November 15, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 183 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H8902-H8904]
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 yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), for the purpose of inquiring from the majority leader the 
House floor schedule next week.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday, 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 Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-
hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
  Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the 
rules, including H.R. 4634, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act, a very significant and very bipartisan bill.
  The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close 
of business today.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will be considering a 
continuing resolution through December 20 to keep the government open 
and operating on behalf of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by the Senate's failure to 
complete their work on appropriations, forcing us to consider another 
continuing resolution. This is evidence of failure, not of success. It 
is absolutely essential that we pass the CR to keep our government 
operating, but it is an indication that we have not gotten our business 
done as we should.
  I would remind House Members that we passed 96 percent of the funding 
of government by June 26 this year, or approximately 3 months before 
the end of the fiscal year, a little over 3 months.
  By the end of the fiscal year, the United States Senate had passed 
not a single appropriations bill. I am disappointed by that but 
recognize that passing a CR is absolutely essential.
  Rather than kick the can further down the road, however, we must use 
that time between now and December 20 to work on an agreement on 302(b) 
allocations, which will allow us to move appropriation bills done in 
line with the bipartisan budget caps agreement.
  Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 1309, the 
Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service 
Workers Act. This bipartisan bill directs the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to issue a standard requiring healthcare and 
social service employers to write and implement a workplace violence 
prevention plan to prevent and protect employees from violent incidents 
at work.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for walking through 
the schedule.
  As we have been hearing about the CR, I express similar 
disappointment that we have not been able to get the full-year 
appropriations bill agreed upon by both the House and the Senate, as we 
worked incredibly hard to get a 2-year budget deal, a very bipartisan 
agreement.
  The objective of getting a 2-year budget deal in last year's Congress 
was to ensure that we could agree on levels of funding for our troops, 
which we did to make sure that, instead of having CRs, we were actually 
able to have a full-year spending bill that is agreed to by both sides 
so that we can get certainty to our troops. They are not getting the 
tools they need.
  We already agreed on the levels of funding, and yet, there is still 
not an agreed negotiation. This is not a case where the House can just 
sit back and wait for the Senate to do something. We are in a CR now 
where there is a limited amount of time. I understand this CR will go 
through December 20, so for a few more weeks.
  It is not a matter of waiting for the Senate to come to an agreement 
between Republicans and Democrats there. It is a matter of getting the 
House and the Senate to get an agreement.
  At some point, somebody in the leadership of the House majority is 
going to have to go sit down with somebody in the leadership of the 
Senate majority. Everybody has their different parties and their 
different ideas, and they are going to have to stay in that room until 
they get an agreement. It has happened before. It has to happen this 
time. It hasn't happened yet.
  I don't know if those honest, earnest negotiations are going on 
between whoever in your House majority is going to be in the lead 
position to head that negotiation and whoever it is on the Senate side. 
It might be their appropriations chairs and your appropriations chairs, 
whoever has been designated by the House.
  There has to be a commitment that they are just going to go sit in a 
room until they figure out their differences. We agreed on a number. We 
passed a bipartisan 2-year budget deal for the purpose especially of 
making sure our military doesn't go in limbo, and these other Federal 
agencies that are important, too, that need to get the agreed numbers 
that they can come to an agreement on to spend.
  But, ultimately, we know the cost--we are hearing the cost from our 
military generals--of the CR. It is probably $1.5 billion a month that 
they lose, that they are not able to properly go and buy the equipment 
our troops need when we are operating under a CR.
  I hope we get to that agreement soon where whoever it is on your side 
that is going to be the point person that is authorized to get a deal 
can go sit down with the Senate and just stay until they get that deal.

                              {time}  1215

  And I know there are a lot of other things going on over here. We are 
not going to get into the impeachment infatuation and what it has taken 
away from. I hope it has not taken away from the ability to get this 
agreement.
  This is something both sides are going to have to do: House, Senate, 
Republican, Democrat. Until both sides get that agreement, we are at an 
impasse. And the most disappointing thing is, we already agreed on the 
budget numbers. That is usually the big fight.
  We had that fight and we had an agreement. Bipartisan. This is how 
much we are going to spend on defense. This is how much we are going to 
spend on nondefense and, yet, even with that agreement, we can't get 
the final bills brought to the floor. Not partisan bills, but 
bipartisan bills that can ultimately get signed. And so I hope that 
gets done soon.
  It is both sides that are going to have to do it: House, Senate, 
Republican, Democrat. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman talks about a bipartisan 
agreement. He does not talk about the stark fact that the House did its 
job. We passed bills. We passed 96 percent of the funding of the 
government.
  The Senate, led by Republicans, prior to the end of the fiscal year, 
passed 0 percent. It is hard to come to an agreement when the Senate 
doesn't pass anything. Nothing. Zero. Mainly because they needed the 
President to say: Simon says.

[[Page H8903]]

  I know that, for a fact--based upon conversations with the leadership 
of the Senate, that the President signing off, and we know that the 
Acting Chief of Staff, when he was here in this body, voted to shut the 
government down and voted against opening up, and said we ought to have 
a sequester for this fiscal year--that that was his position. It was 
Mr. Vought's position as well, who is the acting director at OMB. A 
mirror, Madam Speaker, in my opinion, of the Acting Chief of Staff.
  So for the Republican whip to say, oh, gee whiz, we are wringing our 
hands, and we passed partisan bills, of course we passed partisan bills 
because the gentleman's side would not work with us on our bills. That 
was the strategy, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, not simply a 
difference of opinion.
  As a matter of fact, on the defense spending that the gentleman 
mentions, I know for a fact, because I talked to them on the Republican 
side in both of the committees on appropriations and authorizing, the 
733 figure that we used was an acceptable figure. A figure, by the way, 
acceptable to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it is very hard to reach 
an agreement if one side doesn't say anything, doesn't send any bill, 
doesn't take any action.
  There was nothing to negotiate on. And the gentleman talks about a 
bill. First of all, the only thing that was agreed to was how much 
money we are going to spend overall on discretionary spending, about 30 
percent--a little over 30 percent of the entire budget. But there was 
no agreement on the distribution of those dollars to the various 
committees.
  Now, the gentleman says so much on defense side, so much on 
nondefense side. The gentleman is correct. But, very frankly, what the 
Senate Democrats are concerned about is that they will be passing 
bills, and money will be cut from programs that we feel are very 
important, to build a wall, a wall that somebody bought a $100 saw at 
Home Depot and cut a hole in.
  So I would reiterate my disappointment with the total failure of the 
United States Senate, led by Republicans, to enact any bill that 
appropriated money for the operations of government prior to the end of 
this fiscal year.
  So I say to my friend, there are people meeting. As the gentleman 
knows, the Speaker and Mr. Mnuchin had an agreement. Now, what does 
that reflect? Simon says. Because the Senate will not act as an 
independent body, coequal branch of the Government of the United 
States. Mr. McConnell has said as much. We won't pass anything unless 
the President will sign it, as if we have no mind of our own; as if--
the Representatives of the American people who vote by majority and 
pass something or by 60 votes in the Senate--only one vote counts, the 
President of the United States.
  And I say, I lament that fact, Madam Speaker. I tell the minority 
whip that I regret, and I will tell him--and I hope he believes me, 
because I believe it--if it were a Democratic President, I would be 
prepared to vote for bills on this floor that I believe the American 
people would support and that this body would support.
  And if the President signs it. He signs it. If he doesn't, then we 
see if we have two-thirds under our Constitution. And if we don't, the 
bill does not become law. That is the way the system ought to work. 
But, no, we are negotiating with Mr. Mnuchin, not with the Senate, not 
with Mr. Leahy, not even, apparently, with Senator McConnell. We are 
simply waiting for the President to tell the Senate: This allocation is 
okay.
  That is why, in my view, they didn't pass a single bill before the 
end of the fiscal year. But I hope we pass the CR. I hope it is as 
clean as it can be. There are anomalies that have to be taken care of, 
and we will take care of those, things that have to be extended because 
they are going to expire on the 21st of the month, this month.
  So I hope we do that, and I hope we can join together in a bipartisan 
way to do that. And then I join my friend, the minority whip, Madam 
Speaker, and hope we can get to bipartisan agreement. There is nobody 
in this body that served with me for any length of time that doesn't 
know I work toward that end, and I will continue to work toward that 
end.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, let's be clear that we both know the 
Senate operates differently than the House. The Senate has a 60-vote 
requirement, which means for the Senate to move anything, it actually 
takes Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement.
  The gentleman can talk about issues where Republicans are in 
disagreement. I could surely go through areas where Democrats are in 
disagreement; for example, funding over border security, which is a 
clear sticking point, one of the holdups in getting an agreement.

  We probably have a pretty good agreement on defense, even though 
while the gentleman says the House did its job, the House's job is to 
pass bills that can ultimately become law to advance all the things 
that we agree upon, and there is a President that is part of this 
process.
  So like in previous administrations, when we have these negotiations, 
oftentimes it is not just the House and Senate. Clearly, we need more 
serious agreements and negotiations between House and Senate leaders to 
come to an agreement. But, ultimately, you also have to produce a bill 
that the White House is in agreement with where they will sign. It 
doesn't mean you take what they want. In fact, the President is not 
getting many of the things he requested. But at some level, if the 
President is going to veto a bill, it is probably worth having 
negotiations to see if you can get beyond that.
  So this would not be the first administration where the House and 
Senate negotiated with the White House. The gentleman has been in 
meetings, as I have been in meetings, with many Presidents where we 
negotiate and try to come to an agreement. It doesn't mean they all end 
up being signed into law. It might be vetoed.
  The President has the power of veto, so it is worth all of our time 
to see if, not only the House and Senate can get an agreement, but also 
we can get an agreement with the White House, too. This is not the 
first time that has happened. Those negotiations are going on, but the 
wall is a big sticking point.
  We are building a wall. Probably about $8.5 billion this previous 
year was allocated, and we are going to negotiate what that is going to 
be next year. That is part of the negotiation. And, hopefully, we can 
come to an agreement over it. It shouldn't be that difficult to do it, 
but it is one of the sticking points. There are a number of sticking 
points, but as those sticking points happen, we all acknowledge it 
costs us.
  It costs our defense. Our Nation's defense suffers when we operate 
under CRs. The CR that is being talked about currently goes through 
December 20. My question to the gentleman is: Currently, the week of 
December 16, the House is scheduled not to be in session. And that 
would be the same week that the CR that is being contemplated would 
expire.
  Are we planning on coming back into session that week of December 16 
if December 20 is going to be the expiration of this current CR that is 
being negotiated? I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would advise all Members on both sides of the aisle 
not to schedule any business outside of Washington, D.C., between the 
16th and the 20th of next month. And I will advise them further if, in 
fact, we do not fund the government by the 20th, they may well be here 
longer than that. We will not leave here without funding the Government 
of the United States of America.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that update from the 
gentleman on the schedule. Obviously, next week we will have a number 
of other items. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is December 20, not November 20.
  Mr. SCALISE. So the week of December 16, you are suggesting we should 
keep that open?
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am advising all Members to ensure that 
their schedules accommodate sessions between the 16th and the 20th of 
December, which was originally, as the gentleman points out, not 
scheduled. But that was on the thought that we would rationally get 
past the only bills we really have to pass, and that is appropriation 
bills.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, the way that should work is we pass a 
bill, the

[[Page H8904]]

Senate passes a bill, and, yes, they require 60 votes. Well, what does 
that mean? It means they have to come to a compromise at a higher 
number.
  We didn't have to do that. We got some Republican votes for some of 
the bills. But the fact is, we did our business and, frankly, we did it 
before--it has been done since I have been here--96 percent of the 
government funded, and we sent them to the Senate.
  The Senate has not considered a single one of those bills because 
they had no stomach for compromise, which was why we are negotiating 
with Mr. Mnuchin and not the Senate leadership to listen to what, 
apparently, the President will accept.
  I agree with the minority whip that considering the administration's 
views is important because, of course, we want the bills signed. But we 
have known for a very long time that the Republicans could not--on this 
floor--neither Speaker Ryan, nor Speaker Boehner could negotiate with 
Mr. Mulvaney.
  The minority whip knows that, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, a 
lot of the Republicans have talked to me, Madam Speaker, about how 
difficult Mulvaney is to deal with. But we waited for checkoff, either 
from Chief of Staff Mulvaney or the President himself. But we waited. 
Not we in the House, in the Senate.

  So I tell my friend, the Senate was not prepared to bring their 
bills, not our bills, to the floor to try to achieve that bipartisan 
agreement of which the minority whip speaks. Not a single bill was 
brought to the floor before the end of the fiscal year.
  You are not going to get any kind of an agreement if you don't try to 
move forward, if you just wait for what Mr. Mulvaney wants us to do.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I was just working with Mr. Mulvaney 
yesterday on USMCA, something I would hope to see us bring to this 
House floor. Clearly, by the end of this year, it should have been done 
a long time ago, but something I know he and many others in the 
administration--Mr. Lighthizer has been taking the point on trying to 
get a negotiation concluded so that we can create more jobs in this 
country and create better trade opportunities for our families that we 
represent.
  Even if Mr. Mnuchin were to get an agreement, we all know that Mr. 
Mnuchin doesn't have a vote in the Senate. And even if every Republican 
in the Senate agreed with Mr. Mnuchin, you still can't pass a bill in 
the Senate because it takes Democrats working as well.
  The families that we represent are much less concerned about whose 
side thinks they are right, as they are about saying, just go in a room 
and work it out. It has been done before. It ought to be done this 
time. And I would just encourage that between now and December 20--we 
don't have to wait until December 16--I would hope that those leaders 
on your side in the majority would go get with the leaders in the 
Senate and come to an agreement.
  I am sure they will have conversations along the way with the White 
House, too, but at a minimum, to get the House and Senate to come to 
agreement, not complain about who passed bills and who didn't.
  The NDAA was passed here in partisan way. It never had happened 
before in the history of Congress. The gentleman's side chose to do a 
partisan bill where there was a bipartisan bill to be had, and, yet, 
that was put on the side.

                              {time}  1230

  So there is a bipartisan way to do it or a partisan way to do it. 
Ultimately, you are in the majority; you get to decide that.
  The Senate has their own different set of rules, and we might want to 
change them, but that is how they operate.
  At the end of the day, both sides have to get in a room and work it 
out, and I would just encourage both sides to do that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
make one additional comment.
  It is ironic that the minority whip, Madam Speaker, addresses such 
great concern about funding the Armed Forces of the United States. We 
passed a bill at a figure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought was a 
figure that was acceptable and supportive of our national security, and 
almost every Republican--maybe every one--
  Mr. SCALISE. Every Republican.
  Mr. HOYER.--voted against it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Because it had poison pills in it. The level of funding 
wasn't the issue. It was the limitations on the Defense Department to 
be able to do their job properly that were added in, when everyone knew 
those were partisan additions that had never been in previous bills.
  So we can get it done without partisan bills. If you want to do the 
partisan poison pills, it is your prerogative, but it is not going to 
get signed into law. Our job should be to make law and to put the 
differences on the side and work through and get it done.
  It has always been done before, by the way. NDAA has never been a 
partisan bill until this year.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would say that is not accurate.
  But having said that, we hope we can move forward. But to absolve the 
United States Senate, led by Republicans, have a majority of 
Republicans controlling the Senate Committee on Appropriations and 
controlling what goes on the floor--Democrats don't control that; the 
Republicans control it--they didn't bring a single appropriations bill 
to the floor.
  Now, if you don't like our ideas, put your ideas on the floor. Have 
them voted up or down. If they lose, then you either have to get a 
compromise or you don't get a bill passed.
  I will leave it to the American public, Madam Speaker, to determine 
who is being partisan on this issue and who is not.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, again, we know the rules of the Senate. 
They operate differently. We might both agree that we would do things 
differently. We do things differently in the House than they do. 
Ultimately, both sides have to come to an agreement, and, hopefully, 
that happens in the next few weeks, not at the midnight hour by 
December 20.
  Madam Speaker, unless the gentleman from Maryland has anything 
further, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________