[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.

                          ____________________