Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader. Honoring Retiring Parliamentarian Thomas J. Wickham, Jr.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Obviously, we will have an opportunity to continue, as we should, this tribute to Tom Wickham.

So, Tom, congratulations on what you have done to preserve the integrity of this institution.

We come here as Republicans, Democrats, as Americans first, but people who all have their own views. Even if you are Republican, we don't all think exactly the same way, as Democrats don't always think the same way. But we come here to achieve certain things, to make this a more perfect Union in the ways in which our districts--our 750,000, roughly, people elect us to come and be part of this democracy, the world's greatest democracy.

You come and work with other people. Sometimes, you battle with other people in the arena of legislative ideas. It is not physical confrontation, as the majority leader pointed out. But sometimes, you have to persuade. Sometimes, you have to fight for your beliefs.

But ultimately, if you are going to achieve the things you came here to do, you have to change legislation. It takes an act of Congress, as they say. When you do that, you have to follow the rules.

The Jefferson Manual that goes back to 1801 are the rules that govern this great House. If there is a bill on the floor and you wish to make a change to that bill, you want to offer an amendment to the bill, bring a motion to recommit on the bill, you have to work within the rules. Those rules are interpreted not by the majority, not by the minority, but by the Parliamentarian.

The job you have done for 25 years in the Parliamentarian's Office, but especially since 2011 as the House Parliamentarian, you don't always tell people what they want to hear, but you tell people what is the right way to do something according to the rules that we have established so that there is a fair process.

A lot of people don't see this back and forth. If the Parliamentarian rules against you, it is not a personal thing. In many cases, a Member will go to the Parliamentarian, Republican or Democrat--I have done this myself--and said, ``This is what I would like to achieve.''

Sometimes, they tell you that you can't do it on that bill because there are germaneness issues. But sometimes, there is that gray area where if you are trying to do it this way, it won't work, but if you try to do it another way, it actually would work. That is really the art of the ability of a Parliamentarian, to work with Members of Congress to help them achieve the things they are trying to do. We still have to go and get the votes, but at least allowing a Member that opportunity to go fight it out and make their case.

In many cases, that case wouldn't be able to be made if the Parliamentarian wasn't fair in offering that guidance to Members of Congress, whatever they are trying to achieve, whatever their background, whatever their district, to be fair and to at least give them that opportunity to come here on the House floor and fight that battle, hopefully right that wrong, and advance the things that they were elected to go do to make this a more perfect Union.

So thank you, Tom, for that fairness.

I know as Jason takes on this role in a few weeks, he will have a great legacy to build upon and to look toward somebody who did the job right and served this country in a very proud and respected way.

I know Heather is probably watching on C-SPAN. I am not sure how many other people are, but Heather, hopefully, is, your wife. She will have more time to work with you. I am not sure who the parliamentarian of your house is. I am the House Republican whip, but in my house, Jennifer is the one who plays that role.

But in your house, hopefully, Heather sees you more, because you are here when we are here, and sometimes those are late hours, and sometimes those are long weekends.

We appreciate the sacrifices you have made. Hopefully, in this next role in your life, you will be able to enjoy more time with your wife, Heather, and your family.

We truly do thank you for playing this part of your role in history and adding to what is great about this great democracy.

Do you mind standing up so everybody in the Chamber here can see you and pay the proper tribute?

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. As I was addressing it to the Speaker, of course.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Madam Speaker, we all appreciate Tom's service to our country and especially to this Chamber.

Now, if I may inquire of the majority leader the schedule for next week, and I would yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate the timeline, especially the comments about the negotiations that have been going on in a very constructive way regarding a continuing resolution. They have definitely been in good faith with Republicans and Democrats as well as with the White House. It is encouraging to hear that, potentially, tomorrow that could be filed and we fully expect to be ready to take that up next week if that does, in fact, happen.

I know the differences that we have been talking about in the last few days are minor in consideration of all of the factors that are included in a continuing resolution. So I think, as people watch some of the bigger fights that are real between the two sides, to see that on something as important as properly and responsibly funding the government that we are making very good progress on at least a short- term mechanism that would stave off any kind of shutdown between now and September 30, I appreciate the work that has been done by the majority with the minority and with the White House and Senate to get to that point. Hopefully, we do get that legislation filed and are able to take it up next week.

Unless the gentleman had anything else on that, there was another legislative issue I wanted to bring up.

As we both know, there are conversations going on regarding a potential next relief package. We don't know if there will be an agreement reached. These negotiations have been going on for weeks and weeks since the CARES Act, the multiple pieces of legislation that we filed both before and after that we have come to an agreement on, things like the Paycheck Protection Program that both sides worked very hard on, very successfully on.

Reports have come out to show over 50 million Americans' jobs were saved by the work we did as a Congress working together to save millions of small businesses and over 50 million jobs as we are struggling through this pandemic.

One of the things I would like to ask the gentleman to take a look at is that we may get an agreement, but we may not on a bigger relief package, and we see multiple bills that are out there. The Senate has been trying to advance something. The House has had a position. Some House Democrats yesterday filed a separate bill with some other House Republicans to try to have a third way, and the White House has been talking about a different option. In the meantime, we clearly don't have an agreement yet on that.

I would ask if the gentleman would look at H.R. 8265. This is a bill by Representative Chabot of Ohio. He is the lead Republican on the House Small Business Committee. This is a bill that would specifically target those small businesses that were part of the Paycheck Protection Program. This is not a new idea. This is taking the existing framework of a bill that we, both sides, came together to pass, a very successful bill.

As the gentleman knows, the Paycheck Protection Program still has over $130 billion remaining in its account, money that wasn't spent. We were able to help every business that asked. Every business that was eligible was able to go to their local bank, didn't have to go to an SBA lender.

Again, I want to thank our small community banks that played such an important role. We would not have been able to help all those small businesses stay afloat if our local community banks didn't participate in helping the customers that they usually see on a daily basis who are struggling.

But as that money is sitting in that account, the program has expired, so the money can no longer be spent. We have appropriated this money. It is not new money and it is not a new program. But what Representative Chabot's bill does is it would allow those small businesses that have shown a loss--we know there are some business doing better today than they were before COVID; there are some that are doing dramatically worse after COVID.

This would specifically be limited to those businesses that have experienced at least a 25 percent loss or more, that they would be able to go for a second round of Paycheck Protection loans, using existing money, not new money, the money that is locked in an account that can no longer be spent.

So maybe we do get an agreement between now and then on a larger package, but if we don't, at a minimum, I would just ask the gentleman--I would think this would be something that could pass on the suspension calendar to at least help small businesses using a program we already agree upon, that we already know has been successful. It saved small businesses in every single district of this country. It is not a Republican or Democrat plan. It has been a plan that truly has been a lifeline for any of our small businesses. And, again, over 50 million jobs have been saved.

I would just ask the gentleman if he would take a look at that, if we don't get an agreement, to potentially bring something like that to the floor--that could be a suspension-type bill to pass--and, at least while we are negotiating things that may or may not happen, help those businesses that we know need help.

I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

As we look at the various topics that the gentleman from Maryland brought up on the negotiations, if you looked at the Senate bill--and, clearly, there are multiple bills out there--ultimately, it is going to take a bipartisan bill working with the administration. Mr. Meadows has been here many times working, trying to meet, sometimes not being able to get meetings with some leaders.

But at the same time, if you look at the Senate bill, they did include some enhanced unemployment. They included more money for small businesses, for families, for testing. They had $16 billion for testing, $31 billion for vaccine, which I know--I want to bring that up. They had $20 billion for farmers, $15 billion for childcare.

They did have liability protection, which continues to be a very big issue many small businesses bring up. They want to make sure that, if they open safely, they are not going to be shut down by frivolous lawsuits. That is something that there has been a lot of negotiation about as well.

But, ultimately, when you look at those differences, we will hopefully get that resolved. In the meantime, if that can't get broken, at a minimum, if we can look at some of the money that is unspent because, in addition to the PPP, I think the gentleman knows, we also put about $150 billion in the CARES Act toward our States to help all of our States, a formula that allowed States and, in some cases, local governments get money to help themselves through these tough times.

There is not one State that has spent all that money. And I know some people want to talk about how much more money to give, but if they haven't spent the money they have already gotten, maybe we can look there as another way to help push more relief, including with schools.

If a school wants to reopen safely--and I would encourage all schools, the protocols have been out there. The Centers for Disease Control have put out very good, responsible safety protocols for safely reopening schools, and it varies, depending on the kind of region you are in. If you have a spike, there is a way to handle that. If you are in an area that has not seen a prevalence of COVID, then there is a different way to handle it. But in every case, there is a way to safely reopen schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics has laid that out as well. It means following the safety guidelines, but it can be done and needs to be done.

Unfortunately, in every case it is not being done, but it is not for lack of money. Any school system that needs more assistance, whether it is masks or screens for the teachers or whatever else they might need, sanitizer, the funds that we sent to the States, again, none of which have spent all of that money, can be used to help to safely reopen schools as well.

So those are all conversations we will hopefully have.

I do want to then talk about where we are with a vaccine, because we have been seeing a lot more reports on the progress, the tremendous progress that has been made within the medical community. And we know from the very beginning of this disease that our frontline healthcare workers have been some of the heroes, probably the biggest heroes of all of this, those hospital workers, the nurses, the doctors, but also those people working in the labs.

Almost instantly after China lied to us about the origination of the disease, lied to us about even whether or not the disease could be spread from person to person they corrupted the WHO. But ultimately as we started to find out what was coming out of Wuhan, I don't know, even the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House majority had a hearing titled: ``The Wuhan Coronavirus.'' So clearly, we know where this started. It has been discussed.

But at the same time, we have been working feverishly to find a cure, to find a vaccine. We have seen therapies emerge at a rapid pace. President Trump implemented Operation Warp Speed, which was a way to get red tape out of the way. Nobody is cutting corners on safety, but ultimately what we are all doing is focusing all the energy and the weight of this Federal Government behind finding a cure and a vaccine, and what we are seeing now is remarkable success in progress.

Here are some of the companies that right now are in phase 3 of testing on an actual vaccine for COVID-19. These are all very respected companies, not only in America, but worldwide, globally respected.

I am concerned by some of the comments we are starting to see by some people trying to undermine the public's confidence in a vaccine if it were to be approved by the FDA. And let's keep in mind, the FDA would have to approve any vaccine. You have to get approved by the FDA to go to phase 2. You have to get approved to go to phase 3, and then ultimately after testing on tens of thousands of people at a pace we have never seen before--with money, by the way, that we helped pass, and again, the gentleman and I both were part of those coalitions, Republican and Democrat, working to put money in place for that testing, for the work that is being done by these great companies to start now making the vaccine vials, a hundred million vials possibly that could be made before the drug is approved if, in fact, it then gets that approval, so that you don't have to wait to start mass producing after the approval.

If the FDA does approve any or all of these drugs as a vaccine that would actually prevent COVID-19, I hope we would both encourage people, if they wanted to, to then go and get that vaccine. And this is, hopefully, not going to be a debate within the country. Hopefully, it is going to be a recognition that America has the best scientific minds in the world. We have the most respected drug companies in the world, and they are working feverishly, not cutting a single corner on safety.

These would have to be safe and effective drugs for the FDA to approve them, but if any one or all of them get approved, then I would hope we would encourage people to go and protect their families, if that is what they want to do. And I know a lot of people that would want to do it. I have heard from some people, as I am sure the gentleman has, that they may want to wait a little while. But I also know that people want to be safe and secure in their homes. They want to have a confidence level that they are not going to be at risk of dying from COVID. And ultimately a vaccine and a therapy are the final answer that gets us over the hump, that gets us to where we can fully start reopening.

We are seeing many States at advanced levels of opening their economy, but we also know that we are not where we need to be, and a vaccine is probably going to be that biggest determining point that helps people reopen in a much more effective way. I hope we can at least agree that if that approval comes by the FDA that it is something we can all embrace and encourage people to pursue, if that is what they feel is best for their family.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman it is not hope that you have to have. This is all about science.

Name one of these companies that would put their name on a drug that would be injected into American people based on politics or based on a timeline that would have an impact on an election? Not one of these companies would do it. I would challenge anyone to name a company that would do that, because they wouldn't do that. So it is not a hope.

If the FDA approves one of these drugs or all of these drugs, it is because they work, they save lives. And we can't have an undermined confidence that they would save lives--because a vaccine is not something that a President or a candidate for President sits in a lab and figures out. It is a very serious process that the FDA, who is the most respected agency in the world for drug approval, has to sign off on every step of the way.

There are three phases. These are the companies that made it all the way through. There are other companies that are in earlier stages and may actually get to an FDA-approved vaccine, as well, and they are all very well respected, too, but these are the only companies. There is no mystery company. These are the companies that are in competition, not with themselves, but they are trying to save lives. And from everything we are hearing, the results are tremendously successful. We should be applauding that.

Operation Warp Speed has gotten us to this point, and while the President might not get credit--and I think it is an important point, as the gentleman talks about instilling confidence, where the President is on science. I have been in many of those meetings with Dr. Fauci, with Dr. Birx, with the whole team of the whole coronavirus task force.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. He has been in some of those meetings, too. And as the gentleman knows, not all doctors agree.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. There are some doctors who will say this is the way to do it, and there are some doctors who say that is the way to do it. You get 10 attorneys in a room; you might get 10 opinions. The saying ``go get a second opinion,'' that is because maybe not all doctors agree.

But when you are President of the United States you don't have the luxury of waiting for every doctor to be in agreement. If there is an inflection point on a decision, and some doctors are over here, and some doctors are over there, guess what, it is the President who has to make that final call, not because he has ignored science, but because he has looked to the science, and ultimately, he has to make that decision.

Dr. Fauci himself was in a committee hearing by the Select Subcommittee that the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, chairs. I am the lead Republican on that committee. We had Dr. Fauci in our committee. I asked him specifically, I went down the line on major decisions that had to be made by this President and whether or not science was used or not and whether or not it worked. I started, by the way, with the decision of whether or not to stop flights from China when we found out after China lied that they, in fact, did have this disease spreading widely in China, and President Trump made that decision to stop flights from China.

I know the Democrat nominee for President was against that decision, but President Trump worked with the experts. Dr. Fauci was part of that.

I asked him, I said, Was that the right decision by President Trump?

He said, Yes, it was.

I said, Did that decision save American lives?

He said, Yes, it I did.

And we went down the line on decision after decision, and they were all science-based. At no point was the President trying to undermine science.

In fact, some people were trying to suggest that Dr. Fauci was being sidelined, and yet, he was at the hearing, under oath, speaking on behalf of his role in the administration, and he said he has never been sidelined. He was actually asked that question, Have you been sidelined? He said, ``no'' under oath.

Now, is he always in agreement with the other doctors in the room? No, he is not. Does that mean he is wrong? No. But maybe he is. But, again, doctors can disagree because that is what science is. It is not two plus two equals four every time because you are dealing with some very complicated issues of a disease we knew nothing about less than a year ago.

Fortunately, with Operation Warp Speed, President Trump put together the best scientists, not just in America, but I would argue in the world, to figure out how to solve this, how to come up with things like hydroxychloroquine, which some people might say doesn't work. I have talked to many doctors who use it successfully to save lives even today. That should be the doctor's decision. Some people want government to control all those decisions. I would rather the doctor being the one to work with his patient.

You look at the other drugs that are out there today, but again, now we talk about a vaccine, there is not one company on this list--these are the only companies right now in phase 3. And if any of them are approved by the FDA, I hope nobody would question the integrity of that drug.

Do you think any of these companies would put their name on a drug that they don't stand behind as a safe and effective vaccine for this disease? And that is really the point.

It is all about science here. It is all about science and some people are trying to undermine that. And we need to get away from that because that will cost lives. If somebody is reluctant to take one of these drugs because they heard somebody that said, well, don't trust it if it comes from this President or that candidate, that is a dangerous game because lives would be lost if people didn't take that vaccine because they didn't have that confidence. We all need to have that confidence. We all work with science.

We have all had doctors who told us one thing, and maybe you wanted to go get that second opinion, but at the end of the day, you have got to make that choice, and you make it based on all the science that is available, and not all the time do all the scientists agree. In fact, many times on the complicated issues you get different opinions from different scientists. This President has worked with some of the best in the world.

And according to Dr. Fauci himself, by and large, the President has followed even Dr. Fauci's advice and has made the right decisions up and down the line based on science. And most importantly, President Trump's decision following the science has saved American lives, starting with that very first decision, which Joe Biden himself was against. How many American lives would have been lost if we didn't ban the flights from China; if we didn't ban the flights from Europe, when it was breaking out in Europe; if we didn't do 15 days to stop the spread, which President Trump did on the advice of his scientist? After that they said we need to go another 30 days. President Trump did that, too. Every one of those decisions was based on science. Every one of those decisions saved American lives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman, with all due respect to Dr. Redfield, he is not the head of the FDA.

The FDA is the agency that approves drugs, and in fact, the FDA is the agency working every day with these companies. There is a very strict protocol for going through phases of testing.

Now, one thing that is important to point out on the testing, because, again, some people wonder because Operation Warp Speed has gotten us to a point quicker, maybe in the history of the world, at finding a vaccine for a disease we knew nothing about 8 months ago, but the reason they are doing it is not because they are cutting corners. No one in science that I have heard has suggested that they are cutting corners because they are not. They have strict protocols.

What they are doing, number one, the President put real money in place behind making sure that each of these drug companies has direct communication with the FDA every step of the way so they know if tests need to be run on more people or different demographic groups, as is done with other drugs, they can do it quickly. They have a wide range of people willing to be tested.

To the tribute of all Americans, over 300,000 Americans have signed up for these tests. This isn't being tested on just a few people. Sometimes, a drug takes years and years to get to market for a lot of reasons. One is red tape.

President Trump has done a great job of getting the red tape out of the way to let the scientists actually do their job in real time. Something could sit on somebody's desk for months, in many cases, delaying lifesaving drugs. We have gotten that red tape out of the way.

Frankly, we ought to look at working together as Republicans and Democrats at making that the norm, not the exception, to actually be able to get red tape out of the way to help save lives.

But as they are doing it, they are testing it on more people than is normally the case. Sometimes, you might only have a few thousand people who are willing or in a position to be tested. Today, you have hundreds of thousands of people who are being tested.

If they make it through each step, it is not based on who is in the White House. It is based on what the doctors at the FDA, working with the smart people in these drug companies, have come up with based on the test results. If they test people and there are problems, it doesn't even make it to phase 2.

These are all in phase 3. They are all showing tremendous promise, but if one of them makes it through or if all of them make it through, it is not because somebody rushed it. It is because the doctors and the scientists said it works. Not one of these companies would put their name on that vaccine, not one of them.

Again, I would challenge anybody, Madam Speaker, if they think any of these companies would cut a corner, please let us know right now because that is not the case. That narrative shouldn't be out there because that narrative would be a false narrative and would cost American lives. If that narrative were to get out, then there might be people who wouldn't take the vaccine who otherwise would and should, where it could save their life, because this will save American lives.

And it is through American ingenuity. We ought to be proud of this.

We should put the politics aside and say thank God America is the leader in healthcare to the point where we have great American companies partnering, in this case, with a German company here in America, testing at a level we have never seen before on more people because we took the priority, through Operation Warp Speed, to put all the focus of these great agencies on finding a cure for COVID-19.

We are on the brink of doing it. It may not happen if the science doesn't match. But if the science does say these work, we all ought to applaud that and encourage people to explore, in a conversation with their doctor, whether or not they should take it.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I never suggested that. In fact, I said at the outset that these companies are in direct communication with the FDA on a regular basis. That is what Operation Warp Speed is.

In the old way of doing things, these companies would have submitted their data and would have waited months while some faceless bureaucrat let it sit on a desk and nothing happened.

Instead, what the President did was said there will be direct contacts where they can communicate with the FDA. They are not the enemy.

These companies aren't the enemy. The FDA is not the enemy. But it shouldn't be viewed as you are on one side and you are on the other side.

They are both working together because they are both part of the smartest scientific community in the world. They work together because the FDA wants to get it right and these companies want to get it right.

We saw one of them just a few days ago. They had a pause, which is the protocol. That is the safety protocol because there was a question in the testing, and they addressed it. I am sure there were many. I don't know directly, but I am sure there were many conversations with the FDA.

But then they started up again, which means there wasn't a problem. But it meant they followed the protocols, which say, if you see something that you need to go review, you hold off, and then you go check that out. That is what one of these did, and now they are back on track.

The others continue to go through, all of them, working with the FDA. That is really what this is about. It is about a partnership because the FDA has to sign off.

I am sure the gentleman would agree. You want to make sure you have multiple people looking at it. You don't just want the company that is making the drug looking at it. You want the regulator looking at it as well because, ultimately, they have to sign off on it.

They are not doing it blindly. No one suggests that. But they are doing it with a much sharper focus. It is the top priority, I think we would all agree. This needs to be the priority to get our country back on track, and it has to be done right. But it is not going to get signed off if it is not right. So, it is a partnership, and it is working incredibly well.

Again, this new partnership ought to be the model in the future. It shouldn't be the exception just because of COVID. It is working incredibly well.

We worked together to pass the 21st Century Cures Act, which ultimately will find a cure for cancer, for Alzheimer's, for ALS, for other diseases. It is because we put a sharper focus over at the National Institutes of Health, and we put additional resources over at the National Institutes of Health.

That priority, what we are learning from this, ought to be replicated to help find a cure for some of those other diseases so that maybe we can find even more cures for people who are living today, not just for somebody 30 years from now, but for somebody struggling today with one of those terrible diseases.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I know we will continue this conversation. Hopefully, the bill gets filed tomorrow, and we can resolve more of these issues next week. I look forward to seeing the gentleman and working with him on all of these.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source