May 2, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 72 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H3430-H3432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of 
the majority leader the schedule for the next week to come.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
the majority leader.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 
postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for 
morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several 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. 986, the Protecting Americans with 
Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.
  On October 22, 2018, the Trump administration continued the 
Republican assault on affordable, quality health coverage by issuing 
new guidance to carry out section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act.
  That new guidance, Madam Speaker, undermines patient protections and 
threatens coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. H.R. 986 
blocks implementation of that guidance so as to preserve preexisting 
condition protections and ensure that healthcare remains affordable and 
comprehensive.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2157, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019.
  The legislation would provide relief and recovery assistance for 
Americans affected by recent natural disasters. It includes an 
additional $3 billion above that which we passed and sent to the Senate 
some weeks ago to address urgent needs following flooding in the 
Midwest and tornadoes in the South that have occurred since the House 
passed its first disaster relief bill in January, which, unfortunately, 
has languished in the Senate.
  Lastly, the bill includes an extension of the National Flood 
Insurance Program until September 30, 2019.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would point out that the President's 
executive order on section 1332 does nothing to change the protections 
in law for people with preexisting conditions under ObamaCare. As the 
gentleman knows, the law protects people with preexisting conditions 
from facing any kind of discrimination, and the section 1332 waivers 
have nothing to do with that.
  What they do is allow some States--and there have been a number of 
States who have requested--the ability to be more innovative and focus 
on lowering premiums while protecting preexisting conditions.
  Those States that have taken advantage of that waiver have used it 
to, number one, provide healthcare in different ways, more innovative 
ways for their Medicaid population.
  That is something we should all encourage because Medicaid in many 
States is the worst form of healthcare. In many cases, doctors don't 
even take Medicaid policies and don't see Medicaid patients, so they 
can't get access to care.

[[Page H3431]]

  These waivers are a way to help open more access to care at lower 
costs, in many cases, while protecting preexisting conditions.
  With that said, when the gentleman laid out the schedule, I didn't 
see anything on the President's request for supplemental funding for 
the border crisis. Specifically, there was a $4.5 billion request that 
came down from the White House for additional funding to address this 
wave of people who are coming into our country illegally.
  In many cases, they have run out of detention beds. They are 
overwhelming the system, and it has been reported very widely. That is 
why the President made the $4.5 billion request.
  I wanted to ask the gentleman if that might be included in this 
supplemental for the disasters that we would surely like to be 
addressed.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
won't respond to his initial comments. Obviously, we have a 
disagreement on the impact that the administration has had on 
preexisting conditions and on the section to which we are referring. 
But we will have a full debate on that next week when we consider the 
bill.
  With respect to the gentleman's question as it relates to the 
President's proposal for supplemental funding for border security, 
which, by the way, was sent down yesterday and is now being reviewed, 
the gentleman knows that we are strong supporters of border security, 
and we want to make sure that the border is also humane.
  The gentleman did not mention, but I want to point out, that in the 
bill that we adopted to fund the government that was shut down for 35 
days, in the bill that we passed, there was $755 million for 
construction and technology at ports of entry where most drugs come 
into the country illegally. We want to make sure those drugs stop.
  We want to have border infrastructure that allows for not only 
security but checking people who are coming into the country to make 
sure they do not have illicit substances with them, either for their 
own use or for sale.
  In addition to that, we had $415 million for Border Patrol and 
Customs agents and for humanitarian relief, which, obviously, was 
anticipating the problem that currently confronts us and to make sure 
that people who come across our border are treated humanely and with 
respect.
  In addition, there was $30.5 million for alternatives to detention 
and family case management, which we think is important.
  In addition to that, there was a half billion dollars, $563 million, 
for immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases.
  Lastly, there was a half-billion dollars, $527 million, to assist 
Central American countries, which has had a positive effect on reducing 
crime and violence, one of the major reasons that people are fleeing 
those countries, particularly the Northern Triangle countries, and 
seeking asylum in the United States of America, pursuant to American 
law.
  But we are reviewing. We want to make sure, as I said at the 
beginning, that our borders are secure and that we are treating people 
consistent with American law, not separating children from their 
families.
  The President says he wants to perhaps renew that policy. We are 
vigorously opposed to that policy. We think the President is wrong in 
citing previous administrations that separated children. They did so in 
very few instances, almost exclusively when they were concerned about 
the safety of a child because of a parent's actions toward the child.
  I will tell the gentleman that we are going to be reviewing the 
President's request very carefully. Ms. Roybal-Allard, who chairs the 
committee, and Mr. Thompson, who chairs the Homeland Security 
Committee, both will be looking at it carefully. We will be making 
recommendations in the near future as to the disposition of that 
proposal.
  Mr. SCALISE. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, at the final end of 
your spending bill, we got a start on addressing the problem of border 
security. We had very intense negotiations, and the President laid out 
the multitude of things that need to be done to get full control over 
the border, which we do not have.
  That was a start. As the gentleman knows, it surely hasn't stopped 
the flow of people who have been coming across, especially these 
caravans, these organized caravans, in the thousands per day, which is 
overwhelming our system. I wish it would stop.
  I wish we would address all the interior security problems and magnet 
laws, like catch and release and the asylum loopholes, that are 
encouraging people to come here illegally, in many cases overwhelming 
our own system.
  As the gentleman reviews that supplemental, hopefully, we can come to 
an agreement on how to, at least in the interim, address the problem. 
But ultimately, long term, we need a solution. We will continue to work 
on that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The point of reciting the dollars that were included just some weeks 
ago to the administration is to point out that they had clearly 
significant sums with which to operate now, and we will see what funds 
they need in the future. But I wanted to point out that we have not 
been negligent or sleeping, with respect to both border security and 
the humanitarian treatment of those who come across our border seeking 
asylum.
  As I said, we will review it and see what determination needs to be 
made on what further resources are necessary.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, that debate will go on. Hopefully, we can 
start addressing some of the long-term problems.
  Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman, finally, about 
legislation to confront this BDS movement, a major threat to our ally 
Israel. It attempts to undermine its economy. There is legislation, and 
of course, there is a bipartisan resolution, the Schneider-Zeldin 
legislation, which I strongly support, that at least calls out the BDS 
movement.
  As we have also seen, we need teeth. We need real tools that we can 
provide to not just our friend Israel, but also States, many States 
that are also trying to confront this problem and push back against the 
BDS movement. The McCaul bill addresses that, similar to a Senate bill 
that passed with over 70 votes--very bipartisan.
  In fact, I believe there are amendments being put together to make 
the McCaul bill identical to the Senate bill. Then the question is, can 
we get some kind of commitment--and I know we have talked about this 
before--to bring that bill to the floor so that we can finally, truly 
confront this growing problem of the BDS movement across not only the 
world but within our country, and do it with real teeth, like the 
bipartisan McCaul bill?
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, and I thank him for 
his observation, the bill to which he refers has essentially four 
parts, including a provision with reference to the MOU for Israel's 
assistance package, which we strongly support. We strongly support the 
levels of that. That was not controversial.
  Also, the Syria sanctions bill--of course, we have passed the Syria 
sanctions bill, and we are working on other bills that relate to that.
  Unfortunately, they are being held up in the Senate by some 
Republican Senators. The Syria sanctions bill has not been moved in the 
Senate. It also has the Jordan MOU, which is noncontroversial. It has 
Syria, Jordan, and the MOU. Those are the three factors. One is 
controversial.
  It is controversial because of whether or not it comports with the 
law. There have been a substantial number of State cases that have been 
ruled on, State actions taken on this issue that have been held not to 
be consistent with law and the Constitution.
  We are concerned about that because I share the gentleman's view. I 
am an opponent of the BDS movement. I think it harms one of our most 
important allies, and it is inconsistent with, I think, the welfare of 
the people in Israel and, frankly, the Palestinians in the West Bank.
  Having said that, we are strong supporters of the resolution. That 
resolution has bipartisan support, I think, and if it comes to the 
floor, it will have bipartisan support. The gentleman indicated that.

[[Page H3432]]

  We intend to come forward with that, but we are trying to work to 
make sure that other suggestions are consistent with law, and we may 
move with those as well.

  We haven't made that determination yet.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I understand that there 
hasn't been any determination yet, but there is a growing frustration 
that this needs to be addressed by the Congress. There is a move to 
initiate a discharge petition to get that bill brought to the floor, so 
those discussions will continue.
  Hopefully, we can address the problem of BDS not only in a resolution 
but also in legislation that has teeth in law to help those States that 
want to confront it and also to help, in a bigger way, our ally Israel.
  My final point is on the process that we have seen. Of course, this 
week, there was only one bill that came under a rule. As far as 
amendments go, we have seen a growing trend toward shutting out 
Republican amendments.
  If I can just go through it with the gentleman, as we have looked in 
this Congress, of the amendments that have come out of the Rules 
Committee, 74 percent of those amendments were Democratic amendments; 
14 percent were Republican amendments; and 12 percent were bipartisan.
  If I can compare it to the last Congress when we were in the 
majority, there were, in fact, more Democratic amendments than 
Republican amendments allowed. Forty-five percent of the amendments 
were Democratic; 38 percent were Republican in our Republican majority; 
and 17 percent were bipartisan.
  When you compare last Congress when we were in the majority, we let 
more Democratic amendments to the floor than Republican amendments.
  So far, we have seen a complete reversal of that, where our 
amendments have been shut out at a very high level, again, 74 percent 
to 14 percent.
  I would ask if the gentleman can look at addressing this problem and 
try to bring some parity to the floor process as it relates to that 
disparity, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Of course, what the gentleman didn't say is that the last Congress 
had the most closed rules of any Congress in which I have served, the 
most closed Congress that we have served in, according to outside 
observers.
  There were 30 amendments available to this bill. I am not sure how 
many were asked on the Democratic side or the Republican side, frankly. 
But having said that, there were Republican amendments made in order. 
Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has said he intends 
to have as many amendments made in order as they believe consistent 
with getting our work done.

                              {time}  1245

  So I would say to the gentleman, unlike the last Congress, I think 
you will see closed rules be very much the exception while, frankly, 
they were very much the rule in the last Congress. But I take the 
gentleman's point, and I will have discussions with Mr. McGovern. But 
as you know and I know he is one of the fairest Members in this House, 
and we will be trying to accommodate Members.
  I will also say that the gentleman's statistics include the 
appropriations process, where there were a lot of amendments on both 
sides of the aisle. We have not gotten to the appropriations process. 
As you know, it is my intention that we get to the appropriations 
process and, frankly, try to conclude the appropriations process next 
month, and I am sure there are going to be a lot of amendments coming 
from both sides.
  Mr. SCALISE. I hope when we get to that appropriations process that 
there would be open rules, as we did.
  And I guess the gentleman doesn't have to worry about his majority 
breaking the record of closed rules, because this week we only had one 
rule, and, in fact, again, a modified rule, where over 30 of our 
amendments were shut out. Hopefully, more legislation starts moving 
through the process.
  When we look at last Congress, we passed over 50 rules last Congress. 
So far, this Congress, only 34 rules. We actually had 30 bills signed 
into law at this point in the last Congress, 30 bills signed into law 
under our majority, only 16 signed into law here. Hopefully, we see 
more productivity as well as more openness in that process.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I think the viewers and the Members of Congress are probably glazed 
over right now with these numbers, but I will tell the gentleman, there 
was not a single open rule in the House that was presided over by Paul 
Ryan, not one--not one. Check your record.
  But as I say, Mr. McGovern has clearly said that we want to have 
amendments made in order so that both sides can get a fair hearing, and 
I think he has been doing that, and I think he will continue to do it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Well, as eyes are glazing over, for clarity, there were 
many rules where every single Democrat amendment was included. So if 
you want to call it a modified rule, closed rule--for people watching, 
when Republicans and Democrats go to the Rules Committee to try to 
amend a bill, when every single Democrat amendment is allowed in, that 
is an open process.
  Today, for example, the only rule today, over 30 Republican 
amendments were shut out--over 30 were shut out. So, many times we had 
rules where every single Democrat amendment was allowed. In the last 
Congress, more Democrat amendments were allowed than Republican 
amendments.
  But this, hopefully, can get addressed and corrected, and maybe when 
we get to an appropriations process, it will be more fair in that 
regard.
  With that, I look forward to next week, hopefully get some of those 
things done.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________