[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 183 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[House]
[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.
____________________