[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.
____________________