[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 83 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3953-H3954]
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. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for next week, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. 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 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.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business today.
  The House will also consider H.R. 1500, the Consumer First Act. This 
legislation seeks to reverse the administration's efforts to dismantle 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1994, the Setting Every 
Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019. The legislation is 
intended to increase the flexibility of 401(k) plans and improve access 
to the accounts, particularly for small businesses and employees. The 
bill includes a host of provisions aimed at encouraging small 
businesses to provide private retirement benefits to their workers.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the conversations and 
negotiations that are going on regarding the disaster supplemental. I 
know the gentleman is well aware that there are some good, I think, 
very fruitful, negotiations going on. Clearly, we want to make sure 
about some of the things that weren't in the bill that went out of the 
House, especially as it relates to the crisis at the border, as it 
deals with unaccompanied children, as well as making sure that we get 
the right kind of help to our farmers who had devastation to their 
crops in these disasters.
  I ask the gentleman if he can give an indication of a timeline.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
  As the gentleman knows, we passed an initial bill some many weeks 
ago. The Senate didn't pass that. We then passed, more recently, a bill 
which did, in fact, take care of everyone we know who has had a natural 
disaster in the interim as well as those we had taken care of the first 
time around.

  So, we think we have a good bill that was passed; however, as the 
gentleman also referenced, the President has asked for an additional 
supplemental of a little over $4 billion referenced for humanitarian 
issues at the border. That is being reviewed.
  As the gentleman probably also knows, an offer was made to our side.

[[Page H3954]]

That offer has now been responded to with respect to both the initial 
and the supplemental--initial, I mean the disaster bill--and we are 
looking for an answer back at some point in time to our response. But, 
hopefully, we can reach an agreement.
  Mr. SCALISE. Hopefully, those conversations do continue on.
  I am encouraged by the negotiations in terms of how both sides seem 
to be willing to get this resolved and, hopefully, quickly, ideally, if 
we could have a bill on the floor next week that would be a very 
bipartisan bill to address this so that we can get the relief.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Clearly, if we get an agreement--and that, of course, is 
the big if, but, hopefully, we can. If we can do that, then we will 
want to move as quickly as possible.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I do want to ask about the appropriations 
process because I know the gentleman from Maryland had talked earlier 
this week about a desire to have the entire appropriations process 
completed by the end of June. He also talked about a robust amendment 
process.
  I would just ask the gentleman, as we look at this week, the 
concerning trend that we have been talking about a few weeks now, when 
amendments came out of the Rules Committee this week, 26 amendments 
came out that were offered by Democrats, and only 1 amendment was 
allowed by a Republican.
  As the gentleman from Maryland talks about a robust appropriations 
process, I would hope he would pay closer attention to fairness in that 
robustness, because 26 Democrat amendments allowed and only 1 
Republican amendment allowed is surely not a fair process. It might be 
considered robust, but in a hyperpartisan sense.
  So I hope as we get into the appropriations process the gentleman, 
and especially the leadership from the Rules Committee, would take into 
account that this is a process where the House should be able to come 
together and offer their ideas and let the will of the House prevail, 
but at least allow for that debate here on the House floor on as many 
amendments as possible in as fair a way as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. We have had this 
discussion on a number of occasions.
  I am convinced that Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, does, in fact, want to have the kind of process that we 
talked about and that the gentleman just referenced. He also knows 
that, in the last Congress, we had the most closed rules of any 
Congress in which I have served, and perhaps in history, 103 closed 
rules.
  But having said that, I am hopeful that the gentleman's side will 
come forth with amendments that are, as the gentleman says, subject to 
rational debate and are not gotcha amendments. I am not alleging they 
are gotcha amendments, but that is obviously a concern that the 
gentleman had when he was in charge and that we have when we are in 
charge.
  But I know that Mr. McGovern wants to have a fair process, and we are 
talking about that, so we will continue to do that.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that, and, again, we will be watching and, 
hopefully, see that they become more fair as we get into that 
appropriations process.
  Finally, I would like to ask the gentleman about legislation that has 
been filed that is a companion to a Senate bill that passed the Senate 
with a vote of 77 votes to stand up against the BDS movement.
  As we both know, and I know the gentleman has been supportive of 
these efforts, the concern is that Israel continues to come under 
attack by many countries around the world trying to delegitimize their 
economy and delegitimize their status as a Jewish state by this 
movement to undermine their economy, to boycott and divest from Israel.
  So we have legislation. The companion bill is H.R. 336 by Mr. McCaul 
from Texas. It doesn't have the concerns. There were some concerns over 
the way that the Senate bill came over, but at least we do know, 
because of the vote, with 77 votes, it was a very bipartisan vote.
  There is strong concern by the Senate to address this and strong 
concern by many Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to stand 
up to the BDS movement, and not just in words.
  Clearly, there are resolutions out there. We can all give speeches 
and say that we are against it, but it actually takes real action and 
real effort, things that are in the legislation that give teeth to our 
stand against BDS and for Israel.
  Of course, if you look at some of the examples in the legislation, 
not just words, but $33 billion in military assistance to Israel, 
security cooperation enhancements, things that ensure that Israel 
maintains a qualitative edge to defend itself from the daily threats 
that, unfortunately, we see from other countries and terrorist 
organizations that want to undermine their status as a Jewish state.
  With that, could the gentleman give us an indication, would there be 
a timeline that we can establish to bring this bill to the floor short 
of the discharge petition?
  There is a discharge petition with more than 180 signatures already 
on it to bring this bill to the floor, but it would be a lot better if 
it were truly bipartisan from both leadership sides saying that we are 
willing to stand up against this movement, not just in words, but in 
deeds.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, I would say words are important. That is why 
we all debate, because we think words are important.
  But having said that, I share the gentleman's view, as he well knows, 
with reference to the BDS movement, which I think is contrary to the 
interests of our ally, Israel, and contrary to our own interests.
  Having said that, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, I have 
been discussing this with Mr. Engel, and he, as you know, shares the 
view which I have expressed and my friend has expressed, and his 
committee is going to be addressing that, I expect, in the near term. 
When they do, we will decide what actions to take at that point in 
time, and I look forward to discussing it with the gentleman.
  Mr. SCALISE. We will continue to discuss it. I appreciate that.
  Clearly, as we have an interest in not just expressing our words, 
like on many other important issues, we have to back that up with laws, 
legislation that gives teeth to the words and gives true support to our 
friends, especially Israel, in such a time of need where this movement 
is growing. And we want to move as quickly as possible, so we will 
continue to have this conversation and, hopefully, get a formal 
timeline as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. My friend mentioned there are essentially four components 
of the bill to which he referred, three of which are noncontroversial, 
as the gentleman knows, and one of which has issues with respect to its 
constitutionality. Without resolving that issue, the three that are in 
that bill, I think, enjoy bipartisan support. They were held up in the 
Senate, as the gentleman probably knows, but we want to make sure those 
three certainly are adopted.
  Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, the Senate looked at that as well and worked 
through that. They actually made some changes to the bill which we 
conformed into this. The discharge petition has a rule that will 
actually conform it to the Senate to address those issues.
  Again, the Senate bill got 77 votes, highly bipartisan, especially on 
such an important issue. So, hopefully, we will continue those 
conversations and come to an agreement on a timeline that is expedited.
  Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman has anything else, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________