[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H175-H180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1130
                          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 rise for the purpose of inquiring of 
the majority leader the schedule for next week.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Scalise for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning 
hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed, as 
usual, until 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning 
hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  And again, as usual, on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business.
  The House, Madam Speaker, will consider Senate 2959, the Supplemental 
Impact Aid Flexibility Act under suspension of the rules. This bill 
passed the Senate unanimously. It is on suspension in the House. It is 
coauthored by Representative   Joe Courtney of the House.
  This bipartisan legislation allows local educational agencies 
participating in the Impact Aid Program to use the student count or 
Federal property valuation data from their fiscal year 2022 program 
applications for their fiscal year 2023 applications.
  This, Madam Speaker, will prevent schools from losing substantial 
funding upon which they have relied to address COVID-19 learning loss 
by giving them more flexibility to use prepandemic data to calculate 
funding needs.
  The House may consider other bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow.
  The House will also consider H.R. 4673, the EVEST Act sponsored by 
Chairman Mark Takano of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the rule for 
which we adopted this week.
  This legislation would automatically enroll eligible veterans into 
the VA healthcare system so that no veterans are left behind when it 
comes to receiving quality, affordable healthcare.
  Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House stands ready to act on the Build 
Back Better Act, as well as the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act 
should the Senate amend them and send them back to us.
  Additional legislative items, of course, are possible.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, on the school bill, I know one of the big 
concerns many people have been raising is trying to get schools open 
again.
  Last week it was reported that 5,200 different schools were closed 
last week. And I know this Congress has sent billions of dollars to 
school systems across the country. The intent was that that money be 
used to get schools opened, and yet, there are some schools taking the 
money and staying closed, which goes against all the medical science 
out there. We know the damage this is doing to our young children, 
learning, depression, and so many other challenges that it creates for 
them.
  Will there be any part of that legislation that helps require that in 
order to get money schools have to be open?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, because I don't have it in front of me, and 
I haven't read it as carefully as perhaps I should have, I don't know 
the specific answer to that question.
  What I do want to say, however, is that we need to have kids in 
school. Everybody says that the learning experience is substantially 
compromised by virtual learning. It is better than nothing, and it has 
been pursued very vigorously and with great positive effect.
  But having said that, we all think that young people ought to be back 
in schools. But I don't know whether this bill, which passed the Senate 
unanimously, deals with that particular aspect that the gentleman asked 
about. But let me say this: I think that every school system has 
adopted the premise that in school is better.
  Clearly, we have been assaulted by a virus whose transmissibility is 
substantially more than the previous virus, the delta variant. The 
omicron variant, as we know, one of the problems is it is easily caught 
and easily transmitted.

[[Page H176]]

  The good news is if you have taken a vaccination and had a booster, 
the likelihood of you going to the hospital is much smaller, and if you 
go to the hospital, you are much less sick. But having said that, we 
continue to have a challenge to get this under control. And the 
administration, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of the 
medical community, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of 
scientists are recommending that we wear a mask, that we wear a KN95 or 
N95 mask because they are much better than the surgical masks or the 
cloth masks, that we continue to wash our hands regularly, and we 
continue to keep our distance.
  But the gentleman and I agree that we need to ensure that--to the 
extent that it is possible and that parents will send their children to 
school because of being dissuaded by the transmissibility of this 
disease--we need to have kids in school.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Maybe we can work on 
something that would ensure that as tax dollars are going to school 
systems that it is going to keep the schools open, not to allow them to 
then shut down on the kids because, as we know, the science is very 
clear that kids are much better off in school, safer in school than not 
being in school, and that the learning experience is dramatically less 
if they are not in school, as well as the mental conditions, the social 
development that is not occurring if they are not in the classroom.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I think everybody is concerned about this. 
Certainly, every parent in my district and your district is concerned 
about this, and anybody who is concerned about the welfare of our 
children is concerned about it.
  But I think it would be appropriate for me to say that the teachers 
of America--and my wife was a teacher, and I happen to believe that 
teachers are the most important people in any society because they 
educate the leadership and the citizens of tomorrow--have been put to 
an extraordinary challenge.
  And I have a granddaughter who has four children, so I have four 
great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school and were in school in 
2020 and 2021. And Judy, my granddaughter, who is named after my wife, 
has told me on numerous occasions what extraordinary ends her 
children's teachers--there were three different teachers at different 
levels in the school system--went to make sure that while they were 
home, while they were learning virtually that they had a positive, 
productive experience. But all of them felt, I think, it is a lot 
easier to have kids in school if they can do so safely. I think that 
bears saying.
  Like medical personnel, teachers have been put through extraordinary 
stress, as have parents generally have been put through stress.
  So I think the gentleman's concern is rightfully placed, and we need 
to do everything we can to make sure kids get back in school and have a 
learning experience like you and I had in the classroom.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, our teachers have been true heroes 
through this, our frontline hospital workers, people that work at 
grocery stores; we have seen so many people rising up to the challenge, 
and even where governments failed their ability to do their job.
  I know one challenge that, hopefully, we see resolved in the United 
States Supreme Court--it won't be today; we were expecting it maybe 
this week, but, hopefully, early next week we see the Supreme Court 
resolve these challenges where there were mandates on vaccines that 
required people to get fired from their job if they chose a healthcare 
decision on vaccinations.
  I have been vaccinated. I know the gentleman from Maryland has too, 
but for those who haven't, whether they are frontline hospital workers 
or teachers, people shouldn't be forced to lose their job based on that 
choice they make. But the Supreme Court will, hopefully, address that 
and resolve that next week. It is something that is out of our hands 
now, but it is in the court's hands at the highest level.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I understand the gentleman's position, 
which is held by a number of people.
  My own view is that employers make a reasonable decision when they 
say to an employee--for the sake, not only of the employee but for 
everybody else in the workplace with whom they work--that you are 
required to be vaccinated because we believe that science and medical 
personnel tell us that is a much safer route. But I understand there is 
a difference on that.
  But even then, I know Governors who have been against vaccines are 
not necessarily against the employer requiring that as an employee 
requirement as opposed to a governmental requirement.
  Mr. SCALISE. And I would hope the government would drop that mandate, 
but if not, it is hopeful that the Court would make it clear that the 
government doesn't have the authority to require that people get fired 
if they don't get vaccinated, encourage people to follow the science. 
If they have questions or concerns, that is a conversation they should 
have with their doctor, not a government mandate.
  But as the gentleman knows, we may have disagreement on that, but 
fortunately for us, it will get resolved at the Supreme Court, 
hopefully, early next week.
  I wanted to ask the gentleman since, we are looking at the schedule 
for next week, I didn't notice any of the bills that we have 
highlighted in the past that would address some of the many crises our 
country is facing, whether it is inflation, whether it is high gas 
prices, whether it is the border crisis--all that are running out of 
control--the empty shelves that we are seeing at so many stores.
  Will the gentleman commit to working with us to bring some of the 
bills to the floor to address the real crises that are hurting 
hardworking families like the ones I just mentioned?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say inflation is a 
serious challenge confronting American families, particularly working 
families in this country.
  I live alone, and because I am just one person, I buy relatively 
small amounts of food at the grocery store. And I go to the grocery 
store nowadays and whether it is the price of bacon, which is at $12 a 
pound for Hormel or another meat packing, it is high, and I think to 
myself how a family not doing as well as I am doing and with kids to 
feed, how tough it is on them. So this inflation is very tough.
  It is a worldwide phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that is caused 
obviously by a pent-up demand asking for a lot of goods and chasing a 
lot of goods. And elementary economics, that any of us took in college, 
is that there are a lot of resources chasing few resources, i.e., a lot 
of money chasing a short supply of goods, and you have that demand so 
that it drives prices up.
  This pandemic has had a global effect on the supply chain. The supply 
chain has been substantially affected. This was not the fault of, 
frankly, either Biden or his predecessor in terms of what happened to 
the supply chain. In Singapore they shut down companies, as you know, 
for months at a time. They just shut them down, which is one of the 
things that has led to this chip shortage, which has had ramifications.
  So I want to assure the gentleman that the administration, our side 
of the aisle--I know your side of the aisle is very concerned about the 
inflationary pressure that is putting such a stress on America's 
families. This pandemic has caused extraordinary, historic things to 
happen. That is the bad news.
  The good news is we have created more jobs in the last year and 2 
months than were created--of course, net we lost jobs for the previous 
4 years; over 2 million jobs net lost. So the good news is that we have 
a number of economic statistics that are, in fact, positive. However, 
having said that, we do need to be very concerned about inflation. The 
administration has expressed their concern.
  We believe that the infrastructure bill will have a positive impact 
on inflation, assuming the Build Back Better Act passes, which I assume 
at some point it will.

                              {time}  1145

  I think that is going to have a very positive affect on inflation 
because it will help the supply chain, help the

[[Page H177]]

health of the people, the employees, it will make people more able to 
get out. Childcare. It is going to help people get back to work, which 
will have a positive impact on the supply chain and on the availability 
of goods and services. So I think we are moving in the right direction.
  Unemployment, as the gentleman knows, which is down 3.9 percent. So 
while inflation is up and unacceptably high, historically high, over 
the last 4 years, we need to get it down. And we see this phenomena 
happening all over the world. This is not the fault of the President or 
the Congress, it is the fault of an extraordinary, invasive, and 
widespread disease that has caused extraordinary disruptions within our 
society and economy.
  But we need to get a handle on it. We need to take action. So I will 
talk to the gentleman about what issues he believes would be helpful in 
that regard.
  Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, some of those bills that have been discussed 
and offered up in the past to address the inflationary problems but 
also the policies of this administration that have caused that. And as 
we know from the energy crisis, it is not pandemic related that gas 
prices are so high. This President made a decision starting on day one 
of his administration to shut down American energy production, to shut 
down pipelines in America, green lighting pipelines in other countries, 
begging foreign countries to make more oil, but shutting off and making 
it harder to make energy in America.
  Clearly, that self-imposed supply shortage has created higher prices 
that we would love to see addressed. We might disagree philosophically 
on how to get there, but I don't think there is much disagreement from 
people who spend over $100 filling their car up that it needs to 
change. But if you look at the workforce challenges, and every small 
business owner I talk to--I would imagine all of us could share similar 
stories--our small business owners are telling us they can't find 
workers. Somebody might want to go to their favorite restaurant but 
they are waiting an hour and a half and wondering why a third of the 
tables are empty, because they can't get people to work.
  And so as some might want to look at the unemployment number, clearly 
the number of people that are not even in the workforce that just 
stopped working because they can get paid, right now large amounts of 
money, to stay at home is a challenge that we should confront here in 
this Congress to help encourage people to get back into the workforce, 
not to be paying people not to work. And the enhanced unemployment 
benefits were, one, part of that problem, but there were many other 
parts of that problem.
  But it is the idea that there are too many dollars, as the gentleman 
said, chasing too few goods is the driver of inflation, but the biggest 
driver of that is all of the money that has been spent in Washington. 
And if you look at about $6 trillion that has been spent on various 
relief packages--some of it was targeted to COVID, which we all 
supported, very bipartisan, some of it had nothing to do with COVID 
which, unfortunately, has created higher inflation--there is talk right 
now that the administration--and I am not sure if the Democratic 
leadership is having serious conversations on this--is looking at yet 
another bill, potentially over a trillion dollars of additional 
spending.
  I would ask the gentleman, is that something that is anticipated to 
be brought to the floor? I would urge, if that is being looked at, to 
not do it because there is about $800 billion remaining from other 
relief packages that are unspent. And hopefully we stop the spending in 
Washington that is driving inflation and try to encourage the economy 
to get opened at a more rapid pace. And if people need additional help, 
to look to the money that is sitting there, the $800 billion that is 
unspent, rather than trillions more dollars that would be put into a 
marketplace that is already oversaturated with Federal spending that is 
driving this inflation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, as you 
know better than probably anybody, the Speaker appointed a task force 
to look exactly at that issue of the $800 billion and what has been 
done, what has been spent to make sure that it has been properly spent, 
because you are the ranking member on the committee headed up by  Jim 
Clyburn that is looking at those issues. I know you had a hearing this 
past week.
  Yes, we have a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion, you 
call it spending, I call it investment. We are investing in our 
children. We are investing in our families. We are investing in small 
businesses. We are investing in growth and opportunity. And we are 
investing in the ability of those folks that you talk about that are 
not in the workforce, the restaurant can't hire. Why can't they hire 
them? Because they are not paying sufficient amount to justify a mom 
getting childcare because childcare is so expensive. Or she is caught--
or a single dad--is caught in the catch-22 situation. If I go to work, 
I will earn money but I will pay it all to childcare. If I am going to 
pay it all to childcare, it is much better for me as a parent to be 
with my child, if the net result is going to be pretty much a wash.
  We are investing in that. We are investing in childcare in the Build 
Back Better Act. We are investing in early childhood education, three- 
and four-year-olds. We believe that is investment. And it also is very 
important for that small business so that that mom or dad who has that 
child who is then going to go and be in a preschool environment can 
have time to themselves so that they can, in fact, pursue employment 
without simply putting it from one pocket to another pocket, none of 
which is their pocket.
  So the difference, I think, really is you look at it as spending, we 
look at it as investment. We think it will have big, big return for our 
country. And that is what Build Back Better is about. The building back 
better you say it was not related to the pandemic. It clearly was 
related to the pandemic. The pandemic hit us in the gut. It hit 
everybody throughout the world in the gut. We have recovered better 
than anybody else in the world. And that is because we invested, 
sometimes in a bipartisan way, and sometimes in a partisan way, but we 
invested in our people, in our children, in our families, in our 
businesses, and in our health, generally of our country and indeed 
trying to help other parts of the world as well because this is a 
global pandemic that affects us all.

  But I think the real difference is, we perceive this as an 
investment. We think it will help grow America. I am sure you have 
heard me talk about, from time to time, the Make It In America agenda. 
Our investment in both the infrastructure bill and the Build Back 
Better will have a positive effect on Make It In America.
  So we see it, Mr. Whip, as investment. We think it will have a 
positive effect. We think it is having a positive effect. And as I say, 
unemployment is down below 4 percent and jobs are up over 6 million 
over the last 11 months. So that is a good accomplishment. Is it 
enough? Do we still have people who aren't working for a varied number 
of reasons, many of which are related to COVID-19?
  So we see it as an investment, and I am hopeful the Build Back Better 
Act will pass and I hope that will have a positive effect not only on, 
as the President says, the next 5 years, but on the next five 
generations. So we are continuing to pursue that.
  But inflation, which is how we started this discussion, is a problem 
and we need to deal with it. I would be glad to talk to the gentleman 
about what he thinks will be helpful to do that. I know part of that is 
stop spending money. I think if we stop investing money, our country 
will not get to where it wants to be and where it is now with respect 
to the rest of the world, leading the rest of the world in terms of 
economic recovery from the pandemic. We are not there yet but we are 
going to get there
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman, and clearly we have a difference 
on----
  Mr. HOYER. Right.
  Mr. SCALISE. What the effects of spending trillions of dollars would 
have. And Build Back Better, as the gentleman brought up, would be 
about $4.5 trillion of higher taxes, additional spending, things that, 
by many accounts, would increase inflation even higher; but we will see 
where the Senate goes on that bill. I am not sure if the gentleman is 
anticipating bringing

[[Page H178]]

other legislation, the bipartisan bills that we did, to do things like 
create Operation Warp Speed, which was maybe one of the most successful 
things government did in reaction to a pandemic in the history of the 
world, to come up with not one, not two, but now three proven and 
effective vaccines in less than a year to a virus no one even knew 
about. It never happened in the history of the world but something that 
we came together, Republicans and Democrats with President Trump, to 
achieve a great achievement, something we would sure urge President 
Biden to build on.
  Because President Biden did run with a promise that he would, ``shut 
down the virus.'' Clearly, he has failed at that. We have asked through 
a number of different means to have hearings on some of the things we 
have heard concerns about. And I would start with testing. There was an 
article recently that the President was presented with a plan in 
October to come up with about 750 million tests that people could have 
for COVID at home that would be readily available by Christmas where 
they, in October, anticipated a resurgence of COVID by December.
  It has been reported that the President rejected that plan. We have 
asked for a hearing into that. For whatever reason, the majority has 
not agreed to that. Here is a letter I sent to Mr. Clyburn and Mrs. 
Maloney through the Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus, as well as 
through the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Myself and Ranking 
Member Comer asked to have a hearing into some of these things, the 
testing failures that were reported. If they are true, we ought to hear 
about them. If they are false, the administration ought to be pointing 
that out. They have not, which tells me they must be true. But then why 
in October would the President have rejected a testing plan that could 
have prevented us from getting to the place we are at right now with 
this resurgence?
  What about some of the national plans that the President said he had 
as a candidate that then he later told Governors recently he doesn't 
have a national plan on COVID. The mixed messaging coming from the 
administration is causing tremendous confusion across America, and we 
have asked that we have hearings to clarify, give the administration a 
chance to state their plan or the lack thereof, state whether or not 
they rejected a massive testing plan for the Nation in October that 
would have prevented what happened in December.
  The lack of desire by the administration to be transparent about any 
of this is creating tremendous confusion across the country. This 
Congress could address that by holding hearings to get the facts out. I 
know we are going to continue to press for those kinds of hearings. I 
would hope we have them, but so far we have not gotten any response to 
the affirmative on that.
  I don't know if the gentleman has anything to add. Maybe the 
gentleman would agree that we would have these kind of hearings to get 
some of these facts out or get some of these issues addressed.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would say at the outset, I believe the committee on which he serves 
with Mr. Clyburn is one of the committees, among many, who ought to be 
looking at those facts.
  But let me say this, because in stating the facts, as you just did, 
the appearance is that substantial progress has not been made. I don't 
think that premise is correct. Let me read you some statistics.
  Last year, the first year the President came into office, testing in 
America was molecular in at-home tests per day. The beginning of last 
year, 1.7 million per day. Today, 11.7 million tests per day are being 
conducted.
  So to imply that somehow there has not been substantial progress, 
that is a 10-fold increase in the testing available to Americans every 
day. And when Biden took office, zero at-home rapid tests were 
available to consumers--zero. Today, 300 million at-home rapid tests 
are on the market each month.
  Enough? No. Are more coming? Yes.
  Has the government used the Defense Production Act to accomplish 
greater production? They have. The administration started using, as I 
said, the Defense Production Act. The Biden administration is 
increasing places people can get free tests, for instance.
  You talk about a plan. When Biden took office, there were only 2,500 
pharmacies offering free testing. Today, there are 20,000 sites, an 8-
fold increase. The administration is purchasing 500 million at-home 
rapid tests to be distributed for free to Americans who want them, with 
initial delivery starting this month.

                              {time}  1200

  The administration is distributing up to 50 million free at-home 
self-tests to community health centers and rural health clinics. In 
addition to already covering PCR tests, the administration is requiring 
private insurance plans to cover at-home tests starting on January 15, 
just a couple of days from today. A lot is happening.
  Is enough happening? Enough is not happening until everybody has 
immediate availability. ``Immediate'' may overstate it, but easy 
access. The fact is that some people are having problems finding the 
at-home tests now, and we need to work on that.
  Those statistics show you that extraordinary increases have occurred 
under the Biden administration, and that is their plan, to make sure 
that these tests are available, because we know that testing will make 
a difference. If you find out you are sick, you quarantine.
  I suggest to the gentleman that the Biden administration has made an 
extraordinary difference. Is the situation where we want it to be? 
Absolutely, it is not.
  Do we have a new variant that apparently came out of South Africa or 
was first identified in South Africa that spiked up?
  I talked to Dr. Monahan yesterday, and apparently, just in recent 
days, we have had a fall-off in disease recognized. I hope that is the 
case. I hope it keeps going down because we are perhaps now using the 
KN-95 or N-95 masks and keeping our distance a little more 
conscientiously. Let's hope all of that works for the people, for the 
country, and for the globe.
  Mr. SCALISE. The problem with President Biden's plan is that it has 
been reactionary and not visionary. When he was presented with a plan 
in October to make sure that every American that needed a test would 
have it in December, when they in October said there will probably be a 
real uptick in December, the President said no to that.
  So if today he says let's go and order 500 million tests, that sounds 
fine and well, except that he said no to that in October when he could 
have staved off what we see, and that is hours-long lines of people to 
get tested. People shouldn't have to be waiting 5 hours in a line to 
get tested when the President in October was presented with a plan.
  Again, if he wasn't, as it has been reported, he should come out 
publicly and say that. The report has been out for weeks now, and he 
hasn't done that.
  We should be having hearings on this to find out what was the plan 
that was presented and who was involved, by the way, in rejecting that 
plan. Was the CDC involved? Was NIH involved? Was HHS involved in 
rejecting a forward-thinking plan in October that predicted what 
inevitably did happen this Christmas?
  Who was involved in the rejection of that plan, and why did they do 
it? Is it that the administration doesn't want accountability? I don't 
know, but we have asked those questions, and we have asked for a 
hearing on that.
  We have been told that it is not going to happen. I hope the 
gentleman would help push to get this to happen, to find this out so we 
don't play catch-up every time something happens, when there were there 
people saying: Let's try to stop something before it becomes a problem.
  If there are people in the White House who said, no, we are not going 
to do it until it is a problem for families, those people ought to be 
removed from the White House. And they shouldn't be involved in the 
decisionmaking chain because their decisions caused maybe more death, 
surely caused a dramatic increase in ills that people are facing right 
now because it could have been staved off, and it wasn't. We don't

[[Page H179]]

have that information from an administration who promised to be 
transparent.
  We did have a hearing a few days ago in the select subcommittee. It 
was a private hearing; it wasn't open to the public. I didn't agree 
with that, but that was the decision made by the majority. We have to 
start having transparency, as was promised to the people.
  People deserve transparency. They deserve to have these questions 
answered and, frankly, to have a more forward-thinking plan, not a 
reactionary plan when forward-thinking was presented and rejected.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this has been a calm discussion so far. Let me remind 
the gentleman that the previous President said in February or March of 
2020 that this is going to go away in about 30 days: Don't worry about 
it. It will go away.
  A lot of your Members said we don't need a mask; we don't need to 
keep distance; we don't need to wash our hands; this is going to go 
away. It is here today and gone tomorrow. That was the previous 
administration's plan.
  I agree with you. The science community, the private-sector 
community, and government on Operation Warp Speed did a good job--
extraordinary work in the private sector, extraordinary work around the 
world. Because of the computer age in which we live, they were able to 
share information instantaneously, in real time, and say that this 
alternative doesn't work, which accelerated greatly the ability to get, 
within a year, an extraordinary accomplishment, largely from our 
scientific and medical community but facilitated by Warp Speed. No 
doubt about that. Give credit where credit is due.
  Very frankly, the leader--unlike President Biden, who said this is a 
problem; we have to be careful; we have to pursue it; we have to 
invest--said no problem. The gentleman conveniently forgets that.
  He also ignores the statistics I just gave where we have had a 
tenfold, eightfold increase in the availability of testing and 
pharmaceutical access for literally millions of people. This is per day 
that we are talking about, 11.7 million people per day.
  It doesn't take too long at that rate that the whole country, all 330 
million people, in about a month and a few days has been taken care of. 
When you say we have to make progress, we have made extraordinary 
progress.

  Our view is--and I know we differ on this--we have made investments 
in the American Rescue Plan Act to deal with the pandemic crisis; in 
the infrastructure bill to create jobs, additional manufacturing 
capacity, and training and apprenticeships for our people; in the Build 
Back Better bill to make sure that our families can keep their heads 
above water and can, in fact, have childcare that they can rely on and 
feel their children are safe so they can take a job, be productive 
citizens, and add to the growth of our economy.
  We believe we are doing that. Are we doing it perfectly? None of us 
do it perfectly. Perhaps we need to do more, as the gentleman implies, 
and have hearings.
  The gentleman says he was in a hearing. Private or public, I presume 
the gentleman had an opportunity to ask questions. I don't know who the 
witnesses were, so I don't know what expertise they have.
  I can't believe that if you requested of Mr. Clyburn that you have 
relevant witnesses to come by and that you want to question about the 
progress that either has been made or you think ought to be made or 
further things that could be done, I can't believe that he wouldn't 
agree to do that.
  In any event, great progress is being made, but the entire world--not 
the Biden world, not America--the entire world is confronting a crisis 
and is having a tough time getting ahold of it. We have done it better 
than anybody else in terms of growing our economy and keeping our 
people's heads above water. That is to be applauded.
  Do we still have a challenge? We do. Are we still working on it? We 
are. Do we need to continue? Yes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, under President Trump, when he created 
Operation Warp Speed, the one thing he did say is that we are going to 
move red tape so we can focus the entire scientific community, both the 
Federal agencies but also the private sector, in working together in 
removing the red tape so they can focus on getting a vaccine. He didn't 
say three, but he said let's at least get them the ability, all of 
these great companies, many that are American companies, to go put 
their innovation to work and get bureaucracy and red tape out of the 
way and follow science but expedite so that we can get there quicker 
when many scientists, including some who still testify at committees 
today, said it was going to take years to get a vaccine.
  In less than a year, we had three. President Biden inherited that 
when he walked in the door and took the oath of office. He had three 
proven vaccines.
  I know the gentleman talks about statistics. Look at COVID deaths. 
During the campaign, President Biden not only said he would crush the 
virus, but he said that anybody who presided over that many deaths--
that was months before the election--doesn't deserve to be President of 
the United States. I thought that was an inappropriate statement.
  More people have died under President Biden's watch from COVID than 
under President Trump's. It was an unfair standard that President Biden 
put in place when he was at one of the debates. If he is going to say 
things like he is going to crush the virus and going to have a plan, 
but then he comes out and obviously didn't crush the virus and tells 
Governors that there is no Federal plan, I do think that is a mixed 
message, at the least. That dereliction in his promise, at the worst, 
ought to be confronted.
  What is the plan, if there is a plan? If there is not a plan, admit 
there is not a plan. But you campaigned saying there was going to be a 
plan, and clearly, there is not one. Those are other facts that we can 
put on the table.
  Clearly, when you look at how President Trump pushed the Federal 
Government to work and partner with the private sector to move red tape 
so we can expedite the research and the trials, more tests than were 
ever done maybe on any other attempt for a vaccine, and come up in less 
than a year with vaccines when many said it would take years, it was 
clearly a remarkable achievement that we all worked on. President Trump 
led the effort, and we funded it in a very bipartisan way, and it was 
very effective.
  Obviously, this is a challenge for every country. There were other 
things said that ought to be put out there, and let's at least try to 
all be saying the same thing and focusing on the same thing.
  When scientific experts say that this is what we anticipate 
happening--if you are going to reject that science, at least hold 
people accountable who were part of the discussions to reject that 
science, as I referred to the October rejection of a testing plan that 
would have been in effect for December that was rejected.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. For a long time, the former President of the United 
States--apparently, he changed his view now and criticized DeSantis for 
not pursuing mask wearing, et cetera, et cetera. The fact of the matter 
is, of course, the former President discouraged wearing masks early on. 
He discouraged it: Oh, no, you don't need to wear a mask.
  He had events that were spreader events, as we call them.
  The gentleman heard me say that I think the President followed good 
advice and made a decision on Warp Speed that was helpful. As the 
gentleman noted, it was the scientists at NIH and scientists in the 
private sector and scientists throughout the world, but mainly our 
people, who did an extraordinary thing in an extraordinarily short 
timeframe--never been done before--to develop this kind of vaccine.
  You talk about the three vaccines. The three manufacturers, it had 
never been done before. It was a wonderful event. Unfortunately, too 
many people are advising: Don't take the vaccine. You don't have to 
take the vaccine. Don't sweat it.
  The government tells people they have to vaccinate their children to 
send them to school. Why? So other children don't get sick.

[[Page H180]]

  I told you I had those great-grandchildren, three of whom are in 
school. They have a child that sits in front of them, a child that sits 
to the right, a child that sits to the left, and a child that sits 
behind them. I want all of them well because I don't want my great-
grandchild getting sick.
  I don't think there was a very successful effort either by the former 
President or by many on your side of the aisle to say--you talk about 
science--do what the scientists tell you to do. Now, I notice most of 
your Members are doing so now, but still some wear it as a badge of 
courage and raise money off of it. I think that is harmful to our 
communities.
  I think you sort of just set aside no plan. Well, no plan has 
resulted going from 1.7 million to 11.7 million tests per day. That is 
the plan. We invested in March, in the American Rescue Plan Act, in 
making sure that health services could respond properly. A lot of money 
went into health and testing in the American Rescue Plan.
  You keep saying there is no plan. We have adopted plans, and we think 
they are positive plans. We think, hopefully, that we are going to get 
better soon.
  Neither President Trump nor President Biden was responsible for this 
extraordinary virus. Our view is President Trump laid back for a long, 
long time before he really engaged heavily in this, and now he has 
changed his tune to a much more positive ``listen to the scientists'' 
kind of attitude, which we welcome.

                              {time}  1215

  I disagree with the gentleman that there is not a plan. We adopted 
together in 2020 five major pieces of legislation to address this 
challenge, and we have adopted in a partisan way, unfortunately, bills 
that continue to fight that fight, and I think it is fighting it, not 
as successfully because we have a new variant, much more transmissible, 
a different type. It has metastasized into a more communicable disease. 
That has caused us a challenge, we are addressing that, and we are 
accelerating the availability of resources to do so.
  Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, we have some disagreements, but as we both have 
advocated for the vaccine, I do think one of the differences that we 
may have is that I strongly feel that it is a personal decision. It is 
a medical decision. And if government thinks that shaming people, 
threatening people, and firing people is going to address that 
challenge, they have missed the mark, and I wish they would instead 
move away from the shame and the firing. Hopefully the U.S. Supreme 
Court agrees with us and stops at least the firings of people by 
mandates from the government and just encourages people to have that 
conversation with their doctor if they have hesitation. But, 
ultimately, it is a decision that each individual would have to make.
  We will continue this conversation I am sure, and I yield to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I just want to say in terms of where we are today, the 
overwhelming percentage--I am talking about 90 percent--of people who 
are getting really sick are people who are not vaccinated. And for the 
government to say: You need to be vaccinated because we don't want you 
coming to the office, we don't want you coming with other people who 
are being careful, who have been vaccinated, and who have done the 
responsible thing and getting them sick. Because what we have seen, 
unfortunately, even with vaccination, is that people who are 
vaccinated, of our own Members on both sides of the aisle who have been 
vaccinated, have gotten--thankfully--mild cases of COVID.
  But when we talk about the President wanting people to get 
vaccinated--and my friend indicates that he and I both are advocates of 
that, and/or requiring them to get vaccinated--the reason you require 
people to get vaccinated, the more people you have unvaccinated, the 
more hosts this virus has to metastasize and to grow into a different 
type of virus that can attack in different ways. That is why you do 
that. That is why they talk 70 percent. Now we just have about 70 
percent in America now. Very frankly, if we had a higher percentage we 
would be better off. So let's hope that we can work together to make 
sure that we give encouragement to people to do what the scientists 
advise.
  My friend talks about the reason we were so successful in that year 
under Warp Speed of getting those three vaccines is because the 
scientists knew what had to be done. They found out and they had quick 
discoveries and eliminated a lot of dead-ends relatively quickly 
because of our computer capability and transformation of information 
around the world and dead-ends.
  If we listen to them, we would be better off. But an awful lot of 
people are saying: Don't listen to them. Don't do it.
  When the gentleman says for health reasons, there are hundreds, 
probably billions, I don't know what the billions are, people who have 
been vaccinated with a miniscule and almost undetectable adverse 
reaction. So I don't know what the gentleman talks about for health 
reasons. I know Djokovic is saying he is doing it for health reasons. I 
don't know what those are. Maybe my friend does. I am not an expert 
enough to know what that is. But all the doctors I talk to--and 
certainly our own doctor here whom we consult with on a regular basis, 
I know both of us have done that--say get the vaccine.
  So I would hope that all of us would ask our constituents to get the 
vaccine. It is good for you, it saves your lives, it saves your 
families, and it saves others. Get it.
  Mr. SCALISE. To be clear, I never said it was for health reasons. I 
said it was a health decision. So this is a medical decision that 
people are making.
  Again, in the past we have seen this suggested by some in the medical 
community inaccurately that if you get vaccinated you can't get the 
virus. A Supreme Court Justice said that if you get vaccinated you 
can't spread the virus. That turned out to be false. We know whether 
vaccinated or not you can get the virus. You can receive the virus, you 
can give it to other people, and you can die. We know in the hospitals 
the higher propensity of people in the hospitals are unvaccinated.
  Those are the kinds of things that we should be encouraging to get 
the facts out and then encouraging people to go make their decision 
with their doctor if they have concerns and questions.
  There are valid questions. There are people in the past who have 
raised religious exemptions to other vaccines and, by the way, been 
given approval for those religious exemptions that today are not 
getting similar religious exemptions for this.

  So let's just treat it equally, let's treat it fairly, and let's just 
focus on the facts. This idea that if you mandate something and 
threaten somebody it is going to change behavior, it is just not 
proving itself to be correct, and it is causing more division and 
forcing people into corners that they shouldn't be on. So hopefully, 
again, we can continue this conversation and get back to a place where 
we are in agreement which we have been in things like Operation Warp 
Speed.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________