  Again, hopefully, this is a discussion that we can all have, not just 
the majority making this decision, but the majority working with the 
minority.
  We have an active group of Members who are medical doctors, the 
Doctors Caucus, who have a lot of good suggestions. I think they are 
going to try to meet with the House Attending Physician. Hopefully, 
that can spur some additional ideas about how we can do this, and then 
have us work together to achieve that.

  Finally, on the House committee schedule especially, we have taken up 
14 different rules bills this Congress so far, bills that have actually 
come to the floor under a rule. Unfortunately, only one of those bills 
actually went to committee. Meaning, 13 of the 14 bills never even went 
to committee to have the debate in the openness and the transparency 
that this Congress deserves.
  I think that millions of people across the country would expect that 
we would be having--as we are shaping policy, that it is not just a 
one-sided approach. That if a socialist agenda is being pushed by one 
side, then can't the other side at least have that discussion in a 
committee process and offer amendments?
  The amendment process is critically important, and that has been lost 
too often--even the $1.9 trillion spending bill that over 90 percent of 
which had nothing to do with health needs and not a dime of which was 
dedicated to safely reopening schools, which is a huge cry amongst 
millions of parents across the country.
  Madam Speaker, not only on one side, but, frankly, nobody on the 
majority side was even allowed to offer an amendment. A $1.9 trillion 
spending bill, probably the largest bill that has come through Congress 
in the history of our country, and not a single amendment, Democrat or 
Republican, was allowed in the House on that bill to be brought 
forward.
  We were able to bring some amendments in committee. Every one of them 
was voted down or removed. Not one Democrat that I saw was even allowed 
to bring an amendment up in committee on a $1.9 trillion bill.
  That is a major concern. It is a concern that denies the people's 
House from being able to express the will of the people when we have 
ideas and suggestions maybe, for example, as we wanted to in the House 
to say: Should a felon who is in a prison be able to get a $1,400 
check?
  We weren't even able to bring that amendment up for debate.
  Can we at least require that schools reopen?
  If hundreds of billions of new dollars are going to go to schools, 
shouldn't the requirement be that they use that following the CDC 
guidance and following the science that is widespread that says the 
schools should be open and that long-term damage is being done to kids 
by not being in the classroom?
  Millions and millions of kids--maybe over 60 percent of the children 
in America--are not getting daily in-the-classroom learning. Unions are 
more concerned, saying: You can go to spring break if you are a union 
member, but just don't post pictures because we don't want anybody to 
see it--when they should be in the classroom teaching our kids.
  That debate never got to happen here on the House floor and, frankly, 
in most of the committees. Because these bills aren't going through 
committee. And that one bill went through committee with the order 
clearly given not to allow a single amendment. Not a single amendment 
in the House was added to a $1.9 trillion spending bill.
  I am sure some people might think that was the perfect bill, that 
there was not a single change. But sometimes the smallest bill has a 
change made that makes it a better bill, but not that bill. That kind 
of closed process is not who we should be as a House.
  Madam Speaker, 13 out of 14 bills didn't even go through committee, 
and the one that did--the $1.9 trillion bill--not a single amendment by 
a Republican or Democrat in the House was allowed to be added. I hope 
that is not the standard. It is surely not reflective of what this 
House should be doing.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman was here in 2017, of course. There was a 
bill that approximated the size of this bill. It was about $1.5 
trillion, $1.6 trillion. This is a little more--substantially a little 
more, $300 billion, $400 billion, but in the same ballpark. There were 
no hearings on that bill. There were no amendments on that bill. It 
came to the floor, and there were no amendments to that bill. None. 
Zero.
  Now, of course, 83 percent of that bill went to the top 1 percent of 
Americans. This bill was just about the opposite; 85 to 90 percent go 
to probably the bottom two-fifths in terms of income level and wealth. 
Hundreds of amendments were offered, as the committees marked up their 
instructions from the Budget Committee. Hundreds.
  Amendments were, of course, offered in the Senate, as well. As my 
friend knows, they had their vote-a-rama; they met for over 24 hours. 
To indicate that this bill did not have a robust committee process in 
which Republicans and Democrats could offer amendments and have them 
adopted, I think, is not accurate, with all due respect, Madam Speaker.
  Furthermore, this bill enjoyed the overwhelming support of the 
American people. Madam Speaker, 77 percent of Americans--59 percent of 
Republicans in the Morning Consult poll, 67 percent of Americans 
supporting the minimum wage, which was rejected, of course, by the 
parliamentarian in the Senate; 83 percent of Americans supporting H.R. 
1, one of the bills that passed; 89 percent supporting comprehensive 
background checks, which passed today; 72 percent of Americans 
supporting equal protections for LGBTQ Americans.
  The point I am making is, A, the bill to which my friend refers, the 
American Rescue Plan, had very substantial consideration over days.
  The Ways and Means markup took 2 days and many amendments offered. So

[[Page H1337]]

from the standpoint of the public's knowing what was going on, I would 
suggest to my friend that that was very much greater than when the tax 
bill--about the same--in the same range of, in that case, $1.5 trillion 
with interest approaching the $1.9 trillion. So we think, very frankly, 
that there has been a lot of discussion on that bill.
  One of the things, Madam Speaker, that concerned me the most was we 
worked in a bipartisan fashion on six prior bills. One passed on voice 
vote, the CARES Act,  on the floor. Others passed with well over 150 
Republicans and well over 150 Democrats--more than that, but well over 
300 votes. They were all bipartisan. They were negotiated with the 
administration--the Trump administration. The CARES Act, Madam Speaker, 
was about exactly the same amount of dollars, and it passed on a voice 
vote here.

  What was the difference?
  Trump was President. That was the difference in all five. And it had 
been negotiated with him--or the Secretary of the Treasury, to be more 
accurate.
  But substantively there was very little difference in terms of the 
broad nature of their impact, the dollar value of the bills, and the 
diversity of their objectives. To that extent, they were very much like 
this bill.
  But, Madam Speaker, what was the difference?
  The same thing that was the difference when we did the Recovery Act 
in `09. The gentleman was here. He was elected in `08. He came here and 
he voted ``no'' on the Recovery Act. Every Republican voted ``no'' on 
the Recovery Act--$787 billion. In my view, it kept us out of a 
depression. But that was not my view alone. It was Bernanke's view and 
it was the Secretary of the Treasury's view. So we see the same thing 
happen again. We went from bipartisan to partisan votes.
  I, frankly, Madam Speaker, find it hard to believe that there wasn't 
a single Republican who thought the investments in opening up schools--
some people say, well, you open up schools, that is the big cry now.
  Yes, and we are doing something about it. They weren't open when we 
took over, but they are coming to be open.
  I think it is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that some demean our 
teachers. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, I have four great-
grandchildren. All but one, who is too young, were taught virtually for 
these many, many months.
  And my granddaughter, their mother, raves about their commitment of 
the teachers to those three children, and the work that they put in, 
day after day after day.

                              {time}  1300

  So are they concerned about their own safety? Are they concerned 
about the safety of the children? Are they concerned about other 
children and children taking it home to their moms and dads or their 
grandparents? They are. So we need to be safe.
  But this bill, which all our Republican friends voted against, has 
substantial billions in there to make the schools safe so that people 
can go back with the confidence that they will be safe.
  So I would simply say to my friend and others that they have talked 
about openness. In the 115th Congress--that is the last Congress in 
which there was a Republican majority--there was not a single open 
rule, not one. In the 115th Congress, you had 103 closed rules. In the 
last Congress, which we were in charge, we had that number to less than 
52, 51.
   Jim McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, is very committed 
to trying to make amendments, including amendments on the Republican 
side, in order; and I have urged him to do that.
  So, hopefully, we will move forward in a way that continues to allow 
this House to operate effectively, and also give opportunity to your 
side and our side to raise issues.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, when you look at the bill that passed 
yesterday, the only bipartisan vote was against the bill. Every 
Republican--in fact, a Democrat voted against it as well. You had two 
Democrats who voted against it originally when it came through the 
House the first time.
  But the bottom line is, it was the majority party and President Biden 
who chose to go it alone, who chose to have a closed process where 
Republicans were shut out.
  There were many efforts, including a number of Senators going to the 
White House to meet with the President, who offered ideas, and every 
one of those ideas was thrown in the trash can. That is not a unity 
message. That is not trying to work with people from all parties and 
all walks of life to come up with the best ideas.
  It was a go-it-alone socialist agenda, very little focused on COVID; 
$1.9 trillion, over 90 percent of which wasn't dedicated to healthcare.
  You want to talk about schools. There was not a single dime in that 
bill that requires schools to reopen. You look at the money for 
schools, and hundreds of billions of dollars, by the way, are already 
out there that aren't spent, hundreds of billions that we all worked on 
together.
  When President Trump said he wanted to work with Republicans and 
Democrats, he actually followed through on that promise, as the 
gentleman noted, and every CARES Act bill was a very bipartisan bill. 
That was an effort made on both sides to work together and they were 
targeted. It was targeted on helping families who were struggling or 
helping small businesses who were struggling; on getting money into the 
search for a vaccine.
  Operation Warp Speed should be something we all celebrate, where 
President Trump said he wants to put all the focus at FDA on not only 
finding a vaccine, but prefunding the manufacturing of the vaccinations 
even before FDA approves them so we don't have to wait an extra few 
months that we don't have. That is why we are at a point where we can 
have 100 million vaccinations. We tried to double that number in this 
bill. That amendment was voted down.
  But on schools, my colleague, Ashley Hinson, had a bill to say, let's 
say if the schools are going to get new money--which they already have 
enough money to fortify their schools to reopen safely. Many took us up 
on that and are open in the classroom today. Some have chosen not to, 
but not for a lack of money. Let's be very clear about that.
  In fact, 95 percent of the money for schools in the bill that was 
passed yesterday can't even be spent this year; 95 percent of it. Then 
you have hundreds of billions of dollars still unspent that can be used 
to reopen schools who want to get back in the classroom, that money is 
already there. That money did not require--that need did not get met 
yesterday. That need was already met by Congress.
  Some chose to do it. Some have chosen not to reopen, even though not 
only is the money there to reopen, but the science is there. The 
science lays out not only how to safely reopen, but it points out the 
devastating damage being done to children in this country by not 
reopening.
  So when the gentleman talks about polls and, well, the polling says 
this bill is really popular. Hey, do you want a check for $3,500? I am 
sure a lot of people would say yes, until they realize that $350 
billion of this money goes to bail out failed States. And a State like 
California, who has a $10-plus-billion surplus, is going to get over 
$40 billion.
  So I am sure if we asked a poll question to people across this 
country: Do you think it is right to borrow $1.9 trillion from our 
children? Because somebody is going to have to pay for this. This money 
didn't fall out of the sky. Is it right to borrow $1.9 trillion from 
our children to give California $41 billion when they currently have a 
$10 billion surplus? I think we would get a different answer than the 
70 percent saying yes.
  If you said, in this bill, which we tried to correct, every felon in 
prison today in America will get a $1,400 check from the taxpayers. 
That is in the bill.
  They tried to take it out in the Senate when they allowed them on the 
floor to bring an amendment. Not a single amendment was allowed on this 
House floor to fix those kinds of disparities.
  Every Democrat in the Senate voted ``no.'' They said continue to give 
$1,400 checks to prisoners, felons in prison, when we are already 
paying for their food, for their lodging, for their healthcare. Now 
they are going to get a $1,400 check from the taxpayers of this 
country, borrowed from our children.

[[Page H1338]]

  Do most Americans know that? I hope they do because when we then ask 
them the question later: Now that you know what is really in the bill, 
what do you think about it? When you recognize some of the other ideas 
that were brought forward, not only to reopen schools, but to target 
the money, to focus on helping small businesses, those were the things 
that we wanted to do, trying to put some guardrails and limitations in 
place, like the previous CARES Act bills did, which is why they were 
all bipartisan.
  But when you look at these expenditures, and then you recognize that 
there is no money requiring schools to reopen. But our border is wide 
open right now and if someone comes over legally, they will get a 
check. That is a concern to a lot of people.
  So, yes, look at the bill. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it did go 
through committee. It did have markups and hearings. And, in fact, it 
yielded a great benefit to every American. Every income group benefited 
from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And, as the gentleman knows, the income 
group level that benefited the most by us cutting taxes were the lowest 
income, because we rebuilt our middle class because of that bill. We 
made America competitive because of that bill.
  And in this bill that passed yesterday, with a bipartisan vote 
against it, there was tucked away language that prohibits States from 
cutting taxes. Explain what that has to do with COVID.
  If you are a State, every State will get money from that bill. Again, 
California gets over $40 billion, even though they have a $10 billion 
surplus. But if a State tries to cut taxes, they actually get penalized 
in the bill. People are aghast when they hear that. It just came out 
yesterday.
  What does that have to do with COVID?
  Why wasn't this a targeted relief bill? It was because one side 
wanted to close the process out and just go it alone and push a 
socialist agenda that has nothing to do, or little to do, with COVID 
relief.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I don't think there is a socialist agenda on this 
floor, any more than I think there is a fascist agenda on this floor. 
And we hear socialist. When Gingrich was here it was liberals. Now it 
is socialists; trying to distract from substance, trying to inflame.
  It wasn't socialists that stormed the Capitol, and they weren't 
carrying Biden signs, they were carrying Trump signs.
  I am tired, Madam Speaker, of this socialist drivel. First of all, I 
think a lot of them don't have the faintest idea what socialism is 
versus dictatorship or authoritarian regimes.
  And the schools weren't reopened when we took over. Trump was 
President for 10 months.
  The gentleman apparently wants to say in this bill, open the schools 
no matter what. We don't care what your locals say. We don't care what 
your PTAs say. We don't care what your superintendents of schools say. 
Open the schools because we mandate it.
  I don't think that is what the gentleman, Madam Speaker, in the past 
has stood for, mandating what States do. Now maybe he thinks that we 
ought to take over the local education systems and tell them to open. 
We didn't do that.
  What we did was, however, gave them $130 billion, over time--he is 
right, not immediately--over time to spend to make those schools safe; 
make their ventilation systems safe for kids; make the accommodations 
in the schools safe for kids and teachers and parents who go there.
  So, Madam Speaker, we get distracted by these assertions of some sort 
of ideological patina that resonates with the right wing in America. 
And we can do that, or we can talk about substance.
  Yes, I mentioned Americans overwhelmingly said that the substance 
that we had in this bill was what they liked. So, I would hope the 
Republican whip would talk about the substance of these bills.
  We can have differences. But over and over, in the newspapers and on 
this floor, the socialist agenda resonates in your polls. It resonates 
in some of the districts; we saw that. It was not true.
  Social Security was called socialist when it was adopted; Medicare, 
as well; Medicaid certainly, socialist, efforts to try to lift people 
up.
  And when the gentleman tries to make an analogy to a bill that sent 
83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the top 1 percent in America as being a 
bill to help the middle class, and working Americans, boy, that is a 
stretch, Madam Speaker.
  Now, I want to go back to the substance of what the gentleman has 
raised. We want to see us working together. I see my friend from Texas 
on the floor. He and I have had these discussions.
  It is a shame that we accuse one another of this epithet or that 
epithet and try to put one another in a corner. I lived through the 
Gingrich era, and that was almost the entire rhetoric that I heard from 
the floor all the time.
  But if we are going to do that, it is going to be because people 
really do want to work in a bipartisan fashion.
  There was discussion--I know for a fact, I was here, and I saw 
President Obama try to work in a bipartisan fashion on the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Yes, he put his bill on the floor--
excuse me--not on the floor, he put it on the table.
  And I heard the meetings at the White House. I heard the meetings 
here when the Republicans said: Well, he didn't try to talk to us; he 
put this bill on the floor before he even talked to us. Not on the 
floor, on the table. I know because I was sitting there in the room 
when President Obama was trying to reach bipartisan agreement.
  Zero Republicans, three in the Senate, helped on the American 
Recovery Act, which kept us out of depression. And I wasn't surprised 
that we had zero on this reconciliation bill, and I wasn't surprised 
that it changed from the six votes previously, where Donald Trump said 
this bill is okay; I am going to sign it; because nothing could have 
become law without him signing it. And Republicans voted 
overwhelmingly, in most cases, for it.

  But now that we have a Democratic President, they have decided to 
return to the ``no'' votes that they cast on the Recovery Act, on the 
Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions and millions of people, 
and so many other pieces of legislation.
  I would urge, my friend, Madam Speaker, to, when we say we want to 
work in a bipartisan way, let's try to do it. It is worth doing.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, it is worth doing. Again, that is why you 
had a number of Republican Senators go to the White House to offer that 
olive branch. They were turned down, and that is unfortunate.
  On this bill, clearly it wasn't just Republicans who voted against 
it. It was a bipartisan vote in opposition. I hope that is not the 
model. And that was the point.
  Thirteen of 14 bills have come to the floor under a rule so far; 
didn't even go through committee. Let's get back to that collegiality. 
Let's get back to bringing bills to committee, having the committees 
actually work in person so Members can have the ability to have those 
conversations and come and find common ground, which has happened in 
the past, and it surely can happen again now. I hope we can get to that 
point soon.
  I yield to the gentleman to add anything else.
  Mr. HOYER. I have nothing to further to say, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________