[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 106 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2910-H2913]
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. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
House majority whip the schedule for next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my friend from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip of the House.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman letting me 
stand in today for the majority leader.
  Next week, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-
hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no 
earlier than 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, 
with last votes no later than 3 p.m.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete

[[Page H2911]]

list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business 
tomorrow.
  In addition, we will consider:
  H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, 
which would make it easier for those who have suffered age 
discrimination in the workplace to file a complaint and seek redress;
  H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment 
Act, which would ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
keep statistics on credit reporting for LGBTQ-owned businesses in the 
same way as it does for women- and minority-owned companies and small 
businesses; and
  H.R. 239, Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, which would 
allow women receiving healthcare services from the VA system to access 
basic contraceptive care without paying copays similar to coverage 
provided under the Affordable Care Act.
  We will consider three resolutions of disapproval to reverse 
regulatory actions made under the prior administration, which have all 
been passed by the Senate:
  S.J. Res. 13 would reverse the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission's rule that had obscured information about the factual and 
legal basis the Commission used to make determinations on 
discriminatory practices;
  S.J. Res. 14 would overturn the prior administration's Environmental 
Protection Agency rule that removed protections from dangerous methane 
emissions that exacerbate the climate crisis; and
  S.J. Res. 15 would overturn a rule by the Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency and allow States once again to regulate these lenders 
and protect consumers in order to rein in predatory lenders and rent-a-
bank schemes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for walking us through those. Of course, I would first like to, as we 
note that the majority leader is not here, wish Mr. Hoyer a speedy 
recovery. I got to speak with him yesterday, and he is doing better and 
appreciates the prayers and thoughts from our colleagues.
  And I told him: You don't have to rush back. You want to make sure 
you get better before you come back.
  And I know from experience to take the time and get better. And I 
offered, by the way, use of my physical therapist, and maybe he and I 
will do some joint physical therapy when he returns. But he was in good 
spirits and is looking forward to coming back. I know the gentleman 
from South Carolina shares that as well.
  MR. CLYBURN. Absolutely.
  Mr. SCALISE. I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is watching right 
now as he is recovering, but I said, we are used to sparring and having 
some fun conversations back and forth through the Select Subcommittee 
on the Coronavirus, but we also look forward to seeing him back in the 
middle of this fray soon, too.
  If I may, I did want to ask. There were a couple of bills that deal 
with the origin of the coronavirus, and I know we have been having 
those conversations about trying to get a deeper investigation into the 
origin of the coronavirus. But the Senate had passed over a few weeks 
ago a bill, S. 1867, that came out of the Senate unanimously back in 
May, which requires the Director of National Intelligence to declassify 
information that relates to the origin of COVID-19.
  I am not sure if this is a bill that you all were looking at bringing 
up, but we wanted to just ask if we could have S. 1867 brought to the 
House floor. It was a bill that passed unanimously out of the Senate, 
which does indicate that there was strong interest on both sides to get 
that information declassified so we can get more information about the 
origin of COVID for all of our Members to be able to see, not just 
those Members that have access to that information.

  I am not sure, again, if the gentleman was looking at that, but if 
that is something you all could look at, I think it would be well 
received by both sides, and then would help us quickly get that 
information available for all to see.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CLYBURN. You and I have been having this discussion for quite a 
while with our select subcommittee activities. I have not seen the 
legislation that you make reference to, but I am sure that the majority 
leader has. And, like you, I am looking forward to his speedy recovery 
so he can get back into this spot. I am a little more familiar with 
sparring with you in our select subcommittee than on this floor.
  But having said that, I think you are aware that the Biden 
administration has already directed the United States intelligence 
community to examine this issue, calling on the intelligence community 
to redouble their efforts to report their findings by August 24 and to 
keep Congress fully apprised of their work.
  We have confidence in their ability to conduct a robust evidence-
based inquiry into the origin of the coronavirus and will not allow 
House Republicans to irresponsibly hijack this issue for partisan 
purposes. We want to see this thing happen, and you and I have had this 
discussion. And because they have got until August 24--that is, what, 3 
months from now, or less--I think we will be in a good place to let the 
Intelligence Committee do its work.
  Mr. SCALISE. There is an old adage: ``Why put off tomorrow what you 
can do today?''
  There is unanimous support for S. 1867 to not wait until August. And, 
in fact, it was May when Senators--all Republicans and all Democrat 
Senators--recognized that this is something we should do and we should 
do now, and this would get more information out to the public, as well 
as to our Members.
  I would also ask if the majority would look at H. Res. 90, which is a 
resolution that supports the international investigation into the 
origin of COVID-19.
  There are many countries. We have heard a lot of European countries 
have expressed interest in having an international commission to look 
into this. I don't know why the United States would be reluctant to be 
a part of that investigation.
  But, again, in light of all of the new information that has come out, 
some emails recently since our committee has met, show more and more 
that there is a high likelihood that COVID-19 started in the Wuhan lab. 
Whether it was intentional or not, there is strong evidence pointing to 
the fact that it likely started there.
  We have not had a single hearing, not any of the standing committees, 
and here we have a committee that, by its name, the Select Subcommittee 
on the Coronavirus was established for the purpose of investigating 
COVID-19, all elements of it, not just what is happening here in 
America.
  We just recognized over 600,000 deaths from COVID-19 on the steps of 
the Capitol just a few days ago. So, clearly, it has hit our country 
hard, but it has hit the whole world hard. Millions of people have 
died. And now there is real evidence that has come out, including from 
some of our own scientists here in America, that they may have been 
aware over a year ago that COVID-19 originated in the lab as opposed to 
what the original projections were that it was a bat-to-human 
transmission. Now there is a lot of evidence pointing to the opposite 
of that.
  In fact, many of us were calling for that investigation over a year 
ago, and some were called conspiracy theorists, yet now the hard 
scientific data shows that it may have been, in fact, started in that 
lab.
  Why are we not having those hearings now in our committee, other 
committees, again, not months from now?
  But if China knew of this, there may not be scientists that we can 
get access to, but we have American scientists who were in 
communication with those scientists. Whether it is directly or 
indirectly, there may have been taxpayer funds that were involved in 
that. We should be trying to find that out now. And China may be trying 
to cover some of that up.
  The quicker we can get those hearings and those investigations, the 
more we can find out while it is still possible to find it out. I think 
it would help a lot of us to understand what really happened, what went 
wrong.
  Because if it was started in that lab, this would be a disaster 
dramatically greater than Chernobyl in terms of devastation to the 
world, loss of human life. We should all want to be finding

[[Page H2912]]

out. There were a lot of investigations into Chernobyl. This is 
dramatically worse than Chernobyl. And if it was self-made, that is 
something we should be investigating now. I am not sure why there is a 
reluctance to do it.
  But I would ask the gentleman, if I could just reiterate, I know we 
sent a letter--over 200 of our colleagues signed on--asking that we 
investigate it, all the committees of jurisdiction, including ours.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman that I am 
as anxious to know exactly what happened as he is. And the American 
people want to know exactly what happened. The fact of the matter is, 
though, we have several committees that are investigating, including 
the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology have indicated 
that they intend to look into the matter.
  Now, like you, I am from the South, and you can get too many cooks in 
the kitchen. And I am fully aware that to have a plethora of committees 
stumbling over each other trying to get to the bottom of this will 
serve no useful purpose.
  So I want to see things done here as close to regular order as we 
possibly can have them done, and to let the committees of jurisdiction 
conduct their investigation, this administration working through its 
intelligence department doing the investigations, and I am sure they 
will come up with the kind of information that would do us as citizens 
and as Members of this great body justice.

  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, we will continue to press for that 
investigation.
  And, you know, I am from New Orleans, and I know what it is like to 
have cooks in the kitchen, but I also know how important it is to have 
a lot of eyes looking at the same thing. And the more eyes looking into 
something where there is mystery, where there is uncertainty, where 
there is speculation, I think the more people looking at this, the 
better.
  Again, our committee is uniquely set up. There are other committees 
that are set up to look at different aspects of it. We should all be 
looking at it because the more questions we ask--it seems like right 
now more questions are raised. We need to get answers to those 
questions, and we get those answers by having that oversight hearing. 
We don't want some kind of Soviet-style coverup. We want to be looking 
at those questions and having people brought in.
  There are American scientists, some people who work for this United 
States Government, who could help us answer those questions, and they 
haven't been brought forward. We can compel them to come forward, 
especially in light of these emails that have come out recently, which 
show that some of those scientists were aware over a year ago that it 
may have started in the lab.

                              {time}  1145

  That was not shared with us in previous hearings. I think a lot of 
our Members on both sides would like to find that information out as 
much as we can. And the more we are asking questions, the more I think 
we will get answers that everybody in the country and around the world 
wants to know. So, we will continue to press for that.
  I also want to ask about the appropriations process. I understand the 
Committee on Appropriations is starting to do some work to start 
bringing up the bills in committee so that we can, hopefully, have an 
appropriations process move forward. We would be strongly encouraging a 
bipartisan appropriations process but also an open appropriations 
process.
  So, as we look to the floor schedule, we are hearing that maybe in 
July some of these bills would come to the floor. As the gentleman 
knows, when we bring appropriations bills to the floor, whether it is a 
fully open process or even a modified process, you typically have well 
over 100 amendments that come to the floor on these appropriations 
bills.
  Does the gentleman anticipate that we would start, around July, 
seeing some of those bills come to the floor? And will we have that 
ability on the floor to have those kinds of amendments brought forward 
in a process that we have seen in the past?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Committee on Appropriations has announced that it will start its 
process next week with four subcommittee markups. Over the next 2 
weeks, and then the week of July 12, the committee will complete 
subcommittee and full committee markups on all 12 of the annual 
appropriations bills.
  We plan to consider the bills on the floor the final 2 weeks of July, 
when we are in session. That will be the week of July 19 and July 26.
  Now, I suspect that we will be close to what the gentleman just 
indicated he would like to see with the schedule. I am certain that the 
Committee on Appropriations will do everything it possibly can to keep 
that schedule so that we will complete all of our work before the 
August break.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and we look forward 
to that robust process through both committee and, ultimately, on the 
floor.
  The last point, I wanted to ask about deals with infrastructure. We 
are seeing a lot of different groups both in the House and Senate that 
are working on various infrastructure plans. I know we had Members on 
our side, Ranking Member Graves and others, who rolled out a plan 
recently that covers traditional infrastructure, which would be roads 
and bridges--even broadband, waterways--paid for along the way, not 
with tax increases but with responsible budgeting.
  I wanted to ask because we are hearing different reports on what may 
or may not come to the House floor. Budget reconciliation, possibly, 
and tax increases, unfortunately, are still being floated out there, 
which is different from what we are hearing right now with the 
bipartisan Senate plan.
  Can the gentleman shed light on what is anticipated on the floor, 
whether it would be a budget reconciliation bill in the weeks or months 
ahead or maybe a bipartisan plan, which we would surely encourage, 
laying out some ideas of infrastructure that would be bipartisan that 
we would support?
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could answer that, I would be happy to 
yield.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think 
the gentleman is aware that I am very anxious about doing things in a 
bipartisan way when that can be achieved.
  Now, the majority leader has announced that during the week of June 
28, the House will take up the INVEST in America Act, a 5-year surface 
transportation reauthorization bill that was approved by the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure by a bipartisan vote.
  I think the gentleman is aware of the pretty long session, all-night 
session, that both parties in that committee undertook. I think that 
they have produced a product that will make these key investments in 
smart, safe, sustainable, and resilient transportation infrastructure 
that is needed by the American people to move goods and services 
throughout our country efficiently, effectively, and equitably. I could 
not go through this colloquy with the gentleman and not invoke those 
three words that he is so familiar with.
  Now, at the same time, we must remember that our Nation's 
infrastructure is comprised of far more than roads and bridges. I often 
talk about the advent of the internet. I could remember when it first 
came on the scene, everybody referred to the internet as the 
``information superhighway.'' I have always advocated that it is time 
for us to start treating the information highway the same way we treat 
the interstate highways.
  So, I agree with the gentleman that we should move with an 
infrastructure bill, but I want him to know that I think it is 
important that the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act is a 
part of that.
  I know this debate has been going on as to whether or not we ought to 
move on a bipartisan bill that focuses on traditional infrastructure. 
For anything to be traditional, it has to be in our past, but I think 
it is time for us to be looking to the future when we talk about 
infrastructure and to have an infrastructure bill come through this 
body that focuses on the future of healthcare, which cannot be 
efficient, effective, or equitable without broadband.

[[Page H2913]]

  Online learning is a must for our children. We know COVID-19, 
according to all the experts, may not be the last time that we are 
faced with such a pandemic. There are some predicting that there could 
come another, maybe not in my lifetime but maybe in yours. We must be 
prepared.
  So, I am hopeful that this infrastructure bill that we move through 
this body will not just be traditional but will be looking to the 
future so we can have the kind of legislation that will prepare our 
children and grandchildren for a world that we hope they will be 
competitive in.

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can 
have that debate and work together to achieve that vision for the 
future as we are dealing with the problems of today and our 
infrastructure needs for today, but also do it in a fiscally 
responsible way. I think that is what the two sides, especially in the 
Senate, are looking at.
  I still haven't gotten an indication, specifically, as it deals with 
some kind of reconciliation bill that may or may not come to the floor. 
Hopefully, it is not some attempt to raise taxes and do things that 
would undermine our economy, our competitiveness, and our ability to 
create more opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream by 
entering into the workforce and ultimately moving their way up and 
having their own opportunities as well, which would be undermined with 
higher taxes.
  If that part of the equation gets brought in, clearly, that changes 
the dynamic. But, hopefully, we stick to the traditional infrastructure 
needs that you and I would both agree need to be met. Hopefully, we can 
find a path to get there together. That is what we will be working 
toward in the week ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing else, I am prepared to 
yield back.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I don't have anything else. I thank the 
gentleman for allowing me to stand in here today.
  I say to him that I would hope that as we go forward with this 
discussion, we will look at this whole issue as the title of the bill 
indicates: Invest in America. When we make investments, financial 
investments, the money may leave our coffers, but it comes back 
sometimes tenfold.
  So there is a big difference between raising taxes and making 
investments.
  Mr. SCALISE. Hopefully, we can keep that difference in mind.
  I appreciate the gentleman filling in, and we will see the gentleman 
from Maryland back soon enough and maybe even moving a little faster 
than before. I am not going to challenge him to a race because he would 
defeat me in that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                          ____________________