[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 25 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1482-H1485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission 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 week to come.
Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I want
to share and join in with him in the tribute that has been paid to our
former colleague John Dingell.
I served proudly on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with
Chairman Dingell, and what a giant, what a true institutionalist of
this House, the longest serving Member, a colleague of whom we will
have fond memories and will share those fond memories, I am sure, in
the days and weeks to come.
I know, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague from Maryland as well,
every time we go into that room, the committee room for the Energy and
Commerce Committee, we always get to look up now and know that it is
named after our colleague John Dingell and always remember his wit--
because he was tough, but he had a great wit to share along with the
combat that you would always get to engage in with him.
I will always remember, when the vote was finally called, he always
had his own unique way. As the clerk would be calling the roll of the
committee and they would call a member and the member would say ``aye''
or ``nay,'' he would always say: ``Dingell votes aye.''
He would have his unique way of addressing the issue of the day, and
we will always remember him. To his wife, Debbie, and his family, we
keep him in our prayers.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Scalise, the
Republican whip, for his comments. It is a testimony to the love and
respect that John Dingell enjoyed in this House from both sides of the
aisle.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, there is no one in this House who
doesn't have a particular story about John Dingell. So, before we begin
this colloquy, I want to again express my gratitude for the life and
service of my friend John Dingell.
Madam Speaker, I was with him Wednesday. He died yesterday. I was
with him the day before he died. We sat together for 2\1/2\ hours and
talked. As I left, I leaned down and I kissed him on the forehead, and
I said: ``I love you, John.''
I think I was speaking for, literally, scores of Members who worked
with him on the committee, who worked with him on the floor, and who
saw him in various different venues as a colleague.
{time} 1145
They loved him as well for his integrity and for his fairness. And,
yes, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, he could be tough, and he
could be rough, but he also could be gentle and accepting and open.
All of us in this country were blessed by his time on this Earth, so
much of
[[Page H1483]]
which he gave back to the rest of us in the form of service in the
Armed Forces and in this House and in his community.
History will remember him as its longest serving Member of the House
of Representatives, but we who knew him well remember John Dingell as a
man of extraordinary character, intellect, courage, and purpose.
From healthcare to the environment, from workers' rights to veterans'
care, John worked tirelessly over six decades in the House to make sure
Congress was doing right by the people who the House represents. His
legislative record of achievement speaks volumes about who it was he
believed he was fighting for every day in office.
Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Clean Air Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these bore his
imprint. What an extraordinary record of service and accomplishment.
And that is because he was a champion of affordable healthcare,
equality under the law, the right to vote, economic opportunity, and a
healthy future for our children and grandchildren.
To his beloved Michigan, he was an indefatigable defender of
autoworkers and their role in the American economy.
John was steadfast in his belief that the best way to serve them and
all his constituents was to work, whenever possible, in concert with
those across the aisle and not against them.
We are, after all, all Americans. We serve Americans. We serve a
great country. He believed in Congress, and, oh, how he believed in his
country. He believed in sitting down together and working through our
differences in a way that was respectful and civil.
Madam Speaker, I hope that spirit and his example will imbue in us a
resolve to find compromise in these challenging times. John, as
everybody knows, followed his father into service--22 years of service.
In 1955, in December, his father passed away, and John was sent by
the voters to continue the service of the Dingell family. John Dingell,
Sr., was a major proponent of New Deal legislation in this House,
serving from 1933 to 1955.
John was followed in service here by the ``lovely Deborah,'' as he so
affectionately and lovingly called her. His wife is an extraordinary
Member of Congress herself, and we are blessed to have her. Debbie is
an extraordinary woman, an outstanding Member of the Congress of the
United States.
We stood in a moment of silence just a few minutes ago. I hope that
we will adjourn in his honor today.
Debbie has been carrying on the Dingell legacy of seeking bipartisan
results while remaining steadfast to the progressive values that
brought her into public service.
I offer, Madam Speaker, my condolences, as I do to John's children
and grandchildren and to their entire extended family.
I thank the minority whip for his comments and expression, which
demonstrates what we have all said. John Dingell was, of course, a
Democrat, but John Dingell was more than that, by far. He was an
American and a fierce promoter of the people's House and the work that
was done by all the Members of the people's House, so I thank my
friend.
Madam Speaker, 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, 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,
with last votes expected no later than 3 p.m.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A
complete list of suspensions will be available by the close of business
today.
The House will also consider H.J. Res. 37, a war powers resolution on
U.S. involvement in Yemen. This legislation will force a much-needed
conversation about how to bring to an end the violence and the
humanitarian crisis that we see in Yemen.
In addition, Madam Speaker, the House is expected to consider the
conference report that finishes fiscal year 2019 appropriations. I
understand that progress is being made, and I am hopeful--I am
hopeful--and optimistic that we can have a deal that comes together
early next week. Members are advised that additional legislative items
are possible.
Let me simply say that Members ought to know that there is a
possibility as well, given the death of our colleague, John Dingell,
and the desire of so many to attend his funeral, that the schedule may
be modified to accommodate that effort and that travel to Michigan.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through
the schedule, and I would share that assessment as well, that if those
arrangements are made early next week, I would expect a large
contingent of our colleagues to want to be there. We will all be there
in spirit with John and his memory, as well as our wishes to his
family.
As he and I may have disagreed on some issues, he was a strong
supporter of the Second Amendment, and we would talk about that.
Mostly, when I had those conversations with Chairman Dingell, it was
about this great institution, this people's House that we both have the
honor to serve in, and his appreciation for what this institution means
to our great Nation. Those will be memories I will always cherish.
As we look to the schedule, I know the gentleman alluded to the
conference committee that is meeting. I am encouraged, as I talk to
different conferees, by the conversations, the issues that they are
tackling. Clearly, the issue that has been at the front and center of
the differences that we are trying to work through deals with border
security.
As we look to resolve the differences, ultimately, it is my hope that
we find a way to properly fund the tools that are needed to actually
secure the border, as our experts, our men and women who risk their
lives to keep our border safe, have laid out in detail: obviously,
technology to help them do their jobs better, the need to increase
security at ports of entry and to have more of the drug-testing
equipment that can do a better job of keeping drugs out of our country.
Clearly, part of that solution has to be some form of physical
barriers--whatever you want to call them, wall, physical barrier--along
areas where we have the worst problems.
If I can bring to the gentleman's attention, there was a story
yesterday in the Washington Examiner titled, ``Border agents just
apprehended convicted child molesters and an MS-13 member at the Texas
border where there's no barrier.'' This is a Washington Examiner
article from yesterday, and I include it in the Record.
[From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 7, 2019]
Border Agents Just Apprehended Convicted Child Molesters and an MS-13
Member at the Texas Border Where There's No Barrier
(By Eddie Scarry)
U.S. Border Patrol agents said Thursday that they
apprehended several illegal immigrants at the southern border
in Texas, in places where there are no physical barrier walls
to deter illegal crossings.
Among those caught crossing into the U.S. were a Mexican
man with a previous conviction in Georgia for child
molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina
showing a conviction for ``Indecent Liberties with Child,''
and another Honduran male with a Florida record that
identified him as a member of the violent M-13 gang.
The apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector
of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to a
release by the Border Patrol.
I toured a portion of that sector in January, and agents
said that areas that feature a 25-foot barrier of concrete
and steel have proven critical in blocking illegal border
crossers, forcing them to attempt their crossings in specific
areas where they can be apprehended. They've asked for more
of the same kind of border wall to fill in the long gaps that
current exist.
When President Trump said during his State of the Union
address Tuesday that his proposal is for new barrier that
``will be deployed in the areas identified by the border
agents as having the greatest need,'' this is what he meant.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, for my friend, the majority leader, I
want to read this comment and ask a question about this.
Among the other things that they were able to identify as they were
able to stop, just earlier this week, some of these people coming in, a
person with ``a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a
Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for
`indecent liberties
[[Page H1484]]
with a child,' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that
identified him as a member of the violent MS-13 gang.''
This is just one more example, earlier this week, of people who are
coming across our border illegally in areas--and the article notes that
this happened in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on
Monday and Tuesday, according to our Border Patrol agents, in areas
where there is no physical barrier.
So as the gentleman himself has said just a few days ago, and I
quote, ``physical barriers are part of the solution'' to improve border
security, I would ask the gentleman, when we get this conference report
hopefully wrapped up this weekend, can the gentleman give an assurance
that there will be money to properly not only secure the border but to
include the physical barriers that are not there in those areas where
we have child molesters and gang members coming across our southern
border?
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I
am not a member of the conference committee.
He quoted me in what I said. We are for border security. I am hopeful
that the conference committee reports out a bill that all sides can
support that does, in fact, try to make our borders more secure. I look
forward to having that bill, hopefully, on the floor next week prior to
the 15th or on the 15th, so we can: A, ensure that the government is
not shut down; and, B, ensure that we have a bipartisan agreement on
how we can make our borders more secure.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think we are
all going to be encouraging those members of the conference committee
to continue the work that they are doing. That headway seems to be
going in the right direction.
Hopefully, we come up with a bill by early next week that we can vote
on next week before we get to the deadline on the 15th to continue to
properly fund those other areas of the government that haven't been
funded. That includes the border security that is necessary, including
physical barriers.
Shifting gears, I would ask the gentleman about a piece of
legislation that we filed that we have been trying to get unanimous
consent to bring up, and this is H.R. 962, a bill by my colleague, Ann
Wagner from Missouri.
As we saw earlier, in these last few days, you had the Governor of
New York signing legislation that, among other things, would allow for
a baby that comes out of the womb alive, whether it is from an abortion
that wasn't successful--whatever the case, if a baby comes out of the
womb alive, the fact that in the State of New York, and now we saw the
Governor of Virginia talking on a radio show about how that process and
procedure would be carried out where the baby, after it is born alive,
can be killed legally in those States.
As we talk about the sanctity of innocent life, clearly, there are
many different divisions amongst the parties on the issue of abortion.
But to many, this issue transcends abortion. This isn't related to
abortion anymore. If a baby comes out of the womb and is alive, the
fact that in only 26 States there are protections that that baby can't
be killed, that means in nearly half of the States in this country,
that baby still can be killed legally.
I still don't completely grasp how that is legal in America, that
someone who is born alive can still be killed and have that be legal in
certain States.
So we have a bill called the Born-Alive Protection Act that would
ensure that, regardless of how you feel about abortion--pro-life, pro-
choice--after the baby comes out of the womb alive, it shouldn't be
able to be killed. H.R. 962 gives that protection that it can't be
killed. I would ask the gentleman if he would allow that bill to come
to the House floor for a vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. As
the gentleman knows, this bill was introduced in the last Congress in
which the Republicans, his party, were in charge of the House and the
Senate and the Presidency, and it did not pass the Congress and go to
the President.
We will pursue the regular order. This bill, like every other bill,
will be referred to committee, and the committee will handle its
consideration as the committee sees fit.
The gentleman has talked about, or there has been discussion about, a
discharge petition that is obviously available. We were trying very
hard to have people we call Dreamers allowed to stay in the only
country they know. Unfortunately, the leadership was against that
discharge petition, and it never got to the floor.
For many bills that either side may want, some come to the floor,
some don't. But this will go through the regular process, and it is
going to be referred to the committee of jurisdiction. We will see how
that proceeds.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that when we
did bring that piece of legislation last year, the Born-Alive
Protection Act, it did pass the House, 241-183, in a bipartisan way,
with six Democrats voting with us to pass that bill to the Senate. It
did not get passed in the Senate.
{time} 1200
However, as you look now, there have been a number of alarming
developments that have raised the profile of this issue.
When the Governor of New York signed into law his legislation and
celebrated the fact that, in his State, you can kill a baby after it
has been born, and you saw applause in the legislature over that, it
shocked people across the country. It horrified and angered people
across the country.
When the Governor of Virginia, just a few days ago, went to a radio
station and described, in detail, how a baby born alive can still be
killed, can be killed after it is born alive, and it is legal in that
State, it is legal, and not protected in nearly a majority of our
States, this issue has come to the forefront of Americans.
Again, pro-life, pro-choice, wherever you are on this issue, the vast
majority of Americans feel strongly that you should not be able to kill
the baby after it is born alive.
So we can talk about a long, drawn-out legislative process, but now
there is more interest and more anger to confront this violent act of
murder. How can it be anything other than murder to kill a child after
it comes out of the womb? So I know we can talk about a long, drawn-out
procedure.
I have made it very clear I will be filing a discharge petition if we
can't get to the point where we get this bill brought to the floor in a
quicker way. There is a quicker way to do this and address this
problem.
Again, if you ask most pro-choice people in America, they don't think
it is right that you can kill the baby after it comes out of the womb.
And so, as the gentleman can talk about a regular order procedure, this
bill has passed the House before, and now there is more interest in the
Senate to confront this issue. We have the ability to give them that
opportunity.
I would just ask if the gentleman would reconsider, to move this in a
quicker way and allow the unanimous consent motion to go through. If no
one objects, we can bring that bill to the floor. And so far, as we
have been making the motion for unanimous consent, there has been no
opposition expressed. They have just not allowed the motion to go
forward and be recognized.
So I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider and allow us to, at
least, have that opportunity to try to bring this bill to the floor in
the quickest way possible, to stop this barbaric process from being
allowed anywhere in America.
Mr. HOYER. My answer, however, is the same to the gentleman, Madam
Speaker. We have a process. The bill has just been introduced. It will
be referred to committee, and the committee will have it under regular
order to consider. I cannot predict what the committee will do with
that bill, but I understand the gentleman's strong feelings. I respect
those; and I respect the fact that this is an issue that is current.
But, again, my answer to the distinguished Republican Whip is that we
will be considering that in the regular order and, at that point in
time, I am sure that he will be able to testify before the committee,
if and when there
[[Page H1485]]
is a hearing, and that others will as well, including the sponsor. But
we are going to pursue the regular order on this bill and other bills
as well.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments.
I would just ask if the gentleman would urge the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee to move swiftly to bring this bill up for a vote as
we continue to use every legislative tool we have available to,
hopefully, try to get a unanimous consent agreement to bring the bill
to the floor. But ultimately, if that is not allowed, and if the
committee process doesn't work and actually take attention to this in a
quick way, then we will go a different route and use the discharge
petition route.
So we have continued to try to make the point that this issue needs
to be addressed by this Congress. The President, in his State of the
Union Tuesday night, was very clear that Congress ought to address this
issue. And the President, in his speech--and I thought it was an
incredibly eloquent speech, confronting the challenges we face, but
also talking about the greatness of this country and highlighting some
of the people who achieved greatness, the three men who stormed the
beaches of Normandy, and the challenges they faced to liberate Europe,
to keep America free.
Ultimately, one of those gentlemen actually went on to help liberate
Dachau; and to see the Holocaust survivor who was at Dachau, and
liberated by that very gentleman, to both be on the same row of the
gallery, was a special moment, a special moment that reminds us of the
greatness of this country.
And as the President talked about that at the end, he challenged us,
he challenged Congress to reach for greatness, not gridlock, but for
that same greatness as we confront the challenges that this great
Nation faces today.
This action, the fact that, in many States of this Nation, it is
allowed to kill a baby after it has been born, is a moral wrong that we
need to fix. That is another act of greatness that we need to rise up
to; and I hope we do in the quickest way possible.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________