[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 59 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3088-H3090]
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 will be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader of the House 
for the purpose of inquiring about the week to come.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Scalise, for 
yielding. I also thank him for not mentioning the LSU-Maryland game one 
more time.
  Mr. SCALISE. Only because we are no longer in the mix as well.
  Mr. HOYER. We are both lamenting that fact.
  On Monday, 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 Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-
hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the 
House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. On Thursday and 
Friday, no votes are expected in the House.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of 
business tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 1644, Save the 
Internet Act of 2019. This bill will reverse the administration's 
repeal of critical net neutrality protections, which will empower the 
FCC to prohibit unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices and 
ensure consumers can make informed decisions when shopping for internet 
plans. This bill also enacts authorities to support expanding broadband 
to rural communities and struggling Americans.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, it is possible the House will take action 
to set the budget levels for discretionary spending for the next 2 
fiscal years.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I look forward to a robust debate on the 
unaptly titled bill, ``Save the Internet.'' I think a lot of people 
shiver at the thought of the Federal Government saving us from the 
internet.
  The title II regulation that would be imposed would allow the 
internet to be regulated like a utility. This is not the phone company 
of the 1970s. This is probably one of the greatest innovations that 
America has produced for the world, allowing us to be a world leader, 
dominant leader, in a growing technology field. Primarily because the 
government hasn't figured out how to regulate it, it has been able to 
grow so robustly.
  I would hope that we have that full debate and people are very aware 
of the negative connotations and, ultimately, the damaging effects of a 
Federal regulation of the internet that could slow down that dramatic 
innovation that we have seen with the Federal Government not regulating 
it. It will be a robust debate.
  Hopefully, we debate a number of other issues. I know we had a robust 
debate on the floor just a little while ago on the BDS movement. It is 
a growing concern for all of us who feel passionately about Israel's 
right to exist as a Jewish State.
  I know the leader has been a leader in this Congress and a leader 
throughout this country in an incredibly bipartisan way standing up for 
that unique relationship, but we have seen threats from other 
countries. You have seen heavy debate in Europe.
  You have seen debate in areas in Palestinian circles that want to 
undermine Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State by trying to 
boycott products made in Israel, to crush Israel's economy. That is why 
it is so important that we stand up against this BDS movement.
  While we weren't successful in the motion to commit, there is 
legislation that is incredibly bipartisan.
  S. 1, a bill that has come over from the Senate, unfortunately, 
hasn't been referred to committee, nor, also, H.R. 336, similar 
legislation that would allow us to help support our friends around the 
world who want to stand up against the BDS movement and stand with our 
good friend Israel.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, is there any plan 
to allow either or both of those bills to come to the floor so we can 
send a strong message to our friends around the world and to enemies of 
Israel, as well, that we are not going to support this BDS movement.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we share views, as 
he has expressed, and we are awaiting committee action. When the 
committee acts, we will make a determination of how to go forward.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, if I could further inquire, S. 1 has not 
been referred to committee. Is there a plan to refer the bill to 
committee and, ultimately, to allow it to move through the process, as 
it has been incredibly bipartisan but also incredibly timely, that we 
as the United States Congress stand with our friend Israel and stand 
against what is a growing movement that should be of concern to all of 
us?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as I said, I agree with the gentleman's 
objective and position with respect to BDS. The committee has 
legislation before it and is considering it.
  As you know, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Nadler, I think, are the 
cosponsors of that legislation. I expect the committee to consider it, 
and then, at that point in time, we will make a decision how to move 
forward.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SCALISE. That is correct. And I know those pieces of legislation 
are just resolutions, not actual policy.
  And, ultimately, if we are going to make the stand, it has to be 
legislation with teeth, with actual authorizing language and with the 
ability for us to give true support to our friends--not just words, but 
actions as well.
  So, hopefully, we can move both, and I would just continue to urge.
  And the gentleman from Maryland's support for Israel is unquestioned 
and has been admired by people on both sides. I would just urge that 
we, as a House, move those bills, one or both of the actual substantive 
bills, to the floor as quickly as possible, as they have already moved 
through the Senate.
  S. 1 had 77 votes in support--so, strongly bipartisan--coming out of 
the Senate, but still no referral in the House. Hopefully, we can get 
that expedited.
  And with that, on the idea of legislating by resolution, I know that 
has been a growing trend in this Congress of this majority to move, 
instead of substantive bills to deal with things like lowering 
healthcare costs or helping create more jobs.
  There have been a lot of bills that are just press releases, 
resolutions that

[[Page H3089]]

don't actually change law or help change policy or work in a bipartisan 
way to get bills to the President's desk that can address the growing 
issues that our country faces.
  Are we going to see a continued trend in this majority of just 
resolutions, or are we going to finally get to bipartisan policy on 
some of these big issues?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, of course, as the gentleman well knows, we have, 
Madam Speaker, passed many substantive pieces of legislation. We have 
sent to the Senate H.R. 1, a very broad-reaching reform bill trying to 
ensure voting rights and access for everybody, trying to ensure fair 
redistricting throughout the country, trying to make sure that dark 
money does not control our elections, and making sure that we are 
operating both in the executive and the legislative agency with ethical 
conduct.
  That passed unanimously on our side. I forget exactly how many.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, opposed unanimously on our side, if I can 
point out.
  Mr. HOYER. Today's vote, obviously, we had two very substantive 
pieces of legislation, one of which is going now to the President, and 
the other of which--the Violence Against Women Act--had a signature 
bipartisan vote, as the gentleman knows, passed the House.
  We have done the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which had been 
pending for some period of time in making that a permanent piece of 
legislation.
  We made sure that women--in 1963, we passed the Equal Pay Act. John 
Kennedy signed it. Unfortunately, we are still struggling to make sure 
that that promise is realized and that women are, in fact, paid based 
upon what they do, not based upon what their gender is.
  So I would say to my friend, we have passed a lot of legislation we 
had pending, and we are doing a lot of hearings. We are dealing with 
infrastructure. We are dealing with drug prices. We made it a big issue 
in the campaign. We are moving ahead to make sure the Affordable Care 
Act works in a way that it was designed to work.
  So I would say to my friend that we have pursued, both on the floor 
and in committee, the substantive legislation that we have talked to 
the American people about.
  I also feel very strongly that we want to avoid what happened to us 
at the end of the last Congress, when you were in the majority. We shut 
down the government.
  I am going to be working hard, hopefully on both sides of the aisle. 
I don't think anybody wants to see that as an objective, so I am 
hopeful that we can work together.
  I am working with your ranking member on the Appropriations 
Committee, Kay Granger, with whom I have served for some period of 
time, and Mrs. Lowey to make sure that we get the appropriation bills 
done in a timely fashion and send them to the Senate.
  I am hopeful that that will occur, and I am hopeful that we can fund 
the government in a rational way and not shut down government, which 
was so irrational and so harmful to our country and so costly to our 
taxpayers.
  So those are some of the things that we have done, are doing, and 
will do; and, hopefully, we can, to some degree, work on this in as 
bipartisan a fashion as possible.
  In particular, the President has said he wants to bring the cost of 
prescription drugs down. We share that view. I am hopeful that we can 
work together.
  The President said he wants a substantial infrastructure piece of 
legislation. We share that view. We hope we can work together on that.
  So we have been pursuing, on a weekly basis; and this was, from our 
perspective, a pretty good week. I know we disagree on the net 
neutrality bill, but we do agree that it is a major piece of 
legislation, and I expect to pass that next week as well.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  It was heavily debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as it 
should be, and I am sure it will be heavily debated on the floor.
  A number of these other issues that the gentleman mentioned, you 
know, we litigated those on the floor. The ones that went over to the 
Senate, some with only Democratic votes, you know, H.R. 1, for example, 
the Senate majority leader made it very clear that bill will not get 
any time on the Senate calendar. There are a lot of others that we 
would like to see real movement on.
  I know there was concern of a lot of people that there were three 
different committees in the House this week that spent the bulk of 
their time going after the President personally again.
  We have got the Mueller report coming. The summary has already been 
laid out and made it clear there was no collusion with Russia. There 
was no obstruction of justice. We will see the report.

  What we talked about was that the report be filed in compliance with 
law, and the law makes it very clear that things like classified 
information aren't released. That is the law. I think we agreed that 
that is how it should be, that you don't release classified 
information. You release the pertinent date.
  I look forward to seeing that, and we will see that. But, then, it 
seemed like a continued assault in three different committees 
continuing to focus on harassing the President personally, as opposed 
to focusing on some of those policies.
  But one of the policies that should be coming out of the House where 
there is a real deadline is the budget. April 15 is the deadline.
  I know, over and over again, Members of the Democratic leadership, 
including the Speaker, herself, said: Show me your budget. Show me your 
values.
  There is no budget. And we have been concerned that the agenda 
doesn't follow--the priorities in the budget are really what you lay 
out. Those are your values. Those are your priorities.
  While they are moving a bill that lays out caps, it is not 
bipartisan. But, ultimately, when we get a caps agreement, the 
gentleman knows it is going to have to be a bipartisan agreement.
  Last night, the Budget Committee produced only a partisan, one-corner 
deal--barely a one-corner deal. Typically, they have what are called 
four-corner deals where the House, Senate--Republicans and Democrats--
come together and say: We are going to agree on what those spending 
levels need to be so that we can then write our appropriation bills, 
set the priorities of the country, and avoid a government shutdown.
  That didn't happen in the Budget Committee. It was a very partisan 
bill that was moved out; but, more importantly, it was not a budget.
  I would hope that with the little bit of time that is remaining to 
meet that legal deadline that the majority would try to actually 
produce a budget and follow through on those over-and-over again 
quotes: ``Show me your budget.'' ``Show me your values.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment.
  Of course, there was no budget last year until very, very late in the 
year.
  What was done was what we will certainly make sure we do very early 
on, which is to try to establish the numbers, which, of course, a caps 
deal would do. And our objective will be to show our values in the 
appropriation bills as they come to the floor--hopefully, in a timely 
fashion--and our main objective would be not to shut down the 
government but to do our work on time.
  I am confident that, working together, we can reach that objective.
  Mr. SCALISE. Hopefully, we can get a bipartisan agreement on what 
those levels need to be to properly fund our defense, to properly do 
the other things the government should do and limit the ways it can 
possibly be carried out, and then, ultimately, to be able to get the 
bills that follow it passed in time, well before the September 30 
deadline.
  One of the areas that there is very productive movement on is the new 
trade deal between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, USMCA. I know 
there are bipartisan working groups. The White House has been in 
negotiations with the majority, the Speaker and your team.
  Can the leader give any insight into where the conversations are 
going in the House to get a timetable for when we can start having a 
plan for that?

[[Page H3090]]

  You look at Canada's House of Commons, they have their own deadline 
of when they rise, and, obviously, we want to be aware of our other 
partners that are included in this negotiation.
  Is there talk of a timeline yet, if the leader could share where 
those conversations are going.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman may know, the Speaker 
invited Mr. Lighthizer to address members of the Democratic Caucus on 
where we stood.
  As you know, that agreement has not been submitted. The Speaker said 
the other day that, in order to consider that in a positive way, the 
Mexicans, whom the President has been somewhat critical of through the 
years, take certain actions which make sure that our workers and their 
workers are treated fairly so we are competing on an even keel.
  But we certainly are in discussions. There are a number of items of 
concern, which have historically been of concern, regarding the 
environment, regarding workers' rights, regarding the availability of 
prescription drugs for people, as well as enforcement, dispute 
resolution.
  So those are being discussed. The conversations are ongoing, and I 
believe that the administration will make a determination when they 
believe it is timely to submit that document to us. As the gentleman 
knows, once they do so, there is a timeframe in which the House and 
Senate must act. The committees must act within, essentially, a 3-month 
period of time.
  So we are in discussions. We are waiting on the administration's 
judgment as to when to submit. And I am sure they are discussing with 
us as to when we think that is timely as well, but there are still 
substantive matters that are being discussed.
  I would presume some of those are on your side as well.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am encouraged by the conversations that both I have been in as well 
as the conversations that I am aware are going on on your side as well, 
because this is a bipartisan win for the country.
  This agreement would help ensure that, as we all support free trade, 
we also want more fair trade, and this agreement, in many different 
categories and many different industries, would help create more 
American jobs and help American workers get treated even more fairly by 
our neighbors to the north and south.

  Finally, if I may inquire of the gentleman, we have talked a number 
of times about the Born-Alive Act, the bill that we have made multiple 
unanimous consent requests to bring up the discharge petition moving 
through the process. There are other means to bring it up even quicker, 
and one would be if the gentleman would schedule the bill for the 
floor.
  I would just inquire: Is there any plan to schedule the Born-Alive 
Act on the floor through a direct means versus some of these other 
tools that are being considered?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
  As the gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, the House voted on this bill 
during the last two Congresses. The most recent time it was brought to 
the floor, the gentleman and his party were in control of the House, 
the Senate, and the Presidency. That bill was not brought up in the 
Senate.
  The gentleman mentioned, earlier, H.R. 1 and that Mr. McConnell has 
said that wouldn't be brought up. In fact, when it passed this House, 
it went to the Senate, and it was not brought up by Senator McConnell. 
So there are no plans at this point in time for us to bring this up.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's candor.
  We will continue to pursue other tools that we have available as the 
growing momentum around the country builds, as people saw what happened 
in New York with a law ushered in that allows babies to be murdered 
after they are born alive, the Virginia Governor gruesomely describing 
what he hopes to be a similar law in his State, other States taking 
those same kinds of actions. So there is a growing bipartisan interest 
that feels very strongly that we need a Federal law to protect babies 
who are born alive outside the womb.
  So we will continue to pursue all of those tools that are available 
and look forward to the workweek ahead next week as we finish our work 
prior to the Easter recess.
  Does the gentleman have anything else?
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have nothing further to say. I thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________