[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.
____________________