Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before we begin the colloquy, let me make some remarks about someone who has made a real difference in this House.
Madam Speaker, every society that wants to be a successful society has to have rules. Thomas Jefferson, one of the great political thinkers of the centuries, observed that there had to be both comity and fairness if we were going to come together and have a democracy that was operational.
Dick Gephardt used to say that the legislative process was a substitute for armed confrontation, that the resolution of differences in a democracy needed to be done in a civil way, pursuant to rules.
Madam Speaker, we are losing, in a short period of time, a gentleman who has made a difference for this House, this Congress--House and Senate--has made a difference to the civility of this House, a gentleman who, by the way, is not responsible in any way for the lack of civility that, from time to time, breaks out in this House.
I refer, Madam Speaker, to our Parliamentarian, Tom Wickham. I have had the privilege of knowing him all of his days in the House of Representatives. He has been here for a significant period of time and has served as our Parliamentarian for essentially four Congresses, 8 years.
He stands--or sits, at this point in time--a short, at least 6 feet, distance, with his mask on, which is a unique experience for him, from the Speaker's rostrum. He is there to ensure that we play by the rules. He is there to ensure us that we do not take advantage of one another, but that we resolve, in pursuit of the rules, the differences that we may have and do so in a way that, for centuries, essentially, have governed how we process in the legislative arena.
It is a nonpartisan role. Obviously, he served when there were Republican Speakers, and obviously, he is serving now with a Democratic Speaker. It is nonpartisan, but it is sometimes thankless, particularly when you have to make a ruling, particularly that the majority party does not like.
I must say that there is probably not a Member among us who hasn't at some point in time said either, ``Gee, I am sorry Wickham made that ruling,'' or, ``I don't agree with Wickham.'' Therefore, it is a tough job because we are all pretty powerful people. We all think we are pretty smart people, and we know this, that, and the other. So, you have to have the courage of your convictions as well as the intellectual reasoning to go behind your decision. Tom Wickham has had that every day he has served in this House.
It is hard to be a referee because the calls don't always go the way people want. One of the hallmarks of the Parliamentarian's Office, and Tom Wickham in particular, is they call them as they see them. No matter the effect of those rulings, they make the ruling that they believe is correct. You can disagree, but what you cannot disagree with is that the Parliamentarian's Office prides itself on calling them as they see them.
Now, it was difficult, I am sure, for every Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian's Office, to conduct this role. But they have done so in a manner, all the time I have been here, which I am in my 40th year, that has been a credit to the House of Representatives, a credit to our democracy, a credit to Thomas Jefferson's perception of trying to create rules and ways of doing things that credited democracy, that did not undermine it.
Tom was also the Deputy Parliamentarian and the Assistant Parliamentarian, so he has had a lot of experience. He has spent a quarter of a century working for this House.
I will miss him. We will miss him. This Congress will miss him.
He will be succeeded by somebody who has experience and depth and will, I know, in the tradition of all the Parliamentarians with whom I have worked over those 40 years, be fair and unflinching in calling it as he sees it.
We will miss Tom's good humor and kind nature. I know my staff will miss working closely with him every day to ensure the smooth and proper running of the floor.
On behalf of Democrats, and I know Mr. Scalise will speak on behalf of his party as well, I want to thank you, Tom, for your service, for your dedication to this institution, for the temperate way in which you dealt with all of us, even when we were not temperate. You were steady, thoughtful, fair.
Also, as I said, I want to congratulate Deputy Parliamentarian Jason Smith, who will succeed Tom as Parliamentarian of the House. He will, as every Parliamentarian with whom I have served, be fair, be honest, and call them as he sees them. My staff and I look forward to working with him in his new role.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If I might wryly observe, Madam Speaker, that I have not seen the Parliamentarian pass you a note to instruct the gentleman to address the Chair.
Tom, I am going to address you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Tom Wickham, for those who are watching, is a wonderful example of the extraordinary patriotism, loyalty, and talent that has contributed to this House's operation by all of our staff. He is one of the best, but we have the best.
Tom, I know you treated all the staff, certainly on my staff--and I know all the staff--with great respect because you knew how important they were. We all know how important you have been to the operations of this House.
I don't know what you will be doing. But assuming that you, at this young age of yours--I told you that you were way too young for us to let you go, but you are going--you will be doing other things, and you will bring great value to whatever enterprise you pursue.
We have been blessed for a quarter of a century with your service, and we thank you for that service. Godspeed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business. No votes are expected in the House on Monday.
On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business.
I would remind Members that Monday is expected to be a travel day following the holiday. So, Monday we will have business on the floor, but we will have no votes on the floor.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business.
On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
We will consider several bills, Madam Speaker, under suspension of the rules, a large number of suspension bills, in fact. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.
The House will consider, as well, next week a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2021.
Madam Speaker, the House has passed 10 of its appropriations bills of the 12 appropriations bills we have.
Sadly, the Senate has not passed a single bill out of committee, has not voted on a single appropriations bill in its committee. As a result, clearly, we will not be able to conclude the appropriations process, and we will have to have a CR to make sure that government stays serving the American people.
Hopefully, we can reach a bipartisan agreement, and there will not be a controversial continuing resolution. I know Democrats and Republicans and the administration are working toward that end.
I expect and hope a bill to be filed tomorrow. That is our hope. But we do expect to consider that bill next week.
The CR, as I said, is necessary to avert a shutdown that would only further damage our economy and undermine our efforts on COVID-19.
In addition, the House will consider H.R. 4447, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act. This bill, Madam Speaker, is a package of legislation reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to invest in energy innovation and clean energy development.
In addition, the House may consider H.R. 6270, the Uyghur Forced Labor Disclosure Act, and H.R. 6210, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible.
I yield back to my friend, the Republican whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Of course, the Paycheck Protection Program was a very, very important program. I was pleased that the committees came up with that program and we had bipartisan support for that program.
I will tell the gentleman that that is an important effort for us to take, but I would also say it is very important for us to act on behalf of millions of people who still do not have a job or are on unemployment and need the supplemental unemployment that they were receiving to survive and keep their families going.
We have millions of people who are suffering from food shortages, the inability to keep their family fed. We need to pass, we believe, the supplemental nutrition program.
We need to make sure that States, in my view, have the ability to function. They are hemorrhaging revenues because of COVID-19, because of the decrease in the economy. States, cities, municipalities, counties are suffering, and many other aspects, including testing, which is one of the critical components of us confronting COVID-19.
So while I agree with the gentleman that the program that he talks about--of course, we created that program and we passed it in a bipartisan fashion, and it was very bipartisan in the Senate. I know Mr. Cardin and Mr. Rubio were both involved in that. It was very important to pass that.
But I will tell the gentleman that I was pleased that the President indicated that we need to invest very significant sums, which he then said would come back to the U.S. or help the U.S. economy. I think that was a positive step forward.
I would also observe, as the gentleman observed, that Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin reached four major deals, compromises--four. One was, we thought, very big at the time, $8.3 billion, which now looks somewhat small. But we reached four of those. We brought them to the House floor, the Senate floor, and they passed overwhelmingly in bipartisan votes.
Secretary Mnuchin and the Speaker have been discussing trying to get to, for 4 months now--now, Mr. Meadows is also in the room. Mr. Meadows and I have a very positive relationship, but my observation has been, through the years, Mr. Meadows is more about stopping deals than making deals.
But I agree with the gentleman, we need to act. I am hopeful that the administration and the Senate and the House will reach agreement ASAP, not only on the PPP, which I agree with the gentleman on, not only on the PPP, but all the other programs that I mentioned and many more that are in the HEROES bill.
The Speaker has indicated we are certainly prepared to negotiate what the expenditure is, and she has indicated a willingness to come down very, very substantially to try to reach an agreement, which is what compromise is all about. That hasn't happened yet, but I am hopeful that it will happen in the near term, because I agree with the gentleman, we need to act. I am urging the administration and all of us to come to an agreement.
Unfortunately, in the Senate, their efforts have not been successful in passing a bill. So we have no alternative bill beyond the HEROES bill that passed, as I said, 4 months ago, so we have nothing to conference because there is no Senate bill.
In fact, Mr. McConnell went from a trillion down to a half a trillion, which almost every economist, either at a trillion or half a trillion, says is not sufficient for health reasons and economic reasons and family reasons to confront the enormity of the challenge that still confronts us as a result of COVID-19.
So I thank the gentleman for mentioning Mr. Chabot's legislation. He is right, of course, there is $130 billion in the pot. I think we ought to purpose that to either a continuation of PPP or a continuation of PPP and other things. But I think we ought to do it, and what we are trying to do is a comprehensive package that deals with all the challenges confronting American families, particularly the unemployment insurance.
As of July 31, as the gentleman knows, the supplemental payment lapsed. To some degree, the President has tried to put additional sums in there. Some States are pursuing it and some States have effected it.
But I hope that the bottom line is, in the next week, in the near term, and I think the President's statement was helpful, and I hope, frankly, the Senators take that to heart, that we need to invest much more than they suggested if we are going to meet the scope of the problem that exists.
I thank the gentleman bringing to the House's attention that particular bill, and certainly it will be under consideration as well, I think, by those who are negotiating, mainly Secretary Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi. Mr. McConnell has chosen not to participate in those discussions, as you know. Mr. Schumer does, and I think Mr. McCarthy does--I am not sure all the time, but I am sure he does as well.
We want to get an agreement. We want to do what we have done four times: reached an agreement, passed it overwhelmingly in both Houses for the people, because the people are hurting and we need to act and meet that challenge of their hurt and their need to support themselves, their families, and, as you point out, their businesses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the whip mentioned undermining confidence. I will tell the whip with all due respect; nobody has undermined confidence in the healthcare system more than the President of the United States. No one has diverted more attention from the experts; no one has denigrated the experts, which undermines confidence in their advice and counsel, than the President of the United States. And no one in the health community said that the coronavirus was a hoax.
We have just seen that Mr. Woodward heard in late January that the President thought this was a very serious matter. And then, frankly, he conveyed to the American people, don't worry about it, it is going to go away. In a few days, a few weeks, it is going to go away.
No one has undermined the confidence of the American people in the CDC or the FDA or the NIH more than the President of the United States. He said they are wrong.
And I say that because confidence needs to be built by leadership. And if the vaccine can come out next month, hooray, if it can be done consistent with what the medical experts and the pharmaceutical experts tell us can give the American people confidence.
But I will tell my friend Mr. Caputo substantially undermined confidence because he wanted to tell the experts what to say apparently consistent with what the administration's policy was as opposed to what the scientific evidence was.
And so when you mention confidence, some people were trying to undermine confidence; we have had six, seven, eight months of undermining confidence.
And it is a shame. Because the gentleman is absolutely right. People are going to need confidence. And they are going to have to take the vaccine because that is the only way this economy is going to get back to where it needs to be. People having confidence in the safety for themselves, their husband, their wife, their children to be about the business of America and their own personal business.
So I would hope that the President would leave it to the experts, not to his judgment, to the experts as to when a vaccine is ready to deliver to the public. And then I think all of us ought to have that confidence to--I certainly am going to get the vaccine when the medical experts tell me this is safe to take, and I am going to urge my family to do the same. And I am sure you have just indicated you would do the same. I think we will, hopefully, do that.
But the instilling of confidence, I would tell my friend, starts at the top and with all of us, as well, because people respect us in some respects sometimes, and they think we have knowledge that they may not have, and therefore, they want to have confidence that, yes, this is good; no, it is not, don't do it.
So I would simply say to my friend, I hope that we get a vaccine. I hope we get it as soon as possible. And I hope that the election has nothing to do with the vaccine. I hope the decision has everything to do with science and medicine. And I think all Americans hope that, as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. How about Dr. Redfield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Did you see what happened in the last 48 hours?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This President doesn't take responsibility for anything other than good things. If anything bad happens, this President does not take responsibility. He points to somebody else.
What I interrupted the gentleman on was he says, ``the scientists.'' Redfield is a scientist. He is a medical doctor. He is the head of the CDC. He made a comment, his best judgment as to when vaccines were going to be available, widely available.
The President contradicted him on both points he made just a few days ago, as he has done with Fauci, as he has done with Hahn, as he has done with others.
My confidence in those three companies is that they will come to the referee and will say: ``Is this ready to go?'' The referee, in this case the FDA, that the gentleman says is so respected has that responsibility.
What I don't have confidence in, what I think so many of the American people don't have confidence in, is they will get a call from the White House that says: ``This is the judgment you are going to make.''
We have seen, over and over and over again, decisions modified because of White House direction. In fact, Caputo was there for exactly that reason at HHS, not CDC, but overseeing CDC.
I tell my friend, Madam Speaker, yes, we need to have confidence, but we need to be truthful with them. We need to tell them the truth. We need to take direction from the experts, not substitute our judgment.
The gentleman talks about hydroxychloroquine. Obviously, Fauci didn't think that was a great recommendation to make. That was for doctors to make, but the President made it. In fact, most of the doctors thought that was not a good recommendation.
Certainly, Clorox was even less than that, I say as an aside. Maybe it was tongue in cheek, but unfortunately, when the President speaks, people don't necessarily think it is tongue in cheek, and it becomes dangerous.
I will say to my friend, hopefully, that this vaccine issue will be resolved by the experts and give confidence to the American people that they can, in fact, rely on the experts and their doctor to take the vaccine because, hopefully, it will be in a position where, in fact, it will give the confidence and the result that is promised.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am not going to prolong this. The only thing I would say is, under the gentleman's theory, Madam Speaker, we wouldn't need the FDA because, clearly, these companies would not do anything just because of profit. And I don't allege that they would do that.
But we have an FDA because we need a referee to look at it without thinking of the consequences of a yes or no answer but a scientific answer. That is the only observation I would make.
I get it. I get that the companies are reputable companies.
I support them. They do great work. But we have an FDA because we need somebody who is an independent arbiter, not just because no company would do this. Because if no company would do it, we wouldn't need the FDA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have nothing left to say.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source